Re: Chromium - wipes me out

montygram wrote:
> I am really getting tired of refuting people like MMu and MattLB with
> actual scientific evidence.

That's the one thing you never do. You're a hit and run poster. You
make some extraordinary claim and then never back it up or counter
criticism with explanation.

> They, on the other hand, enjoy attacking
> my obvious typographical errors. If you listen to these guys, your
> health may be at serious risk.

I think you'll find that the "attacks" are in the name of preventing
health problems as a result of following your unsupported advice.

> MattLB recently attacked what I said
> about tightly wound DNA an cancer cells, yet it was on sciencedaily.com
> a few weeks back. DO SOME RESEARCH - AND CITE SOME RESEARCH, rather
> than making ludicrous, non-scientific attacks.

I said, and I quote: "Care to explain that?". That's a request for more
detail about your claim, not an attack. I realise to you anything other
than simple acceptance of what you say is probably an attack, but there
you go. Explain in what way it is more tightly bound and why.

> As for the lead claim,
> here is the evidence. I'm not sure what planet MMu is on,

One where he didn't claim anything about lead. You're obviously on a
planet where he did. The reality is: you brought lead up and then
imagined MMu was saying something about it.

> but the
> problems that lead causes in the body are well-known and free radical
> mediated.

Nothing to do with lead's strong binding to protein kinase C and
synaptotagmin then? What is the molecular source of the free radicals
lead creates?

> How much evidence do I have to post here? The worst attacks
> are from those who say that with oxygen, one can't live, therefore
> worrying about free radicals makes no sense. However, what I am
> talking about are processes like in vivo lipid peroxidation (which is
> fats going rancid in your body)

Poor analogy since it's different mechanisms.

> or chronic inflammation, which
> generates free radicals in large amounts and damages tissue and organs.
> This has nothing to do with mitochondrial respiration, which indeed
> should be optimal, not reduced in any way, but these people need red
> herrings to justify their moronic claims.

Moronic claims are what YOU specialise in.

> Just remeber one thing: free radical DAMAGE is the key to "chronic
> disease," and if you search on pubmed.com you'll find many researcher
> saying this explicitly. So by attacking me, they are actually
> attacking the scientific process. What they gain by doing this is
> beyond my comprehension,

Many things seem to be. You continue to rail against things that have
never been said.

> but it probably has to do with some sort of
> psychological imbalance in their brains - probably due to the
> polyunsaturated fatty acid, arachidonic.

Arachidonic is a psychological imbalance now? It certainly seems to be
in your case.

MattLB

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: note to rec.sport.golf readers
    ... What is your evidence for *either* statement, ... > writing and on videos that they will NEVER quit attacking us. ... Someone specific in Iraq? ... > He MUST protect this country. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • The crazy ideas that you get from the worst sources on the Net.
    ... produce evidence of him attacking those who disagreed with him about ... WTC7's collapse and Larry Silverstein's statements. ... The gooseman was specifically talking about WTC7 and Larry ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... I evaluate the evidence and let it speak for itself. ... > Bloggers talk about "proof" as if science deals in absolutes, ... You're also attacking a straw man, ... usually don't speak in absolutes, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... I evaluate the evidence and let it speak for itself. ... You Pharma ... You're also attacking a straw man, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)