Long Awaited PROOF of the effects of MERCURY!!

wrote:


PeterB wrote:
wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.

I am a bit confused. Is insoluble dietary fiber, which is not
absorbed, poisonous at any dose? I thought eating fiber is good for
us. Surely, fiber is made of chemicals.

BobB

Since fiber cannot be digested (or metabolized) it isn't functionally a
nutrient. All nutrients support homeostasis directly. The statement
that "any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT..." is conditional on
both. Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is inert.

PeterB

Now I am even more confused. Since you were only talking about
nutrients not chemicals, the sentence comes down to:
"Any nutrient (was chemical) not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous
at any dose."
The second "nutrient" refers to the classic definition of nutrient
(something of benefit to the body). However, the first "nutrient"
applies to any chemical that can be absorbed into the bloodstream.

There are also nutrients that in too high a dose are bad for you: some
of the vitamins, iron, chromium, etc.

Also, there are a number of substances that are not absorbed by the gut
into the blood stream that are not inert. Fiber is far from inert and
is quite beneficial. Some fibers (fermentable fiber) actually do get
metabolized by gut bacteria. You are defining words in a very
different way than I have seen them used before.

BobB

That's what PeterB does, Bob. It's his way of "winning" an argument,
because he can't call on things like facts.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

wrote:
PeterB wrote:
wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.
I am a bit confused. Is insoluble dietary fiber, which is not
absorbed, poisonous at any dose? I thought eating fiber is good for
us. Surely, fiber is made of chemicals.

BobB
Since fiber cannot be digested (or metabolized) it isn't functionally a
nutrient. All nutrients support homeostasis directly. The statement
that "any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT..." is conditional on
both. Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is inert.

PeterB

Now I am even more confused. Since you were only talking about
nutrients not chemicals, the sentence comes down to:
"Any nutrient (was chemical) not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous
at any dose."
The second "nutrient" refers to the classic definition of nutrient
(something of benefit to the body). However, the first "nutrient"
applies to any chemical that can be absorbed into the bloodstream.

There are also nutrients that in too high a dose are bad for you: some
of the vitamins, iron, chromium, etc.

Also, there are a number of substances that are not absorbed by the gut
into the blood stream that are not inert. Fiber is far from inert and
is quite beneficial. Some fibers (fermentable fiber) actually do get
metabolized by gut bacteria. You are defining words in a very
different way than I have seen them used before.

Bobb, PeteyB is guilty of violation of the Geneva Convention rules
against torturing semantics and logic. Trying to understand him is a
known cause of migraines.

In message om, PeterB
wrote:

If that's what you are hearing, explain to them that only nutrients are
good for you (by definition.) *Can you do that without injuring
yourself?

And therefore, anything good for you is a nutrient (or are
we dealing with Alternative Set Theory as well as Alternative
Statistics?)

Hmmm ... I think we have a new MHA contest for "nutrients."
In my case, I know sex is good for you so I'm off to discuss
"lunch" with $HERSELF.

Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.

Hmmm -- so, for instance, nitrous oxide (not metabolized as
a nutrient, right?) is poisonous at any dose. Please get back
to us on your quality of life without it.

The degree of harm does not tell us that something is poisonous, it
tells us how poisonous it is. Similarly, your ignorance is not proven
by the degree of stupidity you display in any given post, but by your
motive in remaining stupid.

Are nutrients ever poisonous?

I'm trying to fill in the whole set relationship between
PB's definition of "nutrient" and "poisonous". We know that
he defines any non-nutrient as "poisonous," (see above) so
that takes care of half of the four possible combinations.
The missing one is the intersection of "nutrient" and "posionous,"
which would complete the relation.

I look forward to clarification of this essential point.

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text.
Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
A:*Top-posting.
Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?

In message .com, PeterB
wrote:

Since fiber cannot be digested (or metabolized) it isn't functionally a
nutrient. *All nutrients support homeostasis directly. *The statement
that "any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT..." is conditional on
both. *Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is inert.

OK, we're closing in on the taxonomy here. Anything that doesn't
enter the bloodstream is inert and is neither a poison nor a
nutrient, so we know that polyethylene glycol is "inert."

Since "Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous
at any dose" [1], and "only nutrients are good for you (by
definition.)" [2], we know that anything not a nutrient is not
good for you, and therefore anything that does not enter the
bloodstream is not a nutrient, and therefore is not good for you.

So much for dietary fiber. For that matter, since proteins also
don't enter the bloodstream from the gut they're also not
"nutrients" and are therefore not good for you.

The things you learn on MHA.

"All nutrients support homeostasis directly" is unfortunately
not terribly helpful since on its face it rules out all of the
chemicals required by an organism (e.g. carbohydrates) for the
production of essential internal chemicals. I'm afraid more
exegesis will be needed here.

[1] om
[2] Ibid.

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text.
Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
A:*Top-posting.
Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?

In message , Peter Bowditch
wrote:
wrote:

Also, there are a number of substances that are not absorbed by the gut
into the blood stream that are not inert. Fiber is far from inert and
is quite beneficial. Some fibers (fermentable fiber) actually do get
metabolized by gut bacteria. You are defining words in a very
different way than I have seen them used before.

BobB

That's what PeterB does, Bob. It's his way of "winning" an argument,
because he can't call on things like facts.

I find it much more productive to simply accept that PB is never
going to learn the language that the rest of us share. If you
start from that premise and study PeterBish as a language with
its own vocabulary, syntax, and semantics you get farther and,
IMHO, have more fun.

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text.
Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
A:*Top-posting.
Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:8twTg.861$6S2.779@trndny02...
wrote:
PeterB wrote:
wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.
I am a bit confused. Is insoluble dietary fiber, which is not
absorbed, poisonous at any dose? I thought eating fiber is good for
us. Surely, fiber is made of chemicals.

BobB
Since fiber cannot be digested (or metabolized) it isn't functionally a
nutrient. All nutrients support homeostasis directly. The statement
that "any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT..." is conditional on
both. Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is inert.

PeterB

Now I am even more confused. Since you were only talking about
nutrients not chemicals, the sentence comes down to:
"Any nutrient (was chemical) not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous
at any dose."
The second "nutrient" refers to the classic definition of nutrient
(something of benefit to the body). However, the first "nutrient"
applies to any chemical that can be absorbed into the bloodstream.

There are also nutrients that in too high a dose are bad for you: some
of the vitamins, iron, chromium, etc.

Also, there are a number of substances that are not absorbed by the gut
into the blood stream that are not inert. Fiber is far from inert and
is quite beneficial. Some fibers (fermentable fiber) actually do get
metabolized by gut bacteria. You are defining words in a very
different way than I have seen them used before.

Bobb, PeteyB is guilty of violation of the Geneva Convention rules against
torturing semantics and logic. Trying to understand him is a known cause
of migraines.

PeterB is not the subject. Furthermore, *I* posted the PROOF-- and the fact
the FDA knew it.
The PROOF was dismissed by them.

Every time you respond to my thread, you show yourself to be dishonest.
While belittling others.