From: georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark)
Subject: Re: So-Called Vitamin D (olddate) [rebuttal from August]
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 02:17:39 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <altar.722490914@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>George B. Clark writes:

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

>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.

Well, maybe I can save time, too, by posting my stock-market questions
to rec.food.veg instead of misc.invest. Never mind that nobody in
rec.food.veg is interested or perhaps even qualified to make investment
recommendations. That's your logic.




>One condition, however.  I simply refuse to answer to rudeness
>and flames.

Ted, this has always been both yours and Abhay's last recourse whenever
you are on a sinking ship. Instead, of admitting error, you just say,
so-and-so has been rude, so we'll just handle him with a KILL file. 
Last summer things got so rough, you even chickened out, and went into
exile for several months. So did Traub, but unlike you, he's still too
chicken to show his face.

Ted, I wouldn't like you even if I agreed with everything you say. You are
an obtrusive person who insists on butting into every conversation, and
you have never been able to express yourself in less than 100 lines of text,
as if the rest of us just can't wait to read every word of it. You
relentlessly followup any personal dispute, always insisting on having
the last word. This results in endless flames, a general feeling of
oppression, and the loss of many good participants who can simply no
longer deal with your overbearing presence.




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

I've spent substantial time reading your posted interpretation of
Dr. Moon's research. Either Dr. Moon doesn't know what he's talking
about, or you lack the knowledge to interpret his work for us.




>Now, who here objects to someone merely reporting what has been
>published elsewhere?

Lots of people. It's not so much your reporting perse that's offensive. It's
your conceit, arrogance, and your pretending to know more than you actually
do by citing long passages from literature that you don't yourself
understand. If you can't explain something in your own words, then you
don't understand what you're talking about.




>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.

References don't mean jack, when you don't understand what it is you're
reading. This has always been the case with you, and it has been the
source of endless arguments. You never learn.




>I'm only presenting information that I think is worthy and would
>be of interest to others.

Blowing your own horn, and consuming a lot of bandwidth is closer to
the truth. Nobody cares about your quack vitamin D theory, except
perhaps those for whom you have created a false alarm. You have been
the fuel and the focal point for this endless vitamin D discussion by
always insisting on having the last word. You've had your say. Now
shutup, and pay attention to the feedback, and give others the right
to have their say without your insisting on having the last word.




>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.

Don't give me this "now George" business. Artherosclerosis and
arteriosclerosis are not synonyms, you idiot. Which pathology are
you referring to, or should I say, do you even know the difference?



>>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. 

>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.

I'm unimpressed. The same can be said of any Ph.D. candidate, even
before they finish their doctorate.

Dr. Moon may have done original research, but it's certainly not apparent
from your posted interpretation of it. All we've seen is sleight of hand.




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

Given your admiration of Dr. Moons' research, I would like to see an
example of something on this vitamin D topic, just to compare what
Dr. Moon actual says to what you think he says.




>>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.

Give us a break, you idiot. Because something gets published in a
professional journal is hardly proof it's a worthwhile study. If that's
something I have to prove to you by citing an example, then you are naive,
but I'll give you an example, anyway.

Journal of the Am. Med. Assoc., June 23, 1992 published a study containing
inflated health claims for oat bran. As it turns out, the study was
funded by the Quacker Oats Company because they have experienced a 500%
drop in oat sales over the past three years. For reasons like this, many
physicians don't even bother reading JAMA anymore.

Similar examples can be cited for any professional journal. By the way,
who's funding Dr. Moon's denouncement of vitamin D?




>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!!!! 

You're the one proposing a hypothesis, not me. Therefore, the burden of
proof is on you. Foods have been vitamin D fortified for years. The
data overwhelmingly demonstrates the policy has been a good one. Now
you want to change it.



>>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.

In one table, you cited data on the frequency of osteoporosis in various
countries around the world. Nobody would infer conclusions about
vitamin D from looking at that table, but you tried to. You provided no
other data. Everything else was sleight of hand, trying to associate
vitamin D with "potent, dangerous, anabolic steroids," etc.

In other words, you promised us something you failed to deliver. You
gave us a quack theory to ponder over, you gave us no data, and you
consumed everyone's time all for nothing. 



>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.

Ted, you arrogant ass. You're so full of yourself.

You're really going to be dangerous someday because you habitually 
misinterpret clinical data before audiences consisting largely of
laypersons who really lack the background and the interest to fairly
assess what you claim. This is what you count on. 

That's why you post your quack theories in rec.food.veg, where you can be
a big fish in a small pond. Try posting your vitamin D theory to a
biochemistry newsgroup or to sci.med.nutrition. You'll be exposed for
what you are. A zealous quack with bits and pieces of half truth who
has a hard on for some man named Dr. Moon, but won't listen to anyone else.

Now get the hell out of rec.food.veg, and go back to doing whatever it
was you did last summer, when we didn't have to put up with you.