From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: So-Called Vitamin D (olddate) [rebuttal from August]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:55:14 GMT

George B. Clark writes:

>This ongoing vitamin D scare perpetuated by Ted would have been 
>more palatable had Ted done two things:

"Palatable"?  Hey, no one is asking you to eat anything, or even
that you have to like it.  Of course, those pushing fasting might
at least suggest that you eat nothing  ;-)

>     Posted it to sci.med.nutrition instead of rec.food.veg, where
>     he would at least get expert feedback and interested readers.

Again, to repeat what I've already told you, I have in the past
posted to the very conference you suggest.  Not having the time
nor interest to monitor only but this one conference which
interests me, I now restrict myself and my time to this
conference.

An individual choice to be sure, but it is mine.  If you want to
repost what I post here, please feel free to do so.  If you want
to ask a particular question, again, here I am and you are free
to do so.

One condition, however.  I simply refuse to answer to rudeness
and flames.  Maybe if more did likewise we wouldn't have this
problem with "flames".  Of course, it would indeed be even better
if those few individuals who start these flames via their
inconsiderate remarks to others, simply didn't do so.  Oh well,
given such a diverse readership I guess we can't expect all to be
equally considerate, respectful and thoughtful of others.  :-(


>     Presented Dr. Moon's hypothesis as an inquiry for whether it has
>     merit, rather than boldly asserting it as fact, and in effect
>     challenging others to prove him wrong.

Have you read the paper yet?  Please answer if you are going to
make this kind of attribution.

Now, who here objects to someone merely reporting what has been
published elsewhere?  That's how I see what I posted and what I
am doing.  I trust that you don't object to the free
dissemination of information, especially when such information is
well referenced (unlike your claims) and is now published in a
scientific journal.

I'm only presenting information that I think is worthy and would
be of interest to others.  To be sure, not all will find it
interesting, but at least to some who might be interested and are
intellectually curious and open-minded about such things.



>The vitamin D scare is an old, wornout, quack theory that has been in the
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, we know what you think, but tell me, how do you explain
that this paper is now published in a responsible and respectable
scientific journal.  Hey, we are NOT talking about something like
the quack health food industry's "Alive Magazine".


>popular press for as long as foods have been vitamin D fortified, it seems.
           ^^^^^^^^

Your own "it seems", is not a statement of fact, yet here you
boldly assert in such a matter of fact way that Professor J. Moon
et al. paper's promulgates some "quack theory" that has been
around as long as foods were first D fortified.

Now, until you read the paper, you don't even know what the
hypothesized "theory" even is to begin with.  For brevity I did
NOT report on some of the hypothesized mechanisms Dr. Moon et al.
have forwarded for future research.  I simply reported on the
kinds of worries that are being raised and just SOME of the
evidence that Dr. Moon et al. provides to warrant those worries.



>Yet Ted suggests it is something new and of great importance, using scare
>tactics like "the worst food additive in modern history," and talk of
>"arteriosclerosis," a word Ted has never once spelled correctly.

I'm sorry that other countries may well spell things differently
than yourself, but the fact remains that the Canadian and British
spelling is ATHEROSCLEROSIS.

Now, George, please go check even the U.S. published Merck Manual
and you find that BOTH spellings are the accepted usage in the
scientific/ medical community.  Maybe in those quack publications
that you rail about, only the more readily spelled form is  ever
printed  ;-)



>Just because some obscure Dr. Moon at SFU published a paper does nothing
>to ratify it, either, and by no means implies Dr. Moon is an expert. It

Does nothing?  How presumptuous of you.  In fact he has done
original research, presented at scientific conferences, collected
data and successfully published papers in mainstream medical
journals.  Indeed, some new data was provided in the review paper
that I here only attempted to simply summarized and which is now
published.  As I have already mentioned, see:

     J. OF THE AMER. COLLEGE OF NUTRITION, 1992, VOL. 11,
         NO. 5, PAGES 567-83.


>reminds me of those who still publish "research" claiming it is harmful
>to add flouride to toothpaste, and yes those papers do still get published.

Please cite one example from a major, scientific medical journal
where this has occurred?  You've made an empirical claim, now
back it up.


>Such nonsense. These people are professors with nothing to say, who are
>compelled by their universities to publish anyway because it's their
>job.


"Such nonsense"?  Tell us all about YOUR credentials and what you
have published in a scientific journal?  Of course professors are
encouraged to publish, but that doesn't entail that they will
automatically get published, nor get published in just any
journal.  With respect to standards of scientific journals of
nutrition, neither you nor I can get something published unless
we do in fact have a legitimate and informed argument and one
that meets certain high standards of scientific evidence and
inference.

The problem with "quack medicine" is that we here also find the
kinds of anti-intellectual statements that you have here given
voice to.  Shame on you!!!!  ;-)


>The glaring omission from Ted's and Dr. Moon's claims is the total absence
>of data.

What!!!!!  Again, go back and carefully read the paper in
question.  Indeed, I even cited some data in my summary of that
paper.



>It's all talk, and talk is cheap. Talk with no data is the trademark
>of a zealous quack. We always knew that's what Ted is. Seeing Dr. Moon's
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>influence on him explains why.

Ok George, one more callow insult like that and next time don't
expect future responses from me.  There is no point either of
wasting time if you are going to let the discussion degenerate
into mere name-calling.

Now, do you want civil, and friendly discourse or not?

George, let's just reflect for a moment and review what you have
here posted.  Yes, you have talked without a single reference to
back your empirical claims, you have accused without evidence or
even the background knowledge of having read the paper in
question, and yes, you have also made cheap shots which
ironically entirely miss their mark for being so very wrong (like
how to spell "atherosclerosis" and that there is no data, etc.).

Indeed, you state that "talk with no data is the trademark of a
zealous quack".  If this is your criterion, then note that it is
your posting, not mine, that is sorrily wanting in any data
whatsoever.   So, before you cast stones, move into a better
house  ;-)

                                ted


Newsgroups: rec.food.veg