NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/med/nutritio/1678

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 5.2 KB | 120 lines

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spdcc!dyer
From: [e-mail] (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:46:49 GMT
Lines: 109

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>It seems to be yours as you don't bother to cite your references
>but simply burden the reader to take your word for it.

That's because everything I've said is part of the general literature.
There's nothing esoteric here; read any reference on vitamin, calcium
and steroid metabolism.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
references; common knowledge does not.  As I've said before, it isn't
my job to tutor your out of your base ignorance; ignorance seemingly
sufficient to make any claim, however dumb, to sound plausible, especially
if it's repeated to you by someone who sounds authoritative.

>Nor have you provided any discursive or factual evidence for your unseemly
>name-calling of Professor Moon as a "crank".

Moon's opinion of vitamin D supplementation is decidedly out of the
mainstream, and his evidence for supplementation's deleterious effects,
such as it is, is presently very tenuous.  No one with any critical
faculties would accept his comments at face value.

>As it turns out, arguments from authority do have validity if the
>authority is credible, and certainly such arguments carry more
>weight than the always fallacious `AD HOMINEM' arguments of the
>abusive variety (like name-calling Professor Moon as a "crank").

My goodness, you'd think that substantive points hadn't been addressed
as well in this tiresome exchange.  Perhaps your failing memory is
early neurological evidence of B12 deficiency, Ted.

>[Fatuous comment on argument from authority deleted]

The point is, Ted, that Moon is a community of one on this issue.
The reason we should be cautious about accepting Moon's comments as
authoritative is precisely because they're out of step with tens, if
not hundreds of other "authorities".

>>I have a masters degree in software engineering and a bachelor's in
>>biology, but I have 20 years of study in pharmacology, which has always
>>been an interest of mine.
>So, all you have is a BSc in biology.  That hardly makes you an
>expert on "vitamin" D, and it certainly does not make you an
>accomplished expert like Professor Moon.

It means that I have the critical facilities to know when I should
trust an assertion from an "expert", and when to be skeptical.

>Ok, so you've had a 20 year interest in pharmacology, but I take
>it that you don't actually have any degree of any kind in
>pharmacology?  Is that right?

No degree.  Three courses at Harvard Medical School, which I took out
of my own interest.  So what?

>Certainly, you don't have PhD as
>does Dr. Moon, nor do you have a teaching/research position at an
>university, nor have you published any papers in this area.
>Indeed, have you  published anything at all?  A master's degree
>in software engineering hardly gives one much confidence in your
>expertise on vitamin D as does Moon's PhD in toxicology, his
>professorship in toxicology/nutrition and the fact that Moon has
>a successful publishing record on this topic  in respectable
>scientific journals.

Ted, all of that doesn't mean that his opinions on this matter
mean beans if they're false, or delivered with some sort of
axe to grind, something we should be quite suspicious of if
he blithely uses the phrase "anabolic steroid" when discussing
vitamin D with people like you and with other students and faculty at
the school (people who might not know what a crock that is), yet
he omits this phrase in his paper because it's simply incorrect.

>Look, I don't intend to belittle or demean your background, but

Snort.

>really, a little HUMILITY is in order before you go around
>calling just anybody a "crank"

Chortle.

>and putting down readers on the
>net for simply and sincerely reporting what they have read from
>accomplished researchers publishing in respectable journals.

Ted, you deserve every putdown you've worked so hard for.
You're ignorant of what you purport to push, and when you
you are challenged, hipdeep as you are in rote regurgitation,
you resort to self-serving histrionics.  Your time would be
better spent learning a little about nutrition and human
metabolism, and less retyping of meaningless excerpts from
textbooks.  Try READING instead of transcribing.  Take a
few biology courses first, however.

>Calumny and name-calling are the tactics one should refrain from
>employing, especially if one values the higher standards of
>scientific evidence and good scholarship.

Stop it!  Ted Altar presuming to speak about "scientific evidence"
and "good scholariship"?  My God, if I'd said something like this
I'd have been accused of the most biting sarcasm.

Now, it looks like you're reenergized after the Christmas holiday,
Ted, and cruising for another round of the same old stuff.  Well,
I am not going to waste my time with this squabbling.  I'll have
some comments on the Moon paper later in the week.

--
Steve Dyer
[e-mail] aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer