From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:32:58 GMT
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In article <altar.725695122@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:

[...]

>>	As I said, I believe he gave you all that in the r.f.v. exchange;
>>	if you've subsequently forgotten, it's not Mr. Dyer's duty to
>>	refresh your memory on demand.
>
>Sorry, but you are mistaken as this question was left unanswered
>at that time.   

	Indeed.  I happen to have a copy of one of his postings which makes
	specific reference to his degrees and his two decade interest in
	pharmacology.  But it's no longer of any import, since he's just
	repeated the information for you.

>>>Second, no rebuttal of my "interpretation" occurred since at that time
>>>no one had even read the study except for myself.
>
>>	Indeed, then it HAD to be a rebuttal of your "interpretation," for the
>>	very reason that no one but you had yet read Moon's study.  
>
>This is quite a confused remark.  Think about it.  How would anyone
>know whether or not I had correctly conveyed the gist of Professor's
>thesis as published in his paper and as voiced in his two presentations
>which I made explicit reference to?   Hence, until somebody bothered
>to even read Moon's paper or had also attended Professor moon's
>academic presentations, then no such "rebuttal" of my report of Moon's
>thesis could be possible.

	A rebuttal was presented, was it not?  Since no one had yet seen
	Moon's actual paper, the presented "rebuttal" must have been of
	the interpretation of the paper you posted.  Hence, a rebuttal of
	your "interpretation" did, indeed, occur.  Twice, in fact.  But I
	agree, it's really a moot point.

>>	recall, several people read it shortly thereafter, however.
>
>And?

	And I recall at least one poster mentioning that no reference to
	"anabolic steroids" was made, and that there was some suspicion
	concerning some of the tables presented.  The poster was not Mr. Dyer.

>>>Instead, all that I saw were the mere quibbles about terms and vilification
>>>of a an accomplished researcher and professor of toxicology/nutrition teaching
>>>at a major Canadian University.  Hardly a very credible "refutation".
>
>>	Oh, I don't know as I agree with that...it was fairly well established
>>	that your frenetic references to "anabolic steroids" were, shall we
>>	say, "misguided."
>
>As I had explicitly pointed out, the refence to the term "anabolic"
>came from one of Dr. Moon's oral presentations.  I am simply reporting
>what he said.  Please try to be equally accurate in your reportage of
>what I said.

	I am deadly accurate.  You mentioned his paper and "anabolic steroids"
	in the same breath.  His paper does not mention "anabolic steroids."
	Since we do not attend his classes, your assertion that he says this
	in his lectures is heresay.  If he DOES use the term "anabolic
	steroids" in his classes, but carefully removes it from his papers,
	then I agree with Steve: he's a "crank."  Note the "if."  Because I
	don't KNOW what he says in class, I'll reserve judgement, but I would
	like to point out that if you're stretching the truth here, then Dr.
	Moon is being ill served by your comments.

[...]

>>	And it was fairly well established that it was fortification of food
>>	with vitamin D which essentially eliminated rickets from the Western
>>	world.  Sounds like a credible "refutation" to me.
>
>A refutation of what?

	Your implication based on his paper that fortification of foods
	with vitamin D is, today, a plague upon the land.

[...]

>>	As I recall, you left in a self-righteous huff to go nurse your
>>	wounds in GRANOLA for several weeks right after said rebuttal.
>
>I really don't know what you are here talking about, but in any
>case this kind of personal attack is really irrelevant.  Now,
>have you bothered to read Professor Moon's paper?

	Yes, as a matter of fact, I have.  Another poster graciously mailed
	me a copy, and I offered to mail one to Steve, but he already had
	one and declined the offer.

>>	By the way, how many times did Moon use the phrase "anabolic
>>	steroid" in his paper?  How many times did _you_ use the phrase
>>	"anabolic steroid" in your "interpretation" of his paper?
>
>Again, you are being a sloppy reader.  I didn't say that Professor
>Moon used this term in the paper he recently published.  Can you
>cite some sentence of mine that says otherwise?  Of course you can't.

	Nor did I claim that you said such a thing.  I merely point out
	the inconsistency between what Dr. Moon actually said and what you
	CLAIMED he said.  He makes no reference to "anabolic steroids" in
	his paper, but you sully his reputation with assertions that he
	does indeed use such phrases in his lectures.  As I said before,
	__IF__ he does use such a phrase in his lectures to describe
	calciferol, he's a "crank."  If not, then his reputation is not
	well served by your rhetoric.

>To state what already was said, Professor Moon used this
>phrase in one of his oral presentations, of which I have a copy of
>the outline he used for that lecture.   What do you have?

	A copy of his paper...which appears in the "Hypothesis" section of
	the journal.

	By the way, I thought you were going to remain above the fray and
	not respond to us "oily-tongued omnivores" with our "rude and
	slanderous" words?  Ah well, in the words of Robbie Burns, "The
	best laid plans of mice and men aft gang aglay."  Or something like
	that...neither my Scottish nor my memory of Burns is really up to
	snuff, and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment.  Do I hear
	GRANOLA calling...........?  ;-)


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition