From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:52:44 GMT

In article <altar.725666594@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>Nothing I've seen substantiates that Professor
>Moon is a "crank".  To successfully publish in medical journals like
>ATHEROSCLEROSIS, JOURNAL OF THE AMERCIAN COLLEGE OF NUTRITION, CANADIAN
>MEDICAL REVIEW, etc., is not something that a mere "crank" can likely
>achieve.  It is one thing to debunk an article published in, say,
>a disreputable "pop" magazine like the EASTWEST JOURNAL OF HOLISTIC HEALTH, 
>it is quite another to vilify an accomplished researcher and published 
>expert on calciferol.

It depends on what he's saying.  Ted conveniently forgot to say that
this latest paper of Moon's is listed in the journal's index as a
hypothesis, and was published as such.  It is not a rigorous study, and
its conclusions are suspect.  There were any number of methodological
issues raised regarding Moon's assertions in the past 9 months since
Ted first started regurgitating this stuff.  It would be a mistake to
consider Moon's opinions on vitamin D and its use as a supplement as
reflecting current nutritional practice.  Rather, it's a polemic against
the use of vitamin D supplementation.  But his ideas are controversial
to say the least.  Ted would have people think that they're received wisdom.
They're not.

>Instead, we are asked to take Mr. Dyer's word for it that
>Professor Moon is a crank.  Ok, then in that case I would like know what
>Mr. Dyer's credentials are.  Does he have a PhD from accredited 
>university?  Has he any publications?  Has even a graduate degree of
>any kind?

Argument from authority.  Is this your favorite form of argument?
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.  Unlike Ted, I can recognize nonsense when
it's being served up as truth, and I don't make a fool of myself through
rote regurgitation of printed material in a hapless attempt to make
people think I know what I'm talking about.

>Second, no rebuttal of my "interpretation" occurred since at that time
>no one had even read the study except for myself.  Instead, all that
>I saw were the mere quibbles about terms

It would have been a "mere quibble" if you hadn't resorted to tens
of articles regurgitating undigested (and uninterpreted) quotes from
scientific textbooks vainly trying to prove that what Moon said to
you (about calciferol being an "anabolic steroid"--snort) wasn't a
falsehood.  But noooo, Ted Altar, vegetarianism's own pit bull crossed with
a chihuahua, insisted on prolonging his ankle biting instead of using his
brains, and saying at the outset "Gee, I guess it isn't an anabolic steroid."
For a "mere quibble", Ted, you certainly expended enough energy retyping
irrelevant textbook chapters into your computer terminal.

>and vilification of a
>an accomplished researcher and professor of toxicology/nutrition teaching
>at a major Canadian University.  Hardly a very credible "refutation".

I have the article now.  I will address it over the next few days.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition