MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : Why do you think?
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 3 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameJamieDH4  (Original Message)Sent: 11/25/2007 7:44 AM
Hans-

With so many health issues that are clearly influenced by Arachidonic Acid and its metabolites why do you think that restriction of these fatty acids is not recommended as part of the treatment for these diseases?

You have posted many abstracts where they clearly state that the disease seems to be caused by an overexpression of COX-2, AA, and prostaglandins. And I do not understand why restriction of these fatty acids is not recommended as part of the treatment.

Whether or not Omega-6 and Omega-3 are actually essential is besides the point, because a great deal of restriction is likely have several benefits.


First  Previous  2-3 of 3  Next  Last 
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations  Message 2 of 3 in Discussion 
Sent: 11/25/2007 10:20 PM
This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

Reply
 Message 3 of 3 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrectSent: 11/25/2007 10:21 PM
Well, in a book I just read by Shannon Brownlee ("Overtreated"), the author mentions a study of medical practice:

QUOTE: When he [Wennberg] and Gittelsohn tried to publish their results, they were turned down curtly by the editors of all the major medical journals... Their results would not be published until 1973 [about 5 years later, apparently], in "Science," a prestigious publication for basic scientists, but a journal of last resort for medical researchers... UNQUOTE.

Page 26.

If this account is accurate, the implications are obvious. In the case of the evidence "against" AA, it's simply very low on the "food chain" of medical science, and most doctors don't know anything about it. And almost all of those who know about it think it's "essential." Those who do the studies on AA at the molecular level, on the other hand, are looking to create drugs to inhibit AA metabolization which can be patented (allowing them to make big profits). And lastly, unfortunately, there are scientists like Ray Peat who are pointing out things like the dangers of having AA in cells, but they can only do so much, and so many other "experts" are telling people how important the "EFAs" are, and so it's easy for people like him to get "drowned out" by this.