On 07/05/2013 18:49, RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 3:47 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-04, wrote:
On 03/05/2013 9:41 PM, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

I suggest you go and eat unprocessed cassava, then.




So it has to be processed?

No. It can be eaten unprocessed.

There again, you _can_ crunch on cyanide capsules. Or swallow
carbimazole by the gram.

--
Rod

RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 5:29 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/05/13 13:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 04/05/13 13:21, RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:
On 04/05/2013 12:58, RayL12 wrote:
On 03/05/2013 9:41 PM, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was
left with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it
a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found
4.2 total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8
and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to
resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it
will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

I have no doubt that that is true. Though, I struggle to accept it
as a condition considering that humankind evolved from eating just
those things.

I am not sure that is correct. Man probably evolved eating fruit,
nuts and meat/fish.

vegetables came later.

Don't bother, chaps; we have another nutter in our midst.

no, a soothsayer

http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4446

humans only became vegetarian under extreme population pressure.
Although some vegeable matter has always been a part of the diet.



The first forms of life on the planet were considered vegetation. What
did it eat?

Light, trace minerals, CO2 and H2O, just as they do now.

Before that, life metabolised Sulphur compounds, and some still does.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 3:47 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-04, wrote:
On 03/05/2013 9:41 PM, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

I suggest you go and eat unprocessed cassava, then.




So it has to be processed?

Yeah, it's rather poisonous until the toxins are destroyed by heat,
usually by boiling it for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassava

"Like other roots and tubers, cassava contains antinutritional factors
and toxins. It must be properly prepared before consumption. Improper
preparation of cassava can leave enough residual cyanide to cause acute
cyanide intoxication and goiters, and may even cause ataxia or partial
paralysis. Nevertheless, farmers often prefer the bitter varieties
because they deter pests, animals, and thieves. The more-toxic varieties
of cassava are a fall-back resource (a "food security crop") in times of
famine in some places."

Even potatoes aren't good for you unless they're cooked, and any green
parts are fairly toxic. On the other hand, *most* meat and milk can
safely be consumed raw, which is one reason we started livestock
farming. The animals convert toxic and non-nutritious vegetation into
food for us. Meat which can't safely be eaten raw are meats included in
the Kosher and other prohibitions. The Rabbis knew what was safe in the
days before proper hygiene and refrigeration.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 11:14 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-04, Peter wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:58:55 +0100,
wrote:


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Ah yes, those nice phalloides fungi followed by some nutritious raw
Lima and castor oil beans in the salad. Cheerful Abrus precatorius
beans will add some colour, Bitter almonds will make a tasty dessert
to go with the fruit of the Cerbera odollam, Euonymus atropurpureus
and Bittersweet Nightshade for more colour.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

Absolutely, kidney beans are just so much nicer fresh and uncooked.
Just like with manioc and cashew nuts that silly heating and boiling
process plays hell with the flavours.

*applause*


Once again I will ask, ..it has to be processed??

Yes, a *lot* of vegetable food products are toxic in their raw,
unprocessed state.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 07/05/13 18:52, RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 11:14 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2013-05-04, Peter wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:58:55 +0100,
wrote:


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it
will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Ah yes, those nice phalloides fungi followed by some nutritious raw
Lima and castor oil beans in the salad. Cheerful Abrus precatorius
beans will add some colour, Bitter almonds will make a tasty dessert
to go with the fruit of the Cerbera odollam, Euonymus atropurpureus
and Bittersweet Nightshade for more colour.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

Absolutely, kidney beans are just so much nicer fresh and uncooked.
Just like with manioc and cashew nuts that silly heating and boiling
process plays hell with the flavours.

*applause*


Once again I will ask, ..it has to be processed??

JFGI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassava


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 07/05/2013 08:06, Terry Fields wrote:

The complete article, which is worth reading, is he

http://www.dadamo.com/science_anthro.htm

Hmm. Reading the article:

"From a purely scientific point of view, chemical analysis of the group
O antigen"

There is no antigen. O is when you don't have one.

As far as I can gather he has no scientific qualifications. That doesn't
make him wrong, but it does make me very careful about him as a source.

Andy

On 07/05/2013 18:35, RayL12 wrote:
The first forms of life on the planet were considered vegetation. What
did it eat?

Manganese oxide, IIRC.

Vegetation (photosynthesis) came _much_ later, and only after that was
there a chance for anything to be a herbivore.

Andy

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
news
On 04/05/2013 08:07, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Peter
Crosland writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.

Surely this is something only your doctor or specialist nurse is
qualified to answer. Seeking advice on an Internet NG about this seems
very unwise to say the least.

Yes. However, they may already have asked more pertinent questions than
I did in the allotted 10mins. Some of them may have a better scientific
understanding of the answers:-)

If you feel the basic ten minute appointment is too short you can ask for
a longer one. Any GP practice thas does not do that is not doing their job
adeqautely. Without a full medical history no doctor, let alone amateur
"experts" on a NG are in a position to give valid advice. To emphasise the
point it really is extremly foolish to rely on unqualified advice in the
way you are trying to do.

Trouble is that even GPs can leave a lot to be desired on the basics.

One I consulted because I could not see my regular GP in less than
a couple of weeks and I was in real pain, decided that I had pancreatitis
even tho there is a very specific test for that that showed I did not have
that. It turned out that the problem was just gallstones, something that
almost everyone has, tho they mostly don't cause any particular problem.

And even my regular GP is less than ideal too. Since I have had a heart
attack and a stent I see him every 6 months for a routine checkup and
he always checks the pulses in my ankles because there is a clear risk of
the same problem with the leg arterys as what caused the heart attack.

He can never find any pulse in my ankles and that always concerns him.

When I said that to the cardiologist, he pointed out that some people
have arterys quite deep in the ankles and they don't have a feelable
pulse there and that the pulse on the top of my feet are fine. When
I told the GP that he had said that, and he checked that for himself,
he still did the same thing on the next 6 monthly visit and I had to
tell him again. Bit of a worry.

When I got some pain in one foot, he decided that it was gout,
even tho it did not have the classic episodic effect that you get
with gout. When I asked him why it could not just be arthritis,
he just said 'yes, it could be'

I've also just recently come across something on our equivalent
of the BBC, in the specialist health program, that one of the
medications that I am on, Clopidigrel, has a very variable
ingestion effect if you eat much grapefruit or limes etc.
I do eat a lot of limes in the lemon and lime marmalade
that I make myself. Neither the GP who has had a heart
attack himself and is on the same medication as me, or
the cardiologist even mentioned that at all.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...198#transcript

IMO it makes a lot more sense to use as much information as
is conveniently available than just relying on what one doctor
says, particularly in areas where not all doctors agree.

"RayL12" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2013 9:41 PM, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2 total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.

You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it will all
boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Like hell it does. Plenty of cultures where that is their
standard diet don't do very well at all nutrition wise.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

Even sillier. Process water is MUCH better for you than the unprocessed
stuff. \

Same with milk too.

"RayL12" wrote in message
...
On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:
On 04/05/2013 12:58, RayL12 wrote:
On 03/05/2013 9:41 PM, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

I have no doubt that that is true. Though, I struggle to accept it as a
condition considering that humankind evolved from eating just those
things.

Just because we evolved that way because it was easy to get
doesn't mean that there arent any downsides with that diet.

Terry Fields wrote
Huge wrote

I am not a medical expert, but I've read that only about 10% of the
cholesterol in your blood is directly due to your diet, the rest is
internally generated. I could be wrong, of course.

S'what my quack said.

Mine said 80/20 body/diet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol#Physiology

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 04/05/2013 14:36, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/05/2013 14:26, Terry Fields wrote:
On Sat, 04 May 2013 13:21:05 +0100, RayL12 wrote:

On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

And anyone with arthritis might like to try avoiding tomatoes and
sweet peppers.

Not heard that one before. Would you care to elaborate?


It will be the deadly nightshade family issue.

However, I have to question why the namers of these things emphasise
"deadly nightshade" rather then the relatively neutral "Solanaceae" or
subfamily "Solanoideae"?

Presumably because hardly anyone would recognise those last two.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:31:06 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Chemical warfare is nothing new. Even very early plants must have had
*some* chemical defenses as they didn't all have thorns. We're still
finding useful ones for killing animals that we can extract from
primitive plant types.

To be fair to plants, the first recorded instances of chemical and
biological warfare consisted of the firing the rotten carcasses of
animals and the blankets of people who died of typhoid and cholera
into the besieged fortress.

That's not right. Poisoned arrows preceded that approach by millennia.

It seems the CBW experts were some way ahead of the
medical profession, and way ahead of assorted greenies
in understanding the mechanism of disease spread.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
news
On 04/05/2013 08:07, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Peter
Crosland writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a
very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.

Surely this is something only your doctor or specialist nurse is
qualified to answer. Seeking advice on an Internet NG about this seems
very unwise to say the least.

Yes. However, they may already have asked more pertinent questions than
I did in the allotted 10mins. Some of them may have a better scientific
understanding of the answers:-)

If you feel the basic ten minute appointment is too short you can ask for
a longer one. Any GP practice thas does not do that is not doing their
job adeqautely. Without a full medical history no doctor, let alone
amateur "experts" on a NG are in a position to give valid advice. To
emphasise the point it really is extremly foolish to rely on unqualified
advice in the way you are trying to do.

snip

My god how I pity your doctor, you must be a real PITA. And anyway, why see
the quack? You know far more than him, obviously.
Incidentally, the spelling of your blood clot inhibitor is Clopidogrel.

"bm" wrote in message
eb.com...

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a
very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

If you are on Simvastatin, you could request a change to Atorvastatin,
which should be as effective at half the dose.

Yes. BTDT:-)

The current 20mg Atorvastatin would conveniently halve to 10 though.

It's still one tablet per dose of a convenient size for swallowing. The
fact that there is only half the amount of active ingredient is balanced
by the fact that the ingredient is roughly twice as effective per
milligramme.

The reaction to statin doses doesn't seem to be linear, either, with a
noticeable threshold in my case, at least. Half the normal dose does
nothing, the full dose brings on all the side effects and no apparent
benefits, with every statin and Fibrate I've tried. I didn't dare try a
larger dose.

I can't say that I've noticed any side-effects,

I know I didn’t.

maybe I should quit for a while and see.

I could do that because my cholesterol levels were always
low. The current protocol suggest that there are benefits from
even lower tho, that’s why the cardiologist put me on it with the
other stuff that’s the standard post heart attack/stent protocol here.

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 04/05/2013 19:18, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a
very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

If you are on Simvastatin, you could request a change to Atorvastatin,
which should be as effective at half the dose.

Yes. BTDT:-)

The current 20mg Atorvastatin would conveniently halve to 10 though.

Changing to Rosuvastatin should give you the same effect as Atorvastatin
at half the dose. NICE doesn't like that though, as it is the most
expensive option.

There's a surprise:-)

My doctor was very unreceptive when I suggested exploring the reasons my
liver is churning out the stuff. One site I found was expounding the idea
that copper deficiency could be a cause.

However, as Peter warns, better leave health decisions to the
professionals.

No thanks, I've caught them out FAR too often for that to be a viable
approach.

I was amazed how long it took the ****ers to work out that the
quite severe pain I got on occasion was just gallstones, something
almost everyone gets, but not all with any symptoms at all.

"RayL12" wrote in message
...
On 04/05/2013 5:29 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/05/13 13:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 04/05/13 13:21, RayL12 wrote:
On 04/05/2013 1:06 PM, polygonum wrote:
On 04/05/2013 12:58, RayL12 wrote:
On 03/05/2013 9:41 PM, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was
left with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it
a very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found
4.2 total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8
and 7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to
resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.


You can spend 6 - 7 years of your life learning nutrition and it
will
all boil down to a simple formula; eat fresh veg' and fruit.

Processed 'anything' is junk.

Too much fruit can be a problem - all that fructose (and, indeed,
sucrose in some fruit).

Lots of vegetables can be problematical for some people - e.g those
which have goitrogenic effects.

I have no doubt that that is true. Though, I struggle to accept it
as a condition considering that humankind evolved from eating just
those things.

I am not sure that is correct. Man probably evolved eating fruit,
nuts and meat/fish.

vegetables came later.

Don't bother, chaps; we have another nutter in our midst.

no, a soothsayer

http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4446

humans only became vegetarian under extreme population pressure.
Although some vegeable matter has always been a part of the diet.



The first forms of life on the planet were considered vegetation. What
did it eat?

Irrelevant to what the higher life forms evolved to eat.

On Tue, 07 May 2013 21:27:25 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 07/05/2013 08:06, Terry Fields wrote:

The complete article, which is worth reading, is he

http://www.dadamo.com/science_anthro.htm

Hmm. Reading the article:

"From a purely scientific point of view, chemical analysis of the group
O antigen"

There is no antigen. O is when you don't have one.

As far as I can gather he has no scientific qualifications. That doesn't
make him wrong, but it does make me very careful about him as a source.

Andy

Yes, you're quite right. I did note it was a cranky food web site... but the article seemed well-written, and I can't
easily find a refutation of the claim that AB group came about less than a thousand years ago.

--
Terry Fields

"bm" wrote in message
eb.com...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
news
On 04/05/2013 08:07, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Peter
Crosland writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a
very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and
7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.

Surely this is something only your doctor or specialist nurse is
qualified to answer. Seeking advice on an Internet NG about this seems
very unwise to say the least.

Yes. However, they may already have asked more pertinent questions than
I did in the allotted 10mins. Some of them may have a better scientific
understanding of the answers:-)

If you feel the basic ten minute appointment is too short you can ask
for a longer one. Any GP practice thas does not do that is not doing
their job adeqautely. Without a full medical history no doctor, let
alone amateur "experts" on a NG are in a position to give valid advice.
To emphasise the point it really is extremly foolish to rely on
unqualified advice in the way you are trying to do.

My god how I pity your doctor, you must be a real PITA.

He clearly feels otherwise. He stopped accepting any new
patients, because he was the only one doing childbirths
in the town and when the one I had used before that left
town he was happy to accept me as a new patient.

And anyway, why see the quack?

Because I need someone to write the prescriptions, ****wit.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"bm" wrote in message
eb.com...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
news On 04/05/2013 08:07, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Peter
Crosland writes
On 03/05/2013 21:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
There was a lot of interest last time this was aired but I was left
with
a few unanswered questions...

How significant is the fat in processed Pork slices as I find it a
very
convenient source of sandwich filling?

How linear is the response to dose levels? A recent test found 4.2
total
(2.4 LDL) for a dose of 20mg. Pre-statins, I had levels of 6.8 and
7.2
total. I would like to drop the dose to 10mg.

I asked how long it takes for the body to return to normal after
stopping medication and was told 2 weeks. I was also told to resume
treatment to double check any noted changes.

Surely this is something only your doctor or specialist nurse is
qualified to answer. Seeking advice on an Internet NG about this
seems
very unwise to say the least.

Yes. However, they may already have asked more pertinent questions
than
I did in the allotted 10mins. Some of them may have a better
scientific
understanding of the answers:-)

If you feel the basic ten minute appointment is too short you can ask
for a longer one. Any GP practice thas does not do that is not doing
their job adeqautely. Without a full medical history no doctor, let
alone amateur "experts" on a NG are in a position to give valid advice.
To emphasise the point it really is extremly foolish to rely on
unqualified advice in the way you are trying to do.

My god how I pity your doctor, you must be a real PITA.

He clearly feels otherwise. He stopped accepting any new
patients, because he was the only one doing childbirths
in the town and when the one I had used before that left
town he was happy to accept me as a new patient.

And anyway, why see the quack?

Because I need someone to write the prescriptions, ****wit.

I'd have thought you'd write them yourself, ****wit.
You clearly haven't got this sorted, wodney.

On 07/05/2013 23:41, Terry Fields wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2013 21:27:25 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 07/05/2013 08:06, Terry Fields wrote:

The complete article, which is worth reading, is he

http://www.dadamo.com/science_anthro.htm

Hmm. Reading the article:

"From a purely scientific point of view, chemical analysis of the group
O antigen"

There is no antigen. O is when you don't have one.

As far as I can gather he has no scientific qualifications. That doesn't
make him wrong, but it does make me very careful about him as a source.

Andy

Yes, you're quite right. I did note it was a cranky food web site... but the article seemed well-written, and I can't
easily find a refutation of the claim that AB group came about less than a thousand years ago.


Although the site name makes me shudder, the article and comments might
be of interest:

http://shroudstory.com/2012/10/13/ju...ab-blood-type/

--
Rod

On 08/05/2013 07:55, polygonum wrote:
Although the site name makes me shudder, the article and comments might
be of interest:

http://shroudstory.com/2012/10/13/ju...ab-blood-type/

The site name makes me nervous too But it links to this:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/4/399.full.pdf

It's very technical, but it indicates that the ABO groups are pre-human.
Obviously this doesn't agree with any site that thinks the Bible is
literal truth, and I don't think sits well with Adamo's diet theories.
It's also been cited by 106 other authors.

I then googled for "ABO evolution primate" which led me to this more
readable article

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345987/description/Human_blood_types_have_deep_evolutionary_roots

"The A, B and O blood types in people evolved at least 20 million years
ago in a common ancestor of humans and other primates, new research
suggests."

"Exactly why evolution would favor a mix of blood types in so many
species is a mystery. Depending on blood type, people are more or less
susceptible to particular pathogens. Type O people, for example, are
more susceptible to cholera and plague, while people with type A are
more susceptible to smallpox. Blood group diversity may have been
maintained for so long because each version was immunologically
advantageous in certain times and places."

And also this recent one

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.4613.pdf

"These results demonstrate that the ABO polymorhpism is a trans-species
polymorphism aming distantly related species and has remained under
balancing selection for tens of millions of years - to date, the only
such example in Hominoids and Old World Monkeys outside of the Major
Histocompatibility Complex"

If A and B are around in the same population then AB will be. I'm not
going to comment further on Adamo, except to say that his theories do
not seem to agree with scientific consensus.

Andy

On Wed, 08 May 2013 07:55:37 +0100, polygonum wrote:

On 07/05/2013 23:41, Terry Fields wrote:

Yes, you're quite right. I did note it was a cranky food web site...
but the article seemed well-written, and I can't easily find a
refutation of the claim that AB group came about less than a thousand
years ago.

Although the site name makes me shudder, the article and comments might
be of interest:

http://shroudstory.com/2012/10/13/ju...ab-blood-type/

Many thanks for that interesting reference despite the gloomy title - it was a fascinating read.

It's slightly surprising that the evolution of blood groups is so little known, and little research seems to have been
carried out in recent years using modern techniques. Even more surprising is the claim that group O developed
after A and B (and possibly AB!). I had thought that group O was associated with the emergence of humans in
the Great Rift Valley, perhaps this goes some way to refuting that in some way.

I'm especially interested in group B because that's what I have - perhaps some ancestor was a Mongolian
warrior; who knows?

I've taken a pdf of that site for future reference.


--
Terry Fields

On 08/05/2013 09:17, Andy Champ wrote:
On 08/05/2013 07:55, polygonum wrote:
Although the site name makes me shudder, the article and comments might
be of interest:

http://shroudstory.com/2012/10/13/ju...ab-blood-type/

The site name makes me nervous too But it links to this:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/4/399.full.pdf

It's very technical, but it indicates that the ABO groups are pre-human.
Obviously this doesn't agree with any site that thinks the Bible is
literal truth, and I don't think sits well with Adamo's diet theories.
It's also been cited by 106 other authors.

I then googled for "ABO evolution primate" which led me to this more
readable article

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345987/description/Human_blood_types_have_deep_evolutionary_roots


"The A, B and O blood types in people evolved at least 20 million years
ago in a common ancestor of humans and other primates, new research
suggests."

"Exactly why evolution would favor a mix of blood types in so many
species is a mystery. Depending on blood type, people are more or less
susceptible to particular pathogens. Type O people, for example, are
more susceptible to cholera and plague, while people with type A are
more susceptible to smallpox. Blood group diversity may have been
maintained for so long because each version was immunologically
advantageous in certain times and places."

And also this recent one

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.4613.pdf

"These results demonstrate that the ABO polymorhpism is a trans-species
polymorphism aming distantly related species and has remained under
balancing selection for tens of millions of years - to date, the only
such example in Hominoids and Old World Monkeys outside of the Major
Histocompatibility Complex"

If A and B are around in the same population then AB will be. I'm not
going to comment further on Adamo, except to say that his theories do
not seem to agree with scientific consensus.

Andy

I don't think he says much about the A2 group... :-)

--
Rod

On May 7, 10:58*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:

Process water is MUCH better for you than the unprocessed
stuff. \

Homeopathy, anyone?

MBQ

On 06/05/2013 09:05, Martin Brown wrote:


Small problem with that is some of the absolutely lethal Amanita species
actually taste fantastic but are utterly deadly even in small doses.
This results in more fatalities than if they tasted unpleasant.

They also have the very nasty habit of allowing you to more or less
recover before causing total organ failure of liver and kidneys.

I have eaten some of the safe Amanita fungi with some trepidation and
they do taste really good. I still prefer morels. YMMV

Someone else ate some Amanita...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-22470470

--
Rod

On Thu, 09 May 2013 23:22:23 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 06/05/2013 09:05, Martin Brown wrote:


Small problem with that is some of the absolutely lethal Amanita species
actually taste fantastic but are utterly deadly even in small doses.
This results in more fatalities than if they tasted unpleasant.

They also have the very nasty habit of allowing you to more or less
recover before causing total organ failure of liver and kidneys.

I have eaten some of the safe Amanita fungi with some trepidation and
they do taste really good. I still prefer morels. YMMV

Someone else ate some Amanita...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-22470470

It's all a bit worrying really. I eat loads of (bought) mushrooms but
it seems that it might be all too easy for growers to make a "minor"
mistake.
Probably 40+ years ago I suffered some sort of poisoning from (most
likely) mushrooms, whence my face puffed up and swallowing was
difficult. The emergency quack seemed to resolve it with antibiotics.
I stayed off mushrooms (with difficulty) for a few years.

--
Frank Erskine

On 10/05/2013 00:10, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 09 May 2013 23:22:23 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 06/05/2013 09:05, Martin Brown wrote:


Small problem with that is some of the absolutely lethal Amanita species
actually taste fantastic but are utterly deadly even in small doses.
This results in more fatalities than if they tasted unpleasant.

They also have the very nasty habit of allowing you to more or less
recover before causing total organ failure of liver and kidneys.

I have eaten some of the safe Amanita fungi with some trepidation and
they do taste really good. I still prefer morels. YMMV

Someone else ate some Amanita...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-22470470

The scary thing is that it would have tasted excellent at the time.

It's all a bit worrying really. I eat loads of (bought) mushrooms but
it seems that it might be all too easy for growers to make a "minor"
mistake.

Not really the conditions for growing them are different. The risk is in
eating collected wild mushrooms of slightly dodgy or DIY provenance. I
always liked the way in France the pharmacists would ID them for you.

It always struck me as a slightly interesting thing as they were not
going to eat them but will check collected ones for a small fee.

Probably 40+ years ago I suffered some sort of poisoning from (most
likely) mushrooms, whence my face puffed up and swallowing was
difficult. The emergency quack seemed to resolve it with antibiotics.
I stayed off mushrooms (with difficulty) for a few years.

May not have been the mushrooms fault if antibiotics cured it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 10/05/2013 08:11, Martin Brown wrote:


Probably 40+ years ago I suffered some sort of poisoning from (most
likely) mushrooms, whence my face puffed up and swallowing was
difficult. The emergency quack seemed to resolve it with antibiotics.
I stayed off mushrooms (with difficulty) for a few years.

May not have been the mushrooms fault if antibiotics cured it.

I am generally not keen on eating any form of mushroom. The more I
became interested in finding and photographing them, the less I wanted
to eat them! Especially knowing the identification issues. And that all
too often, a species that has been regarded as safe forever is suddenly
reclassified as dodgy or frankly dangerous. Plus there is very little
known about accumulation of toxins, and possibly increasing sensitivity
when a species is eaten repeatedly.

Then people go and eat them raw without due consideration of the
environment in which they grew and the likelihood of bacterial issues.

There are a few that are pretty much unmistakable and are extremely
widely eaten - I might try some of them. E.g. Blewits when of exactly
the right colour.

--
Rod

On 10/05/13 09:28, polygonum wrote:
On 10/05/2013 08:11, Martin Brown wrote:


Probably 40+ years ago I suffered some sort of poisoning from (most
likely) mushrooms, whence my face puffed up and swallowing was
difficult. The emergency quack seemed to resolve it with antibiotics.
I stayed off mushrooms (with difficulty) for a few years.

May not have been the mushrooms fault if antibiotics cured it.

I am generally not keen on eating any form of mushroom. The more I
became interested in finding and photographing them, the less I wanted
to eat them! Especially knowing the identification issues. And that
all too often, a species that has been regarded as safe forever is
suddenly reclassified as dodgy or frankly dangerous.
I cant off hand think of a single example of that.

Plus there is very little known about accumulation of toxins, and
possibly increasing sensitivity when a species is eaten repeatedly.

I think there is considerable knowledge actually

Then people go and eat them raw without due consideration of the
environment in which they grew and the likelihood of bacterial issues.

well deary me. Townies experiencing the countryside and treating it like
Tescos. they deserve to get ill.

There are a few that are pretty much unmistakable and are extremely
widely eaten - I might try some of them. E.g. Blewits when of exactly
the right colour.

Definitely one I _wouldn't_ try.

The absolute beginners pick is the shaggy ink cap. Nothing else looks
remotely like it and if cooked within 20 mins (or simply nibbled raw)
its delicious.

Another one is the giant puff ball. Not really that amusing, but sliced
and fried in bacon fat it improves.

After that just about any agaric that looks white on top with pinky
brown gills is safe apart from the yellow stainer, and that wont kill you.

Morels, if you can find em, are distinctive and delicious.

Shaggy parasols are fairly distinctive too.


Really there are three sorts of fungus. Those that are distinctive and
safe, those that are lethal and you have better know them, and a vast
array in between that will either give you a bad turn or taste either
revolting or not at all. For example I've eaten fairy ring mushrooms
but there isnt really anything TO eat. Waste of time a sniff of flavour
and that's it. I've eaten pluteus, but that as a mushy tasteless load of
earthiness. Same foes for st gerofgres mushroom and something esle we
identified as being edible. Didn't die, but not really worth eatimg IMHO.


Wood mushrooms field mushrooms and horse mushrooms are what I tend to
try and find, and shaggy caps.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 10/05/2013 10:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/05/13 09:28, polygonum wrote:
On 10/05/2013 08:11, Martin Brown wrote:


Probably 40+ years ago I suffered some sort of poisoning from (most
likely) mushrooms, whence my face puffed up and swallowing was
difficult. The emergency quack seemed to resolve it with antibiotics.
I stayed off mushrooms (with difficulty) for a few years.

May not have been the mushrooms fault if antibiotics cured it.

I am generally not keen on eating any form of mushroom. The more I
became interested in finding and photographing them, the less I wanted
to eat them! Especially knowing the identification issues. And that
all too often, a species that has been regarded as safe forever is
suddenly reclassified as dodgy or frankly dangerous.
I cant off hand think of a single example of that.

Plus there is very little known about accumulation of toxins, and
possibly increasing sensitivity when a species is eaten repeatedly.

I think there is considerable knowledge actually

These days ultra trace analysis can find almost anything.
Though it is easier if a specimen is available to examine uncooked.

Then people go and eat them raw without due consideration of the
environment in which they grew and the likelihood of bacterial issues.

well deary me. Townies experiencing the countryside and treating it like
Tescos. they deserve to get ill.

There are a few that are pretty much unmistakable and are extremely
widely eaten - I might try some of them. E.g. Blewits when of exactly
the right colour.

Definitely one I _wouldn't_ try.

The absolute beginners pick is the shaggy ink cap. Nothing else looks
remotely like it and if cooked within 20 mins (or simply nibbled raw)
its delicious.

Just don't consume it with alcohol as it is allegedly a species that is
a source of coprine the basis of antabuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprinus_comatus

Wiki says that it doesn't contain coprine but my books say it does.
You pays your money and takes your choice when harvesting "free" food.

Another one is the giant puff ball. Not really that amusing, but sliced
and fried in bacon fat it improves.

They are really very impressive things. Taste isn't bad for a fresh one.
More of a problem is size - you get bored with it after a while.

After that just about any agaric that looks white on top with pinky
brown gills is safe apart from the yellow stainer, and that wont kill you.

Morels, if you can find em, are distinctive and delicious.

And definitely need to be cooked (BTW there is one toxic false morel).
I find them inclined to cause slightly hallucinogenic dreams YMMV.

Shaggy parasols are fairly distinctive too.


Really there are three sorts of fungus. Those that are distinctive and
safe, those that are lethal and you have better know them, and a vast
array in between that will either give you a bad turn or taste either
revolting or not at all. For example I've eaten fairy ring mushrooms
but there isnt really anything TO eat. Waste of time a sniff of flavour
and that's it. I've eaten pluteus, but that as a mushy tasteless load of
earthiness. Same foes for st gerofgres mushroom and something esle we
identified as being edible. Didn't die, but not really worth eatimg IMHO.

A lot are just not good to eat but not very poisonous. The really nasty
ones are those that are actually deadly poisonous, but look like an
edible one to a casual observer *and* taste great. Amanitas tick all the
boxes (and are also responsible for the flying reindeer legends).

Highly toxic ones that taste awful tend not to get eaten by accident.

Wood mushrooms field mushrooms and horse mushrooms are what I tend to
try and find, and shaggy caps.

Until quite recently there were wild chanterelles around here but
someone took away the fallen dead host tree for firewood


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

bm wrote:
why see the quack?

A lot of the time you know what's wrong with you and what medicine you
need but you need someone, who the state has deemed qualified, to sign
the prescription. A vote for nurse-practitioners perhaps, this leaves
the GP free to concentrate on more questionable diagnoses (pl?).