NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/med/nutritio/1709

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 9.3 KB | 193 lines

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!emory!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!spdcc!dyer
From: [e-mail] (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 06:24:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec31.062428.1064
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 181

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> His interests are in diet, blood lipids and atherosclerosis, and not
>> osteoporosis, and he's done no research in this area.
>
>It's encouraging that you haven't simply dismissed Ornish as a
>"krank", although this may have something to do with Ornish's clout at
>Harvard Medical School.

Boy, this doesn't get any less dumb the more you repeat it.
"Clout".  "Harvard Medical School".  Snort.

>Still, it seems to me that you're attempting
>to demean his opinion in order to enhance your own.

I'm not demeaning his opinion, I'm saying that his comments
are secondary material, not based on original research.  You
(that is -- YOU) can't cite them as evidence for the role of
protein intake in the development of osteoporosis.

>What standards are you using to define Ornish's "interests"?
>Please explain, so that we may test Steve Dyer's "interests",
>Steve Dyer's "research", and Steve Dyer's "face-value opinions"
>using the same critical standards that Steve Dyer uses to test
>other individuals.

Snort.  More moronic ankle biting.

>> In fact, I did
>> reply to your article, and gave you several references which refuted
>> this claimed link between protein intake and calcium excretion.  Did
>> you miss them?  I'll try to dig them up again.
>
>If you posted "several references", as you say, I certainly did miss them.

You certainly did.  A shame.

>Please post them again.  Make sure you include a sufficient
>number of pointers to support your claim that the relationship between
>protein intake and calcium excretion is "controversial at best".   One
>wishy-washy reference won't cut it.

Maybe someone has saved it and can save me the time.  The claim that such
a conclusion is "controversial at best" represents the state of such a
conclusion right now--the point is that this is not at present recognized as
an important factor in the etiology of osteoporosis.  That is not to say
that it _isn't_ or may not prove to be.  But it is not at all commonly
thought to be important right now.  Just look at the body of research and the
translation of this research into public health recommendations, which
barely treats this at all.  You don't need a reference for this--you have
all of the literature in front of you, almost none of which addresses this.
My point is that when an assertion is 90 or 180 degrees out of step with
the direction of most research, one should approach it cautiously.  That
says nothing about its ultimate truth, of course.  But for every lone trail-
blazer who finds the truth, there are hundreds of dead-ends hit by people
wandering off in useless directions.

>Did you bother reading any of the papers that I mentioned in our
>previous discussion.  If not, how can you be sure that the
>underlying research was or wasn't conducted under controlled
>conditions?  Here are two of the studies specifically cited by
>Ornish:

I've looked at this literature in the past; I don't have these papers;
for all I know, I've read them before.  I'll look again.

>Does the phrase, "almost totally ignored", have any kind of
>scientific or rational merit?  If a dozen researchers conduct a
>half-dozen studies showing that excessive protein intake increases
>calcium excretion, it wouldn't logically matter whether 1,000 or
>10,000 or 100,000 other researchers were ignorant of their hypothesis.

You really don't understand what I'm saying--you're too in love with
your propensity to quarrel.  I'm not saying it's wrong because it's
controversial, I'm saying that it's a present a minority opinion, one
which has other studies which contradict it, and only a very few people
are ready to make public health recommendations on the basis of
minority opinions, especially when they're incomplete.  If someone
plays up the fact that eating animal protein raises calcium excretion,
and tries to use this as an argument against eating meat or dairy, but
(for example) neglects to make the point that other studies point to
such elevations in calcium excretion as being self-limited, and return
to normal after a few weeks, what are we to make of the original claim?

>Be that as it may, can you point to any opinion polls
>that would lead us to believe that your statements are truly
>representative of the mainstream opinions?

Good Lord, look at the osteoporosis literature.  The role of protein intake
is totally ignored except for a few articles.  Look at what is recommended
for post-menopausal women.  None of these mention limiting protein intake
as a primary or even secondary approach to avoiding bone loss.

>> and the few studies
>> which have been done under controlled conditions haven't borne this out
>> over time.
>
>Name the studies, Steve.

I did.  You missed them.  However, I don't have the references in front
of me right now.  Perhaps you stopped reading s.m.n for a few weeks a month
or so ago; I don't know.

>> Most of the evidence for such an association comes from
>> studies of populations which aren't necessarily controlled for genetic
>> factors.  I think the evidence as such is comparatively weak.  It would be a
>> "crank" argument to recommend that all people prone to osteoporosis should
>> avoid dairy products.  This is premature.
>
>You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but needless to say, you
>haven't done any research in this area.  Nor have you presented any
>evidence to indicate that you're familiar with the general literature
>in the field.

As opposed to you, who have provided evidence that you can cite the
bibliography in a popular book?  Listen--anyone who is "familiar with
the general literature in this field" wouldn't make a moronic comment
like "can you point to any opinion polls that would lead us to believe that
your statements are truly representative of the mainstream opinions?"
Not only are you unfamiliar with the literature on osteoporosis, but you
don't seem to follow current medical practice, or read newspapers and
popular media, for that matter.  You don't need a library card or an
opinion poll to know that a low-protein vegetarian diet is not part of
the currently recommended treatment of or prophylaxis against osteoporosis.

>Whether my comments are stupid or not won't change the fact that
>your own "credentials" are close to non-existent, and hence, your
>frequent appeals to authority are hypocritical.

I will place my knowledge of pharmacology against anyone's, including
all but a very few MD's.  I make no extravagant claims for this, but I
make no apologies for this either.  Anyone who is familiar with my
contributions here and in sci.med knows the quality of my comments.  My
"appeals to authority" are made in response to people who are wasting
people's time trying to speak authoritatively on matters they know
nothing about.  Sorry, I'm not going to provide references on the law
of gravity with someone who thinks he's just invented anti-gravity
paint, and I'm not going to provide a reference on what an anabolic
steroid is with someone who only knows how to parrot what his teacher
has said to him.

>To illustrate,
>it doesn't make much sense for you to belittle Dean Ornish's critical
>opinions about osteoporosis, presumably because he hasn't published
>any papers in the field,

I'm not belittling it; he's just not the last word.  He also has an interest
in keeping people on low fat, dairy-free vegetarian diets, since that's his
schtick.  His patients are in danger of dying from heart attacks, not
osteoporosis.  He's read the literature and come to some conclusions, but
as I said, they're not primary references--he hasn't been researching this
himself.  There's no problem with that--it's just that his own opinion can't
really be cited as meaning much much other than "Dean Ornish, M.D. thinks
this."

>while crying, "So what?", when Ted Altar
>persuaded you to admit the limitations in your own background.

Excuse me?  I didn't admit anything, especially any limitations.
I have no interest in misrepresenting my background, and I'm happy
to let people be aware of it.  They should also, of course, be familiar
with the past 9 years of my articles on sci.med as well, which more than
speak for themselves.  My knowledge in the area of pharmacology is very
broad and deep, and I have no hesitation in speaking authoritatively in
those areas where I feel I can.

>The truth of the matter is that it doesn't require credentials for
>Steve Dyer, or anybody else, to critically analyze a body of
>papers.  You're entitled to disagree, but don't expect us to treat
>your case as a special exception to the rules that you zealously
>impose on others.

It certainly doesn't take credentials; it takes understanding and a
background in biology.  Ted Altar is ignorant of biology, calcium
metabolism, nutrition and pharmacology, just for starters.  He's a
good typist, though.  Too bad transcribing textbooks bypasses the
brain.


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