HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ash@ulysses.mr.ams.com (Alan Harder)
Subject: picotrim (TM) (marcotrim (tm)) 
Organization: American Math. Society
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:26:20 GMT


All right, what is this stuff?  I have now seen two advertisements for
a product that supposedly "keeps the body from storing fat".  

The advertisement claims: "'It plays a key role in enabling insulin to
work more effectively in processing glucose (sugar) and amino acids
(components of protein) in the body.  It helps the insulin work more
effectively, so that the glucose and amino acids are targeted for the
muscle cells instead of the fat cells,' says Dr. Gary Evans mwho
developed the use of this ingredient while working for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture."

It also says: "In 1982 a government research chemist discovered a new
natural mineral that led to 10 years of intensive research at numerous
research facilities."

Although this was marketed as Martrim (tm) a couple of months ago, it
appears that the company has changed addresses and the name of the
product to Picotrim (tm), since both addresses are in Ft. Lauderdale,
and the prices are identical.  This alone is enough to make me think
it's a scam.

Can anyone refute or otherwise comment on this "miracle mineral"?


-Alan Harder                

 My opinions are not the opinions of the American Mathematical Society.
 Did you think they were?

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:03:14 GMT

Rich Young writes:

>	I believe he already did that which you ask in his previous rebuttal
>	of your interpretation of Moon's study in r.f.v.

Ok, if you say so.  Now, what are they?

I know what Dr. Moon's credentials are, I've met the man, seen him
present his research findings to an university audience, and I've
read two of his papers.  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.

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?

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


.
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:01:38 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <C02C9A.CCt@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>This sounds familiar.  Several weeks ago you stated that the 
>claim made by Ornish, Breslau, Marsh, Johnson, Allen (and many 
>others) concerning the impact of protein intake on calcium 
>excretion was "controversial at best"...  thereby implying that 
>"mainstream" opinion was on your side (as usual).  For some 
>strange reason, however, you failed to present any evidence to 
>support your side of the argument.  

Ornish doesn't make this claim other than to accept it at face value.
His interests are in diet, blood lipids and atherosclerosis, and not
osteoporosis, and he's done no research in this area.  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.

>I won't bother to ask you again for your references, but I wonder if 
>you'd mind telling us how the "mainstream" opinion against Moon's 
>"crank" hypothesis stacks up against the "mainstream" opinion against 
>the aforementioned "crank" hypothesis set forth by Ornish et al? 

In fact, the role of protein intake in the development of osteoporosis
is almost totally ignored by researchers in the field, and the few studies
which have been done under controlled conditions haven't borne this out
over time.  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.

>>>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?
>
>Thanks for your honesty.  I'm beginning to understand why you 
>typically make a point of labeling your critics pejoratively
>as "ankle biters" while portraying your own position as "mainstream".

What a stupid comment.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 22:55:15 GMT

In article <C01zGx.AL6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>Would you mind explaining how/why credentials can ever be used to 
>reasonably test the truth or falsity of a statement concerning 
>human nutrition?  On the whole, you seem to be saying that 
>credentials are admissible when you say they are, and they're not 
>admissible when you say they're not.  Please tell us the guidelines
>that you use for making the distinction.

As quoted by Ted Wayn Altar:

    Agumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority)  . . . This
    method of argument is not always strictly fallacious, for the
    reference to an admitted authority in the special field of
    his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant
    evidence.  If laymen are disputing over some question of
    physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein
    on the matter, that testimony is very relevant.  Although it
    does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it.
        (from Irving Copi, INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC, 3r ed., p. 66-67)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: bsimon@elvis.stsci.edu (Bernie Simon)
Subject: Re: Enrichment/nutrient replacement question
Organization: None. This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
	<DRAND.92Dec30115008@spinner.osf.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:16:53 GMT

It is true many vitamins have stereo isomers. Whether the artificial
vitamin has both isomers depends on how it is produced. For example,
Vitamin C is manufactured from glucose, which already has the correct
form, so the finished product only has the correct isomer. Vitamin E
is the only case I know of where the manufacturing process introduces
both isomers. I could be wrong on this, if anyone has better
information please let me know.
--
Bernie Simon	(bsimon@stsci.edu)		ad astra per aspera
Organization: University of Central Florida--Computer Services
Date: Tuesday, 29 Dec 1992 12:38:47 EST
From: Laura Kittleson <LAURA@UCF1VM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Enrichment/nutrient replacement question

I have read printed articles, as well as postings to this group,
that state or imply that "replaced" nutrients and vitamins in
enriched breads and cereals are not as good as what might have
been in the food to begin with.

How come?

Note:  This is not in the LEAST a challenge or an expression of
doubt.  It seems reasonable to me that what nature provided is
probably pretty darn good to begin with.  I'm interested in the
biochemical facts of the issue.

Thanks!

Laura Kittleson
University of Central Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions and questions here are my own.  :-)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: jil@uts.uucp (Jamie Lubin)
Subject: Re: Enrichment/nutrient replacement question
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 14:04:17 GMT
Followup-To: jil@donuts0.bellcore.com

In article <92364.123849LAURA@UCF1VM.BITNET> Laura Kittleson <LAURA@UCF1VM.BITNET> writes:
>I have read printed articles, as well as postings to this group,
>that state or imply that "replaced" nutrients and vitamins in
>enriched breads and cereals are not as good as what might have
>been in the food to begin with.
>
>How come?

As Elizabeth Schwartz & Bernie Simon have already pointed out, the extracted
fiber is one of the biggest losses in going from whole grain to "enriched"
products.  Elizabeth & I also already mentioned that another big factor is
that they're not even putting back all the known nutrients (& of course can't
put back the other "unknown" factors).  Finally, Bernie pointed out that there's
a difference between synthetic and natural vitamin E.  There are differences
in other vitamins too (e.g., vitamin C, as been shown thru chromatographic
techniques--E. Pfeiffer, M. Justa Smith, etc.).  Basically, if you get a
vitamin from a natural source (natural food), there are accompanying factors,
enzymes, catalysts, etc. which enhance it.  If you were to strip all of these
away, what you'd have left would probably only be comparable to the synthetic.
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Bill Garland)
Subject: Re: Milk allergies
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:43:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.165111.13831@zooid.guild.org>, 
	Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> 
> I haven't eaten any milk or milk products for a year, for ethical reasons.

Huh? I don't understand what could be unethical about eating milk or
milk products. Is it that you consider it wrong, or immoral, to take
the milk of the cow and use it as food? What would you do with it,
other than to feed calves? What if there are no calves to feed?
Would you rather take it and feed the pigs, and then eat the pigs?
No, I doubt it...

Would you rather throw it out? I mean, the cow has _got_ to be milked.

Is it that you consider it immoral to raise and keep cows?
Or is it something to do with the "morality" of cholesterol?

> rwaigh@zooid.guild.org

And if you consider drinking a milkshake to be unethical, do you
consider those teenagers who work at McDonald's who _sell_ milkshakes
to be acting immorally? Am I immoral for putting milk in my coffee?

|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| If we had an index file, we could   | In fact, except for protecting |
| look it up in the index file under  | individual rights, no valid    |
| "Index File".                       | reason for government exists." |
|           -- Tegan in "Castrovalva" |      ... Dr. Frank Wallace     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bill Garland = bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca | Commercial: Send me your money.|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:51:34 GMT


>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.

Steve Dyer replies:

>It depends on what he's saying.  Ted conveniently forgot to saythat
>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.

Moon's article is rigorous review and its conclusions are backed
with empirical evidence and hard theory.  What is "suspect" is
this unsupported and prejudical vilification of Professor Moon.
No evidence for this vilification of Dr. Moon as a "crank" was
provided, only Mr Dyer's `ex cathedra' pronoucements.


>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.

Well, of course they are NOT received wisdom!  What do think gets
published in primary scientific journals?  Yes, that's right,
NEW knowledge claims, not old.

Second, I believe this is "net NEWS", in which case it is
perfectly appropriate to report upon new findings or published
ideas for people's interest.  Odd that the second-hand report
about the epidemiological study of iron and heart disease among
men was duly and respectfully considered as interesting news, but
the Dr. Moon et al. theorectical review should be so slandered, even
before people have bothered to read it.

For the more opened-minded and intellectually curious, I've
posted the reference to the Dr. Moon et al. paper in question,
as well as some of the conclusions from that paper under the
thread, "Vitamin" D
From: jnachman@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: pre-menstrual syndrome
Date: 23 Dec 92 11:13:29 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

I am looking for information on reducing PMS symptoms through diet and 
nutrition -- avoiding certain foods, taking extra amounts of certain 
nutrients.

What effect, if any, does evening primrose oil have? A vegetarian diet 
has been said to reduce menstrual flow and cramping -- has anyone 
found this to be the case? Ibuprofen definitely gets rid of cramps 
(its anti-prostaglandins effect?) but it causes stomach irritation, 
plus it is not recommended for asthmatics ...

Please send your suggestions (flames, ribaldry, etc.) to me; I'll post 
a summary if there is enough interest in the subject.

Thanks,
Julie     jnachman@guvax      jnachman@guvax.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: la1002@albnyvms.bitnet (Clover M.)
Subject: Nutrition
Reply-To: la1002@albnyvms.bitnet
Organization: University of NY at Albany
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 04:42:40 GMT

I am looking for the answers to these questions  either on-line
or in an email message, as I do not have a library card or the
money to buy books at this point
Clover
la1002@albnyvms.bitnet
This is my very first sig.file
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Enrichment/nutrient replacement question
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:23:57 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Dec30.140417.5261@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> jil@uts.uucp (Jamie Lubin) writes:
>Finally, Bernie pointed out that there's
>a difference between synthetic and natural vitamin E.

No, he said that some synthetic vitamin Es contain stereoisomers of
alpha-tocopherol.  Not all do.  In fact, there are many different
vitamin Es found in nature.  Alpha-tocopherol is just one of them, and
the most potent:  beta-, gamma- and delta- tocopherols also have
vitamin E activity.  You see these sold as "mixed tocopherols"; their
potency is represented as International Units, which is a certain
amount of d,l-alpha-tocopherol, but would be a different amount of mixed
tocopherols or l-alpha-tocopherol.  In any case, vitamin E activity is
sufficiently diffuse that it doesn't matter much.

>There are differences
>in other vitamins too (e.g., vitamin C, as been shown thru chromatographic
>techniques--E. Pfeiffer, M. Justa Smith, etc.)

Vitamin C is a pure chemical.  There is no difference between the vitamin C
in a vitamin pill and that found in a lemon.  At all.  If you understand
what is said in that paper, perhaps you could reproduce it.  It's a pretty
crazy claim--I wonder if you're not misrepresenting what's said there.

>Basically, if you get a
>vitamin from a natural source (natural food), there are accompanying factors,
>enzymes, catalysts, etc. which enhance it.  If you were to strip all of these
>away, what you'd have left would probably only be comparable to the synthetic.

Well, I think it's better (and less fuzzy) to say that foods are better
sources of vitamins and other nutrients, all in all.  "Enzymes" are not
relevant to human nutrition, and "catalysts" is a vague and unscientific
term in this context.  Vitamins have been unfairly elevated in importance
since they've been isolated from foods.  I don't think that anyone reputable
would claim that all nutritional co-factors have been accounted for and that
a pure vitamin extract is preferable to eating whole foods.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: billp@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Bill Pottenger)
Subject: Squalene abstracts/citations
Originator: billp@consult.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:05:51 GMT

Hello folks... I'm new to the food science/nutrition field and would like
to learn where the 'internet accessible' resources are located.  At the
moment I'm looking for abstracts and references to research papers dealing
with squalene as a food, food supplement, antioxidant, and anti-tumor agent,
although I'm particularly interested in articles dealing with the food
supplement aspects.

I've got several questions about locating such resources.  First off,  I
wonder which newsgroup(s) are the best to ask about this kind of thing?
(I've chosen these three simply as an initial guesstimate.)

Secondly, I have the results of a (commercial) data base search through
such databases as EMBASE, PASCAL,LIFE SCIENCES COLLECTION, etc, but this
simply lists databases which contain some (any) reference to squalene, and
doesn't give the abstracts or citations (at least not without additional
$$$) and I'm wondering if there isn't some other way to access this kind
of information without going through the commercial databases.

Well, any suggestions would be most welcome - thanks ahead of time!  

Since I normally don't peruse these newsgroups I would appreciate a
response via email - thank you.

Bill Pottenger
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
From: silver@fraser.sfu.ca (Craig Silver)
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:46:38 GMT

>>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.

Of the classes I attended or listened to on tape in the fall semester
(almost all, and *all* the ones regarding calciferol) I don't remember
Moon ever saying "anabolic steroids" when speaking of calciferol.  I
do, however, remember his referring to calciferol as a "potent
steroidal hormone".  I'm not even sure if this is the same thing.  But
I thought I'd tell you what I remember hearing and what I remember not
hearing since I was at the lectures.
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Silver	           Computer Science at Simon Fraser University
silver@sfu.ca (Internet)   Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Xref: sparky sci.med.nutrition:1741 bionet.general:2026 sci.bio:4747
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,bionet.general,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Squalene abstracts/citations
Followup-To: sci.med.nutrition,bionet.general,sci.bio
Date: 2 Jan 1993 23:21:05 GMT
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Bill Pottenger (billp@ncsa.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Hello folks... I'm new to the food science/nutrition field and would like
: to learn where the 'internet accessible' resources are located.  At the
: moment I'm looking for abstracts and references to research papers dealing
: with squalene as a food, food supplement, antioxidant, and anti-tumor agent,
: although I'm particularly interested in articles dealing with the food
: supplement aspects.

Bill,

If you search the 'biosci' WAIS server you will get back a few hits on
squalene, e.g.:

 1 1000  36 921230 billp@ncsa Re: Squalene abstracts/citations"
 2  942  26 921230 dyer@spdcc Re: Re: Squalene abstracts/citations"
 3  353 637 920922 kristoff@G Re: Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 267, no. 26, 15 September 1992"
 4  294 353 920324 lfk@eastma Re: Yeast Chr III sequence"
 5  294 563 910803 kristoff@G Re: Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 266, no. 20, 15 July 1991"
 6  294 570 901019 kristoff@G Re: Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 265, no. 30, 25 October 1990"
 7  294 540 900730 kristoff@G Re: Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 265, no. 23, 15 August 1990"
 8  294 295 920107 kristoff@G Re: Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 174, no. 1, January 1992"
 9  294 640 920509 kristoff@G Re: Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 267, no. 12, 25 April 1992"
10  294 613 920603 kristoff@G Re: Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 267, no. 17, 15 June 1992"
11  294 617 921019 kristoff@N Re: Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 267, no. 30, 25 October 1992"
12  294 624 921030 kristoff@N Re: Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 267, no. 30 correction"
13  294 511 921221 kristoff@N Re: Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 267, no. 36, 25 December 1992"

By searching forward from these you might be able to chase something.


  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 GLOB
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Calcium/Magnesium
Date: 2 Jan 93 15:28:49 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1993Jan2.042703.25857@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <C05DKE.4FH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>I'm happy that you're around Steve, but posting umpteen passages/week 
>>from the Merck Manual or the PDR (for years on end) isn't the 
>>sort of thing that most MD's would consider a mark of special 
>>distinction.   
>
>You must undoubtedly be confusing me with Ted Altar. 

As I recall it is Rich Young who practises his typing on the Merck Manual.

>I do not post material from other sources.

That has been obvious to almost everyone.

>Everything I write is original, based on my knowledge of the subject.

And usually consists of nothing more than "chortle" or "snort", proving
that even cocaine addicts can use a typewriter.


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@btcs.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition