The Old Ones (Found On A Private Forum, Probably Not Exclusive Buit Cool/Kewl)

Not to mention Helen Keller!

If you (not you - Bill S. I mean the public form of 'you'. English is a bitch, eh?) haven't heard of her, you really need to look her up!

John ;-#)#

"natural

mins - "Vitamin B" turned out to be a grab-bag of eight different compounds , which is why you now have vitamin B-12

he same way no matter how they were made.

, in the vitamin you are taking, but that isn't a natural/unnatural distinc tion - "natural products" are, if anything, more prone to unfortunate impur ities.

.

Vitamin B-12?

includes retinol, retinal, retinoic acid, and several provitamin A caroten oids (most notably beta-carotene)."

retinol but isn't a vitamin because you can't absorb it directly.

with respect a) I was quoting a 3rd party b) your point is immaterial, there is more than one compound that provides Vitamin A, and that was my point all along.

ascorbate and calcium ascorbate.[1] Vitamin C molecules can also be bound t o the fatty acid palmitate, creating ascorbyl palmitate, or else incorporat ed into liposomes.[83]"

doing the same job.

about which salt you take is a waste of time.

ie there are several compounds that all provide vitamin C, as said earlier.

of this, and anyone that doesn't but has a brain cell can do the reading.

are an ignorant sucker who has been sold a bill of goods.

I can't be bothered to ask which bill of goods you refer to

t chemistry. Having parents who both had university degrees in chemistry go t me off to a good start, and left me well-primed on how to be rude about h alf-baked ideas (of the kind I came up with when I was twelve).

and how, as usual, to be overconfident and undereducated

tificial only. It is simply incorrect to state that artificial and natural vitamins are the exact same compounds.

particular configuration of atoms - once you've got it you've got something with the same chemical activity. If you don't understand that, you've fail ed to understand what chemistry is about.

you're being incredibly stupid with that subtopic

t makes

r

ess

uires

that we don't know the full list of human requirements. Certainly looking at RDAs doesn't get you there.

hey obviously don't tell us anything about what we don't know.

re are also grey area nutrients eg B17, silver, gold, cannabinoids and many others.

esented by quack doctors, and can kill you if you take enough of it.

ve sense.

It's just wrong. Too many people have recovered from cancer through taking it for your position to be right. You'll never get that because you're convinced that the 'how it is' that yo u were taught in childhood must be correct. But it's not.

even on the nutrients everyone agrees are essential. Also the RDA doesn't e ven attempt to provide optimum intake levels.

ly intakes, though the Australian National Health and Medical Research Coun cil got cold feet about theirs in 2005.

the only route that might pick up differences in health associated with di fferences in food intake,

t populations looked at.

is that you don't need as much vitamin D in sunny areas as you do where it 's dark for months on end. There are many other interactions between nutrie nt intake & other factors.

ve in Sydney, which is pretty sunny, and still have to take twice the recom mended dose of vitamin D pills to keep my blood serum levels high enough to make my GP happy.

ey do need to be treated as broad-brush generalisations.

blanket nutritional recommendations are very far from silly.

k of

often > > > > > turns out to be not.

on themselves with vitamin B17, but the unreasonable health authorities won 't let them.

disagreed with by someone that knows jack about the topic. So what.

to escape unreason. It's the human norm.

y fond of it.

careful reading to learn about the subjects he pontificates about he'd post less nonsense and get reviled less often.

Shrug, I don't agree at all. But that's typical of you.

the subject isn't a great way of making yourself look clever.

I've not pontificated about chemistry, and your Ph.D. did not educate you s ufficiently well on the relevant material.

rvision than I had, and dropped it to move into electronics. I got the Ph.D . in Physical Chemistry before moving into electronics.

d "natural

tamins - "Vitamin B" turned out to be a grab-bag of eight different compoun ds, which is why you now have vitamin B-12

the same way no matter how they were made.

es, in the vitamin you are taking, but that isn't a natural/unnatural disti nction - "natural products" are, if anything, more prone to unfortunate imp urities.

it.

s Vitamin B-12?

at includes retinol, retinal, retinoic acid, and several provitamin A carot enoids (most notably beta-carotene)."

m retinol but isn't a vitamin because you can't absorb it directly.

And clearly didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

s Vitamin A, and that was my point all along.

My point about retinoic acid was that it was listed as a source of vitamin A, and isn't because you can't absorb it, even though you metabolise retino l - Vitamin A-1 - to produce retinoic acid where you need it,

You were citing irrelevant crap that didn't support your point, and should have known it.

m ascorbate and calcium ascorbate.[1] Vitamin C molecules can also be bound to the fatty acid palmitate, creating ascorbyl palmitate, or else incorpor ated into liposomes.[83]"

y, doing the same job.

g about which salt you take is a waste of time.

r.

No. Vitamin C is the ascorbate anion. Your several compounds are just diffe rent ways of delivering the same compound, and unnatural versus natural don 't make any difference, which is what you were trying to claim.

re of this, and anyone that doesn't but has a brain cell can do the reading .

u are an ignorant sucker who has been sold a bill of goods.

The people who tell you this sort of story also tell you that their expensi ve "natural" formulation is much better than cheaper sources of exactly the same material,

out chemistry. Having parents who both had university degrees in chemistry got me off to a good start, and left me well-primed on how to be rude about half-baked ideas (of the kind I came up with when I was twelve).

Having got through the education process to the point of getting a Ph.D. I' m probably not under-educated. I'm confident enough to call you a half-wit, which may be more confident than you like, and you are silly enough not re alise that you really are being a half-wit here.

artificial only. It is simply incorrect to state that artificial and natura l vitamins are the exact same compounds.

a particular configuration of atoms - once you've got it you've got somethi ng with the same chemical activity. If you don't understand that, you've fa iled to understand what chemistry is about.

The stupidity is all yours. You do resent being called stupid, but the corr ect solution would be to learn enough to avoid posting stupid errors.

presented by quack doctors, and can kill you if you take enough of it.

tive sense.

g it for your position to be right.

People recover from cancer for all sorts of reasons. Search on "spontaneous remission". People who sell laetrile do exploit this, but they also lie.

you were taught in childhood must be correct. But it's not.

I was taught scepticism as a kid, and how to test "how it is" explanations. You clearly weren't. Don't project.

ic

ison themselves with vitamin B17, but the unreasonable health authorities w on't let them.

You've studied the subject in detail, but with a gullible eye.

You don't have do a particularly detailed study to recognise a profitable s now job when you see it, but somebody coping with cancer, or with relative coping with cancer, is a little more predisposed to be sucked in - the prop aganda is tailored to suck them in.

il to escape unreason. It's the human norm.

ery fond of it.

h careful reading to learn about the subjects he pontificates about he'd po st less nonsense and get reviled less often.

Of course you don't. Your self-image isn't of a gullible idiot.

n the subject isn't a great way of making yourself look clever.

sufficiently well on the relevant material.

Dream on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

e:

:

e:

e it.

as Vitamin B-12?

that includes retinol, retinal, retinoic acid, and several provitamin A car otenoids (most notably beta-carotene)."

rom retinol but isn't a vitamin because you can't absorb it directly.

des Vitamin A, and that was my point all along.

n A, and isn't because you can't absorb it, even though you metabolise reti nol - Vitamin A-1 - to produce retinoic acid where you need it,

d have known it.

that beta carotene also provides vitamin A is very basic stuff. Keep flanne lling if you want.

ium ascorbate and calcium ascorbate.[1] Vitamin C molecules can also be bou nd to the fatty acid palmitate, creating ascorbyl palmitate, or else incorp orated into liposomes.[83]"

ody, doing the same job.

ing about which salt you take is a waste of time.

ier.

ferent ways of delivering the same compound,

I see we have at least some agreement

were trying to claim.

With respect you've yet to comprehend what I claimed. Instead you've gone o ff on an idiotic straw man.

ware of this, and anyone that doesn't but has a brain cell can do the readi ng.

you are an ignorant sucker who has been sold a bill of goods.

sive "natural" formulation is much better than cheaper sources of exactly t he same material,

Ah, no I've not bought into that in any shape or form whatsoever. But thank you for telling me what I think when you obviously don't know what I think . It's the hallmark of idiots that think themselves smart.

about chemistry. Having parents who both had university degrees in chemistr y got me off to a good start, and left me well-primed on how to be rude abo ut half-baked ideas (of the kind I came up with when I was twelve).

I'm probably not under-educated.

on some matters no doubt. Only some.

than you like, and you are silly enough not realise that you really are bei ng a half-wit here.

when you've managed to figure out what I'm claiming or think get back to me . You'll probably be back in the kf by then though - not that you'll ever f igure it out.

e artificial only. It is simply incorrect to state that artificial and natu ral vitamins are the exact same compounds.

h a particular configuration of atoms - once you've got it you've got somet hing with the same chemical activity. If you don't understand that, you've failed to understand what chemistry is about.

rrect solution would be to learn enough to avoid posting stupid errors.

the correct solution is for me to kf you and not waste further time on your idiotic straw men. I soon will.

represented by quack doctors, and can kill you if you take enough of it.

ective sense.

ing it for your position to be right.

yes

I don't need to thank you. I'm not the moron you imagine

t you were taught in childhood must be correct. But it's not.

s. You clearly weren't. Don't project.

wrong again

ogic

poison themselves with vitamin B17, but the unreasonable health authorities won't let them.

snow job when you see it, but somebody coping with cancer, or with relativ e coping with cancer, is a little more predisposed to be sucked in - the pr opaganda is tailored to suck them in.

whoosh

fail to escape unreason. It's the human norm.

very fond of it.

ugh careful reading to learn about the subjects he pontificates about he'd post less nonsense and get reviled less often.

no, of course. There are reasons for that.

in the subject isn't a great way of making yourself look clever.

ou sufficiently well on the relevant material.

well, if you'd even udnerstood what I said it might be in some vague way wo rth discussing.

NT

ote:

te:

ote:

ide it.

ct as Vitamin B-12?

s that includes retinol, retinal, retinoic acid, and several provitamin A c arotenoids (most notably beta-carotene)."

from retinol but isn't a vitamin because you can't absorb it directly.

vides Vitamin A, and that was my point all along.

min A, and isn't because you can't absorb it, even though you metabolise re tinol - Vitamin A-1 - to produce retinoic acid where you need it,

uld have known it.

nelling if you want.

Beta-carotene can be cleaved in the duodenum to produce retinol - vitamin A

2. Somewhere between 9% and 22% of the beta-carotene that goes in comes out as retinol - which is what we actually use.

Vitamin A isn't a mysterious mix of chemicals - it's a single chemical whic h you can get directly or from precursors that you can metabolise to Vitami n A.

Your link went through retinol - which is vitamin A1, and happens to be an alcohol, to retinal in which the alcohol group has got oxidised to an aldeh yde group - which is simple enough conceptually, but for which we don't see m to an enzyme - to retinoic acid when the alcohol group has been further o xidised to a carboxylic acid group, which happens when we metabolise retino l, but that has to happen in the right place, because we can't metabolise r etinoic acid when it come in via our gut.

It then went on to mention carotenes, but I'd lost patience by that point.

As I said, the link you provided didn't support the claim you made, and you r incapacity to recognise this is not "flannelling" but a basic failure to understand what you are talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Exactly. So we can take more than one possible substance, either of which provides us with vitamin A. That was my point, but it seems you've invented your own.

Time wasting snipped.

NT

ote:

provide it.

effect as Vitamin B-12?

ounds that includes retinol, retinal, retinoic acid, and several provitamin A carotenoids (most notably beta-carotene)."

body from retinol but isn't a vitamin because you can't absorb it directly.

provides Vitamin A, and that was my point all along.

vitamin A, and isn't because you can't absorb it, even though you metabolis e retinol - Vitamin A-1 - to produce retinoic acid where you need it,

should have known it.

flannelling if you want.

in A1.

t as retinol - which is what we actually use.

"Vitamin A isn't a mysterious mix of chemicals - it's a single chemical whi ch you can get directly or from precursors that you can metabolise to Vitam in A.

Your link went through retinol - which is vitamin A1, and happens to be an alcohol, to retinal in which the alcohol group has got oxidised to an aldeh yde group - which is simple enough conceptually, but for which we don't see m to an enzyme - to retinoic acid when the alcohol group has been further o xidised to a carboxylic acid group, which happens when we metabolise retino l, but that has to happen in the right place, because we can't metabolise r etinoic acid when it come in via our gut.

It then went on to mention carotenes, but I'd lost patience by that point.

As I said, the link you provided didn't support the claim you made, and you r incapacity to recognise this is not "flannelling" but a basic failure to understand what you are talking about."

I've restored most of the text that I actually posted.

provides us with vitamin A. That was my point, but it seems you've invente d your own.

But the Vitamin A is a single chemical compound, and we know exactly what i t is.

Your point was that it was all mystery, and that natural sources were someh ow a better way of getting what we needed than buying the synthetic (or at least purified) chemical from the chemist.

It does take time to explain that your opinion is essentially fatuous mysti cism, and you don't want to read that, so it is wasted on you. My take is t hat you like having your head up your bottom, and actively resent any attem pt to put you in better contact with reality.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

that wasn't even vaguely my point. Rest of your time wasting snipped. Somehow you always manage to come back arguing with some moronic construct you've come up with. You're a total waste of time >99% of occasions.

But you can't be bothered going back and reposting the point that you did make, whatever it was.

This seems to have been what started it, back on the 6th June.

"Sure. And one of the issues with vitamins/minerals/nutrients is that we don't know the full list of human requirements. Certainly looking at RDAs doesn't get you there."

Sadly, the actual offending post seems to have been deleted - one has to wonder why.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

you've had nothing constructive to say whatsoever, so no I cba to make any effort for you.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my main point OR the crass stupidity you've been arguinng about

I doubt it. I've certainly not deleted any.

NT

One has to wonder what you would count as constructive. You'd have to understand it before you could count it as constructive, which may complicate the issue.

Since you can't articulate your main point - whatever it was - that particular bit of crass stupidity is now safely inaccessible.

Not intentionally, perhaps ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Debating Sloman is a disease. Get some professional help.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

In the US, college education is mostly an outrageously expensive "every kid gets a trophy" thing. Four years and a quarter million dollars gets you a degree in sociology, geography, ethnic studies, Drama and Theater Arts, philosophy, or anthropology, taught by a poorly paid adjunct or TA, or lately by a laptop computer.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

NT doesn't debate. He states his - frequently ludicrous - position, and ignores inconvenient counter-evidence.

John Larkin has a similar defect when it comes to debate - serious universities have debating societies, but Tulane clearly didn't. Tumbling they could manage.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney 
>  
>  
> --  
>  
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
>  
> lunatic fringe electronics

Actually, it doesn't.

" while close to 70 percent of high school graduates in the United States enroll in college within two years, only 57 percent graduate within six years. For low-income and minority students, the completion rate is closer to 45 percent."

Going to university is a gamble. You have only a slightly better than even change of spending your money and emerging with a degree.

People who do really well at secondary school do have a 95% chance of completing their studies, but that's the top 10% - one in seven of US high school graduates.

We happen to need more university graduates than we can get from the academically inclined, and the rest of the intake still has a better than even chance of getting the degree (if the close relatives think it is a good idea).

Sadly it isn't true that "every kid gets a trophy". Completing a university degree is an expensive signal of a particular sort of competence, which makes it a worthwhile exercise for those that can complete.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

you know what they say about repeating the same actions & expecting different results.

NT

There are an infinite number of foul old farts with nothing to do, who are happy to exchange insults all day. If you enjoy engaging them, Twitter is a better place to do it.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

He's already plonked.

NT

John Larkin does seem to be one of them. He's posted as much on this user-group as pretty much anybody - Jim Thompson may have posted more - and very little of it is constructive. He may not have nothing to do, but he clearly hasn't got enough to do.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney