Here's today's post from "Sham vs. Wham: The Health Insider", at
http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/

---
Headline: Validation of the Value of Organic Produce?

Perhaps you've chosen organic produce, as my family has, and yet you
really don't know if the extra expense is worthwhile. Well, you can
relax, because research is starting to come in about the nutritional
content of that organic produce. The benefits may, if this research
continues to bear fruit (sorry, couldn't help it), go further than
just reducing the amount of pesticides in your body.

Take the tomato, for example, which is a relatively "hot" organic,
selling at a 19% increase annually. According to new research,
organically grown tomatoes contain higher levels of beneficial
flavonoids. The science, published in the Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, reports that tomatoes grown organically contained
higher levels of the nutrients quercetin and kaempferol aglycones than
their conventionally grown counterparts.

Alyson Mitchell from the University of California-Davis, and
researchers from University of Minnesota studied the levels of these
important nutritional ingredients in dried tomato samples over a
period of ten years. The tomatoes were grown and processed
conventionally or organically.

The organic tomatoes contained on average 79 and 97 per cent more of
the nutrients than conventionally grown tomatoes.

The authors propose that "over-fertilization" is behind of the loss of
these chemicals in conventionally grown plants. Flavonoids are
produced as a defence mechanism of the plant in response to nutrient
deficiency. In the organically grown plants, no fertilization occurred
which was mirrored in increasing levels of the flavonoids over time as
the soil fertility decreased.

To me, it sounds like organic farming provides produce with the
ingredients intended by nature. That ought to be considered a good
idea at most tables.

D.

"D." wrote:
>
> Here's today's post from "Sham vs. Wham: The Health Insider", at
> http://shamwham.blogspot.com/

This spammer is propagating terrible
misinformation on his commercial website.
For example, in his recent article on
curcumin (substance from curry) he recommends
it as a dietary supplement without mentioning
its interactions with pharmaceutical drugs.
It inhibits the two most important drug-metabolizing
and drug-transporting enzymes (CYP3A4 and P-gp)
so it can increase the potency of drugs you may
be taking. This could have severe consequences
if you are taking a drug with a low therapeutic
index (a low difference between an effective
dose and a toxic dose).

Of course he won't warn you about that.
It would offend potential advertisers.
You won't get straight, accurate information
from this spammer because commercial interests
are slanting his articles.

Mark, on a number of occasions I have caught your ignorance of a
matter, but noted it personally and privately only. I never brought
it
out in the open. Perhaps in the future, I'll take you up on the
challenge.
You'll note that I have posted, in full, the article from the site.
There is not a spam element when doing this (it is not a snippet with
a link to a full article); there is no advertising in my post, or any
advertising on the site (I chose not to go with Google mini-ads). All
my affiliations are listed in the author's biosketch, and I do not
sell or have any commercial affiliation with organic produce (today's
subject), or curcumin (which you mention below.) On occasion, I will
mention a product that I am affiliated with, and this is clearly
presented in the text. That only happens in about one out of ten or
twelve posts.

My site reports on research Mark, not the ramblings of a pseudo-
scientific mind such as yours. As stated on the site, which discusses
both pharmaceuticals as well as alternative products (both into
either
the Sham or Wham category), the site does not offer medical advice,
but only research reports. Readers are urged to see their doctor.
Curcumin has no ill effects at all on its own - after all, its a
biochemical ingredient of curry, eaten for a thousand years. But
interactions with other herbs and medicines is another subject
entirely -- in fact, the topic of a future Sham vs. Wham, which
discusses the interaction of "food" with "pharmaceuticals" and how
the choice of the right foods with certain drugs can amplify and
improve the results, leading to less dosage needed, etc.

So, like so many of your posts, you've got the right idea, but you're
distorting and amplifying it by your own viewpoint.

D.

On Jul 21, 1:23 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> "D." wrote:
>
> > Here's today's post from "Sham vs. Wham: The Health Insider", at
> >http://shamwham.blogspot.com/
>
> This spammer is propagating terrible
> misinformation on his commercial website.
> For example, in his recent article on
> curcumin (substance from curry) he recommends
> it as a dietary supplement without mentioning
> its interactions with pharmaceutical drugs.
> It inhibits the two most important drug-metabolizing
> and drug-transporting enzymes (CYP3A4 and P-gp)
> so it can increase the potency of drugs you may
> be taking. This could have severe consequences
> if you are taking a drug with a low therapeutic
> index (a low difference between an effective
> dose and a toxic dose).
>
> Of course he won't warn you about that.
> It would offend potential advertisers.
> You won't get straight, accurate information
> from this spammer because commercial interests
> are slanting his articles.

Hey you two - cut it out! Before you kill each other, please note that
the topic is actually pretty interesting and perhaps some people here
would like to discuss it, and not get involved in your little flame
war!

I enjoyed reading this because I have been buying organic produce for
years, and I am always getting crap from my husband about the added
cost. I've felt, however, that the food just TASTES BETTER. And
although I didn't have any of the science behind it (thank you poster
D.) I certainly felt in the back of my mind that it was more
nutritious. Glad to see that this was validated.

I'm wondering, does anyone else here know if professional chefs feel
the same way? Do any fine restaurants use organic produce because it
tastes better and now appears to actually be better for you?

Thanks< B.T.



On Jul 21, 2:30 pm, "D." > wrote:
> Mark, on a number of occasions I have caught your ignorance of a
> matter, but noted it personally and privately only. I never brought
> it
> out in the open. Perhaps in the future, I'll take you up on the
> challenge.
> You'll note that I have posted, in full, the article from the site.
> There is not a spam element when doing this (it is not a snippet with
> a link to a full article); there is no advertising in my post, or any
> advertising on the site (I chose not to go with Google mini-ads). All
> my affiliations are listed in the author's biosketch, and I do not
> sell or have any commercial affiliation with organic produce (today's
> subject), or curcumin (which you mention below.) On occasion, I will
> mention a product that I am affiliated with, and this is clearly
> presented in the text. That only happens in about one out of ten or
> twelve posts.
>
> My site reports on research Mark, not the ramblings of a pseudo-
> scientific mind such as yours. As stated on the site, which discusses
> both pharmaceuticals as well as alternative products (both into
> either
> the Sham or Wham category), the site does not offer medical advice,
> but only research reports. Readers are urged to see their doctor.
> Curcumin has no ill effects at all on its own - after all, its a
> biochemical ingredient of curry, eaten for a thousand years. But
> interactions with other herbs and medicines is another subject
> entirely -- in fact, the topic of a future Sham vs. Wham, which
> discusses the interaction of "food" with "pharmaceuticals" and how
> the choice of the right foods with certain drugs can amplify and
> improve the results, leading to less dosage needed, etc.
>
> So, like so many of your posts, you've got the right idea, but you're
> distorting and amplifying it by your own viewpoint.
>
> D.
>
> On Jul 21, 1:23 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> > "D." wrote:
>
> > > Here's today's post from "Sham vs. Wham: The Health Insider", at
> > >http://shamwham.blogspot.com/
>
> > This spammer is propagating terrible
> > misinformation on his commercial website.
> > For example, in his recent article on
> > curcumin (substance from curry) he recommends
> > it as a dietary supplement without mentioning
> > its interactions with pharmaceutical drugs.
> > It inhibits the two most important drug-metabolizing
> > and drug-transporting enzymes (CYP3A4 and P-gp)
> > so it can increase the potency of drugs you may
> > be taking. This could have severe consequences
> > if you are taking a drug with a low therapeutic
> > index (a low difference between an effective
> > dose and a toxic dose).
>
> > Of course he won't warn you about that.
> > It would offend potential advertisers.
> > You won't get straight, accurate information
> > from this spammer because commercial interests
> > are slanting his articles.

"D." wrote:
>
> On occasion, I will mention a product that
> I am affiliated with, and this is clearly
> presented in the text. That only happens in about
> one out of ten or twelve posts.

And here you admit you have commercial interests.
That's what makes you a spammer. You post spam
to numerous non-commercial discussion newsgroups,
which violates the charters for those newsgroups.

> As stated on the site, which discusses both pharmaceuticals as
> well as alternative products (both into either the Sham or Wham
> category), the site does not offer medical advice, but only
> research reports. Readers are urged to see their doctor.

That disclaimer doesn't take you off the hook
for the responsibility to present information
that is accurate and complete. Your articles
frequently have serious defects that could
result in harm.

> Curcumin has no ill effects at all on its own - after all, its a
> biochemical ingredient of curry, eaten for a thousand years. But
> interactions with other herbs and medicines is another subject
> entirely -- in fact, the topic of a future Sham vs. Wham, which
> discusses the interaction of "food" with "pharmaceuticals" and
> how the choice of the right foods with certain drugs can amplify
> and improve the results, leading to less dosage needed, etc.

You advocated taking curcumin as a supplement
without disclosing the risk. As I said before,
anyone taking a drug with a low therapeutic
index could be harmed by taking curcumin at
the same time, because curcumin retards the
clearance of many drugs from the body.
That could cause an overdose.

Your articles could actually hurt people,
either through your own ignorance of the risks
or the spin to favor your commercial interests.

You are not an accurate or reliable source of
information. You're just a spammer touting your
commercial website. You don't care that your
spamming activities could have terrible
consequences.

wrote:
>
> Hey you two - cut it out! Before you kill each other, please note that
> the topic is actually pretty interesting and perhaps some people here
> would like to discuss it, and not get involved in your little flame
> war!

Your complaint would have more credibility if this
wasn't your very first posting to a Usenet newsgroup.

Your first posting is to defend a spammer, for whom
nobody else will speak up? That seems a bit unlikely
to me, spammer.

"D." wrote:
>
> This kind of sensational headline is a trademark of this spammer.
> I can see by the responses that no one loves this guy here
> either -- he's all over the net with his sensationalism.

I'm not a spammer. I have no commercial interest
in any website, nor in driving traffic to any website
for commercial purposes.

You do. You maintain a commercial advertising
website, and every post you make is touting
your blogspot commercial website.

You are advertising for your commercial blogspot
website in violation of the charters of the Usenet
discussion groups where you post. That makes you
a spammer by any definition.

Your articles are usually based on a single journal
article which you then summarize. This isn't a good
approach, because it misses the context from which
the journal article is drawn. The writers of journal
articles assume the reader is familiar with that
context, so it isn't necessary to provide every detail.

You don't have the breadth of knowledge to fill in
details that should be provided in any article
presented to the general public, so if an important
risk isn't mentioned in the original journal article,
it won't be mentioned in your derivative article.

In one of your recent articles, you advocated
taking curcumin as a supplement without
disclosing the risk. As I said before,
anyone taking a drug with a low therapeutic
index could be harmed by taking curcumin at
the same time, because curcumin retards the
clearance of many drugs from the body.
That could cause an overdose. But of course,
you don't care about that. All you care about
is driving traffic to your commercial website.

Your articles could actually hurt people,
either through your own ignorance of the risks
or the spin to favor your commercial interests.

You are not an accurate or reliable source of
information. You're just a spammer touting your
commercial website. You don't care that your
spamming activities could have terrible
consequences.