Thanks Glen but. I'm so cynical I make Chomsky sound like a PR man for
I've developed a different approach to all this. Had to when looking at the
research re Stargardt. Basically I look for synergies across
epidemiological, physiological, cellular, and hopefully biochemical studies.
Damn sight better than those bloody useless Cochrane reports, a 'gold
standard'of clinical practice.
Note I what I mentioned to Don earlier in that post:
I do not believe one can advise specific individuals on specfic levels for
supplements. Individual requirements can vary greatly and change according
to their state of health.
This is a big problem with health reporting. A few years ago, before my
vision collapsed(itself instructive lesson in the follies of clinicians,
they were looking in the wrong place) I was invited to help prepare material
for a health related website. As I ploughed through the literature I became
increasingly concerned about all this health news. I abandoned that project
but will pick it up again. With an entirely different focus. I'm currently
teaching myself web page design so I can use up the free web space available
through my ISP. A rather different focus: I'm going to have a section
entitled: "The Inconvenient Truth about Health News". Too much health
reporting and nutritional advice is just crap. As much as I dislike
naturopathy I'll grant them this: they do treat their patients like
individuals, they do tailor their therapies to the individual not the latest
pamphlet from the drug company or editorial from a medical journal. Methods
are just methods and should never be a substitute for logic.
A while ago I posted this on a nutrition forum:
I do have some sympathy with Monty's view but the real problem is this:
we're individuals, individual nutritional requirements can vary manyfold.
Most studies are statistical based, most people simply don't understand how
shoddy statistical analyses can be. Experiment with diet, find out what
works for you, don't obsess about individual pieces of research otherwise
you'll go mad. When it comes to nutrition everyone likes to be an expert
about what I call the "statistical human being". Said creature does not
exist. You do, find out what works for you.
Couple of days ago I posted this on another forum.
The data on obesity isn't as clear cut as they would have us believe. You
get used to this with medical reporting, always changing their minds. When I
was a kid, eat meat, lots of red meat, its good for you. Then there came the
'epidemic' of heamachromatosis(iron overload). Then, don't eat fat, eat
carbs, then there came the diabetes epidemic(fat is not that bad you know),
prior to that they insisted sugar caused diabetes. Now the dumbass food
pyramid, now they have everyone playing suduko to ward off dementia(stupid
idea, it is *new* intellectual activities that make the difference), and
just today a report of massive vitamin D deficiency rates in this sunburnt
country because they kept telling us to stay out of the sun, the dumbasses.
Then they wonder why people stop listening . .
Hunter S. Thompson once quipped about life, "Still not weird enough for me."
Idiot, it isn't weird, it is just plain stupid. The world has gone silly
with tidal waves of useless and all too often dangerous information. Which
is why I occasionally lament:
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors
of silent seas
Nonetheless worth the effort, there are gems to be learnt but these are hard
won. If you keep in mind all the hazards lurking about in the literature it
can be possible to sort the wheat from the chaff. It's just bloody hard work
and there is no getting away from that. Insight can be alienating.
Thanks for your help Glen, I've always appreciated it.
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:475f2442$0$2862$ed362ca5 from nr2.newsreader.com...
> I'm NOT disagreeing with you AT ALL. However, let me reiterate something
> that I implied earlier; inferential statistics are concerned with the
> estimation of POPULATION PARAMETERS. They, pretty much literally, have
> NOTHING to say about individuals, and individuals are what medicine
> (perhaps as opposed to epidemiology) is about. Just something to think
> about, Bro. Ask yourself this (not able to "leave it alone"), what does
> the "mean response" tell you, and what are the problems with this measure.
>> Your Friend,
>>>> "John H." <johnh from goawayplease.com> wrote in message
> news:13lsstpkas0hbbb from corp.supernews.com...>> Don,
>>>> We just received a bucket of studies from the principle researcher in the
>> Blue Mountains study. Her suggestion, and I tend to agree with it, is
>> that zinc is protective. Understand that drusen and lipofuscin contains
>> all sorts of things, even amyloid. The problem is failure of phagocytosis
>> via cd 36 at the RPE and additionally insufficient lysosomal degradation.
>> Keep the focus on Lutein and zeaxanthin.
>>>> "Don W" <dwilgus from prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:JMh7j.29740$lD6.4694 from newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...>>> John,
>>>>>> Noticed (after I sent the last note) that a/the LAST study (Lutein
>>> antioxidant supplementation 2004 study) also tied in macular pigment
>>> increases with lutein intake _and_ the acuity increases. And just
>>> recently (as far as my (this early am) searches) there is a LAST II
>>> study report in Optometry (May 2007) by Richer that discusses macular
>>> pigment increases (please see PubMed if interested). To me, this is
>>> most profound, take is to take a supplement and to see (and measure
>>> (several techniques available, also!!)) the result. And hopefully, have
>>> possible acuity increases in this process. Will try to get the full
>>> Aleman's paper and Richer's paper. Abstracts leave out too much.
>>>>>> So where are we with what you think the zinc level should be?
>>>>>> Re wired implants: There is something bothersome to see a neuron axon
>>> (dendrite) draped across a silicon substrate tied to a terminal post.
>>> Wireless anyone?
>>>>>> Other stuff .... later.
>>>>>> Don W.