What really happened? What needs to happen?

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Quentin Grady, Feb 3, 2004.

  1. G'day G'day Folks,

    I have looked at this experiment and am left wondering what really was going on and what
    really happened.

    The control diet (41% fat, 14% protein, 45% carbohydrates and 7 g of fiber per 1000 kcal)appears to
    be a reasonable approximation of the standard American diet, SAD.

    The intervention diet (18% fat, 19% protein, 63% carbohydrates, and 26 g of fiber per 1000 kcal)

    IF we take the research results at face value then raising the protein from a maintenance level of
    14% to 19% and dramatically raising the fibre from 7 g per 1000 kcal to 28 g per 1000 kcal worked.
    Both protein and fibre are known to promote satiety so that stacks the odds in an ad libertum trial.
    Weight loss is easier with higher protein levels.

    If the researchers had wanted a fair trial of some other factor, say carbohydrate for instance, then
    the control diet would have had 18 or 19 g of fibre per 1000 kcal. Obviously there was a massive yet
    largely undisclosed difference in the quality of carbohydrates used in the control and intervention
    arms of the trial. At the moment the trial appears to be a poorly conducted trial of carbohydrate
    composition. It would have been more meaningful if the possible confounding factor of carbohydrate
    percentages etc had been eliminated.

    OK, the reasons for their success aren't too hard to find if we assume that in this ad libertum
    trial, people on the intervention trial consumed fewer calories over time when given almost four
    times the fibre and a higher than maintenance level of protein.

    However there is a rub.

    The authors claim "There was no significant difference in total food intake among the 3 groups and
    no change in energy intake over time."

    Were they brazenly hoping no one would check out what exactly "no significant difference" meant or
    was there some incompetence in their method of assessing energy intake that was almost immediately
    picked up by others or are their detractors simply wrong and making up refutations as they go along.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109890,00.html

    "As it turns out, study subjects in the high-carbohydrate groups consumed about 400-600 calories
    less per day than those in the control group. Over the 12-week period of the study, then, the
    average study subject in the high-carbohydrate group consumed about 42,000 calories less than the
    average study subject in the control group.

    Since a pound of fat represents about 3,500 calories, it’s no wonder why those in the high-
    carbohydrate group lost weight. It was because they ate less, not because of any magical effects of
    a high-carbohydrate diet."

    How on Earth could that happen? .

    Did the researchers count the fibre as carbohydrate in their energy calculations?

    Were they hoping no one would notice the difference in energy intake or ask if they were indeed
    significant?

    Are we to believe that not one of them thought to check the energy figures? If any of them had
    doubts are we to believe none of them asked for an independent audit?

    Books have been written about group decision making. The perils aren't new or unknown. Hays NP,
    Starling RD, Liu X, Sullivan DH, Trappe TA, Fluckey JD, Evans WJ. all put THEIR names to the
    research. Did none of the seven think their reputations worthy of having an independent audit before
    publication?

    For that matter, how on Earth could the paper be published without having undergone preliminary
    scrutiny? By now scientific publishers and scientists alike must have some realisation that ficts on
    controversial topics propagate rapidly without much hope of retrieval. IMHO when published research
    is shown to be wanting in basic accountancy audit issues the reputation of all scientists and
    scientific publishers is ever so slightly tarnished in the public mind.

    And what of the Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics, University of Arkansas?

    How functional are THEIR review committees?

    Do universities whose reputations depend in part on research quality have validation committees and
    how are they accredited? We are not talking about esoteric matters of scientific opinion here ...
    just basic energy accounting on which the public should be able to rely.

    Firstly I'd like to know what really happened in this experiment.

    There are millions of people who could benefit from some sound scientific research on weightloss.
    They deserve something better than the scientific community is apparently currently delivering if
    this is a typical example.

    Once it is established beyond reasonable doubt what really happened, the next question would seem to
    be how to set and maintain standards for research that will uphold the reputation of science.

    If funding realities have made research commercial perhaps it is high time a bond system was
    instituted to ensure adequate checks are made of the validity of interpretation of data before
    publication. Someone can work out the details. There are existing models such as fidelity funds for
    lawyers that might provide a basis for discussion.

    1: Arch Intern Med. 2004 Jan 26;164(2):210-7.

    Effects of an ad libitum low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet on body weight, body composition, and fat
    distribution in older men and women: a randomized controlled trial.

    Hays NP, Starling RD, Liu X, Sullivan DH, Trappe TA, Fluckey JD, Evans WJ.

    Nutrition, Metabolism, and Exercise Laboratory, Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics,
    University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System,
    Little Rock.

    BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ad libitum low-fat diets in reducing body weight and fat in overweight
    and obese adults remains controversial.

    METHODS: We examined the effect of a 12-week low-fat, high-complex carbohydrate diet alone (HI-CHO)
    and in combination with aerobic exercise training (HI-CHO + EX) on body weight and composition in 34
    individuals with impaired glucose tolerance (20 women and 14 men; mean +/- SEM age, 66 +/- 1 years).

    Participants were randomly assigned to a control diet (41% fat, 14% protein, 45% carbohydrates, and
    7 g of fiber per 1000 kcal), a HI-CHO diet (18% fat, 19% protein, 63% carbohydrates, and 26 g of
    fiber per 1000 kcal), or a HI-CHO diet plus endurance exercise 4 d/wk, 45 min/d, at 80% peak oxygen
    consumption (HI-CHO + EX). Participants were provided 150% of estimated energy needs and were
    instructed to consume food ad libitum. Total food intake, body composition, resting metabolic rate,
    and substrate oxidation were measured.

    RESULTS: There was no significant difference in total food intake among the 3 groups and no change
    in energy intake over time. The HI-CHO + EX and HI-CHO groups lost more body weight (-4.8 +/- 0.9 kg
    [P =.003] and -3.2 +/- 1.2 kg [P =.02]) and a higher percentage of body fat (-3.5% +/- 0.7% [P =.01]
    and -2.2% +/- 1.2% [P =.049]) than controls (-0.1 +/- 0.6 kg and 0.2% +/- 0.6%). In addition, thigh
    fat area decreased in the HI-CHO (P =.003) and HI-CHO + EX (P<.001) groups compared with controls.
    High carbohydrate intake and weight loss did not result in a decreased resting metabolic rate or
    reduced fat oxidation.

    CONCLUSION: A high-carbohydrate diet consumed ad libitum, with no attempt at energy restriction or
    change in energy intake, results in losses of body weight and body fat in older men and women.

    PMID: 14744846 [PubMed - in process]

    Best wishes,

    --
    Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."

    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
     
    Tags:


  2. Tcomeau

    Tcomeau Guest

    Quentin Grady <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > G'day G'day Folks,
    >
    > I have looked at this experiment and am left wondering what really was going on and what really
    > happened.

    <snip>

    What really happened is the one of the authors published a high carb diet book last May.

    AstroFit: The Astronaut Program for Anti-Aging by William J. Evans (Author) Publisher: Free Press;
    (May 13, 2003)

    Then he decided that Atkins was keeping his book off the bestseller list. So he thought he would
    create a sensationalistic and headlne grabbing study to get attention away from atkins and
    towards his book. So he throws some nonsensical study together to generate some "data" to support
    his POV. He then gets some unsuspecting friends in the research community to attach their names
    to it. They get another addition to their list of studies published and he gets a bit of added
    weight to his study.

    Then he manages to get it past the silly and ineffective peer review system, past the busy and
    inattentive editors and straight into a bona-fide scientific journal. Thus he prove to everyone that
    junk science is easy to perpetrate and will in fact gain lots of publicity.

    TC
     
  3. This post not CC'd by email
    On 6 Feb 2004 09:22:09 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) wrote:

    >Quentin Grady <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> G'day G'day Folks,
    >>
    >> I have looked at this experiment and am left wondering what really was going on and what really
    >> happened.
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >What really happened is the one of the authors published a high carb diet book last May.
    >
    >AstroFit: The Astronaut Program for Anti-Aging by William J. Evans (Author) Publisher: Free Press;
    >(May 13, 2003)
    >
    >Then he decided that Atkins was keeping his book off the bestseller list. So he thought he would
    >create a sensationalistic and headlne grabbing study to get attention away from atkins and
    >towards his book. So he throws some nonsensical study together to generate some "data" to support
    >his POV. He then gets some unsuspecting friends in the research community to attach their names
    >to it. They get another addition to their list of studies published and he gets a bit of added
    >weight to his study.
    >
    >Then he manages to get it past the silly and ineffective peer review system, past the busy and
    >inattentive editors and straight into a bona-fide scientific journal. Thus he prove to everyone
    >that junk science is easy to perpetrate and will in fact gain lots of publicity.
    >
    >TC

    G'day G'day TC,

    Thank you for that explanation. If it is correct and I have no reason to doubt it, then if the
    scientific method isn't to become subject to increasing public ridicule, something has to be
    done about it.

    The idea of a fidelity fund where researchers or their sponsors put up a sizable integrity bond may
    seem far fetched simply because it hasn't been thought necessary in the past. IMHO it is necessary
    now. The sooner it is implemented the better. Those who wish to continue making a living as
    scientists have much to lose if the public's faith in scientists is eroded. Imagine a scenario where
    public money dried up ... where financial Support for academic institutions dried up except from
    commercial concerns. It might be thought that, that wouldn't matter since most funding comes from
    commercial interests anyway but that funding is in part provided because the academic institutions
    lend the image of integrity to research.

    The scientific integrity fund would lead to loss of bond if researchers are found to be wilfully or
    negligently manipulating the data, publishing conclusions that are unsupported by the data. I'm not
    talking esoteric matters of opinion here, just simple non-controversial accountancy stuff like
    keeping accurate energy balances. The management of the universities are required to get their
    accounting correct and get audited to make sure they do. Should scientists who make claims (they
    call them conclusions) based on energy accounting be subject to less rigorous checking?

    Best wishes,

    --
    Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."

    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
     
  4. David Harmon

    David Harmon Guest

    On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:54:01 +1300 in sci.med.nutrition, Quentin Grady
    <[email protected]> was alleged to have written:
    >The idea of a fidelity fund where researchers or their sponsors put up a sizable integrity bond may
    >seem far fetched simply because it hasn't been thought necessary in the past. IMHO it is necessary
    >now. The sooner it is implemented the better.

    Administered by the people currently doing the peer reviews?
     
  5. Tcomeau

    Tcomeau Guest

    Quentin Grady <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > This post not CC'd by email On 6 Feb 2004 09:22:09 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) wrote:
    >
    > >Quentin Grady <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> G'day G'day Folks,
    > >>
    > >> I have looked at this experiment and am left wondering what really was going on and what really
    > >> happened.
    > >
    > ><snip>
    > >
    > >What really happened is the one of the authors published a high carb diet book last May.
    > >
    > >AstroFit: The Astronaut Program for Anti-Aging by William J. Evans (Author) Publisher: Free
    > >Press; (May 13, 2003)
    > >
    > >Then he decided that Atkins was keeping his book off the bestseller list. So he thought he would
    > >create a sensationalistic and headlne grabbing study to get attention away from atkins and
    > >towards his book. So he throws some nonsensical study together to generate some "data" to support
    > >his POV. He then gets some unsuspecting friends in the research community to attach their names
    > >to it. They get another addition to their list of studies published and he gets a bit of added
    > >weight to his study.
    > >
    > >Then he manages to get it past the silly and ineffective peer review system, past the busy and
    > >inattentive editors and straight into a bona-fide scientific journal. Thus he prove to everyone
    > >that junk science is easy to perpetrate and will in fact gain lots of publicity.
    > >
    > >TC
    >
    > G'day G'day TC,
    >
    > Thank you for that explanation. If it is correct and I have no reason to doubt it, then if the
    > scientific method isn't to become subject to increasing public ridicule, something has to be
    > done about it.
    >
    > The idea of a fidelity fund where researchers or their sponsors put up a sizable integrity bond
    > may seem far fetched simply because it hasn't been thought necessary in the past. IMHO it is
    > necessary now. The sooner it is implemented the better. Those who wish to continue making a living
    > as scientists have much to lose if the public's faith in scientists is eroded. Imagine a scenario
    > where public money dried up ... where financial Support for academic institutions dried up except
    > from commercial concerns. It might be thought that, that wouldn't matter since most funding comes
    > from commercial interests anyway but that funding is in part provided because the academic
    > institutions lend the image of integrity to research.
    >
    > The scientific integrity fund would lead to loss of bond if researchers are found to be wilfully
    > or negligently manipulating the data, publishing conclusions that are unsupported by the data. I'm
    > not talking esoteric matters of opinion here, just simple non-controversial accountancy stuff like
    > keeping accurate energy balances. The management of the universities are required to get their
    > accounting correct and get audited to make sure they do. Should scientists who make claims (they
    > call them conclusions) based on energy accounting be subject to less rigorous checking?
    >
    > Best wishes,

    That's an interesting idea. It may be easier and more practical if the journal that was scammed into
    publishing this tripe just banned these "scientists" from publishing in their journal for ten years.
    Then they can take the pear reviewers that let this get by them and take them off their list of
    reviewers for ten years. Then they can fire the idiotic editor(s) that approve the publication of
    this nonsensical study. Then they can make a huge deal of it in the press and eventually they will
    become reknown for their scientific integrity. Every scientist and researcher and gov't agency and
    person interested will regard that publication as an unassailable pillar of scientific integrity.

    TC
     
  6. This post not CC'd by email
    On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:39:41 GMT, David Harmon <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:54:01 +1300 in sci.med.nutrition, Quentin Grady <[email protected]>
    >was alleged to have written:
    >>The idea of a fidelity fund where researchers or their sponsors put up a sizable integrity bond
    >>may seem far fetched simply because it hasn't been thought necessary in the past. IMHO it is
    >>necessary now. The sooner it is implemented the better.
    >
    >Administered by the people currently doing the peer reviews?

    G'day G'day David,

    You seem to be hinting that the peer review process does not work. If you are, then that would seem
    to support the need for a better system than those currently in existence to maintain credibility
    for research scientists. Do you have a better proposal? I only ask because as one who grew up
    believing in science it hurts when its image is tarnished.

    I hadn't seen it as peer reviews. Part of the appeal of peer reviews is that people doing the
    reviews can assess the validity of the arguments and conclusions reached by the researchers.

    I saw academic audit as a lower level accountancy exercise. Did the researchers make statements that
    were at variance with their data ... basic energy accounting?

    What I envisaged was pretty basic stuff. It isn't a matter of telling researchers how they should do
    their business. If anyone would do that sort of telling it should be those doing peer review. I see
    that as intervision ... like supervision for equally responsible folks. Faulty technique would be
    the domain of peer review, formative assessment if you will. Putting one over by fudging the numbers
    would get you done by the academic auditors. That would be summative assessment. Hard word stuff.

    The idea of an academic audit is pretty simple. Other researchers, even those with an axe to grind
    are likely to pot folks who fudge the energy accounting. What this means people who juice their
    results are likely to be found out sooner rather than later AND the public would know. Put simply,
    for large research organisations failing an academic audit would make them newsworthy. The message
    would soon get around academic institution who didn't have a suicidal wish that they would really
    need to institute rigorous internal checks.

    Best wishes,

    --
    Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."

    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
     
  7. This post not CC'd by email
    On 9 Feb 2004 08:22:44 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) wrote:

    >That's an interesting idea. It may be easier and more practical if the journal that was scammed
    >into publishing this tripe just banned these "scientists" from publishing in their journal for ten
    >years. Then they can take the pear reviewers that let this get by them and take them off their list
    >of reviewers for ten years. Then they can fire the idiotic editor(s) that approve the publication
    >of this nonsensical study. Then they can make a huge deal of it in the press and eventually they
    >will become reknown for their scientific integrity. Every scientist and researcher and gov't agency
    >and person interested will regard that publication as an unassailable pillar of scientific
    >integrity.
    >
    >TC

    G'day G'day TC,

    I take your point however I haven't reached the same conclusions that you have about what should
    be done about it.

    >It may be easier and more practical if the journal that was scammed into publishing this tripe just
    >banned these "scientists" from publishing in their journal for ten years.

    To me, there is a high level of subjective assessment inherent in this proposal. Hey, I just going
    on words like "scammed" "tripe" ""scientists"". Being banned for ten years from publication in a
    particular journal is something that sounds pretty concrete.

    >Then they can take the pear reviewers

    They would be a bit knock out of shape I imagine. <grin>

    >that let this get by them and take them off their list of reviewers for ten years.

    Publishing grey lists and black lists could have some value but would be subject to challenge
    and appeals.

    >Then they can fire the idiotic editor(s) that approve the publication of this nonsensical study.

    Well first there is the issue of subjective judgements ... "idiotic" "nonsensical" More importantly
    though IMHO is something more important ... the editors are editors. Their function is to ensure the
    articles are readable. While editors may have a basic understanding of the subject material it is
    simply too much to ask them to be responsible for the integrity of the article as a whole.

    Of course these are simply my views. Perhaps they will catalyze others to express their views until
    at some point someone out there says "Enough is enough. Researchers DO have a credibility issue in
    the modern world that needs to be dealt with and we are willing to make some sacrifices in our
    traditions to retain credibility."

    At the moment my money is still on a publication fidelity bond that can be lost if it found they
    fudged the basic stuff ie energy audits. It is much lower level stuff than peer review that ought to
    helping scientist improve their scientific method. If research is now fundamentally a business for
    profit then it ought to get this basic accountancy stuff correct and be subject to audit to make
    sure it does.

    Best wishes,

    --
    Quentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading."

    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
     
  8. Tcomeau

    Tcomeau Guest

    Quentin Grady <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > This post not CC'd by email On 9 Feb 2004 08:22:44 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) wrote:
    >
    > >That's an interesting idea. It may be easier and more practical if the journal that was scammed
    > >into publishing this tripe just banned these "scientists" from publishing in their journal for
    > >ten years. Then they can take the pear reviewers that let this get by them and take them off
    > >their list of reviewers for ten years. Then they can fire the idiotic editor(s) that approve the
    > >publication of this nonsensical study. Then they can make a huge deal of it in the press and
    > >eventually they will become reknown for their scientific integrity. Every scientist and
    > >researcher and gov't agency and person interested will regard that publication as an unassailable
    > >pillar of scientific integrity.
    > >
    > >TC
    >
    > G'day G'day TC,
    >
    > I take your point however I haven't reached the same conclusions that you have about what should
    > be done about it.
    >
    > >It may be easier and more practical if the journal that was scammed into publishing this tripe
    > >just banned these "scientists" from publishing in their journal for ten years.
    >
    > To me, there is a high level of subjective assessment inherent in this proposal. Hey, I just going
    > on words like "scammed" "tripe" ""scientists"". Being banned for ten years from publication in a
    > particular journal is something that sounds pretty concrete.
    >
    > >Then they can take the pear reviewers
    >
    > They would be a bit knock out of shape I imagine. <grin>
    >
    > >that let this get by them and take them off their list of reviewers for ten years.
    >
    > Publishing grey lists and black lists could have some value but would be subject to challenge and
    > appeals.
    >
    > >Then they can fire the idiotic editor(s) that approve the publication of this nonsensical study.
    >
    > Well first there is the issue of subjective judgements ... "idiotic" "nonsensical" More
    > importantly though IMHO is something more important ... the editors are editors. Their function
    > is to ensure the articles are readable. While editors may have a basic understanding of the
    > subject material it is simply too much to ask them to be responsible for the integrity of the
    > article as a whole.
    >
    > Of course these are simply my views. Perhaps they will catalyze others to express their views
    > until at some point someone out there says "Enough is enough. Researchers DO have a credibility
    > issue in the modern world that needs to be dealt with and we are willing to make some sacrifices
    > in our traditions to retain credibility."
    >
    > At the moment my money is still on a publication fidelity bond that can be lost if it found they
    > fudged the basic stuff ie energy audits. It is much lower level stuff than peer review that ought
    > to helping scientist improve their scientific method. If research is now fundamentally a business
    > for profit then it ought to get this basic accountancy stuff correct and be subject to audit to
    > make sure it does.
    >
    > Best wishes,

    I guess my point is that we, and the people behind these journals, should get ticked off and take
    some kind of action that will at the very least embarass the offenders. Make a stand. Show some
    backbone and some integrity. Whatever the action taken it should be pro-active, quick, direct and
    effective. Not just setting up an involved process like you suggest. That will just give the
    offending people another bureaucracy and set of operators to subvert. And they will find the
    resources to do just that.

    TC
     
  9. Quentin Grady <[email protected]> wrote:

    > At the moment my money is still on a publication fidelity bond that can be lost if it found they
    > fudged the basic stuff ie energy audits. It is much lower level stuff than peer review that ought
    > to helping scientist improve their scientific method. If research is now fundamentally a business
    > for profit then it ought to get this basic accountancy stuff correct and be subject to audit to
    > make sure it does.

    Putting your money where your mouth is. Sounds good in print, but in practice, it means that there
    will be that many more lawyers (I pronounce it "lie-yers") involved. Which is the primary reason the
    R&D system is so compromised now. Legal truth is now a commodity that only the wealthy can afford,
    and it has absolutely nothing to do with the real thing. A friend of mine who was "fortunate" enough
    to co-discover a means of stimulating immune response to treat cancer has been subjected to a decade
    of fraudulent business practices and adverse judgement from strategic litigation as "compensation"
    for his groundbreaking patented and published scientific work. His case exemplifies the corruption
    and collusion that is possible when the system quits working. Indeed, it is an ideal allegory of the
    state of autoimmunity, whereby the defensive immune system begins attacking the very body it relies
    upon to exist.

    The sad truth of the matter is when those in positions of power and authority do not honor and abide
    by the commonly accepted rules, there is no basis for effective remedy, other than revolution
    (frequently bloody, which I define as another round of the same old shit) or the exigencies of time
    itself. My take is that the malaise we now see in medical research is the tip of the iceberg.
    Politicians and businesspeople routinely get away with the most outrageous falsehoods, in many cases
    rewarded by significant increases in their personal fortune, with minimal or no accountability for
    these blatantly predatory and socially destructive actions. As these patterns of behavior increase,
    they aggressively supplant the "checks and balances" of civil liberty and informed discourse that
    are theoretically the mainstay of free societies. The impoverishment of the many is not the only
    result, as history shows those who pay any attention to it. The eclipse of free speech, academic
    freedom, dissent, and innovation go hand in hand with feudal society, making the thankless task of
    acquiring legitimate knowledge exponentially more diffcult for those cursed with the awareness and
    desire to do so.

    For myself, I have learned two significant things about "civilization" from history. The first being
    the fact that people rarely, if ever, actually learn anything from history that is actually taken to
    heart and practised in kind; the second being that murder, especially when conducted on a wholesale
    basis, is always an acceptable option. If the natural remedy to overpopulation and resource
    depletion is massive die-off, then perhaps it is only "natural" for human beings to effect the same
    result with methods our technical artifice has brought us to the brink of destruction with in the
    first place. Regardless, never, ever, underestimate the brutal power of blind stupidity and
    unfettered greed, derived from the primordial instinct of fear. Stupidity (although superstitious
    types insist on calling it evil) has met no equal in the survival arena throughout the entire
    recorded history of humankind, and it may ultimately be our "saving grace", ironically enough... ;^]

    --
    _o Kristofer Dale, _ \<,_ ragged individualist, _____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...

    p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org
     
  10. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Once upon a time, our fellow Kristofer D. Dale
    rambled on about "Re: What really happened? What needs to happen?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
    sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

    >Putting your money where your mouth is.

    Is that the same mouth that drinks the dirt?

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
     
Loading...