Protein reduces endurance (in mice), food processing vs food refining & Schrödinger.

I saw the following study via Twitter. Dietary protein decreases exercise endurance through rapamycin-sensitive suppression of muscle mitochondria.

Mmm, protein!

Hmmm! In mice, a high protein diet significantly decreased the amount of muscle mitochondria, the mitochondrial activity and the running distance at 50 weeks, although it increased muscle mass and grip power.

A mouse's natural diet is fruit or grain from plants, though mice will eat virtually anything, including Kevlar insulation on wiring. Fruit & grains aren't particularly high in protein, so it's quite possible that eating a sub-optimal diet results in sub-optimal health.

If the results do translate to humans, we have a choice between endurance, and muscle mass & strength in our old-age. I know which I would choose. You'll have to prise the proteins from my cold, dead fingers!

More from Twitter:  A Major Communication Challenge of Our Times: What on Earth Do We Say About Processed Foods? The word "refine/refined" doesn't appear in the above article. I don't have a problem with food processing. What I do have a problem with is food refining. Just after the Mid-Victorian period, it became fashionable to eat foods that had been stripped of "impurities". Goodbye essential co-factors. Hello, degenerative diseases.

Finally, today is the 126th anniversary of Erwin Schrödinger's birthday. I have only one comment:-

Blatantly stolen from http://memegenerator.co/instance/31138345

:-)

I don't believe it.

And neither should you.

From http://workwithstuartchalmers.com/wp/blog/2012/10/02/banners-broker-it-care/

Well, opinions are like assholes, honey. Everybody's got one and everybody thinks everybody else's stinks. The internet is full of opinions. Why should anyone believe anything they read on the internet?

If a writer has (a) qualification(s) in "A", it means that they know something about "A". It doesn't mean that they know anything about "B", "C"....."Z". However, humans being human, they have biases. Writers write in a biased way. Also, readers read in a biased way. Having (a) qualification(s) means diddly-squat. What does mean something, is backing-up what's written with quality evidence. As I have no formal qualifications in Diet & Nutrition, I try to do that as often as possible. When I don't, it's my opinion.

Many people are intolerant of other people's opinions. No wonder so many "fights" break out on forums, message-boards & blog comments. As a writer's qualifications mean diddly-squat, what's the point in arguing about a writer's qualifications? There isn't one! It's an ad hominem fallacy. Bloggers whose blog contents consist mainly of ad hominems & other fallacies are ass hats.

This blog was morbidly obese!

Uh, do what?

That's my blog, that was!

According to http://www.statscrop.com/ for this site:-
"This site weight is 261 Kbs. The site weight should ideally be less than 125 Kbs in length."
This blog is over twice the recommended site weight, which makes it morbidly obese. The reason for this is because I like to have a large number of posts visible on the main page. Unfortunately, this makes the main page take an age to load.

I've now put this blog on a PSMF (Posts Strictly Mother F***er), by reducing the number of posts visible on the main page to four. As there's a search box in the top left-hand corner and a blog archive section & comprehensive list of labels to the right, it shouldn't be hard to find what you're looking for.

Saturday silliness: Astrology & Abuse.

Now there's a curious mixture of subjects.

Piss-keys or Pie-sees?

John Cassis said:- "It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice."

I'm Piscean and Pisceans don't believe in astrology ;-) My logical brain tells me that it's a load of cobblers, but when I read an astrological assessment for my birth date, my mind was blown by how it had my personality down to a T. I asked a friend to read a print-out. When she'd finished reading, I asked her what she thought. She said that it was accurate in terms of personality and likes. How does that work?

A Piscean trait manifested itself last Wednesday. A blogger (who I'm not going to name) posted a status on his blog's Facebook page, calling a female science blogger a fat c*nt, along with a link to an edited sound file of an interview she did years ago in which she was nervous, lampooning her.

I commented, saying that he wasn't qualified to judge people on matters of science and that the woman's physical characteristics were irrelevant to science (the ad hominem fallacy). He commented, telling me to f*ck off. I commented, saying that he was funny when he was drunk. A while later, he blocked me from leaving further comments on his Facebook page. Hmph!

To cut a long story short, I de-liked his Facebook page, blocked him personally on Facebook, blocked all email addresses containing his website name or surname on my ISP's email server and blocked him from leaving comments here. I removed him from my life.

This time, it's forever. No hard feelings, it's how I roll.

Update: The offending post has been removed. If you ever read this, thank you for doing that.

It's not Friday the 13th, but... Part 2

In It's not Friday the 13th, but..., I had a picture of my then new Solar PV installation.

1.35kWp Solar PV using Kyocera 135W panels + 2kWp Solar thermal using 100W Thermomax tubes.

As the Solar thermal tubes were no longer heating the hot water much (they were installed in 1991), I decided to upgrade my system. It now looks like this...

3.5kWp Solar PV, using Hyundai 250W panels.

Of the twenty 100W Thermomax evacuated heat-pipe solar collector tubes, only one still worked.

The limescale-coated bulb at the bottom is very hot!

Hot water is now heated by the immersion heater in the tank in the airing cupboard, using spare electricity that's been generated but not used. This is controlled by a gizmo called an immerSUN. See below. The immerSUN is at top left. The inverter is at bottom right.

The current-sensing transformer is the black thing around the red wire, sitting on the black fuse.

The water from the hot tap is now hot enough to make instant coffee!

As the company that installed the upgrade had previously only installed systems to properties previous without Solar PV, they thought that I would receive the current Feed-In Tariff rate, which is 16.56p/kWh, including 50% export Tariff. This is much lower than the Feed-In Tariff rate that I was receiving for my 1.35kWp installation, which was 47p/kWh, including 50% export Tariff. They suggested that I phone ScottishPower (my energy supplier) for clarification.

The good news is that I will receive 47p/kWh for 1.35kW and 16.56p/kWh for the additional 2.15kW, making a net Feed-In Tariff of 28.3p/kWh, including 50% export Tariff. That's 71% more than I thought I'd get.

Based on PVGIS data (postcode-dependent), the system should generate 3,210kWh/annum. That's £908/annum in Tariffs + ~£240/annum in saved electricity consumption + ~£50/annum in saved gas consumption = ~£1,198/annum. The system cost £7,700 including VAT, so ROI is 15.6%. Feed-In Tariffs increase by ~5%/annum and energy prices increase by ~14%/annum, so the system should pay for itself in ~5 years.

Why: blogging is great, my brain is like Kefir and you don't have to be slightly insane.

I'm Torn between two images from Google Image Search, so here's both of them.

From bloggersinspiration.com

and

From www.corephp.com

Blogging is stimulating. Someone blogs about something. That gives me a new idea, so I blog about that. That gives other bloggers a new idea, so they blog about that. And so on, ad infinitum. It's great!

Kefir takes hard-to-digest milk proteins and ferments them into something more easily digestible. My brain takes hard-to-digest concepts and "ferments" them into something more easily understandable.

Another blogger said "You May Think I'm a Nutter. But I'm not the only one." You don't have to be slightly insane to be a blogger...but it helps! ;-)

Defending the indefensible: Gary Taubes and *that* statement about gluttony.

Here's another "video" (it has sound and static images only). As I haven't learned how to embed a YouTube video that starts at a specific time, here's a link to it and a picture of it:- Gary Taubes' "Why We Get Fat" IMS Lecture On August 12, 2010 (Part 8 of 8), starting at 8 minutes and 8 seconds in.

To quote: "You can basically exercise as much gluttony as you want, as long as you're eating fat and protein."

I was told that Taubes was being ironic i.e. he was joking. I call bull-shit on that, for the following reasons.

1) You don't joke about something as important as diet, in a video that's likely to be heard by many people.

2) If you're foolish enough to joke about something as important as diet, you make 100% certain that listeners know that you're joking, by stating in the very next sentence that the preceding sentence was a joke. Taubes didn't do that.

3) I didn't hear chortling or any other audible clue that Taubes was joking. Did you?

I therefore conclude that the person who made the statement that Taubes was being ironic, is hearing (and seeing) the world through "cognitive bias" Weird Filters , resulting in her hearing what she wants to hear. Sorry!

Organic is best!

I'm not talking about vegetables, though.

The above display panel is 4mm thick. Wow! There are 0.3mm thick panels in development. Double-wow!

OLEDs can also be used for lighting.

For more information, see OLED-Info. When I first heard about organic LED's, I thought "They'll have too short a life to catch on." Oh, whoops!

EDIT: I've just spotted Organic Light Emitting Transistors (OLETs). Oh, Myyy!

Trilayer OLET device and chemical structure

A new skill and whoops there goes another rotator cuff.

I bought this last Thursday...

Yes, I am using a sofa as a guitar stand!

Last Sunday, I took it to an open mic night and played it - very slowly! So far, I've learned the following chords:- C, Dm, Em, F, G & Am. As my fingertips are like cushions (big & soft), I have to finger chords as triads, with my fingers coming down onto the strings nearly vertically, to minimise the area of my fingerprint. Dm is particularly difficult for me. I'm going to learn the CAGED system, so that I can play any chord using any pattern.

Due to the sunny weather, I've been putting the soft top down on my MX-5. Unfortunately, I've been raising it from the driver's seat position. I forgot that this puts enormous strain on my left shoulder. The pain in my left shoulder when I woke this morning reminded me to not do that again!

I see stupid people - Part One: Live to take the p*ss.

This is a take on I See Weak People – Part Three: Live to add, not subtract.

Dunning-Kruger strikes again!

George Henderson recently said in a comment to flip:- "If you're one of the sensible ones, as Nigel seems to think you might be, it's easy to see why he won't post on "that" blog again.
Myself, I wonder how Nigel does it. Everywhere he goes he seems to start a fight these days. We are thinking of locking him inside when we go out in future."

How do I do it? Simples! I make sure that my brain is properly nourished with Vitamin D3 for razor-sharp wit & biting sarcasm, EPA & DHA for stable mood and Magnesium to stay cool, calm and collected when all around me are behaving like complete and utter tosspots & twats (UK usages and not meant affectionately!).

The danger of science denial: It happens even on Science-Based blogs.

Poor Benjamin Franklin. I know how he felt! ;-)

I do not believe that he wanted to be doing that!

This post will be highly critical of Dr. David Gorski MD, as some of his comments have been either trolling, downright stupid, or both. They're definitely in denial of science. This post is intended to encourage Dr Gorski to leave comments here, as I will never leave any further comments on any blogs that he edits, for reasons mentioned previously. I will be copying comments from his blogs and pasting them here, with my comments after. If this is considered to be "bad form", I really don't care. Leaving derogatory comments about me on blogs on which the commenters know that I will never return (because I told them so) is definitely "bad form".

I will also be quoting other commenters on Dr Gorski's blog, for the same reason. Everyone is free to leave comments here, that meet my fairly lax moderation criteria. In Vitamin D, cancer, cliques and flouncing. , a commenter from Dr Gorski's blog called flip was initially whitelisted, to allow his comments to appear without me having to moderate them. I eventually blacklisted flip after I detected intellectual dishonesty. That's how I roll. If you don't like my rules, don't let the door hit you on the way out! By the way, calling me a liar on here is a sure-fire way to get yourself blacklisted.

I've just turned Blogger word verification back on, as although Disqus automatically deletes anonymous comments containing links, I still get email notification of them. I've been getting a lot of email notifications. This may or may not have an effect on commenters.

Firstly, please read http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/a-closer-look-at-vitamin-injections/#comment-127850 , as it's my "letter of resignation" from that blog. With that in mind, read on.

# David Gorski on 27 May 2013 at 9:49 am
Regarding Lappe et al, one notes that that study is not the be-all and end-all of vitamin D research. It’s an old study, for one thing. Also, cancer was not its primary endpoint. Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.
There is a recent review of the literature from the Endocrine Society, which includes Lappe et al and puts it into context:
*quoted text redacted*

# Nigel Kinbrum on 27 May 2013 at 11:16 am
David Gorski said…

Regarding Lappe et al, one notes that that study is not the be-all and end-all of vitamin D research. It’s an old study, for one thing.

Irrelevant.

Also, cancer was not its primary endpoint.

Irrelevant.

Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.

Irrelevant.

# David Gorski on 27 May 2013 at 12:28 pm

Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.

Irrelevant.

How so? It’s actually very, very relevant, as is the issue of cancer not being a primary outcome measure of the study. That you don’t understand why these issues are so relevant indicates to me that you don’t understand clinical research very well.

#Nigel Kinbrumon 27 May 2013 at 1:42 pm
David Gorski said…

Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.

Irrelevant.

How so? It’s actually very, very relevant, as is the issue of cancer not being a primary outcome measure of the study. That you don’t understand why these issues are so relevant indicates to me that you don’t understand clinical research very well.

1) The RCT used Ca + D. Therefore, the conclusions apply to Ca + D. If they’d wanted to test D alone, they would have. They didn’t. Why don’t you write a letter of complaint to Joan M Lappe about it?

2) Whether the outcome was primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary or n’ary is irrelevant because the parameter in question (all-cancer diagnoses) was still accurately recorded. That you can’t understand such a simple concept boggles my imagination.

#David Gorski on 27 May 2013 at 2:34 pm

As I’m leaving permanently, what’s the point?

Ah, flouncing off again. It’s probably long overdue. I’ve been getting a few complaints about you here as well. Perhaps you should ask yourself why complaints seem to follow you wherever you go.

“Whether the outcome was primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary or n’ary is irrelevant because the parameter in question (all-cancer diagnoses) was still accurately recorded. That you can’t understand such a simple concept boggles my imagination.”

I rest my case that you do not understand clinical trial methodology and interpretation. I couldn’t have demonstrated it better myself to anyone who actually does understand clinical trial methodology and interpretation. Thanks!

You sir, are an asshole. I spelled it the American way, just for you!

I rest my case that you're either trolling, or stupid, or both. Whether the outcome is primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary or n’ary is completely and utterly irrelevant. It always has been and it always will be. You're effectively saying that only the first item in a shopping list should be bought because all of the other items in the shopping list are irrelevant. Bullshit!

Denice Walter May 27, 2013
@ Marc Stevens Is Insane:
I believe that Nigel is like two bright guys I know: they are well educated and professional in fields outside of SBM/ life sciences (business). Thus they read alt med ‘research’ (also see today’s post by Orac) and don’t get how it DOESN’T work in reality. It sounds like nutrients can do all of these wonderful things – that they can’t- at least not in RL. But the woo-meisters don’t tell you that part. We do.

So of course they think that these products are very useful- and they need celtic salt or ground organic flaxseed- as I know all too well.

However, if they’re smart- we can talk to them:
explaining how that *in vitro/ in vivo* thing works.
Or- as I often do- illustrating how much of the so-called science they read ( woo) is actually more accurately called “advertising copy”.

Businessmen seem to grok that.

Denice, seriously? I'm disappointed. I thought that you were one of the few reasonable posters on Gorski's blog and then you go and write that crap?

I do not read "alt med ‘research’", unless you're calling what's on PubMed "alt med ‘research’"? I've been reading studies on PubMed for years, so I know about the use of shoddy methodology to fudge results. The Lappe study doesn't use shoddy methodology. It's a Randomised Controlled Trial using double-blinded placebos and randomly-selected subjects who were post-menopausal women. Try to pick holes in it.

flip May 29, 2013
Hmmm… it occurs to me I probably haven’t been that overt about one other thing:

Lilady, I am sorry that you were called those things, and I certainly don’t think you should have been called names. I do think Nigel was wrong and do think he should be called out for it.

And I’m sorry for not making that clearer before.

flip, I'm not going to question your intelligence. However, why you're apologising to lilady boggles the imagination. lilady is a despicable human being. She pushed me to the point where I called her rude names, names that were not misogynist and for which I apologised. I explained about "twat" on SBM. I even posted a link to Wiktionary! You don't read things thoroughly before commenting.

Marc Stephens Is Insane May 31, 2013
Oooooh, Nigeepoo is ANGRY! He’s pulled a DJT, posting a “rebuttal” to all the comments here and on SBM. I’m suprised it’s taken him this long.

He’s calling Orac an a**hole and stupid, among other things. He’s invited us all to comment on his blog because he has an “open moderation policy” and “allows all comments.”

http://nigeepoo.blogspot.com.au/

I see that you idiots on RI are still reading my blog. I'm not the slightest bit angry, so you can give the projection crap a rest. For the record, most of you come across as assholes. You can't even quote me correctly. I said that I have fairly lax moderation criteria. Do try to get something right, for once in your miserable lives.

Anyway, you lot are now boring me with your never-ending inability to discuss things either accurately or rationally, so I'm not going to bother polluting my blog with any more of your crap.

P.S. I still occasionally read the comments on Gorski's blogs, so for the benefit of you peeps who read mine:-
1) "Black-list" means exactly what it says. It means that you're banned from posting comments.
2) The Lappe et al 2007 study was a good study. Just because some Messiah-like person says that it's a bad study and applies false reasoning to back himself up, doesn't make him right and me wrong. As I've previously pointed out, surgery's not exactly rocket science is it? I designed complicated electronic communications systems for 29 years. Just saying! ;-) Denice, I've got nothing against you. You've just been drinking Gorski's Kool-Aid for way too long. That's not a euphemism, by the way! :-D

Look what I just found. Exposing Dr. David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. who believes he can use a cloak of anonymity and character assaults to discredit opposing views. Sorry Doc, but your game is up.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! :-D

Bandaoke with Jukebox at the Falkners Arms, Friday 5th April 2013.

This was Jukebox's 1st time performing this song live and my 1st time singing it at the correct pitch (at karaoke, I would have the pitch shifted down 2 keys). Ouch!

Don't worry, be happy.

Oh, all right then!

I was chatting to the check-out guy in the Co-op about the sad goings-ons in Oklahoma and he said: "If we shed a tear for every person in the world that's suffering, we'd never stop crying." I try to avoid watching or reading World News. It's just one bad or sad thing after another. As I have no control over bad or sad things that happen around the world, what's the point in bringing myself down by knowing about all of them? Local News is a bit more relevant. I try to concentrate all my effort into keeping my life running smoothly.

If something really bad is about to happen to me or happens, I do everything in my power to make things better. If the really bad thing is completely beyond my control, I have to accept it. There's no point in wasting time going through Kübler-Ross stages 1 to 3 (denial, anger, bargaining). Stage 4 (depression) is a tricky one, as sometimes it just happens.

Finally, I treat people the way I'd like them to treat me. If they treat me respectfully, I do likewise. If they treat me disrespectfully, they get 1-2-3 Magic!

I've just installed f.lux, which adjusts the colour "temperature" on my lap-top screen, to suit the time of day.

Evidence that Dihydrogen Monoxide is ineffective and toxic.

This just in...

Image from www.inquisitr.com

The RDI for DHMO is ~2,000ml/day.

Erstwhile group of researchers "A" ran an RCT. The placebo group ate & drank normally. The intervention group was given 167ml/day of DHMO (RDI/12) in addition to their normal food and drink. The trial lasted for 4 years.

RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the placebo and the intervention group.
CONCLUSION: In this trial, DHMO made no difference to the subjects well-being, weight, body-fat percentage or anything else, apart from a statistically-significant increase in urinary volume. DHMO is therefore ineffective and long-term use may result in kidney damage.

Meanwhile, elsewhere...

Erstwhile group of researchers "B" ran an RCT. The placebo group ate & drank normally. The intervention group was given 60,000ml once a month of DHMO (RDI x 30) in addition to their normal food and drink. The trial was intended to last for 3 months, but was terminated after 1 month.

RESULTS: There was 100% mortality in the intervention group, compared to the placebo group.
CONCLUSION: In this trial, the RDI of DHMO killed 100% of the subjects. DHMO is therefore toxic.

Daily Mail Headline: Studies prove that DHMO kills! Parliament calls for an immediate ban.

DHMO is water (H2O).

The reason why I wrote the above spoof is because that's how Vitamin D3 is often tested in RCTs. Either daily "homoeopathic", or infrequent "standing on the sun" doses are used. Result? Failure. Therefore, Vitamin D is deemed to be either ineffective or toxic.

The RDI for Vitamin D3 is 400iu/day, ~1/12 of what I take (5,000iu/day). Blood test results for 25(OH)D and Corrected Ca are in the RR (25(OH)D is near the top end and Corrected Ca is near the bottom end).

Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial.

This is Fig. 2 from the study in the title.

FIGURE 2.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves (ie, free of cancer) for the 3 treatment groups randomly assigned in the cohort of women who were free of cancer at 1 y of intervention (n = 1085). Sample sizes are 266 for the placebo group, 416 for the calcium-only (Ca-only) group, and 403 for the calcium plus vitamin D (Ca + D) group. The survival at the end of study for the Ca + D group is significantly higher than that for the placebo group, by logistic regression. (Copyright Robert P Heaney, 2006. Used with permission.)

The reason why I'm making this post is because I was accused (on Twitter) of being a danger to women who had breast cancer and I was added to a Quackery list. I was alleged to have claimed that taking Vitamin D reduces the risk of getting cancer in the first place and/or of getting recurring cancer.

Obviously, I wasn't happy about this! I do not recall ever having made such a claim. If I have, please point it out and I will make a full retraction and apology. The study in question is Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial.

Please note: Ignoring cancer diagnoses within the first 12 months removes results from women who had undiagnosed cancer at the start of the study.

What the study shows:

Taking 1,100iu/day of Vitamin D3 + 1,400-1,500mg/day of Calcium: When analyzed by intention to treat, cancer incidence was lower in the Ca + D women than in the placebo control subjects (P < 0.03). When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005). 0.232 is a reduction of 77%.

What the study doesn't show:

Taking Vitamin D3 only reduces the RR for cancer incidence. I believe that it probably does.
Taking Ca + D reduces the RR for cancer recurrence. I believe that it probably does.
Taking more than 1,100iu/day of Vitamin D3 reduces cancer incidence more. I believe that it probably does.
Taking Ca + D reduces the RR for cancer incidence in pre-menopausal women. I believe that it probably does.
Taking Ca + D reduces the RR for cancer incidence in men. I believe that it probably does.
Taking Ca + D increases the RR for breast cancer mortality. I believe that the opposite is the case.
Anything other than what the study shows.

See also Is Vitamin D Shooting Me in the Foot?

Monday musings.

Firstly, a video.

Sometimes you gotta fight, when you're a man.

Secondly, another video!
Need I say more? No, but I'm going to, anyway!

On the internet, there is no such thing as anonymity. I can find every post made by an anonymous keyboard warrior and cross-reference the information within. I'm a nerd, lol!

Last night, after telling her how I found someone's name and address in a few minutes, a karaoke friend challenged me to find her real name (she uses a nickname), address & photo of her house taken from Google Street View and PM it to her on Facebook. She gave me 24 hours.

I got home at ~1am this morning. At ~2am, I PM'ed her real name, address & (a link to a) photo of her house taken from Google Street View to her. The file-name of the photo included the names of the other people living in the house. She loled!

Vitamin D, cancer, cliques and flouncing.

First Google Image Search result for Vitamin D, cancer, cliques and flouncing.

This is a continuation of my previous post Enzyme kinetics, standing on the sun and weird blog comments sections.

Apparently, I didn't like the answers that I received on the blog in my previous post, so I flounced. The study that I asked for opinion on was Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. If I showed you an RCT where deaths from all cancers fell by 77%, what would be your reaction? My reaction would be "That looks promising. More work is needed to investigate it". One person (sophia8) reacted thusly. Other reactions that I received (with their logical fallacies) were as follows:-

Pure coincidence. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

More than 1,100iu/day of Vitamin D is harmful. Straw man. I didn't say that people should take more than 1,100iu/day of Vitamin D (even though I take 5,000iu/day, which isn't harmful). Also, argumentum ad ignorantiam. See enzyme kinetics in the previous post.

You're cranky. Ignoratio Elenchi.

The study wasn't testing Vitamin D on its own. Straw man. I didn't say that it did.

By the way, “Nigeepoo”, taking supplemental vitamin D is not a proven way to prevent sunburn and is not an adequate method of protection from getting skin cancer (despite assertions in your blog). Straw man for the first part of the sentence. I didn't say that it was. Argumentum ad ignorantiam for the last part of the sentence.

Going for long drives with the top down and broiling gently without sunscreen on a repeated basis is dumb. Straw man. I didn't say that I did. I obviously don't go for long drives with the top down in the middle of the day on a sunny Summer's day. That is dumb. Like, duh!

I'm curious why you found my response to be satisfactory but lilady’s to be unsatisfactory. Could you explain? Ignoratio Elenchi.

Did I mention all of the mis-quoting?... Oy!

Maybe they should have done a bit of basic research, like:-

Vitamin D and musculoskeletal health, cardiovascular disease, autoimmunity and cancer: Recommendations for clinical practice.

The effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on obesity in postmenopausal women: secondary analysis for a large-scale, placebo controlled, double-blind, 4-year longitudinal clinical trial.

Vitamin D, cardiovascular disease and mortality.

Why randomized controlled trials of calcium and vitamin D sometimes fail. Essential reading.

I'm the sort of person who's not interested in cliques or secret societies. I'm therefore not interested in joining a cliquey, ivory-towery blog where you have to conform to a set of unwritten "rules" to be accepted, some of which are eccentric (Question: Which blogs insist on the use of manually-typed blockquote tags? Answer: Only that one). I decided to leave. I even apologised to some commenters for my language in some of the arguments.

I wondered why that blog and its owner annoyed me so much. Then it hit me (like a lost boomerang)!

Hmmm. See Brain Surgeon meets Rocket Scientist ;-)

Other comments:-

Orac
May 19, 2013
Nigel, you need to tone it down, too.
I’ve warned both of you once already. This is the second warning. There won’t be a third. To show you I mean business this time, your comments are going into automatic moderation. You two have already wasted more of my time than you’re worth.

Which part of "Can people please stop leaving comments aimed at me, unless it’s an acknowledgement. I don’t want to have to leave any more comments on here – ever." did you not understand?

MI Dawn
May 19, 2013
@Nigel: we responded to the Lappe information. It didn’t prove what you say it proved. Now, if you do have something to say, give the peer-reviewed proof.

Straw man. I didn't say that it proved anything.
Which part of "Can people please stop leaving comments aimed at me, unless it’s an acknowledgement. I don’t want to have to leave any more comments on here – ever." did you not understand?

lilady
May 19, 2013
Thank you Orac for your intervention.
The bottom line for Nigel and Lisa is that they, by their vicious unwarranted personal attacks, have drawn unfavorable publicity to themselves and their blogs.

There's no such thing as unfavorable (sic) publicity for my blog, as far as I'm concerned. What you have done, by your vicious, unwarranted, lying and malicious defamatory personal attacks on me, is to draw unfavourable interest from me.

flip
In a place where no federal police turned up today
May 20, 2013
What a pity they both seem to have flounced off without bothering to respond to the questions put to them. I am not surprised though.

Which part of "Can people please stop leaving comments aimed at me, unless it’s an acknowledgement. I don’t want to have to leave any more comments on here – ever." did you not understand?

Enzyme kinetics, standing on the sun and weird blog comments sections.

Firstly, enzyme kinetics.

How to Optimize Vitamin D Supplementation to Prevent Cancer, Based on Cellular Adaptation and Hydroxylase Enzymology from Edward Hutchinson

Secondly, see Standing on the Sun Will Not Prevent Depression.
"It is probably safe to say that giving 70 year old women massive doses of vitamin D3 once a year is a bad idea - bones and mental state accounted for. "Clinical studies of vitamin D in clinical populations with documented insufficiency remain warranted." And, indeed, at no time in history would we ever have been exposed to 500,000 IU vitamin D3 in a single day."

Thirdly, bearing all of the above in mind, see The quack view of preventing breast cancer versus reality and Angelina Jolie, part 2. I soon became aware of a weird "dynamic" in the comments section. Trolling of newbies (that was my first and last time posting comments there) was not discouraged by the blog owner. In fact, the blog owner (David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS) implied that I was an old troll that had returned. Charming! If someone attacks me, I do not turn the other cheek. I "hit" them back - hard. I did a lot of "hitting".

The trolls noticed that I replied to every comment aimed at me, as that's how I roll. They then bombarded me with a large number of comments, riddled with logical fallacies to try to tie me in knots. I replied to every one. I was then put in "detention" (pre-moderation) by the "Principal" (David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS) for posting too many comments. The victim got punished. The trolls remained free. What a way to run a comments section!

I've decided to not leave any more comments there - ever. That's the only blog I've been on where newbies are expected to instinctively know the "correct" way (typing the tags "blockquote" and "/blockquote" in every comment) to quote the commenter to whom you're replying. Ivory Tower, much?

@Everyone: Which part of "Can people please stop leaving comments aimed at me, unless it’s an acknowledgement. I don’t want to have to leave any more comments on here – ever." did you not understand? Sheesh!

What to do if subjected to a Denial of Service attack.

A couple of weeks ago, I lost internet access for about 30 mins due to a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

I feel honoured that I've annoyed someone on the internet so much that they spent time and effort DoS attacking me!

Brute-force attacks from individuals are difficult, as my downlink speed is much faster than most people's uplink speed. To mount an effective brute-force attack requires multiple computers infected with a trojan. This is known as a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack and requires a lot of computer knowledge.

A much simpler approach is the SYN flood attack. I believe that I was subjected to one of these, as on rebooting, I temporarily had internet access but lost it after a few seconds when all of the available connections on my pooter became "half-open".

To defeat such an attack is simple. All that you have to do is harden the TCP/IP stack. See also http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa302363.aspx and http://www.pctools.com/guides/registry/detail/1237.

1-2-3 Magic: effective discipline for children 2-12.

It works for adults, too!

Now that's Magic!

Hat-tip to Jason Sandeman for mentioning this ages ago in reference to someone who was behaving badly on the internet. I did some research into the method and was impressed by how clever it is.

It relies on the parent having an "Ultimate Deterrent", i.e. a punishment that's so horrible, a child won't risk suffering it more than once, but which causes no physical, mental or emotional harm (e.g. the loss of something precious, including a single meal). It also relies on the parent actually using the "Ultimate Deterrent", as failing to do so results in a total loss of credibility.

Having explained to the child the "Ultimate Deterrent" that will happen if the child fails to comply with the request by a count of 3, the parent then gives the child time to comply by counting 1 . . . 2 . . . 3. If, by the time 3 is reached, the child hasn't complied, the "Ultimate Deterrent" is dealt.

Hopefully, the "Ultimate Deterrent" is so horrible, the child won't risk suffering it more than once. Job done!

See also 1-2-3 Magic: Effective Discipline for Children 2-12 (Google Books).