Posted on 12/13/2010 11:48:12 PM PST by neverdem
Alzheimers researchers are obsessed with a small, sticky protein fragment, beta amyloid, that clumps into barnaclelike balls in the brains of patients with this degenerative neurological disease.
It is a normal protein. Everyones brain makes it. But the problem in Alzheimers is that it starts to accumulate into balls plaques. The first sign the disease is developing before there are any symptoms is a buildup of amyloid. And for years, it seemed, the problem in Alzheimers was that brain cells were making too much of it.
But now, a surprising new study has found that that view appears to be wrong. It turns out that most people with Alzheimers seem to make perfectly normal amounts of amyloid. They just cant get rid of it. Its like an overflowing sink caused by a clogged drain instead of a faucet that does not turn off.
That discovery is part of a wave of unexpected findings that are enriching scientists views of the genesis of Alzheimers disease. In some cases, like the story of amyloid disposal, the work points to new ways to understand and attack the disease. If researchers could find a way to speed up disposal, perhaps they could slow down or halt the disease. Researchers have also found that amyloid, in its normal small amounts, seems to have a purpose in the brain it may be acting like a circuit breaker to prevent nerve firing from getting out of control. But too much amyloid can shut down nerves, eventually leading to cell death. That means that if amyloid levels were reduced early in the disease, when excess amyloid is stunning nerve cells but has not yet killed them, the damage might be reversed.
Yet another line of research involves the brains default network...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You keep on doing battle with strawmen:
>> “AT MINIMUM, we absolutely KNOW that benzene is significantly more toxic than hexane...” <<
Interesting that your views are opposite those of Drs. Fred and Alice Ottoboni who made that phrase famous.
Nothing "strawmanly" about that statement at all. It goes directly to the heart of the argument that "your hero" made in the article you linked upthread. Specifically, he says that benzene and hexane should be regulated to the same "safe dose". If you disagree that benzene is more toxic than hexane, then there is no hope for you. The difference in relative toxicity of the two chemicals is an accepted FACT of science. There is no possible justification for regulating them to identical levels. Based on that, I assume you believe, for instance, sodium cyanide is no more toxic than sodium chloride??
I fail to see how the linked article has anything whatsoever to do with what we are talking about. Are you just simply insane, randomly posting whatever strikes your fancy at the current moment, or what.
It has everything to do with what we are talking about.
Your promotion of poly unsaturated oils is un healthy, and that is the position of real scientists such as the Ottobonis.
You appear to be here to offer confusion and misdirection, or else, why this absurd comment?
>> “ I assume you believe, for instance, sodium cyanide is no more toxic than sodium chloride??” <<
Love your strawman arguments; keep on fighting them, its great exercise.
I see you have reading comprehension problems as well. In my post, far from "promoting" unsaturated oils, I was simply saying that current accepted science says that the unsaturated oils are healthier. My own opinion is not formed on the question.
"You appear to be here to offer confusion and misdirection, or else, why this absurd comment?"
I'm trying to understand your position in advocating that relatively innocuous chemicals, such as hexane and sodium choloride, should be regulated to the same standard as more toxic chemicals, such as benzene and sodium cyanide.
This IS what your "real scientist" is advocating, which is contrary to all the facts and understandings of toxicology. If his judgment on this one point is this badly wrong (which it is), then why should I put any credence in his positions of saturated vs. unsaturated oils?
The only person obfuscating around here is YOU. You have danced around vigorously, and failed to answer the above question. Repeatedly.
>> “I was simply saying that current accepted science says that the unsaturated oils are healthier.” <<
.
But no ‘science’ has ever offered that idea. It has been a political position from the start, with ADM and P&G calling the shots to pormote their products through government meddling.
.
>> “I’m trying to understand your position in advocating that relatively innocuous chemicals, such as hexane and sodium choloride, should be regulated to the same standard as more toxic chemicals, such as benzene and sodium cyanide.” <<
.
Back to the old stand-by strawman method huh?
.
>> This IS what your “real scientist” is advocating, which is contrary to all the facts and understandings of toxicology <<
.
Horse manure! - Fred and Alice Ottoboni are the Gold Standard in toxicology, world wide.
(or did you mean the other article?)
If it is this one you mean: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats_and_cancer.html
You’re still blowing acrid smoke. You jump on one out of more than ten toxic intermediary processes that are mentioned in the article, and totally ignore all the primary arguments.
Groves doesn’t rely solely on his own work or opinion, he lists 19 peer reviewed, published references, are you prepared to slay them all?
References
1. Gofman, J W, et al. The role of lipids and lipoproteins in atherosclerosis. Science 1950; 111: 166-181, 186
2. Keys A. Atherosclerosis: a problem in newer public health. J Mt Sinai Hosp 1953; 20: 118-139.
3. Mann G V. Diet-heart: End of an Era. New Eng J Med . 1977; 297: 644.
4. Carroll K K. Dietary fats and cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1991; 53: 1064S.
5. France T, Brown P. Test-tube cancers raise doubts over fats. New Scientist , 7 December 1991, p 12.
6. Newsholme E A. Mechanism for starvation suppression and refeeding activity of infection. Lancet 1977; i: 654.
7. Miller JD, et al. Br Med J 1973; i: 765.
8. Uldall PR, et al . Lancet 1974; ii: 514.
9. Pearce M L, Dayton S. Incidence of cancer in men on a diet high in polyunsaturated fat. Lancet 1971; i: 464.
10. American Heart Association Monograph, No 25. 1969.
11. Nauts HC. Cancer Research Institute Monograph No 18. 1984, p 91.
12. Mackie BS. Med J Austr 1974; 1: 810.
13. Karnauchow PN. Melanoma and sun exposure. Lancet 1995; 346: 915.
14. Kearney R. Promotion and prevention of tumour growth effects of endotoxin, inflammation and dietary lipids. Int Clin Nutr Rev 1987; 7: 157.
15. Wolk A, et al. A Prospective Study of Association of Monounsaturated Fat and Other Types of Fat With Risk of Breast Cancer. Arch Intern Med . 1998; 158: 41-45
16. Ip C, Scimeca J A, Thompson H J. Conjugated linoleic acid. A powerful anticarcinogen from animal fat sources. Cancer 1994; 74(3 Suppl): 1050-4.
17. Shultz T D, Chew B P, Seaman W R, Luedecke L O. Inhibitory effect of conjugated dienoic derivatives of linoleic acid and beta-carotene on the in vitro growth of human cancer cells. Cancer Letters 1992; 63: 125-133.
18. Lin H, Boylston TD, Chang MJ, Luedecke LO, Schultz TD. Survey of the conjugated linoleic acid contents of dairy products. J Dairy Sci . 1995; 78: 2358-65.
19. Cox BD, Whichelow MJ. Frequent consumption of red meat is not a risk factor for cancer. Br Med J 1997; 315: 1018.
Ah, a "natural foodie" nutcase. Thanks for finally outing yourself.
"Back to the old stand-by strawman method huh?"
Erroneous toxicology isn't a "strawman". It is central to the question.
"(or did you mean the other article?)
Yes.
"Youre still blowing acrid smoke. You jump on one out of more than ten toxic intermediary processes that are mentioned in the article, and totally ignore all the primary arguments."
Equating benzene with hexane isn't a "toxic intermediary process", it's simply wrong science. And anybody who makes such a claim has outed themselves as a "natural foods nutcase" of the "all processed foods are bad, only natural foods are acceptable" camp. The toxicity claim is so outrageously and ridiculously wrong that it negates anything else he might say or have said.
"Groves doesnt rely solely on his own work or opinion, he lists 19 peer reviewed, published references, are you prepared to slay them all?"
Irrelevant to the point I continue to make, and you keep claiming is a "strawman". You keep trying to defend the indefensible. Your "hero" was wrong on a fundamental point of science, and you just cannot bring yourself to admit it.
No, it was a complete strawman, since I was defending nothing, and there was nothing to defend, since on “equation” made; it was just the onlt straw you could grasp.
.
Natural foods? - Absolutely, but I will defend your right to poison yourself to your heart’s content.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.