RE: causes of inflammation

January 23, 2006

Suze-

>THanks . Unfortunately he needs to have both hips replaced so CMO may

>not be the right thing for him now

I think it could only help, but if he's in need of a double hip

replacement I don't expect it would be the whole answer by a very

long shot, though I don't really know anything whatsoever about hip

replacement except for a sad story about a guy who had his hips

removed and then couldn't get his replacements for a long time

because of an infection and so had to lay in bed for months unable to

move and probably looking rather silly with all that bone mass

missing from the middle of his body. Sorry to hear your dad has

trouble like that. That sucks.

-

January 23, 2006

Suze,

> You are such a dear, as usual. Thanks for your detailed reply to my post.

> Even when I don't reply to your posts, know that I *greatly* appreciate your

> opinions and comments - every one of 'em! :-)

Thanks, and you're welcome! :-)

> This is very interesting about fats, carbs and proteins being converted to

> one another. I had no idea!

Well, as and I settled afterwards, notice that it isn't a simple

process of flipping one back and forth, but they are broken down into

common components that can be used to synthesize one another. That's

why you can get fat from eating carbs.

> Huh? I just checked out that first " study " -

> http://www.enzymecompany.com/The_Enzyme_Compant_Research_Department.pdf and

> saw nary a political statement. Nothing, nada. Just the science behind the

> experiment and the experiment itself. I also checked out the second study

> thinking maybe the first one wasn't a " study " (the second one ws nutritional

> support of cardiac patients) and again found nothing political. Were you

> looking at a different link?

Well the first odd thing about the study is that they use random

capitalization of words they find important, which was pretty popular

in the 1700s but is a little bit quirkish, to say the least, nowadays.

Then they actually momentarily bring up the " controversy created by

issues such as spontaneous creation versus purposeful development

versus divine creation, " even though they say they don't wish to get

into it, it's a little philosophical for a research paper... you know,

just to point out why publication of something like this might get

rejected by a scientific journal.

In any case, on page two when they bring up their second " touchy

subject " they have this to say:

" Since the last century, when biology became a budding science in its

own right, to this date the great majority of its exponents

pontificate that required characteristics can not be transmitted

genetically, Many [sic] highly promising intellectuals have been

ruthlessly degraded and driven from the ranks by the merciless

scientific establishment, whose power focuses only on their own well

understood and clearly defined interests. Their self-appointed

righteousness, determined to inflict devastating blows on any

opposition, makes no allowance for errors in their own Postulates

[sic] leaving the Authors [sic] no other alternative, than to

challenge such Postulation [sic] and expose the feebleness of the

Premises [sic] on which it is based. "

That's not political? Are you for real? Their fondness for rogue

capitalization really gives one the Impression that they in their

Glorious Authorship have delusions of Grandeur.

LOL

>

> With the kind

> >of sesationalist air that they effect in the introduction, I have zero

> >confidence that they could maintain any remote type of objectivity

> >when dealing with the patients, and wouldn't be surprised if they

> >purposefully whipped up euphoric feelings in the patients a la

> >televangelist hysteria when conducting this " study. "

>

> Again, I have no idea what you were looking at. Do you recall the link?

> Every one of the studies at the link I provided

> http://www.enzymecompany.com/ seem to only contain info about the studies

> themselves.

Did you read them or just scan them? If the former, have you read

other studies by real scientists in real journals? You can't really

miss the difference.

You don't think if you were a patient in a non-controlled non-placebo

trial, where you were directed that you were about to be given a cure

that was being kept from the world only by the feeble Pontificators

who seek to mercilessly suppress every attempt at Nobleness and to

crush the Ability of the many who seek true health to achieve it, part

of a monumental experiment that would overturn, in a grand Revolution,

the malcontents and vociferous Suppressors of Truth who hold tight the

reigns of the Establishment, you might not be a little bit more

susceptible to the placebo effect than usual?

> Again, I would need to see what link you are referring to. One question

> though, are you saying that you think the only studies of any value are

> placebo-controlled and blinded?

Um, yeah, uncontrolled experiments aren't worth much. It's 2006. In

the 1910s Price was using rigorous controls in all his experiments,

and a great portion of NAPD was about using controlls -- for example,

controlling for genetics by investigating to closely placed towns with

similar genetic stock, or looking at one family, before and after the

introduction of foods. It's a basic necessity of scientific

investigation. Blinded helps, but is difficult. It's certainly very

important if the endpoints being measured are subjective. If they're

quantifiable, it's less important.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

January 23, 2006

Chris-

LOL! Positively Swiftian!

>You don't think if you were a patient in a non-controlled non-placebo

>trial, where you were directed that you were about to be given a cure

>that was being kept from the world only by the feeble Pontificators

>who seek to mercilessly suppress every attempt at Nobleness and to

>crush the Ability of the many who seek true health to achieve it, part

>of a monumental experiment that would overturn, in a grand Revolution,

>the malcontents and vociferous Suppressors of Truth who hold tight the

>reigns of the Establishment, you might not be a little bit more

>susceptible to the placebo effect than usual?

-

January 23, 2006

>> This is very interesting about fats, carbs and proteins being

>converted to

>> one another. I had no idea!

>

>Well, as and I settled afterwards, notice that it isn't a simple

>process of flipping one back and forth, but they are broken down into

>common components that can be used to synthesize one another. That's

>why you can get fat from eating carbs.

Right, I caught that, and was already aware of the conversion of carbs to

fats.

>

>> Huh? I just checked out that first " study " -

>>

>http://www.enzymecompany.com/The_Enzyme_Compant_Research_Department.pdf and

>> saw nary a political statement. Nothing, nada. Just the science

>behind the

>> experiment and the experiment itself. I also checked out the second study

>> thinking maybe the first one wasn't a " study " (the second one ws

>nutritional

>> support of cardiac patients) and again found nothing political. Were you

>> looking at a different link?

>

>Well the first odd thing about the study is that they use random

>capitalization of words they find important, which was pretty popular

>in the 1700s but is a little bit quirkish, to say the least, nowadays.

Ah, I see what you are talking about. It seems like they are capitalizing

all words beginning with " P " for instance.

> Then they actually momentarily bring up the " controversy created by

>issues such as spontaneous creation versus purposeful development

>versus divine creation, " even though they say they don't wish to get

>into it, it's a little philosophical for a research paper... you know,

>just to point out why publication of something like this might get

>rejected by a scientific journal.

I totally agree such statements don't have a place in a research paper. I

didn't see that passage as I just scanned the article before I replied to

you.

>

>In any case, on page two when they bring up their second " touchy

>subject " they have this to say:

>

> " Since the last century, when biology became a budding science in its

>own right, to this date the great majority of its exponents

>pontificate that required characteristics can not be transmitted

>genetically, Many [sic] highly promising intellectuals have been

>ruthlessly degraded and driven from the ranks by the merciless

>scientific establishment, whose power focuses only on their own well

>understood and clearly defined interests. Their self-appointed

>righteousness, determined to inflict devastating blows on any

>opposition, makes no allowance for errors in their own Postulates

>[sic] leaving the Authors [sic] no other alternative, than to

>challenge such Postulation [sic] and expose the feebleness of the

>Premises [sic] on which it is based. "

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't see that either. I actually hadn't

read that " study " at all when I first looked at the site and obviously

didn't scan it closely enough when i just looked at it earlier to notice

such statements!

>

>That's not political?

Yup. it IS.

>Are you for real?

Nope, I'm a figment of your imagination ;-)

Their fondness for rogue

>capitalization really gives one the Impression that they in their

>Glorious Authorship have delusions of Grandeur.

>

>LOL

Heh. Their grammar is pretty bad too, now that I take a closer look.

>

>>

>> With the kind

>> >of sesationalist air that they effect in the introduction, I have zero

>> >confidence that they could maintain any remote type of objectivity

>> >when dealing with the patients, and wouldn't be surprised if they

>> >purposefully whipped up euphoric feelings in the patients a la

>> >televangelist hysteria when conducting this " study. "

Certainly quite possible.

>

>> Again, I have no idea what you were looking at. Do you recall the link?

>> Every one of the studies at the link I provided

>> http://www.enzymecompany.com/ seem to only contain info about the studies

>> themselves.

>

>Did you read them or just scan them? If the former, have you read

>other studies by real scientists in real journals? You can't really

>miss the difference.

I had read the Chernobyl one, which doesn't have political references in it

and the only rogue capitalizing is of the elements discussed, but then it

was written by natives of Belarus it seems, so perhaps their command of

English isn't spectacular. I only scanned some of the others. Yes, I've read

studies in scientific journals and certainly can see the difference. I noted

the difference in fact in one of my posts in this thread, but it was in

regards to the lack of control in the study I was talking about (Chernobyl)

but not in regards to political statements (in the " study " you referenced).

That would've stood out to me like a sore thumb had I seen it.

Having said that, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I started using

AOX/PLX based on the recommendation of a vet whom I have a great deal of

respect for and whom I consider to be the foremost expert on treating cancer

in pets. (I took my dog to him for cancer treatments.) He'd written in his

book that he's had great success using AOX/PLX in place of prednisone, so I

started using the dose conversion he provided with Mokie and it appeared to

help reduce her pain from her inflamed disks. My brother has also used it

for years and believes it's really helped his dog with serious inflammation

issues too. When he reduced the dose, his dog's pain noticably increased.

Based on Dr. Goldstein's clinical experience with it, and my and my

brother's experience with it, I tend to think it's something worth

continuing, even despite the above-refernced politically-flavored " study " .

It's a shame the company just doesn't do a well controlled, apolitical

study, but lack thereof, of course, doesn't necessarily mean the product

doesn't do what it's purported to do. But it certainly does make it less

desirable, especially if someone's not familiar with anyone's clinical or

personal experience with it.