Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:42 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 6022
Location: Mount Dora, Florida
Saturday my team gave a demonstration at an open house celebration. One of the guests (Chinese gentleman around 64 years old) brought with him a special juicer that created juice from wheat grass. He said it was a very good health drink.... cleaned out one's system, etc.

Anyone hear about this who can offer more information as to whether it actually has any health benefits?

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1205
Why Yes.
Yes I can.
:wink: :lol:

Wheat Grass,
http://www.wheatgrass.com/
Green power
http://www.greenstar.com/
Aojiru (Tree Kale)
http://www.aojiruusa.com/english/e_spec.html
Green Magma
http://www.greengreengrass.com/green_magma.html

It's all the same.
Besides tasting like a shot of freshly mowed lawn clippings (Don't ask me how I know what freshly mowed lawn clippings tastes like) it's the same as anything else you eat.
It's just nutrients.
The purveyors of these kinds of products would have you believe that there is something unique or intrinsic about consuming "new" grass, or "live" vegetables extract, but in fact, your stomach neither cares, nor knows the difference.
As you know, simply put, your body breaks the food down to base components, takes what it needs, and either stores or eliminates the rest.

The reported energizing effects of some from drinking wheatgrass shots are likely to be psychological.

As well, most of these dealers claim that the product, "Detoxifies" the body, which is just plain wrong.
Foods DO NOT detoxify the body, your organs (like the liver and kidneys) do.
Whenever you hear the magic word "Detoxify", that is your signal to run for the hills.
Same goes for the claims that they prevent cancer.
Cancer risk IS associated with diet, but only certain kinds of food and only over the span of the persons' life. Doctors will tell you, that aside from genetics and environment, diet plays the least role on whether or not a person develops cancer.
Also, don't get caught in the web of "chlorophyll being a Miracle cure for all that ails and a battler against stroke and heart disease."
That part is complete nonsense.

Still, my take on it is, with these products, if one want to waste their money, they do not *appear* to contain anything harmful, and are probably as safe as taking at best a multivitamin.
But I'm not a doctor, so I'd recommend speaking with one fully before starting a regimen.

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 6022
Location: Mount Dora, Florida
and you are right, it does taste like freshly mowed grass clippings. (I used to chew on blades of grass as a kid... made me look "cool"!) :)

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:45 pm
Posts: 350
Metablade provides a link in one of his other anti-alternative medicine posts : http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01287.html . It is a link showing barley green reduces heart disease. Barley green is a liquid extract from fresh barley shoots (much like wheat grass), and the liquid is freeze dried for storage. The guy ( a Japanese MD) who created it did so as a cancer treatment. Although the FDA has a vested interest in "debunking" any products that conflict with the financial interests of pharmaceutical manufacturers, we ought to consider the message and not the messenger ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:45 pm
Posts: 350
-Metablade- wrote:
As well, most of these dealers claim that the product, "Detoxifies" the body, which is just plain wrong. Foods DO NOT detoxify the body, your organs (like the liver and kidneys) do. Whenever you hear the magic word "Detoxify", that is your signal to run for the hills. Same goes for the claims that they prevent cancer.
.


We need to "run for the hills" from peer review studies then, as peer reviewed medical journals report that "foods detoxify the body of cancer", here is a link to a peer reviewed journal from the National Library of Medicine. Glad to know those quacky medical doctors at the quacky cancer research center and the quacky National Library of Medicine are so quacky. QUICK - Alert Steve Barrett:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_docsum

Integr Cancer Ther. 2003 Jun;2(2):139-44.

Detoxifying cancer causing agents to prevent cancer.

Hanausek M, Walaszek Z, Slaga TJ.

AMC Cancer Research Center, Denver, CO 80214, USA. hanausekm@amc.org

Different vitamins and other micronutrients in vegetables, fruits, and other natural plant products may prevent cancer development (carcinogenesis) by interfering with detrimental actions of mutagens, carcinogens, and tumor promoters. The goal of current studies in cancer prevention is to determine the mechanisms of synergistic action of the natural source compounds known to inhibit one or more stages of carcinogenesis, that is, initiation and promotion/progression. Many natural cancer preventive agents are effective inhibitors of tumor initiation, promotion, and/or progression. The mechanism of action is related to their abilities to prevent critical carcinogen metabolism and to increase detoxification of carcinogens and tumor promoters. The authors review here the potential role of the detoxification system and, in particular, the roles of D-glucaric acid and the enzyme beta-glucuronidase in early detection and prevention of cancer. There is now growing evidence for the possible control of different stages of the cancer induction by inhibiting beta-glucuronidase with D-glucaric acid derivatives, especially with its salts (D-glucarates). D-Glucaric acid has been found in many vegetables and fruits. Therefore, the consumption of fruits and vegetables naturally rich in D-glucaric acid or self-medication with D-glucaric acid derivatives such as calcium D-glucarate offers a promising cancer prevention approach.


Last edited by Bruise* Lee on Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:45 pm
Posts: 350
-Metablade- wrote:

Foods DO NOT detoxify the body, .....Same goes for the claims that they prevent cancer.... Doctors will tell you, ...diet plays the least role on whether or not a person develops cancer.
.


Can you believe those medical doctor researchers suggesting that foods detoxify the body? Quacks. Or how about these that suggest foods prevent or suppress cancer? Someone better tell them that food plays the least role in cancer suppression so they can get the results of the next study correct as these appear to be in error:


Biomed Environ Sci. 2003 Mar;16(1):9-16.

Calcium glucarate prevents tumor formation in mouse skin.

Singh J, Gupta KP.

Environmental Carcinogenesis Division, Industrial Toxicology Research Center,

OBJECTIVE: Calcium Glucarate (Cag), Ca salt of D-glucaric acid is a naturally occurring non-toxic compound present in fruits, vegetables and seeds of some plants, and suppress tumor growth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:45 pm
Posts: 350
-Metablade- wrote:

Foods DO NOT detoxify the body, your organs (like the liver and kidneys) do. Whenever you hear the magic word "Detoxify", that is your signal to run for the hills.
Same goes for the claims that they prevent cancer.
Cancer risk IS associated with diet, but only certain kinds of food and only over the span of the persons' life. Doctors will tell you, ... diet plays the least role on whether or not a person develops cancer.
.


Can you believe how many medical researchers claim that foods detoxify the body? Gosh and MD Anderson is considered one of the premier cancer research centers in the USA and world - who would think we have to run to the hills from these quacks - who can you trust?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_docsum

Cancer Detect Prev. 1997;21(2):178-90.

Metabolism, uptake, and excretion of a D-glucaric acid salt and its potential use in cancer prevention.

Walaszek Z, Szemraj J, Narog M, Adams AK, Kilgore J, Sherman U, Hanausek M.

University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park-Research Division, Smithville, USA.

D-Glucaric acid (GA) is a nontoxic, natural compound. One of its derivatives is the potent beta-glucuronidase inhibitor D-glucaro-1,4-lactone (1,4-GL). The goal of this study was to demonstrate the in vivo formation of 1,4-GL from a D-glucarate salt and determine its metabolism, uptake by selected organs, and excretion following oral administration of potassium hydrogen D-[14C]glucarate to male and female Sprague-Dawley rats. 1,4-GL increases detoxification of carcinogens and tumor promoters/progressors by inhibiting beta-glucuronidase and preventing hydrolysis of their glucuronides. 1,4-GL and its precursors, such as potassium hydrogen D-glucarate and calcium D-glucarate, may exert their anticancer action, in part,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1205
OOoOOOooOohh Sardonic Diatribe!
I like! I like!
:lol:

I provided the links for two reasons:
1. To show a differing point of view to let the reader decide for themselves.

2. To show the nuttiness of these products as self evident.
Obviously this is more difficult for some to grasp.

I'm not sure what your point is.
Yes, VEGETABLES are proven to have a slew of health benefits when eaten properly, and have shown to reduce the risk of MANY diseases, not just cancer.

So, that being said,
Why not just eat your 9 servings a day of veggies as the FDA food guide recommends, INSTEAD of entrusting your dietary requirements to a commercial "health food" company?
..Because...it's....a....religion!...

I mean, seriously, what makes more sense?
Eating a cup of raw, or steamed broccoli (A super food)
Or slamming a condensed pill or some freeze dried powder?

Also, what scientists DON'T know, is:
How much:
How long:
What amounts:

Are effective.
Also, science will also tell you, that NO food alone will prevent cancer.
Your risk to cancel is primarily genetic, then environmental, then diet, not the other way around as the quacks would have you believe.
Go ahead.
Print this page, go to your doctor (REAL Doctor) that is, and ask her/him to verify.
Because they will.
They will also tell you that eating lots of fresh, green, veggies, will beat ANY diet supplement any day of the week regardless of the goofy claims that are made.

Merry Christmas!

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:45 pm
Posts: 350
-Metablade- wrote:
Also, don't get caught in the web of "chlorophyll being a ..... battler against stroke and heart disease." That part is complete nonsense.
.


More of that peer reviewed quack research on metal porphyrins ( cholorophyll is a metal porphyrin) showing that it protects the myocardium (heart muscle) against reprefusion damage and lipids from oxidation (the main problem with LDL or bad cholesterol)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_docsum

This study shows that chemicals that interfere with chlorophyll useage in our body results in damaged heart walls (VSD) : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_docsum


How do you spell QUACK? I guess you spell it JOHNS HOPKINS as this study from there suggest chlorophyll has "disease protective affects" : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_docsum


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:45 pm
Posts: 350
-Metablade- wrote:
1) I'm not sure what your point is.

........
2) Why not just eat your 9 servings a day of veggies as the FDA food guide recommends, INSTEAD of entrusting your dietary requirements to a commercial "health food" company?
..Because...it's....a....religion!...



1) Sorry that I could not make it clear in the midst of having some fun. My point is that you said a food could not be used to detoxify the body - and my point was to provide links that in the researchers own words said that the foods detoxified the body of carcinogens. You see what I did there? You are (as am I ) a staunch supporter of peer reviewed studies (although I look with caution to the validity of the quality of the research and whether it is untainted by financial gain- and I tend to look at such sources evenly, not just accepting those that support my opinion while refusing to look at research that might refute my opinion - such as your refusal to look at research in the thread you started wanting to legalize marijuana***) - so I used your own link and links to peer reviewed research to turn the tables on you - your statement was that foods cannot be used to detoxify the body and peeer reviewed medical researchers say they can. It is funny to me in several ways, one of them is irony - I find it ironic that medical experts (or as you might call them "real doctors") say the opposite of what you say. Its an ironic twist , see?

2) I am about as diligent a person as it gets when it comes to a good diet.... and I don't usually eat 9 servings a day of vegetables. Yesterday I did - I ate 6 bowels of vegetable soup just prior to doing a few surgeries. Today I was rushed and ate a protein bar prior to removing a melanoma. These food concentrates such as wheat grass can supplement the American diet. Yeah 9 servings a day would be great (other than the gas most people would have with that much fiber), but I don't know anyone who does that.

I guess you are allowed to call peer reviewed studies a religion - it seems few other than you and Barrett know what truth is when it comes to health. Your obvious disagreements with medical researchers at MD Anderson , Johns Hopkins and other places proves that point.

*** If I remember right you proposed that marijuana had a host of medical benefits? Although you showed no real links to research to back this quack notion - perhaps you only think plants have health benefits if smoked - maybe we should smoke our wheat grass ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:18 am 
Bruise* Lee wrote:
Its an ironic twist , see?

Meta: Indeed.
The irony was that you failed to comprehend the flaws in the paragraphs you had supplied.

The first of which you posted;
-contained the following errors pertaining to your argument:
1. As far as I can tell, the study was conducted in mice and rats. Not humans.

2. The article was published in 2000. It is now almost 2006.
The lack of update may indicate that the study is not currently being pursued, or no new breakthroughs have been forthcoming. The information from what I could see, was indeed inconclusive, and lacking many important details.

3. The language written in the document is not for the layperson, therefore nullifying its direct use as a viable reference.
Generally speaking, If you can't make your point so that even the causal observer can understand them, you will have massive difficulty in communicating your ideas.

4. As well, the paragraph contained no supportive data of the conclusions and how they were arrived at.
No details on whom, what, when, where, why..Etc is provided.

If your intention was to point out empirical evidence showing that minerals and nutrients detoxify the body and rather not as a result of organ function, then I fail to see at this time where you have succeeded, unless you are by inference, suggesting that the mere existence of the article is proof enough.

On the second and 3rd article I will say this:
I think you missed the point of my argument.
Yes, vegetables and other plants good for you.
That’s why you should eat tons of them!
That point was never in dispute.
What I dispute is in: Which form these is taken to be effective most, how much is effective, for how long, etc.
The mind of reason would say:
Slamming wheat grass a couple times a week isn't like taking a "Magic Bullet" or some “Super banzai health shot”.
It's not going to magically cure you, or make you live forever, or do any of the miracle benefits \ other than do the same (Or not as effective) job as eating a normal, healthy diet which contains the suggested allowance FDA requirements. (Which are purposely set a bit high by the way.)

You mentioned that you eat energy bars.
I would argue that these are not the best for you. (Details if pressed)
Perhaps you might say: "Well, I'm too busy to cook or eat as I should."
This is an excuse many Americans make these days.
While true, most of us work longer than our parents did (I work 12 14 hour days myself.)
However, I would argue that if you are concerned about overall lifelong health where diet plays a role, then one should make time, watch what they eat, and try to eat a well balanced diet. Too many Americans these days are taken in by companies offering quick meals, pills, capsules, powders, shakes, etc..
Does eating a pill or chomping a candy bar (Excuse me: Power bar) sound better for example over eating a nice piece of fish or other lean meat with a salad or other veggie of choice? Which sounds more reasonable? Don’t have time? You need to make time. It’s important, and if you chose not to, trust me on this: It will catch up with you.
If you eat a well balance diet every day, you will never need a supplement. (Unless you have a specific and legitimate Medical Ailment which necessitates the need for them.
The vast majority of Americans do not need supplements, though the health food industry claims we all do. Of course they will say that! They want to make money!
With my own busy schedule, do you know what my fast food is?
An apple.

Bruise* Lee wrote:
2) I am about as diligent a person as it gets when it comes to a good diet.... and I don't usually eat 9 servings a day of vegetables. Yesterday I did - I ate 6 bowels of vegetable soup just prior to doing a few surgeries.


Meta: 6 "bowels", you say? of.....vegitable soup, you say?
I....I...am certain that was a typo.


:lol:

But was it homemade? or canned?
(If canned, I advise looking at the sodium content.)
BTW: Are you implying that you are a surgeon?
May I ask, what is your profession?
You appear to be highly versed in the terminology.

Bruise* Lee wrote:
Today I was rushed and ate a protein bar prior to removing a melanoma. These food concentrates such as wheat grass can supplement the American diet.


Meta: Specifically, why a protein bar and not a piece of fruit, or a cup of veggies microwaved? Takes 30 seconds, and perhaps less to eat.
I think when Americans say: “I don’t have time to eat, what they really mean is, “I’m too lazy to make/prepare my food.”
But on the issue of supplementation, why should anyone need to "supplement" their diet?
If you eat properly, you'll get all the nutriment you could ever require.

Bruise* Lee wrote:
Yeah 9 servings a day would be great (other than the gas most people would have with that much fiber), but I don't know anyone who does that.


Meta: You now know someone who follows that. Me! I eat well over 9 servings of veggies a day, and I am not a vegetarian, and, I don’t spend a lot of time for food prep either. Perhaps 20 minutes a day. I also eat a Japanese diet, one which is arguably one of the healthiest there is. I imagine for Westerners, some it would be unacceptable by taste.
I could tell you about it sometime if you wish.
(BTW) BY demographics, Japanese people are the longest lived ethnic group on the planet. Hmmm.
Could be the Karate too. heehaw.

Bruise* Lee wrote:
I guess you are allowed to call peer reviewed studies a religion -


Meta: I should clarify.
The "health food", "alternative medicine" and fitness industry as a whole operate much like a religion. I will respect your intelligence and not go to the length of pointing out why.
(But I will if you like.)
That is what I was referring to.

Bruise* Lee wrote:
It seems few other than you and Barrett know what truth is when it comes to health.


Meta: I am wondering why you keep mentioning Stephen Barrett. Are you still stuck on what you read from a few criminals' websites? I have no personal connection with him.
I can dispense what he says (If it doesn't make sense or hold to reason or is unverifiable) just as quickly as I can dispense with Vitamin Hawkers like Dr. Jiro Endo.
Besides, OF COURSE he is going to say his product, which he sells, is the best there is, and evidence, this, and study that. If his product was truly the miricle of health that is claimed, he could make infinately more money selling it to an American Drug company than mongering it on a crappy static website. (Why is it that most "Miricle cure" product companies have really cheap-ass websites?)
:lol:

Bruise* Lee wrote:
Your obvious disagreements with medical researchers at MD Anderson , Johns Hopkins and other places proves that point.


Meta: I am afraid that is Incorrect again sir!
I never stated that I disagreed with those entities.
And I am CERTAIN that the researchers at MD Anderson , Johns Hopkins and other places would not constitute one article as rock hard irrefutable representation of their fine intuition. If indeed they themselves even dared consider themselves to be irrefutable., (or infallible for that matter.)
You make them sound simply quite papal, sir.

~Anyone besides me smell a bit of Ivory?
(Now THAT's an example of good irony!) :lol:


Bruise* Lee wrote:
*** If I remember right you proposed that marijuana had a host of medical benefits? Although you showed no real links to research to back this quack notion - perhaps you only think plants have health benefits if smoked - maybe we should smoke our wheat grass ;)


Meta:
If I've failed to provide a link on a subject which I make commentary one should do the simple research themselves.
One should not take issue for what I didn't provide, when I wasn't asked to. As far as I can tell, there was never any implied agreement that such a responsibility existed.
Your statement is invalid, and a bit insulting, and as an extra bit of illogic sir, you had the audacity to finish with a *wink*, as if you had proven some profound point.
Careful, or people will begin to mistake you for me!
There's only room from one know-it-all, obnoxious lout.
:lol:
But I must commend your excellence in reasoning! Bravo in your contempt for rationality, sir!(Clap Clap Clap)
Oh wait..Better finish with a :wink:
:lol:

..In any event,
Concerning uses for medical marijuana, previous uses are well documented, but since there are better drugs available these days, the DEA will gleefully forget the former, and use the latter to further aid its propaganda campaign. ~And it is propaganda.
You may have read the DEA's website on that matter.
It is the information contained at the site, and those like it which are both comedy and a tragedy, mainly because they show where the American Government, is failing in its maturity and responsibility to provide proper information to the American public,
Good AND Bad. For shame.

Here may be a better link, though by no means definitive, it at least makes an attempt to provide pros and cons:

http://tinyurl.com/create.php


To reiterate my position:

Eat your veggies.
:D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:24 am 
Also clarification:

When I blasted chlorophyll for not being a battler of cancer and heart disease, I *should* have properly stated that
IN IT OF ITSELF.
This is what I had originally meant.
I can see how it could have been misunderstood, written as it was.
I apologize if I was unclear.
I do that sometimes.


But knowing that, it still does not prove:
The effectivness of anything regarding wheat grass shots or wheat grass/vegitable suppliments are any better than just eating your veggies.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:52 am 
Anonymous wrote:
it still does not prove:
The effectivness of anything regarding wheat grass shots or wheat grass/vegitable suppliments are any better than just eating your veggies.


What do you mean "still does not prove .."? Nobody was trying to prove that - please stop trying to confuse the issue in every thread that you begin a debate in. No one said that wheat grass was more effective. And to suggest that was the point is to drag a red herring across the thread - and I have to point out that is what you do in most threads that end up in debate (ex. In the drugs and violence thread you post that legalizing marijuana it would "cripple" organized crime at all levels and reduce the incidence of use of drugs - and then instead of debating that point, it turns into a debate on the health effects of marijuana - never establishing your original thesis with any sort of evidence or logic. ). "Red herring" is your main debate method, which is understandable since logic certainly isn't your forte.


The point was that you said "foods do not detoxify the body" and play no role in detoxification (wheat grass being a food supplement), and I posted a peer reviewed scientific paper which stated that in fact the foods do just that, that according to scientists you are dead wrong - now instead of admitting defeat (which would be the proper thing to do when proven wrong) you now try to reposition yourself and the argument- by trying to make it seem that your original point was that eating vegetables is as good or better than consuming food supplements. I am not going to let myself get drawn off on a tagent like Bill and others are wont to do, drawn off into endless debates with you that prove mere exercises in futility for those who allow themselves to be drawn along with no end in sight - if someone posts scientific research (as was done in the drugs and violence thread) that prove a point , you simply negate the point by claiming you have no way of accessing the orginal studies (since they cost money) and without you having the opportunity to view the original studies for free you will not consider the point (this is of course assumes that you have any training whatsoever or ability at all to interpret studies - which is an assumption since it appears you have no training in : 1) medicine 2) statistics and research methods.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:12 am 
Anonymous wrote:

A) The article was published in 2000. It is now almost 2006.
The lack of update may indicate that the study is not currently being pursued, or no new breakthroughs have been forthcoming.

B) The language written in the document is not for the layperson, therefore nullifying its direct use as a viable reference.

C) I think you missed the point of my argument.
Yes, vegetables and other plants good for you.
That’s why you should eat tons of them!
That point was never in dispute.
What I dispute is in: Which form these is taken to be effective most, how much is effective, for how long, etc.

D) BTW: Are you implying that you are a surgeon?
May I ask, what is your profession?


D) No, as I have mentioned several times previously I am a 4th year medical student - right now I am finishing my general surgery requirements.

C) I don't think I missed the point. It never was what form was the most effective, you said foods do not detoxify your body (which also necessarily therefore includes the opposite of such an absolute statement. Which is :foods cannot be toxic to the body. But on the contrary many foods are highly toxic - such as the Christmas time poinsettia)l. I don't think I missed the point - but I am cognizant of how you constantly obfuscate the argument (example given below).

B) I am sorry that I cannot find research that is dumbed down enough

A) of it can (more logically) indicate that the results of the study were considered conclusive. There is an old joke, which bares alot of truth that goes like this : how come the thing you are looking for is always in the last place you look? Because once you find it there is no more need to look. Instead of your leaping assumption, I think a more logical conclusion is, why keep studying something if all experts educated on the subject that reviewed the subject consider the results valid????

I think I am probably going to be done with this debate since there is no way to win since you will never concede a point when proven, and constatly derail the topics into different directions to avoid areas in which you have been proven wrong. The following is meant to be an exaggeration and is a fictional example, but nonetheless follows the format you use when debating :

Meta: The Sword is the only dangerous weapon known to man
Me : I think guns and the atomic bomb are also dangerous, according the such and such a study 20 million people have died to guns and the atomic bomb
Meta: Guns and bombs are not available to the average man, but I have a sword
Me: Guns and bombs are known to men, and they are dangerous
Meta : Yeah, but you missed my point, I said that swords are weapons with sharp sides and a point on the end, a gun does not have a sharp side...neither does a bomb. Its very illogical for you to try and say that guns and bombs have sharp sides and points on the end.
Me: What?!! I was never trying to prove that guns and bombs have sharp sides and a pointy end.
Meta : no you are wrong, bombs often have a pointy end, just no sharp sides
Me: what are you talking about, you said swords are the most dangerous weapon known to man
Meta : I think you did not understand my point, I said swords have a sharp side, but its true that guns and bombs are also dangerous, I think the real debate is what form of weapon is the most sharp - swords are sharp.

Nobody can win against someone who argues like that


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1205
Bruise Lee wrote:
D) No, as I have mentioned several times previously I am a 4th year medical student - right now I am finishing my general surgery requirements.

Meta: May the Gods help us all.
:lol:

(Dr. Killpatient wrote)
B) I am sorry that I cannot find research that is dumbed down enough.

Meta:Forgive me, but that statement appears to reek of disdain for the average layperson. (And elitist thinking as well, don't you think?)
I'll pretend that the comment originated as backlash from from my purposeful lambasting of your flimsy arguments and would not be a true reflection of your feelings for people outside of your profession, such as your future patients.
:P


Bruise Lee wrote:
I think I am probably going to be done with this debate since there is no way to win since you will never concede a point when proven, and constantly derail the topics into different directions to avoid areas in which you have been proven wrong. The following is meant to be an exaggeration and is a fictional example, but nonetheless follows the format you use when debating :
(Pointless drivel ensues)

Meta: I would gladly concede if I felt you had disproved my point. At this juncture, I fail to see where you have done so.
You have completely skirted the issues regarding your "point's" validation, which the links to which you provided were supposed to prove.
They did not.
The result was not imformation the layman could readily understand, and you know this.

I ask you:
Does the average Joe deals with or understands such inside jargon as:

"Carcinogenesis, mutagens, " synergistic action of the natural source compounds" , D-glucaric acid and the enzyme beta-glucuronidase?"

Indeed.

To further illustrate my point, I suppose I'll could to post my most recent dissertations on using embedded kernel hooks and UDP encapsulation with virtual switch encryption as a smart tunneling technique within a fiber channeled SAN.

But why bother? *Everybody knows that*
Why, "Dumbing it down", as you call it, would not be even necessary.

You see what we have here (In your case) is classic projection. You accuse me of making errors that in fact you yourself are guilty of. Tee-Hee!
This represents several things, least of all your lack of seasoning of for that matter, and most of all, your lack maturity on this matter.

Here's my take on your logic sir, after a fashion.

Scrubs: At least I don't eat rocks for breakfast!

Meta: What? Who eats rocks for breakfast?

Scrubs: You do. I don't know why you can't see it or if you are deliberately lying.

Meta: Nobody eats rocks for breakfast.

Scrubs: What are breakfast cereals made from?

Meta: Wheat. Rice. Things like that.

Scrubs: And where do these come from?

Meta: Wheat and rice plants.

Scrubs: Which grow in the soil, right?

Meta: Yes

Scrubs: And soil is made from rocks, right?

Meta: Yes, but ......

Scrubs : See, you eat rocks for breakfast.

Meta: But there is more to it than that.

Scrubs: You can add all the fluff and feathers you like, Admit it, you eat rocks for breakfast.

But the bigger question is,
why are you wasting your time arguing with some invisible twit such as myself on a public forum?
The first thing that comes to my mind is:
Don't you have better things to do, and to study?
Don't you have fortunes to reap, and patients to maim?
:lol: :lol:

So I too, tire of this inane and pointless diatribe.

Let us agree to disagree and advise that we see not eye to eye and never the twain shall meet.

I wish you all the best for the New Year, may you pass your exams with flying colors, may you contribute to the enrichment of a better society, and last of all, may your malpractice insurance premiums always stay at their lowest.
:P :lol:

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group