Re: Body Mass Calculator


cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:

cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:


You're just being dumb.


Oh, this is just corking. PeteyB, the boy who wrote "Ascorbic acid is
the redux agent necessary for conversion of hydrogen to oxygen, so we
don't even breathe without it."


It's true that Klenner said vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is a transport
mechanism for hydrogen to fuel cellular respiration, which requires
oxygen for life, and without which you would be dead. It's difficult
to breath under those conditions. As I've said many times, my use of
the word "conversion" was not meant chemically.


Which bears no relation to the statement that ""Ascorbic acid is the
redux agent necessary for conversion of hydrogen to oxygen, so we
don't even breathe without it."


I disagree, though it was admittedly an oversimplification.



How can you disagree? The two statements simply don't say anything
resembling each other.

In your opinion.

Klenner says that you need vitamin C (which you don't) , hydrogen and
oxygen for respiration and you say that vitamin C turns hydrogen into
oxygen so we can breathe. Please show how these are related.

First, it's merely your opinion that Klenner was wrong. Second, I
never used the words "turns into," nor would I. Another example of
your dishonesty.


The fact that you don't understand this speaks volumes.


The fact you want to make this an issue is what speaks volumes.



??

It's irrelevant to the value of vitamin C in human health. But you
aren't here to discuss health, as we already know.

The fact that you simply cannot admit you made a mistake on something
you evidently knew nothing about is what speaks volumes.

There is nothing to admit. Your obsession with me, however, is
fascinating.

Oh, and you neither you nor Klenner provided any evidence for the claim
that vitamin C is neccessary for respiration.


I never said it was proven. But it's purely academic considering you
can't live without vitamin C anyway



No, it's not. You claim that vitamin C is necessary for respiration,
which is simply not so.

That's just your opinion. But it wouldn't make a difference either
way, since vitamin C is required for life.

The fact that it is necessary for other
cellular functions does not mean that it's necessary for respiration

That doesn't mean it isn't. But it's purely academic, as I've pointed
outoncerned.

And it's noteworthy that you
never once cared to discuss the subject of the original post, which was
the use of vitamin C in heart disease.


Nope. As I've already said, I was gobsmacked that anyone would post
something so stupid, and then attempt to defend it, despite how it
demonstrated his ignorance of the topic he was posting on.

Stupidity expresses itself in many ways. You've discovered most of
them.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And


"If ascorbic acid doesn't liberate oxygen from hydrogen, how does
respiration occur at the cellular level?"


Yes, based on Klenner's view that ascorbic acid is necessary for
hydrogen to fuel the Krebs cycle, aerobic respiration (using oxygen),
would not otherwise be possible.


Again, this bears no relation to your risible claim that ascorbic acid
liberates oxygen from hydrogen. You're not too bright are you, Petey?


I said early on that my comments were not an attempt to describe the
actual chemistry of cellular respiration. If readers won't to delve
into the specifics of the Krebs cycle, they can do so using the links
provided above.



Missing the point again, Petey? "If readers won't (sic) to delve into
the specifics of the Krebs cycle", they certainly won't find that
ascorbic acid is neccessary, or that (LOL) oxygen is liberated from
hydrogen. That being physically impossible. Did you actually go to
school?

On the first point, ascorbic acid (vit C) may very well be essential to
cellular respiration. On the second point, this was the post I
retracted (and replaced, correcting that particular section) before you
even responded, so again your dishonesty is striking.

Um, and the Kreb's cycle was elucidated many years ago, and does not
require vitamin C.


Non sequitur. The function of vitamin C is still largely unknown in
human physiology. Klenner may well have been right. The textbooks are
not infallible.



Please. We know how the Krebs cycle works and have done since the
1930s.

If "we know how the Krebs cycle works and have done (sic) since the
1930s," does that mean scientific discovery ended with Hans Krebs?
Does that explain why you hang out here on mha? Does it explain your
rants about hellfire when arguing for vaccination?



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And (even better!)


"Conversion of hydrogen atoms into energy permits access to oxygen,
which is how we are able to breathe." Yeah, he really did write that.
Incredible, I know.


Yes, hydrogen is involved in many steps on the way to production of
ATP. But here. I found the simplest thing I could to describe the
process of cellular respiration for you. The title of the article is
"cellular respiration." See if it makes sense to you. Here is the
link: http://www.purchon.com/biology/aerobic.htm.


Here's the thing, Petey. Because I have an education in science ( an
honours degree in chemistry to be precise)...


Your shameful promotion of vaccine, and your dishonestly in interaction
with other posters, should tell you that readers are more interested in
your integrity than your background. This, of course, will be lost on
you.



What is lost on you, obviously, is that no-one has ever seen me being
dishonest in this newsgroup. Please provide evidence of your assertion.

LOL. I'm not sure I could find a post of yours that is *not* dishonest
on a variety of levels. It's not just about using jacked up numbers
(as you have), or studies that have nothing to do with the infectious
disease under discussion (as you have), or your deliberate attribution
of terms never used by those you attempt to trash.

, and because neither of your
other defences have any validity, I'm not going to look at that link.
Why? Because I don't need to.


Readers can decide for themselves what is valid. What you need is a
dose of humility.



It isn't I who am unable to admit an error, Petey. That's you.

You're a dimwit. I admit that.

It will either be irrelevant (common
with you), or it will be bull***. Because any link that tries to say
that "conversion of hydrogen atoms into energy permits access to
oxygen" occurs during the process of respiration is bull***. As any
high-school (or possibly primary school) student could tell you.


I'll let the reader decide what makes sense during the process of an
honest discussion.



Ah. Perhaps you've finally realised that "conversion of hydrogen atoms
into energy permits access to oxygen" is nonsense. A shame you haven't

the humility to just say it.

It's just an oversimplification, as I intended it to be. Although
hydrogen isn't literally converted to energy, it does fuel the
generation of energy required to drive aerobic processes, which
produces energy. My comments were not meant to depict the actual and
chemistry of aerobic respiration. There are an enormous number of
chemical reactants, end products, and processes involved in the
breakdown of carbs, removal of hydogen ions, and ultimate production of
ATP. I had no intention of discussing all of those things.

On the point about breathing, this itself is reciprocal to cellular
respiration, since without access to oxygen, neither would be possible.


A quote from wikipedia: "Hydrogen is not a energy source in the
conventional sense... [it] should be viewed as an intermediary, a way
of chemically storing energy for distribution between the place it is
produced and the place it is consumed. Its major benefit is that the
**conversion of hydrogen into energy** [emphasis mine] produces only
water as a waste product, generating no chemical pollutants in the
localities in which it is consumed..." So you see, other people use
short-hand at their discretion, as well.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Also visit http://www.mansfield.osu.edu/~sabedon/campbl09.htm and do a
search on every instance of the word "energy." Here is an relevant
excerpt:


"Cellular respiration is a series of chemical and physical processes
which together serve to remove potential energy-containing (hydrogen)
electrons from organic compounds, use the energy thus liberated to
generate ATP, and then donate these now energy-spent electrons to
oxygen."


See? Did you not understand this quote, Petey? Because it certainly
doesn't say that hydrogen atoms are converted into energy.


I said early on that my use of the word "convert" wasn't meant
chemically.



Not early enough. You first thought that Pauling's description of the
reducing action of ascorbic acid was the same as hydrogen being turned
into oxygen, remember?

I never used the words "turned into," a fact you continue to ignore, to
your detriment.

The fact is, my comments on energy production resulting
from conversions that do depend on hydrogen were not crucial in my
discussion of vitamin C and its cardiovascular effects. For instance,
hydrogen converts to water, but that isn't important to the function of
vitamin C in the arterial wall.


No. In fact the production of water from the oxidation of carbohydrates

in respiration has ***-all to do with vitamin C. But you claimed it
did, and you claimed that "Ascorbic acid is the redux agent necessary
for conversion of hydrogen to oxygen, so we don't even breathe without

it."

Liar. I never said anything about the conversion of hydrogen to water
before this post. I would suggest you get professional help, but
pharma blogging isn't technically a mental disorder. The premise of
your arguments, however, suggests it should be.

At no point in cellular respiration is hydrogen converted into oxygen,
or energy. Is that clear?


Is it clear you have no arugments except the ones you manufacture?



Excuse me? I never claimed that hydrogen was converted into oxygen or
energy during cellular respiration. You did. I know it's embarrassing,
because it reveals an enormous lack in your education, but you did.

No, you claimed that 3 *million* children contracted measles the year
before vaccine (a 1000% overstatement.) I'm supposed to tell you that
this reveals an enormous lack in your education, is that it? But that
would be silly. It rather points to your lack of integrity, your
shameless promotion of vaccine, and your alliance to industry. Your
denials ring hollow.

And he has the nerve to call someone else "dumb" for pointing out that
he's wrong. Again.


*chuckles* I guess Catty's reference to 3 *million* cases of measles
the year before the vaccine (off by 1000%) is still stinging. ouch!!


Well, that's what the CDC say. But you know that.


You used to loudly protest the idea that we don't overlook incidence of
viral disease, now you want to use it as a defense? Nothing new there.



Nope. I certainly was in error, because we were speaking of the
reported cases, and I was, as David Wright pointed out, way out.
However, your imaginary "vaccine bias" whereby cases of the disease are

less likely to be diagnosed in the vaccinated is just that--imaginary.
As demonstrated by the study you posted showing a reporting rate of
about 1-in-3 compared to about1-in-8 pre-vaccination.

Bull***. You can't know what the pre-vaccine reporting rate was
because those cases weren't reported. The study I posted, on the other
hand, documents under reporting in a reasonably precise manner, and
contradicts your denials during the past year that such under reporting
is just a myth. While the study makes no attempt to establish *why*
such under reporting occurs, your idea that vaccine bias is never a
reason for under reporting is as ridiculous as your claim that 3
million kids were infected with measles the year before children began
to be vaccinated.

PeterB

.