Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular Disease

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Roman Bystrianyk, Jan 31, 2005.

  1. http://www.healthsentinel.com/org_news.php?event=org_news_print_list_item&id=20

    Roman Bystrianyk, "Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular
    Disease", Health Sentinel, February 1, 2005,

    According to the Specialty Coffee Association of America, in 1999 there
    were over 100 million coffee consumers in the United States spending an
    approximate 9.2 billion in retail and 8.7 billion in the foodservice
    sector each year on coffee. The National Coffee Association estimates
    that among coffee drinkers the average consumption is over 3 cups of
    coffee per day in the United States.

    Inflammation is important to the development of cardiovascular disease
    (CVD) and a study in the October issue of the American Journal of
    Clinical Nutrition examines the effect of coffee on low-grade systemic
    inflammation.

    "Studies have suggested that low-grade systemic inflammation
    participates in the pathophysiology of obesity, insulin resistance,
    ischemic heart disease, metabolic syndrome X, and abnormal coagulation
    process. An extensive body of scientific evidence also suggests that
    dietary factors exert their influence largely through their effects on
    blood pressure, lipids and lipoproteins, as well as on markers of
    inflammation and coagulation. This evidence implies that dietary
    intervention designed to reduce the inflammatory process could be of
    benefit in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease."

    The authors examined a variety of inflammatory markers in over 3,000
    men and women to determine the effect of coffee on systemic
    inflammation. They found that those who consumed more than 200
    milliliters per day of coffee, which is approximately 1 cup of coffee,
    had significantly higher inflammatory markers. "All inflammatory
    markers showed a linear dose-response relation with coffee consumption.
    Compared with coffee nondrinking men, those men who consumed > 200 mL
    coffee/d had an average 30% higher CRP [C-reactive Protein], 50% higher
    IL-6 [Interleukin], 12% higher SAA [Serum Amyloid-A], and 28% higher
    TNF-a [Tumor Necrosis Factor]."

    The study showed that even moderate consumption of unfiltered coffee
    increases the amounts of proinflammatory markers involved in ischemic
    heart disease. Since caffeine could be the most frequently ingested
    pharmacologically active substance globally the authors conclude that,
    "evaluation of the effects of coffee consumption on various
    cardiovascular markers should be of great importance from a public
    health perspective."
    SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, October 2004
     
    Tags:


  2. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    "Roman Bystrianyk" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    >"evaluation of the effects of coffee consumption on various
    >cardiovascular markers should be of great importance from a public
    >health perspective."


    Except that numerous studies have found no association between coffee
    consumption and actual cardiovascular disease.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
     
  3. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    "Roman Bystrianyk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >

    http://www.healthsentinel.com/org_news.php?event=org_news_print_list_item&id=20
    >
    > Roman Bystrianyk, "Coffee Consumption and the Link to Cardiovascular
    > Disease", Health Sentinel, February 1, 2005,
    >
    > According to the Specialty Coffee Association of America, in 1999 there
    > were over 100 million coffee consumers in the United States spending an
    > approximate 9.2 billion in retail and 8.7 billion in the foodservice
    > sector each year on coffee. The National Coffee Association estimates
    > that among coffee drinkers the average consumption is over 3 cups of
    > coffee per day in the United States.
    >
    > Inflammation is important to the development of cardiovascular disease
    > (CVD) and a study in the October issue of the American Journal of
    > Clinical Nutrition examines the effect of coffee on low-grade systemic
    > inflammation.
    >
    > "Studies have suggested that low-grade systemic inflammation
    > participates in the pathophysiology of obesity, insulin resistance,
    > ischemic heart disease, metabolic syndrome X, and abnormal coagulation
    > process. An extensive body of scientific evidence also suggests that
    > dietary factors exert their influence largely through their effects on
    > blood pressure, lipids and lipoproteins, as well as on markers of
    > inflammation and coagulation. This evidence implies that dietary
    > intervention designed to reduce the inflammatory process could be of
    > benefit in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease."
    >
    > The authors examined a variety of inflammatory markers in over 3,000
    > men and women to determine the effect of coffee on systemic
    > inflammation. They found that those who consumed more than 200
    > milliliters per day of coffee, which is approximately 1 cup of coffee,
    > had significantly higher inflammatory markers. "All inflammatory
    > markers showed a linear dose-response relation with coffee consumption.
    > Compared with coffee nondrinking men, those men who consumed > 200 mL
    > coffee/d had an average 30% higher CRP [C-reactive Protein], 50% higher
    > IL-6 [Interleukin], 12% higher SAA [Serum Amyloid-A], and 28% higher
    > TNF-a [Tumor Necrosis Factor]."
    >
    > The study showed that even moderate consumption of unfiltered coffee
    > increases the amounts of proinflammatory markers involved in ischemic
    > heart disease. Since caffeine could be the most frequently ingested
    > pharmacologically active substance globally the authors conclude that,
    > "evaluation of the effects of coffee consumption on various
    > cardiovascular markers should be of great importance from a public
    > health perspective."


    Key words: "unfiltered coffee". Unfiltered coffee (e.g., French press), is
    acknowledged to include more oils and volatile compounds. These tend to not
    be present in filtered coffee, and I assume that 90+% of the coffee consumed
    in the US is filtered.

    Do you have a link to the paper you cited?

    GG

    > SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, October 2004
    >
     
  4. montygram

    montygram Guest

    The way to do a scientific study is to compare healthy people on and
    off coffee. People who drink plenty of coffee tend to be in high
    stress jobs, so it could be the lifestyle, not this one substance.
    Reminds me of blaming HIV for the 30 or so diseases that get classified
    as "AIDS" if you happen to have HIV antibodies (even though the HIV is
    latent and has never been shown to actually do any real damage to any
    part of the body). Generally, the worst foods are those high in
    unsaturated fatty acids and oxidized cholesterol - and these are only
    in coffee in trace amounts. Coffee has antioxdiant and chelating
    properties, so until they supply the exact biochemical mechanism, I'd
    write them off as just another idiot group of "research scientists."
     
  5. montygram

    montygram Guest

    Quick google search turns up:

    Body drinks up coffee antioxidants


    Caffeine linked to lower type 2 diabetes risk long-term

    Cocoa beats wine and tea for antioxidants

    Sustaining the coffee world

    DNA changes to reduce caffeine fix

    Coffee gets the global touch

    ICO rounds in on coffee crisis


    All news for December 2004
    All news for November 2004


    Product News related to :
    Antioxidants, carotenoids
    Phytochemicals, plant extracts




    4/7/2004 - Coffee contains similar levels of antioxidants to black tea
    and can be just as beneficial to health, according to Scottish
    scientists that have found coffee's antioxidants are highly
    absorbable by the human body.

    Tea, particularly green tea, has received widespread media coverage for
    studies revealing its health benefits but Professor Alan Crozier from
    the University of Glasgow says that the new findings show that coffee
    can also be considered a valuable source of antioxidants, supplementing
    those obtained from fruit and vegetables.

    Research has already established the antioxidant activity of coffee and
    confirmed its antioxidant components - chlorogenic acid, also found
    in fruits, such as apples.

    But Professor Crozier's research demonstrated for the first time the
    high bioavailability of such antioxidants when consumed in coffee.

    Investigating the absorption of chlorogenic acid in the ileum, part of
    the small intestine, of volunteers, the researchers found that more
    than 75 per cent of the antioxidant had disappeared, being absorbed
    into the bloodstream before reaching the ileum.

    The remaining 25 per cent would pass from the small to the large
    intestine where it may offer protection against colon cancer, Crozier
    told NutraIngredients.com.

    "This is higher absorption than I've seen with other
    antioxidants," he said. "With green tea about 30 per cent of the
    antioxidants are absorbed altogether, but they shouldn't be regarded
    as competing with each other. More importantly it shows that all of
    these beverages are a useful supplement to the diet."

    He cautioned however that producing such antioxidants in supplement
    form raises the risk of side effects as the natural ingredient is taken
    out of its normal matrix.

    "It's important to eat a varied diet of fruit and vegetables so
    that your body can absorb a range of antioxidants. If you rely on
    supplements, with one tablet you could, for instance, be consuming the
    equivalent of 2 kilos of onions - not a very natural thing to do."

    High doses of chlorogenic acid have been shown to raise concentrations
    of homocysteine in plasma, thought to be a marker for heart disease
    risk. But the antioxidant has also been shown to be a potent
    anti-inflammatory agent.

    The findings were presented last week at the Society for Experimental
    Biology's annual meeting at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and
    will be submitted for publication in a scientific journal.
     
  6. GMCarter

    GMCarter Guest

    On 31 Jan 2005 20:40:16 -0800, "montygram" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >The way to do a scientific study is to compare healthy people on and
    >off coffee. People who drink plenty of coffee tend to be in high
    >stress jobs, so it could be the lifestyle, not this one substance.
    >Reminds me of blaming HIV for the 30 or so diseases that get classified
    >as "AIDS" if you happen to have HIV antibodies (even though the HIV is
    >latent and has never been shown to actually do any real damage to any
    >part of the body).


    Incorrect on every level.

    HIV does not cause any of the 30 marker diseases. HIV infection
    results in destruction of CD4+ T lymphocytes. When the number drops
    below 200 or thereabouts, there is an increased risk from infections
    arising from an impaired cellular immunity, such as Pneumocystis
    jirovecii. So HIV doesn't cause PCP, it sets up the conditions for its
    arrival. When this occurs, AIDS has developed.

    On its own, HIV can cause weight loss, wasting and neurological
    diseases (neuropathy, minor cognitive/motor disorder, dementia).

    HIV infection further causes damage to lymph nodes and other lymphoid
    tissues, e.g., the gut (villous atrophy, crypt hyperplasia).
    Inflammatory responses, oxidative stress and cytokine generation
    (notably TNF, IL1, IL6) all lead to further damage, reduced peripheral
    micronutrient status, neuronal damage and so forth.

    George M. Carter
     
  7. Phil Scott

    Phil Scott Guest

    "GMCarter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 31 Jan 2005 20:40:16 -0800, "montygram"

    <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >The way to do a scientific study is to compare healthy

    people on and
    > >off coffee. People who drink plenty of coffee tend to be

    in high
    > >stress jobs, so it could be the lifestyle, not this one

    substance.
    > >Reminds me of blaming HIV for the 30 or so diseases that

    get classified
    > >as "AIDS" if you happen to have HIV antibodies (even though

    the HIV is
    > >latent and has never been shown to actually do any real

    damage to any
    > >part of the body).

    >
    > Incorrect on every level.
    >
    > HIV does not cause any of the 30 marker diseases. HIV

    infection
    > results in destruction of CD4+ T lymphocytes. When the

    number drops
    > below 200 or thereabouts, there is an increased risk from

    infections
    > arising from an impaired cellular immunity, such as

    Pneumocystis
    > jirovecii. So HIV doesn't cause PCP, it sets up the

    conditions for its
    > arrival. When this occurs, AIDS has developed.
    >
    > On its own, HIV can cause weight loss, wasting and

    neurological
    > diseases (neuropathy, minor cognitive/motor disorder,

    dementia).
    >
    > HIV infection further causes damage to lymph nodes and other

    lymphoid
    > tissues, e.g., the gut (villous atrophy, crypt hyperplasia).
    > Inflammatory responses, oxidative stress and cytokine

    generation
    > (notably TNF, IL1, IL6) all lead to further damage, reduced

    peripheral
    > micronutrient status, neuronal damage and so forth.
    >
    > George M. Carter


    Hi George, thanks for the clues on peripheral micronutrient
    issues.. I will google that line of terms...can you add a
    few.. I have a semi well developed neuropathy in my
    feetsies... a type 2 issue. age 64.

    Phil Scott

    >
     
  8. montygram

    montygram Guest

    Supply a scientific reference for a study that demonstrates HIV doing
    catastophic damage to a particular tissue or organ in a human being who
    is otherwise healthy. There is not a one, because HIV is a nothing
    virus. I have volunteered to prove this by being infected with HIV,
    but I want the cost of the antiviral drugs, for the rest of my life. I
    also will eat plenty of cholesterol and saturated fatty acids in my
    diet, so according the current social myths, I should not last very
    long, and I will sign over all my worldy possessions to whoever takes
    me up on this offer, when I die. My assets are not minor, so anyone
    who believes in the current social myths should rush to take me up on
    this offer.
     
  9. montygram

    montygram Guest

    Just to be clear, I will not take the antivirals, just pocket the cash.
    But I have an even better offer for anyone truly interested. The
    HIV=AIDS=death people have been scamming us for too long. When they
    say, "well if you don't believe it, why don't you infect yourself?" I
    will, if you put your money where your mouth is. But these people are
    not only incompetent, but they are cheap and obnoxious as well. If you
    want to issue a challenge, then when someone says, "fine, but if you're
    wrong, you've got to give something in return" they all run for the
    hills. "AIDS" in the form it's usually described in the USA is just a
    PGE2 syndrome. Anyone interested can go to www.pubmed.com and search
    for PGE2 AIDS or PGE2 HIV and you'll see what I mean. The evidence is
    there, but the mainstream media has made a deal with the devil. The
    latest revelations about all the incredible conflicts of interest in
    the biomedical establishment is just the tip of the iceberg. There are
    some journalists and scientists pointing out the nonsene of the
    HIV=AIDS=death idea, but the mainstream media ignores it. HIV is the
    least dangerous virus a person could be "infected" with. The "HIV
    test" is for HIV antibodies, which means it's been neutralized by the
    body, and is not harmful, but if your body begins to falll apart
    because you've done IV drugs for years, of course the HIV will
    reactivate at some point - it's just trying to jump ship because you're
    killing yourself and it doesn't want to die with you.

    Here's an example of a good study that should be followed up, but
    instead the biomedical establishment is just dispensing poisons, which,
    like chemotherapy, will just prolong a life a few years at best (and
    often cause a ton of pain and suffering:

    Biochem J. 2004 Dec 15;384(Pt 3):469-76. Related Articles,Links

    Cyclo-oxygenase type 2-dependent prostaglandin E2 secretion is involved
    in retrovirus-induced T-cell dysfunction in mice.

    Rahmouni S, Aandahl EM, Nayjib B, Zeddou M, Giannini S, Verlaet M,
    Greimers R, Boniver J, Tasken K, Moutschen M.

    Department of Pathology, University of Liege, B-4000 Liege, Belgium.

    MAIDS (murine AIDS) is caused by infection with the murine leukaemia
    retrovirus RadLV-Rs and is characterized by a severe immunodeficiency
    and T-cell anergy combined with a lymphoproliferative disease affecting
    both B- and T-cells. Hyperactivation of the cAMP-protein kinase A
    pathway is involved in the T-cell dysfunction of MAIDS and HIV by
    inhibiting T-cell activation through the T-cell receptor. In the
    present study, we show that MAIDS involves a strong and selective
    up-regulation of cyclo-oxygenase type 2 in the CD11b+ subpopulation of
    T- and B-cells of the lymph nodes, leading to increased levels of PGE2
    (prostaglandin E2). PGE2 activates the cAMP pathway through
    G-protein-coupled receptors. Treatment with cyclo-oxygenase type 2
    inhibitors reduces the level of PGE2 and thereby reverses the T-cell
    anergy, restores the T-cell immune function and ameliorates the
    lymphoproliferative disease.

    Those who have engaged in "risky behavior" but are presently healthy
    should just change their diet (and avoid all known risky behaviors),
    avoiding unsaturated fatty acids and oxidized cholesterol, while eating
    large amounts of food like unrefined coconut oil, fruit high in
    antioxdiants, organic white tea, and reasonable amounts of things like
    nutritional yeast and dark chocolate. I am willing to prove this, but
    the gutless wonders who run the show have no interest in the scientific
    reality - they are just protecting their butts at this point, because
    they have failed so badly for so long and cost so many people their
    lives that they can't allow the truth to be revealed at this point.

    The body is a biochemical entity. In order to make a scientific claim
    about "disease," one must be able to demonstrate the biochemical
    mechanism, otherwise associations may just be accidental,
    demographical, socioeconomic, etc. This is not just the case with
    HIV=AIDS, but also with cholesterol, because only oxidized cholesterol
    is a problem, and these molecules are called oxysterols, so when they
    tell you to "lower your cholesterol," they really should be saying,
    "lower the amount of oxysterols in your body." Mr. Carter never
    presents evidence - he asks us to assume that he is the Moses of AIDS,
    coming down from the mountain with the HIV tablets. Good luck to
    anyone who takes anything he says seriously - you will certainly need
    it.
     
  10. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    "montygram" <[email protected]> spewed forth with
    news:[email protected]

    Wow...I read it on the internet, so it must be true...right?

    Troll? Psycho? Does it matter?

    Have you ever noticed how many people there are who post to Usenet who know
    the "truths" that the medical establishment, scientific researchers, and
    "the government" are hiding from us?

    Sheesh...

    GG
     
  11. montygram

    montygram Guest

    There's nothing being hidden, fool, just go to the database used by all
    scientific professionals, www.pubmed.com and do the research. I can
    cite a ton of studies just on the PGE2/AIDS connection, but you want a
    religion, not science. Good luck when they tell you to take AZT and it
    destroys your body. There is a growing scientific literature on the
    harm the "antivirals" do, none of which is related to HIV (and nobody
    is claiming it is), but bow down to Pope Gallo and see what happens to
    your body.
     
  12. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    "montygram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > There's nothing being hidden, fool, just go to the database used by all
    > scientific professionals, www.pubmed.com and do the research. I can
    > cite a ton of studies just on the PGE2/AIDS connection, but you want a
    > religion, not science. Good luck when they tell you to take AZT and it
    > destroys your body. There is a growing scientific literature on the
    > harm the "antivirals" do, none of which is related to HIV (and nobody
    > is claiming it is), but bow down to Pope Gallo and see what happens to
    > your body.
    >


    Of course...like most conspiracy nuts, anyone who disagrees with you is a
    "fool", and "the evidence is out there". LOL.

    I'm sure you know more than all the researchers, and all of the folks who
    suffer from the scourge of AIDS. I'm sure there's some good reason that all
    of the bright minds searching for a cure for this disease are wrong, and you
    (of course) are right. Is it because it's all part of some evil plot?
    Black helicopters, perhaps?

    What a hoot.

    GG
     
  13. montygram

    montygram Guest

    The science is there, but if you choose not to examine it, you will
    suffer, not me. I've challenged the establishment, but I have not
    takers. They don't want to pay me the cost of the drugs, which I'll
    pocket, for decades - watching me make fools of them. But you can take
    up my offer - it's open to anyone. I'll be exposed to HIV only, you
    pay about $35K a year to me, and when I drop dead, you get all my
    assets. I'll eat plenty of saturated fatty acids, cholesterol, and
    salt, and I won't take the antivirals. So according to them, I
    shouldn't be around very long. So why not increase your bank account,
    GC? Because you know I'll live for many years, make a fool of you, and
    take your money.
    And by the way, you were the one who started the name calling, but you
    are a fool, and your body will pay. Don't you realize that they keep
    making promises for cures, but when was the last time a major "disease"
    was "conquered?" They don't know what they are doing because they are
    more politicians than scientists at this point. Do some reading and
    research. I'm not asking anyone to believe me, and in fact I can't
    take credit for any of my posts because scientists have written entire
    books on all of this before, and not just Peter Duesberg. Have you
    read the book, "Cofactors in HIV 1 Infection and AIDS" for example.
    There are plenty of good scientists, but the governement agencies have
    a stranglehold on research dollars and the mainstream media. But they
    don't on the scientific journals. And for those who understand a bit
    of the science, you can determine who's on the right track and who is
    just blowing smoke, but I guess you live in a very foggy area.
    The fools in charge now promised an HIV vaccine with a year, then two
    years, then 5 years, then 10 years, and now I guess it's "go ask Magic
    and see what he says." But you can't kill a latent virus, because it's
    already as good as dead, and harmless, which is the important thing to
    people. Have fun giving your friends and relatives your great advice
    and watching them drop like flies. But if you believed what you are
    telling them you'd take me up on my offer. So I'm making a total fool
    out of you and you just can't take it. I understand. It's only human.
    Go hug your teddy bear and have a good cry.
     
  14. John Que

    John Que Guest

    "GaryG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "montygram" <[email protected]> spewed forth with
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    > Wow...I read it on the internet, so it must be true...right?
    >
    > Troll? Psycho? Does it matter?
    >
    > Have you ever noticed how many people there are who post to Usenet who

    know
    > the "truths" that the medical establishment, scientific researchers, and
    > "the government" are hiding from us?
    >
    > Sheesh...
    >
    > GG


    Now the question is "does Monty use a condom with his hired "chickens"?"
    I wonder if he also denies the existence of HBV and syphilis.
    Or how he feels about the "germ theory"?
    Is Monty really John T. Whale?

    >
    >
     
  15. GaryG

    GaryG Guest

    "montygram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > The science is there, but if you choose not to examine it, you will
    > suffer, not me. I've challenged the establishment, but I have not
    > takers. They don't want to pay me the cost of the drugs, which I'll
    > pocket, for decades - watching me make fools of them. But you can take
    > up my offer - it's open to anyone. I'll be exposed to HIV only, you
    > pay about $35K a year to me, and when I drop dead, you get all my
    > assets. I'll eat plenty of saturated fatty acids, cholesterol, and
    > salt, and I won't take the antivirals. So according to them, I
    > shouldn't be around very long. So why not increase your bank account,
    > GC? Because you know I'll live for many years, make a fool of you, and
    > take your money.


    You are a very bizarre person...here's hoping you never actually get
    infected.

    BTW - I suppose all the folks in Africa are dying from some sort of dust
    allergies?

    > And by the way, you were the one who started the name calling, but you
    > are a fool, and your body will pay. Don't you realize that they keep
    > making promises for cures, but when was the last time a major "disease"
    > was "conquered?"


    Like, say, polio? Or, smallpox? Or, rubella? Or, whooping cough?


    > They don't know what they are doing because they are
    > more politicians than scientists at this point. Do some reading and
    > research. I'm not asking anyone to believe me, and in fact I can't
    > take credit for any of my posts because scientists have written entire
    > books on all of this before, and not just Peter Duesberg. Have you
    > read the book, "Cofactors in HIV 1 Infection and AIDS" for example.
    > There are plenty of good scientists, but the governement agencies have
    > a stranglehold on research dollars and the mainstream media. But they
    > don't on the scientific journals. And for those who understand a bit
    > of the science, you can determine who's on the right track and who is
    > just blowing smoke, but I guess you live in a very foggy area.
    > The fools in charge now promised an HIV vaccine with a year, then two
    > years, then 5 years, then 10 years, and now I guess it's "go ask Magic
    > and see what he says." But you can't kill a latent virus, because it's
    > already as good as dead, and harmless, which is the important thing to
    > people. Have fun giving your friends and relatives your great advice
    > and watching them drop like flies. But if you believed what you are
    > telling them you'd take me up on my offer. So I'm making a total fool
    > out of you and you just can't take it. I understand. It's only human.
    > Go hug your teddy bear and have a good cry.


    Yes, yes...you know better than all the trained scientists, physicians, and
    medical researchers. It must be hard living with the burden of your
    superior intellect...LOL.

    GG
     
  16. GMCarter

    GMCarter Guest

    On 1 Feb 2005 12:43:15 -0800, "montygram" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    snip The "HIV
    >test" is for HIV antibodies, which means it's been neutralized by the
    >body, and is not harmful, but if your body begins to falll apart
    >because you've done IV drugs for years, of course the HIV will
    >reactivate at some point - it's just trying to jump ship because you're
    >killing yourself and it doesn't want to die with you.


    Man, you really are so full of shit you need a Q Tip to clean out of
    your ears.

    Antibody generation is an immune response to infection. Often, it is a
    sign of success in ridding the body of the infection. But many
    diseases are not successfully cleared. Hepatitis B and Hep C can
    generate antibody responses that do not indicate cleared disease, with
    subsequent increased risk of cirrhosis.

    Lifestyle issues CLEARLY have an impact on the rate of progression.
    PGE2 is relevant. But your therapeutic implications, while they may or
    may not be of some relevance, will not cure HIV disease.

    Your characterization of people with AIDS as all having a "drug"
    lifestyle is just nonsense. I have known people of all ages, genders,
    ethnicities, etc. HIV doesn't discriminate.

    George M. Carter
     
  17. montygram showed his ignorance of immunity when he wrote:
    > HIV is the
    > least dangerous virus a person could be "infected" with.


    It's a retrovirus which means it integrates into the DNA of the host -
    never a good thing. Viral cancers are a result of this.

    > The "HIV
    > test" is for HIV antibodies, which means it's been neutralized by the
    > body,


    No, it means it's been detected by the body and antibodies made. If it
    had been neutralized, by which I assume you mean destroyed, you
    wouldn't expect there to be high antibody levels in the blood.

    > and is not harmful, but if your body begins to falll apart
    > because you've done IV drugs for years, of course the HIV will
    > reactivate at some point - it's just trying to jump ship because

    you're
    > killing yourself and it doesn't want to die with you.


    Sentient virus is it? That beats "no lipid bilayers" for quackery.

    > Here's an example of a good study that should be followed up, but
    > instead the biomedical establishment is just dispensing poisons,

    which,
    > like chemotherapy, will just prolong a life a few years at best (and
    > often cause a ton of pain and suffering:
    >
    > Biochem J. 2004 Dec 15;384(Pt 3):469-76. Related Articles,Links
    >
    > Cyclo-oxygenase type 2-dependent prostaglandin E2 secretion is

    involved
    > in retrovirus-induced T-cell dysfunction in mice.


    Notice it says *retrovirus-induced* T-cell dysfunction. No retrovirus,
    no dysfunction. If something induces T cell dysfunction it's not
    harmless.

    > The body is a biochemical entity. In order to make a scientific

    claim
    > about "disease," one must be able to demonstrate the biochemical
    > mechanism,


    Something you repeatedly fail to do with your "theories".

    > otherwise associations may just be accidental,
    > demographical, socioeconomic, etc. This is not just the case with
    > HIV=AIDS,


    The biochemistry of HIV infection is straightforward. Gp120 proteins on
    the surface of HIV bind to CD4 proteins on T-helper cells and the viral
    particle is taken into the cell, where it releases a reverse
    transcriptase which copies it's genetic information into the DNA of the
    host. Transcription of that DNA creates more virus until the host cell
    ruptures. Eventually all the T-helper cells are destroyed and the
    immune system is crippled. Either you don't believe viruses destroy
    cells, or you don't believe GP120 binds CD4. Which is it?

    > Mr. Carter never
    > presents evidence - he asks us to assume that he is the Moses of

    AIDS,
    > coming down from the mountain with the HIV tablets. Good luck to
    > anyone who takes anything he says seriously - you will certainly need
    > it.


    The sound advice is from the person who thinks he won't get infected by
    HIV if he eats lots of coconut oil is it?

    MattLB
     
  18. montygram

    montygram Guest

    More erroneous nonsense from MattLB, as one might
    expect. And it occurs at a perfect time, because
    finally I was able to locate my copy of Bioenergetics (1957),
    written by the Nobel Prize winning scientist
    Albert Szent-Gyorgyi. On page 80, he writes: "In a way, Na+ is bigger
    than K+ because its nucleus is less screened by an
    electron shell, leaving outward forces unbalanced, which leads to the
    formation of a
    bigger hydrate envelope."

    Thus, MattLB once again demonstrates his scientific ignorance. His
    exact, claim, from several
    months ago (you can search in the archives for it - use MattLB sodium
    potassium, was:

    "I directly refuted his [Ling's] erroneous claim that
    potassium ions were smaller
    than sodium ones."

    Interestingly, Szent-Gyorgyi cited some of Ling's
    experiments in his books, whereas you, MattLB, only
    cite the textbook dogma, or do a quick search on
    google, then cite a study that is irrelevant or that
    actually contradicts your points.

    Now for his recent displays of ignorance:

    MattLB: "Eventually all the T-helper cells are
    destroyed and the
    immune system is crippled."

    If this actually occurred, I would have no reason to
    quarrel with existing notions, but you need to provide
    a scientific study that demonstrates this. I, as
    always, say that if you want to make an extraordinary
    claim, you need to have clear, direct evidence. All
    the HIV=AIDS=death hypothesis scientists admit that
    there is only a correlation, and not direct evidence
    (except perhaps for Ho's claim, which is so laughable
    that even the true believers chuckle at it because
    they can't help themselves). Gallo, in his own book,
    admitted that the correlation is about the same for other viruses, such
    as CMV, as it is for HIV,
    and those viruses can do some
    serious damage, unlike HIV. HIV infects a tiny amount
    of these cells, but not nearly enough to do even minor
    damage to the immune system. I've cited many studies
    that demonstrate that "AIDS" is just too much
    production of PGE2 (due to various stressors that cause biochemical
    changes that are designed to deal with short term stress, but when the
    stress is chronic, the system is "overloaded," in a sense, and the body
    suffers - this is the basis of so-called chronic diseases), and anyone
    who wants can go to
    pubmed.com and search for HIV PGE2 or AIDS PGE2 and
    see for himself. I'd rather be infected with HIV than
    the common cold, and if you truly believed in what you
    are saying, you'd take me up on my offer. Email me
    the name of your attorney, after telling him what you
    want to do (written agreement), and I'll contact
    him/her and we'll set this up. If you are correct,
    you will make more than $50,000 very soon, but if not,
    I'll take you for $35,000 a year for decades. Put
    your money where your mouth is or shut up, because
    you're not citing any studies, just spewing lies that
    don't even make any sense scientifically on any level.


    MattLB: "Something you repeatedly fail to do with your
    "theories"."

    As I've said over and over again, none of these
    "theories" are mine, though I wish they were (because that would mean
    I'm a great scientist), but the
    point is that I'm not making any claims, just pointing
    to what the evidence suggests, whereas you are making
    nonsensical claims and not citing evidence. If HIV
    worked the way you say, there is no explanation for
    why the period between infection and development of
    "AIDS" has increased. First, it was about a year,
    then it kept progressing (according to the "experts"),
    until now, when it's around a dozen years or more. If
    they were correct with their claims (and your
    explanation of the basic claim is the earliest and
    most crude - few of the true believers are arguing
    this now), there is no explanation for this, since it
    fails to account for why there are so many HIV
    infected people (not taking medication) and so few
    AIDS cases. Indeed, extrapolating from the statistics
    would mean that the "latency period" (or whatever
    wonderful phrase they are using these days) in nations
    like the USA is around 30 to 40 years, if not more.

    I'd like like to see someone just define what "AIDS" is with scientific
    specifity - something that has yet to be done. And as for those Africa
    claims - almost anything a
    person dies from in some parts of Africa gets
    categorized as AIDS. The most recent, obnoxious
    incident of this was the death of Mandela's son.
    Mandela insists it was "AIDS" and yet the hospital
    says it was pancreatic cancer - a very specific
    condition that no "experts" has ever claimed is
    related to AIDS. But today nearly everything is
    "AIDS" if you have a few HIV antibodies (even if you
    have done massive amounts of IV drugs and wiped out
    your immune system in the exact same way so many HIV
    antibody negative folks have for years) because the
    "antiviral" drugs industry wants to continue to make
    big bucks poisoning people, and the scientists who put
    their asses on the line with their moronic claims do
    not want to look like the fools that they are.

    MattLB: "The sound advice is from the person who
    thinks he won't get infected by
    HIV if he eats lots of coconut oil is it?"

    I am aware that your reading comprehension skills are
    quite poor, but clearly I never claimed that coconut
    oil would always prevent HIV infection, or even that
    it could once. What I did say is that if you take me
    up on my offer, I will eat plenty of coconut product
    because it is like biochemical armor. Viruses,
    bacteria, yeast, fungi cannot do much to you if your
    body is packed with saturated fatty acids. Even you
    must know that saturated fatty acids are an
    anti-growth substance, unlike polyunsaturated fatty
    acids. Biochemical activity is required for the
    "bugs" to harms you, and saturated fatty acids prevent
    this, which, ironically, has been cited as a reason
    why "saturated fat is bad" by those deluded
    "scientists" who apparently have nothing better to do.
    A full grown adult who does not want to become
    pregnant has nothing to fear from a food that millions
    of people have and are using as a dietary staple for
    generations, with little incidence of "chronic
    disease." In fact, in research for my upcoming book,
    I examined the cancer rates for various nations, and
    if you compare the USA to France, Sri Lanka, and the
    Philippines, you can see how much higher almost all
    the cancer rates are in the USA compared to those
    Asian nations, whereas France is generally
    considerably lower in most cancers, though not as much
    as the Asian nations. But you keep consuming your
    "essential fatty acids," MattLB - you've got those
    "lipid bilayers" to protect (but just keep in mind
    that I never said that there were no fatty acids
    present, just that they don't hold the cell together
    or perform transport functions - as in jello, the
    structural proteins do - the experiments are
    unequivocal, but that never stopped you from making a
    fool of yourself, has it?). The HIV=AIDS=death claim
    is perhaps the most ludicrous one made in the attempt
    to staunch "chronic disease" in a way similar to those
    employed against infectious diseases, and I am glad
    you are demonstrating how little you know by
    associating yourself with the crudest and most
    laughable version of it. Peter Duesberg was
    challenged to infect himself, and I do not know what
    the status of that challenge is (I think Rasnick
    challenged somebody to take the antivirals after he
    allows himself to be infected with HIV), but with my
    challenge you lose money, whereas according to you,
    I'd lose my life. I put my life and all of my assets
    on the line, whereas you have so little confidence in
    your understanding of the evidence that you fear
    losing some cash.

    For those interested, I'll respond to any scientific challenge to this
    email, meaning I need evidence cited. If I'm wrong about something,
    I'll admit it, as I've done in the past here. Unlike MattLB and so
    many others who post here, I'm only interested in the physical reality,
    not in supporting dogma (for whatever reason).


    1957
    80, he writes: "In a way, Na+ is bigger than K+ because its nucleus is
    less screened by an
    electron shell, leaving outward forces unbalanced, which leads to the
    formation of a
    bigger hydrate envelope."

    Do you enjoy being wrong all the time and then trying to "fudge" your
    way out of it,
    MattLB, because that is the way it appears? If you want a scientific
    debate, present some
    science. If you believe yourself to be some sort of Pope of Science,
    then at least be
    honest about it and tell everyone that you expect to be obeyed without
    question, due to
    your diving infallibility. Otherwise, you're just making a fool of
    yourself to anyone who
    know an iota of scientific methodology.

    For those who want to know more of this debate (including more of my
    scientific
    citations) search in this newsgroup for montygram HIV AIDS and choose
    the entry
    that is listed.

    In his Virus Hunting book (1991), he writes on page 288: "The
    correlation is almost as
    good."
     
  19. montygram

    montygram Guest

    You talk about how important it is to be "serious," yet you respond
    with my request for literature citations with "laugh out loud?"

    Nice, real nice. Now on to the study you cite. It is pathetic, to say
    the least.

    HIV is never a problem in the first place, so whether it "rebounds" or
    not is irrelevant. But of course if you severely poison your body, you
    will also disrupt viral replication.

    Where is the evidence that HIV is doing extreme and irreparable harm to
    the human body?

    And why does HIV come out of hiding when it supposedly does, now that
    Ho's nonsense has been placed in the circular file (even the true
    believers acknowledge this - I've cited those references here before)?

    Now the interesting question here, to any real scientists, is "what is
    going on here," because physiological changes have taken place.

    Did any of these "patients" feel better on the "therapy?" Who knows? -
    the researchers apparently don't care at all about that little detail

    If their bodies were teeming with bacteria, fungi, yeast, and viruses
    (some of which doing real harm), the antivirals (or highly toxic
    substances, which is a better way of describing them), might very well
    show "positive" results, though such results would likely be consistent
    with the old saying, "the operation was a great success, but the
    patient died."

    What exactly do the changes that occurred have to do with human health?
    Again, who know? - there is incredible variety in terms of what is
    considered "normal" or "healthy."

    Did you know that people were qualifying for life insurance for many
    years with the same "markers" of "AIDS" (and still do), but if you have
    antibodies to this harmless virus, you are told that you will die with
    several years.

    The psychological stress of that proclamation likely is enough to make
    many people very ill, because as scientists have documented,
    psychological stress can cause more harm than many kinds of physical
    injury.

    But you can take a small bow here, because you've demonstrated - with
    this study - how bankrupt "AIDS science" is now.

    They are just playing around with the so-called markers instead of
    trying to find something that will restore health.

    They tell people they are going to die, yet there is no evidence for
    this claim - only those who have damaged their bodies in known ways are
    dying.

    It is true that many people want to hide what they've done to
    themselves, and feel pity for themselves - those are the true
    self-destructive types.

    And I truly feel sorry for them - they deserve a national health care
    plan that really cares for people, psychologically as well as
    physically.

    But the evidence that is reducible to biochemistry, biophysics, or
    physiology all points in the direction of HIV being a harmless virus
    that is incapable of damaging a person under any circumstances.

    I'm surprised you didn't cite Ho's old stuff, since that seems really
    enticing to those who don't know much about science, but realize that
    there needs to be a mechanism of some sort that connects HIV to actual
    injury (in other words, this is attractive to those who are doing a
    little thinking).

    The reason some "dissidents" have died is one, because many people die
    prematurely of all kinds of things (like Mandela's son), or two,
    because they didn't know what kind of damage they were doing to
    themselves by doing things that everyone takes for granted, but that
    will kill off those who have stressed their bodies more than "normal"
    people, whether it's by IV drugs, other drugs, various infections, low
    stomach acid, or something else.

    After reviewing the cancer statistics for Sri Lanka, a very poor nation
    with a sub-par health care system, and comparing them to US statistics,
    it's clear that they are doing something right and we are doing
    something very wrong.

    How is it possible that they have so little cancer (as well as heart
    disease), and yet they are supposedly doining just about everything
    wrong (according to our "experts")?

    When you look at the HIV/AIDS studies, you discover that the
    polyunsaturated fatty acid, arachidonic acid (or its metabolites, which
    are expressed in larger amounts in those who eat lots of polyusaturated
    and who are badly stressed), once again, seems to be a major factor, if
    not the most important factor.

    The Sri Lankans use coconut oil as their primary fat source, whereas
    Americans eat rancid fats all the time (or fats that go rancid inside
    the body very quickly).

    Even the latest Alzheimer's Disease research directly implicates the
    metabolites of arachidonic acid. Again, just go do a search for
    isoprostanes on pubmed.

    The only thing really surprising is how many scientists don't want to
    take an unbiased look at the actual evidence.

    When one does, it's all very clear - no need to cite studies that say
    nothing.

    The kinds of emotion-laden responses to my request for evidence that
    demonstrates a clear mechanism and serious damage illustrates how much
    this "issue" is no longer in the realm of science for most people,
    including those who call themselves scientists.

    Duesberg made at least one very good argument (though he may not have
    realized all the implications) when he talked of the importance of
    "biochemical activity," because too much of it (even just too much
    arachidonic acid in your cells in combination with a specific stressor,
    for example, a bicyclist getting testicular cancer) can do all kinds of
    incredible damage to your body.

    It's like putting rocket fuel in your car, and one thing most "AIDS
    patients" have in common is that they've put too much stress on their
    bodies in specific ways.

    The elderly, in fact, have similar weakened immune systems. The old
    saying, "I'd rather burn out than fade away," seems to be quite
    appropriate here. Why people think they can do anything to their
    bodies and expect no consequences is beyond me.

    I even did this, though inadvertently, by eating too much
    anti-nutritional food (that the "experts" said was so incredibly
    healthy) and giving myself a wasting disorder that some of the
    "experts" I consulted thought it looked very much like "AIDS."

    We've all got all kinds of "bugs" inside us, many of which can do
    serious harm if our "immune systems" are weakened. Are you aware of
    the literature on the harm CMV can do to humans?

    Why would you treat someone with poisons if they have no symptoms?
    "Bugs" either are doing harm or they are not - this is so basic, it's
    beyond pathetic that one needs to say this in the year 2005.

    An interesting question is, what is "AIDS" at this point (except a term
    surrounded by stories)? The idea that part of the biochemical
    reactions that are referred to as "the immune system" can become
    disrupted by stressors is basically common sense.

    The problem is that this is not sufficient to justify the political and
    economic interests that quickly came to dominate the scene.

    It's unfortunate that you don't realize how you're being misled by the
    folks behind these interests (assuming that you're not one of them),
    but if you want to stand in the way of science, you need to be taken to
    task for this.

    At this point, I really wish someone would take me up on my offer - but
    you are gutless losers, which is why you're killing people with poisons
    instead of just treating the stressor mechanisms when (and if) symptoms
    actually occur.

    Have you even read the growing scientific literature on how dangerous
    the "cocktail therapy" is (and how it can "mimic AIDS")?

    One just needs to avoid stressors, but that's easier said than done
    with the powers that be promoting one of the worst stressors as
    "essential fatty acids."

    I regained my health by doing my own unbiased research, and so for me
    as for those who are told they have "AIDS," it seems to be a matter of
    "live and learn, or don't and die."
     
Loading...