Babies can be harmed by GM soy

Beverly wrote:
Ignoramus14714 wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 06:53:07 -0800, wrote:

Ignoramus30282 wrote:
On 9 Jan 2006 19:34:47 -0800, wrote:
He knows from my previous post where I recommended it in the first
place.

There is no diarrhea so far. I am not by any means convinced that 500
mg is the optimal dose, but it does not seem to have any immediate bad
consequences.

i

The ONLY possible bad consequences is the runs when too much is taken.
Not enough research has been done, but it was extrapolated that some
smaller animals produce the human equivalent of 12,000 mgs per day. So
some people suggest that 12,000 mg per day for a grown human is not
unreasonable.

My own philosophy in regards to the dose is, if the effect tapers off
at some point, to not take any more than is needed to achieve desired
effect. Increasing the dose beyond that point does not increase
benefit, but it does increase risk and cost.

It is nice to not have to deal with children's colds, esp. with a baby
in the house (we have a baby in addition to the 4.5 year old). A cold
for a baby (stuffed nose) is a huge problem due to the way babies eat
(sucking through the mouth and breathing through the nose). If they
cannot breath through the nose, feeding becomes difficult. So, I am
hopeful that vitamin C is working and that the 4.5 yo's lack of colds is
not merely a coincidence.

i

Research indicates vitamin C does nothing to prevent colds so it's
probably just a coincidence.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/cold.htm

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...DSH/colds.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7590

Nice cherry picking. Plenty of bad science has been funded to discredit
most vitamins at one time or another.

TC

TC

wrote in message
ups.com...

Beverly wrote:
Ignoramus14714 wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 06:53:07 -0800,
wrote:

Ignoramus30282 wrote:
On 9 Jan 2006 19:34:47 -0800,
wrote:
He knows from my previous post where I recommended it in the first
place.

There is no diarrhea so far. I am not by any means convinced that
500
mg is the optimal dose, but it does not seem to have any immediate
bad
consequences.

i

The ONLY possible bad consequences is the runs when too much is
taken.
Not enough research has been done, but it was extrapolated that some
smaller animals produce the human equivalent of 12,000 mgs per day.
So
some people suggest that 12,000 mg per day for a grown human is not
unreasonable.

My own philosophy in regards to the dose is, if the effect tapers off
at some point, to not take any more than is needed to achieve desired
effect. Increasing the dose beyond that point does not increase
benefit, but it does increase risk and cost.

It is nice to not have to deal with children's colds, esp. with a baby
in the house (we have a baby in addition to the 4.5 year old). A cold
for a baby (stuffed nose) is a huge problem due to the way babies eat
(sucking through the mouth and breathing through the nose). If they
cannot breath through the nose, feeding becomes difficult. So, I am
hopeful that vitamin C is working and that the 4.5 yo's lack of colds
is
not merely a coincidence.

i

Research indicates vitamin C does nothing to prevent colds so it's
probably just a coincidence.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/cold.htm

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...DSH/colds.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7590

Nice cherry picking. Plenty of bad science has been funded to discredit
most vitamins at one time or another.

TC

So basically the idea is to ignore what you don't agree with and call it bad
science? Whatever works for you I guess!
--
the volleyballchick

Beverly wrote:
Ignoramus14714 wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 06:53:07 -0800, wrote:

Ignoramus30282 wrote:
On 9 Jan 2006 19:34:47 -0800, wrote:
He knows from my previous post where I recommended it in the first
place.

There is no diarrhea so far. I am not by any means convinced that 500
mg is the optimal dose, but it does not seem to have any immediate bad
consequences.

i

The ONLY possible bad consequences is the runs when too much is taken.
Not enough research has been done, but it was extrapolated that some
smaller animals produce the human equivalent of 12,000 mgs per day. So
some people suggest that 12,000 mg per day for a grown human is not
unreasonable.

My own philosophy in regards to the dose is, if the effect tapers off
at some point, to not take any more than is needed to achieve desired
effect. Increasing the dose beyond that point does not increase
benefit, but it does increase risk and cost.

It is nice to not have to deal with children's colds, esp. with a baby
in the house (we have a baby in addition to the 4.5 year old). A cold
for a baby (stuffed nose) is a huge problem due to the way babies eat
(sucking through the mouth and breathing through the nose). If they
cannot breath through the nose, feeding becomes difficult. So, I am
hopeful that vitamin C is working and that the 4.5 yo's lack of colds is
not merely a coincidence.

i

Research indicates vitamin C does nothing to prevent colds so it's
probably just a coincidence.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/cold.htm

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...DSH/colds.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7590

From the last url you posted.:

quote***

"I don't understand why - but it does seem there is a small subset of
people who do seem to have substantial prevention benefit from taking
vitamin C, when for the general population it's zilch," Douglas says.

As well as considering the effect of regular daily does, the pair also
looked at whether starting to take vitamin C as soon as a symptoms
appeared could shorten a cold. They found no evidence that it could,
except for in one study which involved a huge 8 gram dose on the first
day of symptoms.

"For all except this 8 gram group, the evidence is quite unimpressive
that taking largish doses makes any difference at all once a cold has
started," says Douglas.

Journal reference: PLoS Medicine (Vol 2(6), p e68)

unquote ***

The subset that finds substantial prevention benefit are the 8 grams
group. I guess that this guy can't understand the simple concept that 8
grams or more does, in fact, give "substantial prevention benefit". And
he says that the rest of the evidence is un-impressive. But the rest of
the evidence uses significantly less vitamin C. Not enough to provide a
"substantial prevention benefit" like the higher dosages (8 grams). But
the 8 grams does provide "substantial prevention benefit". Does that
not mean something?

I am always amazed how these highly trained advanced degree holders can
stare the truth in the face and come to the opposite conclusion and
present their nonsense with a straight professional face. Is that
intellectual superiority or does he have a bias?

8 grams provides "substantial prevention benefit".

And that only looks at what vitamin C does *after* the symptoms present
themselves. It does not address regular daily high doses of vitamin C
to prevent colds and infections.

TC

Nunya B. wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Beverly wrote:
Ignoramus14714 wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 06:53:07 -0800,
wrote:

Ignoramus30282 wrote:
On 9 Jan 2006 19:34:47 -0800,
wrote:
He knows from my previous post where I recommended it in the first
place.

There is no diarrhea so far. I am not by any means convinced that
500
mg is the optimal dose, but it does not seem to have any immediate
bad
consequences.

i

The ONLY possible bad consequences is the runs when too much is
taken.
Not enough research has been done, but it was extrapolated that some
smaller animals produce the human equivalent of 12,000 mgs per day.
So
some people suggest that 12,000 mg per day for a grown human is not
unreasonable.

My own philosophy in regards to the dose is, if the effect tapers off
at some point, to not take any more than is needed to achieve desired
effect. Increasing the dose beyond that point does not increase
benefit, but it does increase risk and cost.

It is nice to not have to deal with children's colds, esp. with a baby
in the house (we have a baby in addition to the 4.5 year old). A cold
for a baby (stuffed nose) is a huge problem due to the way babies eat
(sucking through the mouth and breathing through the nose). If they
cannot breath through the nose, feeding becomes difficult. So, I am
hopeful that vitamin C is working and that the 4.5 yo's lack of colds
is
not merely a coincidence.

i

Research indicates vitamin C does nothing to prevent colds so it's
probably just a coincidence.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/cold.htm

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...DSH/colds.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7590

Nice cherry picking. Plenty of bad science has been funded to discredit
most vitamins at one time or another.

TC

So basically the idea is to ignore what you don't agree with and call it bad
science? Whatever works for you I guess!
--
the volleyballchick

Nope. The idea is to recognise bad science and call it what it is.
There are some studies that I agree with that is bad science, but you
won't see me citing them.

The facts are that vitamins are essential by their very definition. And
getting the optimum amounts are very important to good health, and that
includes being able to fight off viral and bacterial infections, which
is what colds and flus are. And vitamin C is very important for our
basic immune system functions. The importance of vitamin C was all
documented in the 1700's.

So, for some yahoo sell-out researcher to come out and try to make
vitamin C out to be in-effective or dangerous is just plain idiocy and
very, very bad science. The worst possible science because that kind of
"science" exists so that the food industry can produce foods with very
little vitamin content and they can claim that it is somehow
nutritious.

TC

Ignoramus14714 wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 08:52:26 -0800, wrote:

Beverly wrote:
Ignoramus14714 wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 06:53:07 -0800, wrote:

Ignoramus30282 wrote:
On 9 Jan 2006 19:34:47 -0800, wrote:
He knows from my previous post where I recommended it in the first
place.

There is no diarrhea so far. I am not by any means convinced that 500
mg is the optimal dose, but it does not seem to have any immediate bad
consequences.

i

The ONLY possible bad consequences is the runs when too much is taken.
Not enough research has been done, but it was extrapolated that some
smaller animals produce the human equivalent of 12,000 mgs per day. So
some people suggest that 12,000 mg per day for a grown human is not
unreasonable.

My own philosophy in regards to the dose is, if the effect tapers off
at some point, to not take any more than is needed to achieve desired
effect. Increasing the dose beyond that point does not increase
benefit, but it does increase risk and cost.

It is nice to not have to deal with children's colds, esp. with a baby
in the house (we have a baby in addition to the 4.5 year old). A cold
for a baby (stuffed nose) is a huge problem due to the way babies eat
(sucking through the mouth and breathing through the nose). If they
cannot breath through the nose, feeding becomes difficult. So, I am
hopeful that vitamin C is working and that the 4.5 yo's lack of colds is
not merely a coincidence.

i

Research indicates vitamin C does nothing to prevent colds so it's
probably just a coincidence.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/cold.htm

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...DSH/colds.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7590

Nice cherry picking. Plenty of bad science has been funded to discredit
most vitamins at one time or another.

I find that research to be actually convincing. Hard to disagree with
several double blind, randomized studies. And yet, it disagrees with
my own experiences so far. A conundrum.

What should a practical person do in this situation? My own answer is
that it would be stupid to discontinue something that seems to produce
the desired effect and has no visible ill effects. Perhaps my son (and
I, I have not had colds since September when I started taking Vitamin
C either) is one of the few people who benefit from vitamin C. Maybe
there are not enough such people to influence statistics of large
groups of patience. We'll see.

i

Actually some of the research did indicate the vitamin C helped to
reduce the length and severity of the colds. I tend to think
continuing the vitamin C can't do any harm as long as no diarrhea or
other symptoms appear.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Nunya B. wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Beverly wrote:
Ignoramus14714 wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 06:53:07 -0800,
wrote:

Ignoramus30282 wrote:
On 9 Jan 2006 19:34:47 -0800,
wrote:
He knows from my previous post where I recommended it in the
first
place.

There is no diarrhea so far. I am not by any means convinced that
500
mg is the optimal dose, but it does not seem to have any
immediate
bad
consequences.

i

The ONLY possible bad consequences is the runs when too much is
taken.
Not enough research has been done, but it was extrapolated that
some
smaller animals produce the human equivalent of 12,000 mgs per
day.
So
some people suggest that 12,000 mg per day for a grown human is
not
unreasonable.

My own philosophy in regards to the dose is, if the effect tapers
off
at some point, to not take any more than is needed to achieve
desired
effect. Increasing the dose beyond that point does not increase
benefit, but it does increase risk and cost.

It is nice to not have to deal with children's colds, esp. with a
baby
in the house (we have a baby in addition to the 4.5 year old). A
cold
for a baby (stuffed nose) is a huge problem due to the way babies
eat
(sucking through the mouth and breathing through the nose). If they
cannot breath through the nose, feeding becomes difficult. So, I am
hopeful that vitamin C is working and that the 4.5 yo's lack of
colds
is
not merely a coincidence.

i

Research indicates vitamin C does nothing to prevent colds so it's
probably just a coincidence.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/cold.htm

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...DSH/colds.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7590

Nice cherry picking. Plenty of bad science has been funded to discredit
most vitamins at one time or another.

TC

So basically the idea is to ignore what you don't agree with and call it
bad
science? Whatever works for you I guess!
--
the volleyballchick

Nope. The idea is to recognise bad science and call it what it is.
There are some studies that I agree with that is bad science, but you
won't see me citing them.

The facts are that vitamins are essential by their very definition. And
getting the optimum amounts are very important to good health, and that
includes being able to fight off viral and bacterial infections, which
is what colds and flus are. And vitamin C is very important for our
basic immune system functions. The importance of vitamin C was all
documented in the 1700's.

So, for some yahoo sell-out researcher to come out and try to make
vitamin C out to be in-effective or dangerous is just plain idiocy and
very, very bad science. The worst possible science because that kind of
"science" exists so that the food industry can produce foods with very
little vitamin content and they can claim that it is somehow
nutritious.

TC

I'm not anti-vitamin, I've just experienced the lack of effectiveness of
substantial quantities of Vitamin C personally. However it does make you
pee a pretty, fluorescent color.

I think the vitamin and supplement industry is just as misleading as the
food industry, there are no angels in the bunch.
--
the volleyballchick

wrote:
: Beverly wrote:
: Ignoramus14714 wrote:
: On 10 Jan 2006 06:53:07 -0800,
: wrote:
:
: Ignoramus30282 wrote:
: On 9 Jan 2006 19:34:47 -0800,
: wrote:
: He knows from my previous post where I recommended it in the
: first
: place.
:
: There is no diarrhea so far. I am not by any means convinced
: that 500
: mg is the optimal dose, but it does not seem to have any
: immediate bad consequences.
:
: i
:
: The ONLY possible bad consequences is the runs when too much is
: taken.
: Not enough research has been done, but it was extrapolated that
: some
: smaller animals produce the human equivalent of 12,000 mgs per
: day. So
: some people suggest that 12,000 mg per day for a grown human is
: not
: unreasonable.
:
: My own philosophy in regards to the dose is, if the effect tapers
: off
: at some point, to not take any more than is needed to achieve
: desired
: effect. Increasing the dose beyond that point does not increase
: benefit, but it does increase risk and cost.
:
: It is nice to not have to deal with children's colds, esp. with a
: baby
: in the house (we have a baby in addition to the 4.5 year old). A
: cold
: for a baby (stuffed nose) is a huge problem due to the way babies
: eat (sucking through the mouth and breathing through the nose).
: If they
: cannot breath through the nose, feeding becomes difficult. So, I
: am
: hopeful that vitamin C is working and that the 4.5 yo's lack of
: colds is
: not merely a coincidence.
:
: i
:
: Research indicates vitamin C does nothing to prevent colds so it's
: probably just a coincidence.
:
: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/cold.htm
:
: http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...DSH/colds.html
:
: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7590
:
:From the last url you posted.:
:
: quote***
:
: "I don't understand why - but it does seem there is a small subset of
: people who do seem to have substantial prevention benefit from taking
: vitamin C, when for the general population it's zilch," Douglas says.
:
: As well as considering the effect of regular daily does, the pair
: also
: looked at whether starting to take vitamin C as soon as a symptoms
: appeared could shorten a cold. They found no evidence that it could,
: except for in one study which involved a huge 8 gram dose on the
: first
: day of symptoms.
:
: "For all except this 8 gram group, the evidence is quite unimpressive
: that taking largish doses makes any difference at all once a cold has
: started," says Douglas.
:
: Journal reference: PLoS Medicine (Vol 2(6), p e68)
:
: unquote ***
:
: The subset that finds substantial prevention benefit are the 8 grams
: group. I guess that this guy can't understand the simple concept
: that 8
: grams or more does, in fact, give "substantial prevention benefit".
: And
: he says that the rest of the evidence is un-impressive. But the rest
: of
: the evidence uses significantly less vitamin C. Not enough to
: provide a "substantial prevention benefit" like the higher dosages
: (8 grams). But
: the 8 grams does provide "substantial prevention benefit". Does that
: not mean something?
:
: I am always amazed how these highly trained advanced degree holders
: can
: stare the truth in the face and come to the opposite conclusion and
: present their nonsense with a straight professional face. Is that
: intellectual superiority or does he have a bias?
:
: 8 grams provides "substantial prevention benefit".
:
: And that only looks at what vitamin C does *after* the symptoms
: present
: themselves. It does not address regular daily high doses of vitamin C
: to prevent colds and infections.

I get the impression that the researcher thinks that 8 g of vit C is a
rather large and impractical dose. Based on taking 8 1 g pills a day of vit
C, one does wonder, even though some of that can obviously come from food.

wrote:
Beverly's text got trimmed ...
wrote:

The ONLY possible bad consequences is the runs when too much is taken.

And that takes a lot. This portion I'm quoting is much further up in
the thread but it ties in below.

Not enough research has been done, but it was extrapolated that some
smaller animals produce the human equivalent of 12,000 mgs per day. So
some people suggest that 12,000 mg per day for a grown human is not
unreasonable.

Ask a veterinarian not a doctor for humans about the research on
vitamin C. Primates and a small list of animals are the only ones
who can't make their own vitamin C. (The list runs something like
salmon, hamsters, primates.)

Many vets know how much C various animals produce daily. A
goat weighing about 150 pounds makes around 15 grams per
day for example. Nature rarely makes excess unless there's a
selective breeding programs going on. No one selectively breeds
goats based on C production. This point doesn't necessarily
extend to humans, but ...

From the last url you posted.:
quote***

"For all except this 8 gram group, the evidence is quite unimpressive
that taking largish doses makes any difference at all once a cold has
started," says Douglas.

Journal reference: PLoS Medicine (Vol 2(6), p e68)
unquote ***

The subset that finds substantial prevention benefit are the 8 grams
group. I guess that this guy can't understand the simple concept that 8
grams or more does, in fact, give "substantial prevention benefit". And
he says that the rest of the evidence is un-impressive. But the rest of
the evidence uses significantly less vitamin C. Not enough to provide a
"substantial prevention benefit" like the higher dosages (8 grams). But
the 8 grams does provide "substantial prevention benefit". Does that
not mean something?

Compare with the 12 and 15 gram levels discussed above. Either
it's a blip in the data or it means something important that is being
missed by most folks.

I am always amazed how these highly trained advanced degree holders can
stare the truth in the face and come to the opposite conclusion and
present their nonsense with a straight professional face. Is that
intellectual superiority or does he have a bias?

I think it's a bias but an innocent one. Scurvey is cured by
*far* lower dosages so it is the lower dosages that are tested for.

8 grams provides "substantial prevention benefit".

And that only looks at what vitamin C does *after* the symptoms present
themselves. It does not address regular daily high doses of vitamin C
to prevent colds and infections.

Right. The blind-side is the good effects at the very small dosage
end make scientists not inclined to study the very large dosage
end. But farm animals make their own very large dosages.

When doing comparative studies it looks to me like the next set
of benefits *starts* at the 8 gram level and range up to the level that
triggers diarhea. The optimal dosage is very likely to be higher than
8 grams given all of the pieces above.

Linus Pauling here we come?

wrote:
Ignoramus30282 wrote:
On 9 Jan 2006 19:34:47 -0800, wrote:
He knows from my previous post where I recommended it in the first
place.

There is no diarrhea so far. I am not by any means convinced that 500
mg is the optimal dose, but it does not seem to have any immediate bad
consequences.

i

The ONLY possible bad consequences is the runs when too much is taken.
Not enough research has been done, but it was extrapolated that some
smaller animals produce the human equivalent of 12,000 mgs per day. So
some people suggest that 12,000 mg per day for a grown human is not
unreasonable.

For a small child of 4 or 5 years old, 500 mgs doesn't sound like too
much to me, especially if there is no indication of any diarrhea.

And note that at times of sickness or injury, the body can take even
more vitamin C without the diarrhea which indicates a greater need and
a greater tolerance of higher doses at that time.

TC

At what site can I find the information regarding the last paragraph?
I would be interested in knowing how the body can tolerate higher doses
of vitamin C during illnesses.

Roger Zoul wrote:
wrote:

: 8 grams provides "substantial prevention benefit".
: And that only looks at what vitamin C does *after* the symptoms
: present
: themselves. It does not address regular daily high doses of vitamin C
: to prevent colds and infections.

I get the impression that the researcher thinks that 8 g of vit C is a
rather large and impractical dose. Based on taking 8 1 g pills a day of vit
C, one does wonder, even though some of that can obviously come from food.

I figure pretty much anything I eat these days was impractical
at some point. Once it's known that the optimal dosage of
vitamin C is over 8 grams per day the market should open and
practical sources should start appearing.

Maybe vitamin C in powder form would work when dusted on
a salad or other food just before eating it. Imagine a shaker
of ester-C powder on most tables in the nation. And parents
chiding their children to use the sour dust or they can't have
dessert ...