|
#11
03-19-2005, 08:41 PM
| |||
| |||
 Re: Are you taking your vitamins? "DZ" <3404[at]248613448.260077745.25881.20643.27342> wrote in message news:22059[at]118504076.299914439.2151.22702.31268... - quote - > Robert <RobertJ[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
Money is needed to do any research along with access to equipment and or> > "Dr_Dickie" wrote > > > I think that a closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life > > > behind you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-). I suspect that > > > Robert is not a scientist (perhaps he plays one on TV). > > > > I am state licensed as a Clinical Laboratory Scientist and that is > > real life and not TV. I am involved in applied science in the > > medical field. I think you guys need a to live in the real world > > and not one in which all scientist are humble and don't hype the > > research they do and the next thing you will say is that they don't > > profit from their research. I am not saying they are nasty people > > or unnecessary, quite the contrary. Major advances are made that > > profit everyone and not just the scientist who invented or came up > > with something useful. Most of the stuff they come up with is > > useless with dead ends but necessary in order to find the right > > path. Those that are good at it profit immensely in terms of money, > > positions and prestige. Those that aren't very good at it are > > humbled by their own lack of success. Who discovered the HIV virus? > > Two humble scientists? The one from the US or the one from France? > > Seems to me the problem is elsewhere. As long as you have > qualifications (bureaucratic piece of paper) and your free will, you > can lead your own independent research program. No "hype" needed. research material or in survey studies computer access and data access. In order to get money you need to make proposels for your research. You have to sell yourself and your proposal. There is no way around that. Once you obtain grants you must produce papers or work products. - quote - > Publications is what makes a name recognized and the resume
writing style can "hype" the findings.> impressive. Scientists that hype their research don't look too good > among their colleagues and manuscripts doing so have low chances to > survive through the review process. The mere conclusions of papers or findings based on substance and not on I've spent several years in pharma - quote - > industry before moving out to do more theoretical stuff which I like
The names on papers is pretty much situational as institutions have teams> more. Even there I had no problems publishing independent research. I > would not list my supervisors or anyone else as co-authors unless they > contributed to actiual results AND writing. > > DZ with senior leaders signing off on all the research. The work product you did was under the institution you worked for so any revenue generated would fall on the institution. Associates and fellows have no say on who signs off on papers. They may be given the green light to do independent work but that is still in the hands for seniors to have such permission. They control the money unless you have outside sources or grants gained on your own. Institutional affiliation helps on gaining money and prestige. Two way street. Ok, good luck |
|
#10
03-19-2005, 07:34 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? Robert <RobertJ[at]hotmail.com> wrote: - quote - > "Dr_Dickie" wrote
Seems to me the problem is elsewhere. As long as you have> > I think that a closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life > > behind you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-). I suspect that > > Robert is not a scientist (perhaps he plays one on TV). > > I am state licensed as a Clinical Laboratory Scientist and that is > real life and not TV. I am involved in applied science in the > medical field. I think you guys need a to live in the real world > and not one in which all scientist are humble and don't hype the > research they do and the next thing you will say is that they don't > profit from their research. I am not saying they are nasty people > or unnecessary, quite the contrary. Major advances are made that > profit everyone and not just the scientist who invented or came up > with something useful. Most of the stuff they come up with is > useless with dead ends but necessary in order to find the right > path. Those that are good at it profit immensely in terms of money, > positions and prestige. Those that aren't very good at it are > humbled by their own lack of success. Who discovered the HIV virus? > Two humble scientists? The one from the US or the one from France? qualifications (bureaucratic piece of paper) and your free will, you can lead your own independent research program. No "hype" needed. Publications is what makes a name recognized and the resume impressive. Scientists that hype their research don't look too good among their colleagues and manuscripts doing so have low chances to survive through the review process. I've spent several years in pharma industry before moving out to do more theoretical stuff which I like more. Even there I had no problems publishing independent research. I would not list my supervisors or anyone else as co-authors unless they contributed to actiual results AND writing. DZ |
|
#9
03-19-2005, 06:06 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? "Dr_Dickie" <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote in message > > I think that a closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life behind - quote - > you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-).
I am state licensed as a Clinical Laboratory Scientist and that is real life> I suspect that Robert is not a scientist (perhaps he plays one on TV). and not TV. I am involved in applied science in the medical field. I think you guys need a to live in the real world and not one in which all scientist are humble and don't hype the research they do and the next thing you will say is that they don't profit from their research. I am not saying they are nasty people or unnecessary, quite the contrary. Major advances are made that profit everyone and not just the scientist who invented or came up with something useful. Most of the stuff they come up with is useless with dead ends but necessary in order to find the right path. Those that are good at it profit immensely in terms of money, positions and prestige. Those that aren't very good at it are humbled by their own lack of success. Who discovered the HIV virus? Two humble scientists? The one from the US or the one from France? |
|
#8
03-19-2005, 11:38 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? "DZ" <17587[at]2174729598.3068824866.4810.25847.10978> wrote in message news:13160[at]1616210234.184248732.8253.1764.8042... - quote - > Robert <RobertJ[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
I think that a closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life behind> > "Dr_Dickie" <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote > > > "Robert" <RobertJ[at]hotmail.com> wrote > > > > What happened to all those people who discovered the word > > > > oxidation and all those bad diseases caused by it. Jump on the > > > > anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course. Let's see them > > > > back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of > > > > course. That must be the answer. > > > > > > That's funny. Scientists I know, and certainly no biological > > > scientists I know, ever blame one cause or one cure. The point is, > > > taking mega doses of one isomer is not the cure and may be a > > > problem (in this case natural is better). Remember our genes were > > > developed without the introduction of processed food (or vitamins). > > > I suspect that taking the right mix may help. A panacea, no, only > > > the hucksters say so. In certain circumstances can it be very > > > beneficial, hell yes. Again, the "cure-all" stance is hinted at by > > > the media, not the scientists. > > > > The scientist are skepical in private but certainly become > > promotional when seeking money for their research. I do not know any > > scientist that does not hype the worth of his own research. > > Most scientists I know do not hype the worth of their own research. > > > Another problem is that if you take the DNA double helix fame in which Dr > > Rosalyn (???) did most of the work involving X ray defraction specs. She > > did not recognize the significance of the pattern and here comes Watson and > > Crick and right away came up the the double helix interpretation and figured > > out the DNA connection. They got the glory and the lady got nothing. > > What this tells scientists is that it is not good enough to do the bench > > work but you must come up with the proper interpretation of your own work. > > This makes scientist speculate into outer-space involving their work so they > > can get credit for any future work performed by anybody else. > > Doesn't tell anything of the kind to me. > > DZ you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-). I suspect that Robert is not a scientist (perhaps he plays one on TV). -- Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov |
|
#7
03-18-2005, 08:10 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? Robert <RobertJ[at]hotmail.com> wrote: - quote - > "Dr_Dickie" <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote
Most scientists I know do not hype the worth of their own research.> > "Robert" <RobertJ[at]hotmail.com> wrote > > > What happened to all those people who discovered the word > > > oxidation and all those bad diseases caused by it. Jump on the > > > anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course. Let's see them > > > back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of > > > course. That must be the answer. > > > > That's funny. Scientists I know, and certainly no biological > > scientists I know, ever blame one cause or one cure. The point is, > > taking mega doses of one isomer is not the cure and may be a > > problem (in this case natural is better). Remember our genes were > > developed without the introduction of processed food (or vitamins). > > I suspect that taking the right mix may help. A panacea, no, only > > the hucksters say so. In certain circumstances can it be very > > beneficial, hell yes. Again, the "cure-all" stance is hinted at by > > the media, not the scientists. > > The scientist are skepical in private but certainly become > promotional when seeking money for their research. I do not know any > scientist that does not hype the worth of his own research. - quote - > Another problem is that if you take the DNA double helix fame in which Dr
Doesn't tell anything of the kind to me.> Rosalyn (???) did most of the work involving X ray defraction specs. She > did not recognize the significance of the pattern and here comes Watson and > Crick and right away came up the the double helix interpretation and figured > out the DNA connection. They got the glory and the lady got nothing. > What this tells scientists is that it is not good enough to do the bench > work but you must come up with the proper interpretation of your own work. > This makes scientist speculate into outer-space involving their work so they > can get credit for any future work performed by anybody else. DZ |
|
#6
03-17-2005, 07:46 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? "Dr_Dickie" <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote in message news:1111067115.0e20dfa20e1f8b76d37a300c5a83fc97[at]teranews... - quote - >
seeking money for their research. I do not know any scientist that does not> "Robert" <RobertJ[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4vOdncBuWfT-JqXfRVn-vQ[at]got.net... > > What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation and > all > > those bad diseases caused by it. > > Jump on the anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course. > > Let's see them back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of > > course. That must be the answer. > > > > > > > That's funny. Scientists I know, and certainly no biological scientists I > know, ever blame one cause or one cure. The point is, taking mega doses of > one isomer is not the cure and may be a problem (in this case natural is > better). Remember our genes were developed without the introduction of > processed food (or vitamins). > I suspect that taking the right mix may help. A panacea, no, only the > hucksters say so. In certain circumstances can it be very beneficial, hell > yes. Again, the "cure-all" stance is hinted at by the media, not the > scientists. The scientist are skepical in private but certainly become promotional when hype the worth of his own research. Another problem is that if you take the DNA double helix fame in which Dr Rosalyn (???) did most of the work involving X ray defraction specs. She did not recognize the significance of the pattern and here comes Watson and Crick and right away came up the the double helix interpretation and figured out the DNA connection. They got the glory and the lady got nothing. What this tells scientists is that it is not good enough to do the bench work but you must come up with the proper interpretation of your own work. This makes scientist speculate into outer-space involving their work so they can get credit for any future work performed by anybody else. It is their ignorance and desire for ratings that drives them, - quote - > not science (as for hucksters, just greed).
It is both. There is solid evidense and a conspiracy in seeking funding for> Or do you think that oxidation and its association with disease is simply a > conspiracy? future research and greed by manufacturers and hucksters. - quote - > -- > Dr. Dickie > Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 > Poking kooks with a pointy stick. > "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new > discoveries, > is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" > - Isaac Asimov > > |
|
#5
03-17-2005, 06:20 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? Dr_Dickie <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote: - quote - > "DZ" wrote
Sounds good to me!> > Dr_Dickie <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote: > > > "Ignoramus24806" wrote: > > > > http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7910550 > > > > > > > > CHICAGO (Reuters) - Daily vitamin E supplements do not prevent cancer, > > > > strokes or heart attacks in older people with vascular disease or > > > > diabetes, and may increase their risk of heart failure, a study said > > > > on Tuesday. [...] > > > > > > Haven't seen this study yet, so take this with a grain of salt--I'll > > > try to get to it this weekend. Most every study I have seen > > > involved the application of alpha tocopherol (actually d-L alpha > > > what is commonly called vitamin E). Real vitamin E is a mixture of > > > alpha, beta, and gamma tocopherols (actually 8 different isomers in > > > all). When given 10X the recommended dose of a single isomer it > > > displaces the others and can lead to some problems. > > > > The study IS about d-alpha. That's the point of the study. Most people > > do take d-alpha, not mixed tocopherols and it makes perfect sense to > > examine its long term effects since lots of data is available. This is > > all acknowledged in their JAMA article. > > > > "Other potential mechanisms of harm associated with vitamin E > > supplements in doses much higher than those provided by balanced diets > > may relate to displacement of other fat-soluble antioxidants, such as > > lambda-tocopherol, disrupting the natural balance of antioxidant > > systems and a reduction in high-density lipoprotein > > (HDL2)cholesterol." > > > > Okay, like I said I haven't read the study yet. Didn't mean to imply > otherwise (like I said, this is being picked up by researchers). Funny > thing is, of course, the press acts like this all NEW. Hell, I first heard > about this about 10 years ago, this latest study is simply more proof. The > vitamin industry is starting to take notice as well, more and more mixed > tocopherols are being added to supplements. > Not always fast, but in the end some semblance of knowledge is achieved by > persistence. Like Einstein said, "If we knew what it was we were doing, it > would not be called research, would it?" DZ |
|
#4
03-17-2005, 12:45 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? "Robert" <RobertJ[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4vOdncBuWfT-JqXfRVn-vQ[at]got.net... - quote - > What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation and
That's funny. Scientists I know, and certainly no biological scientists Iall > those bad diseases caused by it. > Jump on the anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course. > Let's see them back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of > course. That must be the answer. > > > know, ever blame one cause or one cure. The point is, taking mega doses of one isomer is not the cure and may be a problem (in this case natural is better). Remember our genes were developed without the introduction of processed food (or vitamins). I suspect that taking the right mix may help. A panacea, no, only the hucksters say so. In certain circumstances can it be very beneficial, hell yes. Again, the "cure-all" stance is hinted at by the media, not the scientists. It is their ignorance and desire for ratings that drives them, not science (as for hucksters, just greed). Or do you think that oxidation and its association with disease is simply a conspiracy? -- Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov |
|
#3
03-17-2005, 12:36 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? "DZ" <netsink[at]nc.rr.com> wrote in message news:29419[at]662921949.203528663.9604.28875.19680... - quote - > Dr_Dickie <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote:
Okay, like I said I haven't read the study yet. Didn't mean to imply> > "Ignoramus24806" wrote: > > > http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7910550 > > > > > > CHICAGO (Reuters) - Daily vitamin E supplements do not prevent cancer, > > > strokes or heart attacks in older people with vascular disease or > > > diabetes, and may increase their risk of heart failure, a study said > > > on Tuesday. [...] > > > > Haven't seen this study yet, so take this with a grain of salt--I'll > > try to get to it this weekend. Most every study I have seen > > involved the application of alpha tocopherol (actually d-L alpha > > what is commonly called vitamin E). Real vitamin E is a mixture of > > alpha, beta, and gamma tocopherols (actually 8 different isomers in > > all). When given 10X the recommended dose of a single isomer it > > displaces the others and can lead to some problems. > > The study IS about d-alpha. That's the point of the study. Most people > do take d-alpha, not mixed tocopherols and it makes perfect sense to > examine its long term effects since lots of data is available. This is > all acknowledged in their JAMA article. > > "Other potential mechanisms of harm associated with vitamin E > supplements in doses much higher than those provided by balanced diets > may relate to displacement of other fat-soluble antioxidants, such as > lambda-tocopherol, disrupting the natural balance of antioxidant > systems and a reduction in high-density lipoprotein > (HDL2)cholesterol." > > DZ otherwise (like I said, this is being picked up by researchers). Funny thing is, of course, the press acts like this all NEW. Hell, I first heard about this about 10 years ago, this latest study is simply more proof. The vitamin industry is starting to take notice as well, more and more mixed tocopherols are being added to supplements. Not always fast, but in the end some semblance of knowledge is achieved by persistence. Like Einstein said, "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" -- Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov |
|
#2
03-16-2005, 11:22 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? "DZ" <11177[at]1952224279.1308513690.26600.15401.21741> wrote in message news:699[at]1190825914.1880111435.10777.7647.25394... - quote - > Robert <RobertJ[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
articles they publish. In order to gain revenue for their research they> > "DZ" wrote: > > > Dr_Dickie <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote: > > > > "Ignoramus24806" wrote: > > > > > http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7910550 > > > > > > > > > > CHICAGO (Reuters) - Daily vitamin E supplements do not prevent cancer, > > > > > strokes or heart attacks in older people with vascular disease or > > > > > diabetes, and may increase their risk of heart failure, a study said > > > > > on Tuesday. [...] > > > > > > > > Haven't seen this study yet, so take this with a grain of salt--I'll > > > > try to get to it this weekend. Most every study I have seen > > > > involved the application of alpha tocopherol (actually d-L alpha > > > > what is commonly called vitamin E). Real vitamin E is a mixture of > > > > alpha, beta, and gamma tocopherols (actually 8 different isomers in > > > > all). When given 10X the recommended dose of a single isomer it > > > > displaces the others and can lead to some problems. > > > > > > The study IS about d-alpha. That's the point of the study. Most people > > > do take d-alpha, not mixed tocopherols and it makes perfect sense to > > > examine its long term effects since lots of data is available. This is > > > all acknowledged in their JAMA article. > > > > > > "Other potential mechanisms of harm associated with vitamin E > > > supplements in doses much higher than those provided by balanced diets > > > may relate to displacement of other fat-soluble antioxidants, such as > > > lambda-tocopherol, disrupting the natural balance of antioxidant > > > systems and a reduction in high-density lipoprotein > > > (HDL2)cholesterol." > > > > What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation > > and all those bad diseases caused by it. Jump on the anti-oxidant > > bandwagon with vitamin E of course. Let's see them back track now. > > Not taking the right form of vitamin E of course. That must be the > > answer. > > There is no "them". Just a bunch of scientists doing honest, perhaps > even boring analysis of now large available data. > > DZ The them I am referring to are the scientists or researchers who write the engage in hyperbole to the max in the discussion section of the paper. Manufacturers of products then jump on the bandwagon in selling products. You also have the elitist nutritionist who think they are on the cutting edge of research by advocating supplemental use. To not do so makes them out of touch with modern research. A lot of people have caught on to that scenario that even the scientist now are corruptible by corporate America. In short their is a lack of critical thinking going on outside of research. |
|
#1
03-16-2005, 10:33 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? Robert <RobertJ[at]hotmail.com> wrote: - quote - > "DZ" wrote:
There is no "them". Just a bunch of scientists doing honest, perhaps> > Dr_Dickie <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote: > > > "Ignoramus24806" wrote: > > > > http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7910550 > > > > > > > > CHICAGO (Reuters) - Daily vitamin E supplements do not prevent cancer, > > > > strokes or heart attacks in older people with vascular disease or > > > > diabetes, and may increase their risk of heart failure, a study said > > > > on Tuesday. [...] > > > > > > Haven't seen this study yet, so take this with a grain of salt--I'll > > > try to get to it this weekend. Most every study I have seen > > > involved the application of alpha tocopherol (actually d-L alpha > > > what is commonly called vitamin E). Real vitamin E is a mixture of > > > alpha, beta, and gamma tocopherols (actually 8 different isomers in > > > all). When given 10X the recommended dose of a single isomer it > > > displaces the others and can lead to some problems. > > > > The study IS about d-alpha. That's the point of the study. Most people > > do take d-alpha, not mixed tocopherols and it makes perfect sense to > > examine its long term effects since lots of data is available. This is > > all acknowledged in their JAMA article. > > > > "Other potential mechanisms of harm associated with vitamin E > > supplements in doses much higher than those provided by balanced diets > > may relate to displacement of other fat-soluble antioxidants, such as > > lambda-tocopherol, disrupting the natural balance of antioxidant > > systems and a reduction in high-density lipoprotein > > (HDL2)cholesterol." > > What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation > and all those bad diseases caused by it. Jump on the anti-oxidant > bandwagon with vitamin E of course. Let's see them back track now. > Not taking the right form of vitamin E of course. That must be the > answer. even boring analysis of now large available data. DZ |
|
03-16-2005, 10:01 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation and all those bad diseases caused by it. Jump on the anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course. Let's see them back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of course. That must be the answer. "DZ" <netsink[at]nc.rr.com> wrote in message news:29419[at]662921949.203528663.9604.28875.19680... - quote - > Dr_Dickie <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote: > > "Ignoramus24806" wrote: > > > http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7910550 > > > > > > CHICAGO (Reuters) - Daily vitamin E supplements do not prevent cancer, > > > strokes or heart attacks in older people with vascular disease or > > > diabetes, and may increase their risk of heart failure, a study said > > > on Tuesday. [...] > > > > Haven't seen this study yet, so take this with a grain of salt--I'll > > try to get to it this weekend. Most every study I have seen > > involved the application of alpha tocopherol (actually d-L alpha > > what is commonly called vitamin E). Real vitamin E is a mixture of > > alpha, beta, and gamma tocopherols (actually 8 different isomers in > > all). When given 10X the recommended dose of a single isomer it > > displaces the others and can lead to some problems. > > The study IS about d-alpha. That's the point of the study. Most people > do take d-alpha, not mixed tocopherols and it makes perfect sense to > examine its long term effects since lots of data is available. This is > all acknowledged in their JAMA article. > > "Other potential mechanisms of harm associated with vitamin E > supplements in doses much higher than those provided by balanced diets > may relate to displacement of other fat-soluble antioxidants, such as > lambda-tocopherol, disrupting the natural balance of antioxidant > systems and a reduction in high-density lipoprotein > (HDL2)cholesterol." > > DZ |
|
#-1
03-16-2005, 07:48 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Are you taking your vitamins? Dr_Dickie <Dr_Dicke[at]chembench.com> wrote: - quote - > "Ignoramus24806" wrote:
The study IS about d-alpha. That's the point of the study. Most people> > http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7910550 > > > > CHICAGO (Reuters) - Daily vitamin E supplements do not prevent cancer, > > strokes or heart attacks in older people with vascular disease or > > diabetes, and may increase their risk of heart failure, a study said > > on Tuesday. [...] > > Haven't seen this study yet, so take this with a grain of salt--I'll > try to get to it this weekend. Most every study I have seen > involved the application of alpha tocopherol (actually d-L alpha > what is commonly called vitamin E). Real vitamin E is a mixture of > alpha, beta, and gamma tocopherols (actually 8 different isomers in > all). When given 10X the recommended dose of a single isomer it > displaces the others and can lead to some problems. do take d-alpha, not mixed tocopherols and it makes perfect sense to examine its long term effects since lots of data is available. This is all acknowledged in their JAMA article. "Other potential mechanisms of harm associated with vitamin E supplements in doses much higher than those provided by balanced diets may relate to displacement of other fat-soluble antioxidants, such as lambda-tocopherol, disrupting the natural balance of antioxidant systems and a reduction in high-density lipoprotein (HDL2)cholesterol." DZ |
| Tags |
| taking, vitamins |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Taking a break from it all The Webby: Taking a little trip to SF to see the family. Catch up soon. Be well, Webby | The Webby | Dentistry | 10 | 06-02-2007 05:35 PM |
| Taking time off from usenet The Webby: Greetings everyone, Take care, TW, Sabra | The Webby | Dentistry | 17 | 01-31-2005 07:15 PM |
| Taking responsibility requires taking action The Webby: As a group of people with an interest in the subjects that have been and will be discussed at sci.med.dentistry , we need to consider how it is that we function. Are we only a group of individuals or are we a group? What is the significance... | The Webby | Dentistry | 6 | 11-03-2004 08:10 PM |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
