NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/med/nutritio/1721

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 8.5 KB | 190 lines

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!wupost!tulane!wpg!russ
From: [e-mail] (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: WP Group
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:29:37 GMT
Lines: 179

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Steve Dyer):
> 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.

Nor can you cite your own opinions, or even "mainstream" opinions,
as primary evidence.  Why don't you take the time to read a few
of the studies that Ornish cited as primary evidence and address
the facts and arguments raised therein?

>>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.

I'm sure most readers would prefer to have information rather than
your standard insults.  The terms "snort" and "moronic ankle
biting" are just as tedious as the "anal retentive" label that
you used to hurl at your opponents in years gone by.

In truth, the same standards that you've used to belittle
Ornish's opinion would thoroughly demolish your own pretense to
authority since you're neither a researcher nor a clinician nor
do you appear to have any special claim to expertise vis-a-vis
the causes of osteoporosis and kidney stones.   At least Ornish
has read the scientific literature, whereas you apparently have
not.

>>> 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.

Do you recall roughly how many articles you cited, Steve?   1 article,
6 articles, 12 articles???

>>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...

Yes it is.  As an example, let me point you once again to the Ornish
quote that I posted previously.  I realize that you don't share his
opinion, but it's rather silly for you insist that his opinion is
simply nonexistent.

Be that as it may, your definition of "controversial at best" implied
that there were quite a few researchers and clinicians who disagreed
with the hypothesis.   Please point us to a few articles to support
such an implication.

> 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.

Please point us to a few articles, Steve.

>>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.

Please do.

>>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...

Look who's talking.

> ...
>>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.

You seem to be skirting the problem, Steve.  I'm asking you to prove
your claim that high protein intake doesn't elevate calcium excretion.
The proposition that 'x' number of physicians don't prescribe low protein
diets to prevent osteoporosis is irrelevant.   And even if your proposition
were true, it doesn't mean that the original hypothesis is "controversial"
as you claimed.

>>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...

We've heard about your knowledge of pharmacology many many times,
but even if you were a genuine expert in pharmacology, it
would hardly lend credence to the unsupported statements that
you've made concerning protein and calcium.  In lieu of preening
yourself in the mirror and telling us how gorgeous you look,
how about posting your references?

> 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.

Please post the references, Steve.

> ...
>>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.

Would you say that guys like Dean Ornish and Colin Campbell are
"kranks" or "good typists" or "morons" or "ankle-biters"?   If we're
going to rely on opinions in this forum, why should we respect your
amateur opinions more than their professional opinions?

--
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans [phone]
[e-mail]   uunet!wpg!russ