Im tired of my tax money being wasted on junk "science" like this lie
that claims diet soda increases risk of stroke and dementia.
Because if it was true, then why havent I had strokes and shown signs
of dementia? Hmmm?
Gunner, who scarfs Diet Mt Dew every day.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
I fully agree that was voodoo science used. That was medical not science.
Science starts out and see's what happens. They started out to prove a
point. Very interesting. How many died? How many got cancer? How
many smoked ? ........ How many lived next to a Nuke power plant ? How
many lived near a pipeline ? How many drank Booze ? how many smoked pot
and how many ...other drugs.
We pay for junk studies all of the time.
Remember the radiation scare in south America ? The Protective shield
we have is a pumpkin of sorts - it is large bodied in the center and
dives in at the pole. It is a magnetic shield. In the south there was
a Super Nova near the small 'cloud' - star mass. The Nova dumped a lot
of high energy particles to bend their path into the polar regions.
Cosmic rays - the non polarized particles zip through us every day. We
collect them deep in salt and lead mines. They are so small and so fast
that they zip around atoms and make us like Swiss Cheese but they are so
tiny they don't show or cause but mutations from time to time.
Martin E - Degrees in Physics, Mathematics, studies in AI and 20+ as a
Neutrinos are the non polarized particles that pass through matter
without affecting it. The atmosphere stops most Cosmic Rays which are
fully ionized atomic nuclei.
"Cosmic rays kept the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere roughly
constant (70 tons) for at least the past 100,000 years, until the
beginning of above-ground nuclear weapons testing in the early 1950s.
This is an important fact used in radiocarbon dating used in
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:00:53 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
How do you know this? Did you read the study? I did, and you're full of bal
Instead of pulling answers out of your ass, Martin, you'd do better to read
the study first. Then see if you have a disagreement with the methodology,
the statistics, or the conclusions:
"After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), calo
ric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and
higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associ
ated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alz
heimer?s disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake t
o 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence inter
val, 1.26?6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interv
al, 1.18?7.07) for Alzheimer?s disease. Sugar-sweetened bev
erages were not associated with stroke or dementia.
You tell 'em...
> Martin E - Degrees in Physics, Mathematics, studies in AI and 20+ as a
On 4/22/2017 9:12 AM, email@example.com wrote:
The study was for xxxxx. It wasn't a study on the effects or workings
of this additive.
When you start out a research that defines the goal it tends on proving
that and nothing else. We in Physics are taught to roll the dice and
see what happens. They load the dice.
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 12:09:38 AM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
read the study first. Then see if you have a disagreement with the methodol
ogy, the statistics, or the conclusions:
caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent
and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were as
sociated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and
Alzheimer?s disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative inta
ke to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence i
nterval, 1.26?6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence in
terval, 1.18?7.07) for Alzheimer?s disease. Sugar-sweetened
beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.
I can't interpret your first sentence. It was a study that used Framingham
Study data to find some associations between known risk factors and inciden
ces of stroke and dementia.
This is a straightforward and common type of statistical medical study. The
Framingham Study data is the world's largest database of risk factors and
their correlations with disease. I referred to it extensively when writing
about metabolic syndrome. So does practically everyone else who works in th
e field or who reports on it.
Did you read it? Did you read the abstract? Or did you just read the CNN ne
Here is the study's abstract, with links to the full study:
Nobody "loaded the dice." They had plenty of anecdotal data to suggest the
risk-factor correlation. Then they applied straightforward statistical meth
ods to see what the data tell us.
Don't guess about this. If you haven't read at least the abstract, and if y
ou don't know how these associations are researched and measured in medicin
e, find out before jumping to conclusions.
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 12:16:39 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus8879 wrote:
It's not that impressive, though. The wide confidence intervals, which com
e close to including 1.0, mean that the statistical significance is borderl
ine. Add a bit of Bonferroni correction, and it'll disappear. And Bonferr
oni correction is appropriate here, since they investigated at least two hy
potheses (sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened). Did they use such a
correction? Well, searching the article for "Bonferroni" comes up empty,
as does "correction", but possibly they used it under another name. It wou
ldn't be unusual if they omitted it, though.
And I'm sure they explain what they really mean somewhere, but it is rather
odd to find any dietary factor significant after adjusting for "diet quali
My beef with artificially sweetened soft drinks is that they fool the body:
when taste buds register sweetness, the body reacts by increasing blood su
gar in anticipation of its carbohydrate storage being replenished by the in
coming food. When no carbohydrate is really incoming, this leaves the body
's storage more drawn-down than it should be. So I wouldn't have a problem
with there being a real effect here, even if this study can't pick it out
of the statistical noise.
QUOTE FROM ABSTRACT:
"Background and Purpose?Sugar- and artificially-sweetened beverage
intake have been linked to cardiometabolic risk factors, which increase
the risk of cerebrovascular disease and dementia. We examined whether
sugar- or artificially sweetened beverage consumption was associated
with the prospective risks of incident stroke or dementia in the
community-based Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort.
Methods?We studied 2888 participants aged >45 years for incident stroke
(mean age 62 [SD, 9] years; 45% men) and 1484 participants aged >60
years for incident dementia (mean age 69 [SD, 6] years; 46% men).
Beverage intake was quantified using a food-frequency questionnaire at
cohort examinations 5 (1991?1995), 6 (1995?1998), and 7 (1998?2001). We
quantified recent consumption at examination 7 and cumulative
consumption by averaging across examinations. Surveillance for incident
events commenced at examination 7 and continued for 10 years. We
observed 97 cases of incident stroke (82 ischemic) and 81 cases of
incident dementia (63 consistent with Alzheimer?s disease)."
Just as I said. They start out with what they want to prove. They
claim in support of their proposition a positive link to cardio /
cerebro issues and simply log those who drink and in dataloging so many
died this way or that or had strokes (head hits something and stroke...)
Argument and gets stroke. Oh yea drinking 'known bad stuff in our
minds' does this so this is caused by drinking. Poor logic.
Poor data reduction and it hides the facts. Was this a BLIND test - no.
Was there any attempt to determine any other cause and effect or just
effect occurs and cause is assumed.
On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-4, Martin E wrote:
ham Study data to find some associations between known risk factors and inc
idences of stroke and dementia.
The Framingham Study data is the world's largest database of risk factors
and their correlations with disease. I referred to it extensively when writ
ing about metabolic syndrome. So does practically everyone else who works i
n the field or who reports on it.
N news article?
the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied straightforward statistical
methods to see what the data tell us.
if you don't know how these associations are researched and measured in med
icine, find out before jumping to conclusions.
They start out trying to track down and measure KNOWN RISK FACTORS. This is
risk analysis -- a very sophisticated branch of statistics. They're trying
to measure the relationship between factors for which they already have an
It's exactly like observing events, forming a hypothesis, and then testing
it -- trying to disprove (or prove) it. But in this case, all they can show
from the data is an ASSOCIATION, adjusting for other known risk factors. G
iven the association, the next step is to study the correlation, looking fo
r a hypothesis involving causation -- maybe. Sometimes they never find caus
Nonsense. You either didn't read, or didn't understand, the statistical res
ults that Iggy picked up right away. They corrected for other known risk fa
ctors, using the huge database available from the Framingham Studies.
It's your logic that's poor, and you're the one who is starting off with so
mething you want to prove. But you're doing a lousy job of proving it.
No it doesn't. This is how much of medical research is done. This is how th
ey found out that smoking shortens lives. It's how they learned that a diet
high in saturated fat leads to increased incidence of heart disease.
That's medical research, Martin.
Of course not. They weren't "testing." They were analyzing existing data. T
he data is neutral and it was acquired before anyone thought to run this pa
rticular analysis. Thus, there was no need for blind testing. The data acqu
isition was done with no possibility of research bias.
Read the whole study and you'll see that (a), they corrected for other risk
factors, and (b) they didn't attempt to determine the mechanism of action
(as medical researchers would put it) or the "cause," as you put it.
To this day, they don't know the mechanism of action for many drugs, includ
ing some antibiotics and cancer treatments that have saved thousands of liv
es. That's medicine. They're looking for results, not necessarily for the p
atterns of mediation and causation.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.
[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
Here's his reply:
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?
Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731
Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
> and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
> You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 07:12:11 -0700, edhuntress2 wrote:
They seemingly didn't adjust for BMI, which is known to correlate with
stroke, and it stands to reason that people with higher BMI would drink
more artificial sweeteners.
So, I also didn't like this study, just like our wild-eyed friends up the
thread, but perhaps I can claim slightly more reasonable reasons.
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 9:57:54 PM UTC-4, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
Read the full study. It's in there.
When I was working in the medical editing field, BMI was losing favor as a
measure of potential metabolic problems. It appears that intra-abdominal ad
iposity, rather than general body-mass index, is the real culprit. IIRC, th
e same was true with cardiovascular problems.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 8:16:49 AM UTC-4, Paul K. Dickman wrote:
Ha-HA! That's not far from the mark. Here's a brief explanation from the in
troduction to one of the study papers that address it. FWIW, when I was wri
ting about the subject, I spent about six months studying what is known abo
ut it. It's a real head-scratcher, because there is (or was) little underst
anding of *why* is relates so much more closely to cardiovascular and metab
olic risks than BMI does:
"Preferential fat deposition in the abdomen?between
and within viscera and retroperitoneally?has been
linked with cardiometabolic risk.7 Measuring the waist
girth (or its ratio to the hip circumference) has become
a recommended adjunct to clinical examination, and
much evidence supports a large waist as a disease risk
indicator independent of total adiposity [as the body
mass index (BMI)]." ["Intra-abdominal adiposity, abdominal obesity,
and cardiometabolic risk" -- https://tinyurl.com/kpu6833 ]
I could give a detailed rundown, but it would put everyone to sleep. d8-)
The point is, that fat that lies *between* organs in the belly area is trou
ble, much more so than other deposits of fat.
Legitimate study by respectable group:
Article points out that it is statistical and other factors may be more
of the difference.
Everyone needs to understand this:
"The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster
causes the sun to rise."
I did not even look at the fake news pronouncements on this study as
they constantly violate the above.
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:44:17 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
That's not a study. It's a review article, commenting on a study, and which
says, "This kind of research is critical for examining and uncovering publ
ic health relationships that may eventually lead to actionable recommendati
ons," added Fargo."
The Framingham studies are prospective cohort studies. Medical research of
this type RARELY delves into causation. It's a statistical association, whi
ch is how most medical research starts out. Years of follow-up studies try
to get at causation, which oftentimes is elusive in medical research.
Working with such studies is exactly what I did when I was a medical editor
. As a rough guess, I'd say that at least 75% of medical research begins th
is way -- finding statistical correlations that raise questions about possi
ble paths of causation.
But causation is, as I said, often elusive. It's frustrating, but that's th
e way medical research usually goes. Paths of causation often are very comp
lex and obscure.
But if we waited until those paths are determined before doing anything, we
wouldn't have any modern medicine. Most of it is just statistical "associa
tions." The AMA's editorial style book dictates how the words must be used
in medicine. <g>
This is almost always true in these prospective cohort studies.
That's the fault of the news reporting, not of the Framingham study, which
is very clear about what they know and what they don't.
Indeed. Very well said, Frank! People say Im a very sciency
guy...shrug. Maybe thats because they know I blew through all the
tests on my first chemistry kit when I was 3, and built my first cold
fusion reactor when I was still in grade 7. Now to be fair..the
reaction only lasted a few hours, and it was conducted here
which is owned by a buddy. And the
measurements were taken by his partner, who works at ITER.....shrug. I
will celebrate the 130th anniversary of that event before I die, and
Diet Mountain Dew is the elixir that will make it possible.
Ok, so maybe its the smokes that account for my amazingly long life.
Thats a good rule. Another is to stay out of ERs. All theyre good
for is giving you a disease so they can send you a big bill. Thank
Crom we scientists are too smart to fall for that scam. I would have
added scientist to my list of accomplishments at Linkedin but I hit
their phony limit at 50 skills. No way am I taking aerospace off the
list to make room. shrug
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.