Re: Body Mass Calculator


cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
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.

That's not an opinion. That's a simple fact, and the fact that you
don't see it is simply another example of your scientific illiteracy.


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.

PeteyB is still having trouble with primary school English, I see,
since he seems unable to grasp the meaning of the word "conversion",
and indeed, dishonesty.

cathybrainless is still having trouble with the fact that words can be
used in different ways. She could have looked online at the entry in
Merriam Webster's dictionary, but she is too brilliant for that. The
use of the word that fit my use is acessible online.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/convert

Just for cathy, here it is: (2) to alter for more effective
utilization

The removal of hydrogen ions for the purpose of fueling production of
biological energy demonstrates that my comments require no defense.
She's just upset that I know how to uncover her tricks in promoting the
interests of her sponsors. Poor girl.

And indeed he obviously can't show how his and Klenner's statements are
related. Since they are not, this is hardly surprising.

In your opinion.



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.

So you still think that vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen??
Fascinating indeed.

You are certainly intrigued with the idea, but no. You can't be turned
into a useful human being either, I suspect.


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.

It doesn't mean it isn't necessary to run a nuclear power station
either. But it isn't. I see your lack of education--never got as far as
studying logic, hey? is letting you down again.

Poor reasoning, dimwit. Nuclear power stations aren't part of human
phsyiology.


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.

Ah, I see you've no defence so you resort to pointless insult. Well
done.

It's not pointless if it accurately describes your behaviour.



- 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.

Funny that no-one in the scientific community has noticed that over the
last 80 or so years, Hm?

Maybe they aren't looking hard enough. Scientists readily admit that
the functional properties of vitamin C remain a mystery. Don't tell
me, you have a kangaroo down under receiving intravenous vaccine 24/7
and he confesses everything he knows about vitamin C, which puts
Klenner to shame?

Funny that there doesn't appear to be a shred
of evidence to support your contention. Bless.

Nothing definitive, but the role of vitamin C in human health doesn't
depend on such evidence. Most people in the world are deficient
(chronically, if not acutely) and that's why I posted on the subject.

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.

There is no dishonesty here, Petey, except yours, since you defended
that statement then, and continue to do so.

There is nothing to defend. It's all in your mind.

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.

And yet not only did he provide no evidence for his contention, but in
the following 50 years, no-one else has found any either. It's sort of
like a religious belief with you isn't it?

It's not important. It's interesting, and I wouldn't be suprised to
see clinical evidence deveop, but it wouldn't change anything about the
value of this nutrient in human health.

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?

Fascinating. Do provide evidence that the Kreb's cycle is dependent on
vitamin C rather than working in the way elucidated by Krebs, Petey. Or
how despite Boyle's Law having been discovered several centuries ago,
we suddenly found out it works differently than P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2?

See above. (Or continue prattling, whatever makes you happy.)

Does that explain why you hang out here on mha? Does it explain your
rants about hellfire when arguing for vaccination?

No comment? That's rare.




- 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.

There is nothing shameful about recommending vaccination Petey, any
more than recommending vitamin C is shameful.

Thanks for showing us your true colors. Comparing a dead virus to a
nutrient essential for life. Shameful indeed.




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.

Yes you could, Petey. That's why you haven't come up with an example of
my being dishonest.

Every post of yours is an example. Just read anything you write.

It's not just about using jacked up numbers
(as you have)

No, I haven't. I made a mistake, and admitted it immediately.

So then you renounce your view that vaccine is equivalent to nutrients?


Compare
this to your writhing about trying to pretend that your risible
statements on vitamin C turning hydrogen into oxygen really meant that
vitamin C is involved in respiration. Tee-hee.

Your words, not mine.

, 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.

Oh dear, you're not still moaning because you don't understand the
meaning of "conversion" are you?

Such an idiot. See the online Merriam Webster dictionary. The use of
the word that fit my use is acessible online.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/convert

Just for you, here it is: (2) to alter for more effective utilization


The removal of hydrogen ions for the purpose of fueling production of
biological energy demonstrates that my comments require no defense.

, 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.

And again. No defence, so a witless insult. Very big and clever, Petey.

With nothing to be defensive about, I am only left with something to be
offensive about. It's your game, remember?


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.

Because you don't actually understand any of them, as you've
demonstrated over and over, even in this very post.

It's becoming clear that you never did.


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.

Oh, I see. Because other people get things wrong, you can too.

See: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/convert

While you are using Merriam Webster's online dictionary, try looking up
the word "idiot." You should see a picture of yourself.

Unfortunately, the statement above makes an awful lot more sense than
yours, because you actually said that hydrogen atoms were converted
into energy, whilst the writer above makes it quite clear that they are
not.

Still playing your little gottcha game, I see.


- 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.

I'm afraid that other people actually undestand that "turn into" means
the same as convert, Petey. But it is very funny watching you pretend
that it doesn't.

Other people understand variations in meaning based on context. Of
course, most people aren't here promoting drugs on behalf of someone
else. Like you, for example.


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'm not a liar, Petey, and you are demonstrating your ignorance again.
You claimed that vitamin C is necessary to respiration. Respiration
*is* the production of water (and energy, of course) from the oxidation
of carbohydrates.

You're definitely a liar. Interspersing factoids amid your subterfuge
doesn't change that.

I never said anything about the conversion of hydrogen to water
before this post.

You clearly didn't understand what you did say.

You clearly need to submit a transcript of this to your sponsors, so
they can give you some timely guidance. Or maybe it's time for another
makeover. You know, *converting* you from a soccer mom, to a chemistry
major, back to a soccer mom. I'm not sure which character you played
has been more annoying. I think I'm realizing now that it's just
*you.*

I would suggest you get professional help, but
pharma blogging isn't technically a mental disorder.

No, it's the product of a mental disorder, Petey: Yours.

A history of your posts and mine are the only evidence anyone will
need.

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.

This is too funny. Having just demonstrated he doesn't understand his
own posts, he now brings up an error I long ago admitted and lies about
my being paid to disagree with him, and thinks it's improving his
position...

You've been lying right from the start. I leave it to readers to
decide whether my discussion of the tactics you use are telling them
something more about you. [See the "Warning" post about these
individuals and their ties to PR projects funded by industry.]


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.

Oh, bless. I guess Petey is a bit miffed that he can only find studies
suggesting that more people report measles than they did
pre-vaccination.

Another non sequitur. If the pre-vaccine cases were never reported,
how can she know that "more people reported measles than they did
pre-vaccination?" *chuckles*

I does sort of blow a big hole in his fantasy "vaccine
bias".

The big hole is in your brain, pharma blogger.

The one that isn't mentioned anywhere in the world except in
Petey's posts.

I love being first. I admit that.


PeterB

.