Re: Chemically Enhanced Natural Products: Good or Bad Idea?


"Dave" <djensen36@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1194914453.261793.164570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 12, 5:01 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Steve Young wrote:

> "Mark Thorson" <nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

> > Don't bother! I consider it a public service,
> > to inform people about the dangerous gaps

> Do you care what others consider it? Or is this all about you?

It's about preventing people from being harmed or killed
by the bad, amateurish advice from the blogspot spammer.

> Perhaps then we should call you the package insert?
> Filling the spaces even the doctors seem to leave blank.
> Oh, but didn't we conclude even the inserts are incomplete?

What are you rambling about? If there's an inadequate
package insert, I'd suggest you write to the FDA or
contact a lawyer that specializes in class-action
litigation. The lawyer would probably thank you for
the tip, if it was accurate and actionable.

> > in the incompetent advice from the supplement
> > spammer.

> He doesn't sell anything, he simply reposts articles, much as > 'ironjustice'

You are wrong. I've already quoted the spammer
admitting that there is commercial content in which
he has an interest on his web site. I could
quote it again, if you missed it. I could quote
the entire posting, if you want more than the
few lines I normally quote.

> does. Why aren't you all over him? Often his view
> of the world comes up a tad less than informed.

He is not a spammer. He does not attempt to profit
from commercial exploitation of a non-commercial
discussion newsgroup. That's a huge difference,
even though I agree TC can be a bit off-the-wall
at times.

> > Your thanks is not necessary.

> Give me something to thank you for, instead of brow beating people.
> (Perhaps you should have tied into Chrissy a little harder,
> vented more of that pent-up angst).

Chrissy is a spammer, but not very persistant.
Small potatoes by comparison. I think my response
was proportional to the crime, and always has been.

> Do you know how productive the time could be, invested in other ways? > For
> example: helping Monty and TAKA put together the pieces on fatty acids.
> Why haven't you participated in some of the threads where the chemistry
> is being discussed. Too busy beating your stick on people's heads?

I have debated Monty on a few occasions, though
I guess you haven't been around long enough to
see that. A better question is why Dave has never
taken on Monty, if he actually reads this newsgroup
and is engaged in the debates in this newsgroup.
The answer is that he only uses this newsgroup to plug
his commercial blogspot web site. He might not even
be aware of Monty or Monty's crackpot theories
about saturated fat. And if he was aware, he might
not respond because that would be a waste of his
time, because it would not contribute toward driving
traffic to his blogspot web site.

> > I'd be doing this under any conditions in which
> > I saw somebody falsely posing as an expert,
> > and handing out very bad advice.

> What is the bad advice? (Remember, I don't take any prescription > medications).

You might not be harmed by Dave's advice, but
certainly other people could be harmed or killed,
and Dave has not shown the least concern that
that could happen. Here are two examples of harmful
or fatal advice I pointed out (originally addressed
to Dave):

Take the recent case of curcumin, for which you wrote
an "article" extolling its virtues. Did you leave out
the information that it is an inhibitor of the two most
important drug-metabolizing and drug-transporting enzymes
(CYP3A4 and P-gp) because you were ignorant of that, or
did you leave it out because you didn't want to hurt
sales of curcumin-based supplements? Curcumin can
increase the potency of drugs by retarding their
transport out of the body and destruction in the liver.
For drugs with a low therapeutic index (small difference
between an effective dose and a lethal dose), this
could have disasterous consequences. When I provide
this information, you call that "trolling".

As another example, you recently posted an "article"
on tocotrienols, which have the reverse effect. They
activate the steroid and xenobiotic receptor (SXR)
which increases the expression of CYP3A4, the main
drug-metabolizing enzyme in the liver. Other SXR
activators have been shown to cause diminished
effectiveness of drugs, resulting in failure of
contraceptive drugs to prevent pregnancy and failure
of the anti-rejection drug cyclosporine to prevent
organ rejection. Again, did you omit that information
because you were ignorant of it, or did you omit that
information because you were afraid it would hurt
the sales of tocotrienols? Which is it, Dave?

What a bonehead. I'm serious, Mark, you simply keep a bunch of the
same old crap and reuse the paragraphs over and over. If the
definition of a spammer is someone who wastes people's time and the
Internet's resources, that's you in a nutshell.

I take curcumin every day, Mark, and it is important to me. I don't
take any drugs, but if I did, I would ask my doc about it just like
every single piece of advice you get from pharma companies or
supplement companies. You don't mix and match without talking to a
doctor -- now, so what! People here KNOW THAT. You don't need to come
here and start a flame war. People are here to discuss the
alternatives to pharmaceuticals. If you want to discuss pharma
products, start a thread about how great SSRI's are or something (I'm
sure you must be on them) and then we can come in and comment about
the ALTERNATIVES to those pharma products. Isn't that what is supposed
to happen here? A discussion is supposed to take place, not a huge
trail of yelling, with copies to other newsgroups that remain dazed
and confused about what the issue is in the first place because they
never saw the post. Sometimes it feels like you make a nickel out of
every time you see your name in print, and so you are purposely trying
to spread your "gospel" all over the net.

I will continue, as always, to post my commentary or reprint an
article on this forum and a couple of others I read, on a regular
basis. If I post an article from my non-commercial blog (a bunch of
personal opinions, which I am entitled to in a free country) than I
will put a link to the original text just as anyone else would.

Give it a rest.

Dave

I second that. Very well put.
Sadly he can't stop himself. He is a lackey for Quack Barrett.

.

Relevant Pages