Some fascinating healthcare statistics: Article by Ezra Klein.

Spotted on Twitter. From Is America better at treating cancer than Europe? , by Ezra Klein.

Healthcare rankings.

I highlighted Great Britain in green.

Cancer mortality.

Saturated fats Saturated fats Saturated fats.

George Henderson left the following comment. I think that the information in it deserves a bigger audience.

Saturated fats seem to get the blame for everything nowadays. "Saturated fats clogged my arteries". "Saturated fats gave me cancer". "Saturated fats stole my job". O.K, I've done that joke before.

There are saturated fats, there are saturated fats, there are saturated fats, there are saturated fats, there are saturated fats and there are saturated fats. Saturated fats are an ester of Glycerol (a 3-carbon alcohol) and three saturated fatty acids (SFA's). There are roughly six categories of SFA's.

1) Short chain SFA's such as Acetic acid, Propionic acid, Butyric acid (found in butter and also what soluble fibre ferments into in the colon) and Caproic acid.
2) Medium chain SFA's such as Caprylic acid, Capric acid, Lauric acid and Myristic acid.
3) Long chain SFA's such as Stearic acid.
4) SFA's behaving like Palmitic acid.
5) Odd chain SFA's such as Pentadecylic acid and Margaric acid.
6) Very long chain SFA's such as Behenic acid.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_saturated_fatty_acids

In foods, the above SFA's are associated with different things.
1) and 2) don't get associated with much polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA's), e.g. dairy and tropical nuts.
3) and 4) are more likely to be associated with long-chain PUFA's, e.g. meats, poultry, temperate nuts.
5) is associated with CLA and not much PUFA's, e.g. dairy from grass-fed animals.

See also Siri-Tarino et al, Forests & Trees and "Eureka!" moments and Chowdhury et al, More forests & more trees and more "Eureka!" moments with cheese.

Bacon cures cancer. Wait, WHAT?

It probably didn't, but here's a heart-warming case study from Dr. Terry Simpson I spotted on Twitter.


From http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2013/02/bacon-cures-cancer

Mmm, bacon!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Made20bacon.png

How many working brain cells do researchers have? Part n+1

Once upon a time, I took the mickey out of some eejit researchers in How many working brain cells do researchers have? Guess what? I'm doing it again. A Facebook friend sent me a link to a worrying "new" study Omega-3 Supplements Linked To Prostate Cancer. Oh, dear. Things are looking bad for oily fish & fish oil supplements. Just a moment!

I did some digging on PubMed for the author and found this:- n-3 Fatty acids and prostate cancer risk. The main feature of wild oily fish & fish oil supplements is their high ratio of EPA & DHA (long-chain omega-3 fatty acids) to LA (a shorter-chain omega-6 fatty acid). It would therefore be logical to assess oily fish consumption and/or fish oil supplement intake by measuring the ratio of serum EPA:LA and/or DHA:LA and/or (EPA+DHA):LA.

What did Brasky TM, Crowe FL & Kristal AR actually do? According to the abstract, they measured only serum EPA, DHA & (EPA+DHA). They didn't measure serum LA. Therefore, if the subjects in the EPIC study ate a diet with a high omega-6 (n-6):omega-3 (n-3) ratio (i.e a Standard English Diet), subjects with a high serum n-3 level would have a very high serum n-6 level. As excessive levels of serum n-6 pufas are carcinogenic (see Completing the trine: Which are the safest fats?), it's not surprising that the study produced the results that it did.

There only one thing to do, in cases like this...

Because one palm just isn't enough!

EDIT: Here's a better analysis:- Fish Oil and your Prostate. It looks as though n-6 was measured, which makes my analysis wrong, but I'm keeping the double face-palm, as the full study is hidden behind a £30 pay-wall. Here's another good analysis:- Omega-3 Fats and Cancer.

We are all just prisoners here, of our own device.

If you don't recognise the words in the title, here's the classic song from which they came.


An increasing number of people are becoming like birds in gilded cages. See The perfect crime.
"What's fascinating is this: the marketing is so powerful that some of the people being hurt actually are eager for it to continue. This creates a cultural feedback loop, where some aspire to have these respected marketing jobs, to do more marketing of similar items. It creates a society where the owners and leaders of these companies are celebrated as risk-taking, brave businesspeople, not as the modern robber barons that they've become."

Did I ever mention?...

Completing the trine: Which are the safest fats?

First, watch this video by Chris Masterjohn.

Diets very high in pufas (polyunsaturates) are not beneficial to heart health or longevity. Flora? No thanks!

Here's a chart. The beige & grey bars represent pufas (omega-6 & omega-3).

Comparison of dietary fats

The yellow bars represent monounsaturates and the orangey-red bars represent saturates. I consider these to be harmless, as long as you don't go mad and eat them in such large amounts that you gain weight.

Bearing in mind the information in the video, plus the information in Fats: Spawn of Satan or Dogs' Doodads? , I use only fats from the bottom 6 for cooking (olive oil and butter, actually).

Flaxseed oil can be used as an omega-3 supplement for vegetarian/vegan women, as omega-3 pufas are as rare as rocking-horse poo in most foods (apart from oily fish).

Non-vegetarian/vegan people can get their long-chain omega-3 pufas (EPA & DHA) from oily fish. As vegetarian/vegan men barely produce any DHA from the omega-3 in flaxseed oil, they should get it from algal DHA supplements. See Extremely Limited Synthesis of Long Chain Polyunsaturates in Adults: Implications for their Dietary Essentiality and use as Supplements.

Good criticism, bad criticism.

Yes. I know it's an axe (slang name for guitar). Blame Google Image Search!

From http://scottberkun.com/essays/35-how-to-give-and-receive-criticism/

I wondered from where "Mr Messiah" got his arguments against Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. They came from Vitamin D and Cancer Prevention: Strengths and Limits of the Evidence.

"Randomized clinical trials designed to investigate the effects of vitamin D intake on bone health have suggested that higher vitamin D intakes may reduce the risk of cancer. One study involved nearly 1,200 healthy postmenopausal women who took daily supplements of calcium (1,400 mg or 1,500 mg) and vitamin D (25 μg vitamin D, or 1,100 IU―a relatively large dose) or a placebo for 4 years. The women who took the supplements had a 60 percent lower overall incidence of cancer (6); however, the study did not include a vitamin D-only group. Moreover, the primary outcome of the study was fracture incidence; it was not designed to measure cancer incidence. This limits the ability to draw conclusions about the effect of vitamin D intake on cancer risk."

1) The women who took the supplements had a 60 percent lower overall incidence of cancer. Yeah, so? The following result was ignored: 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&lt: 0.005). The women who took the supplements had a 77 percent lower overall incidence of cancer, if they didn't already have cancer. Incomplete data dismissed.

2) The study did not include a vitamin D-only group. Yeah, so? It was looking at the effect of Ca+D on cancer risk, not D only. Ca+D greatly reduced cancer risk. Argument dismissed.

3) Moreover, the primary outcome of the study was fracture incidence; it was not designed to measure cancer incidence. Yeah, so? It measured cancer incidence. There's a little clue in the title of the study. Argument dismissed.

4) This limits the ability to draw conclusions about the effect of vitamin D intake on cancer risk. See 1), 2) and 3). Argument dismissed.

Do you get the feeling that someone, somewhere is more interested in collecting loadsa money than trying to reduce cancer risk?

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

Prevention vs Cure, quackery, bias and conflict of interest.

I believe in the maxim "Prevention is better than cure".

Image from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Some definitions:

Prevention. Cure. Quackery. Bias. Conflict of interest. Logical fallacies. In the case of the maxim, prevention means hindrance, as it's impossible to 100% stop illness from occurring. To someone who already has an illness, the maxim is obviously moot!

Quackery:

I have been accused of quackery. Despite having provided evidence to refute the claim, the person has refused to retract the accusation or provide proper evidence (other than Logical fallacies) to support it. EDIT: I blocked the person on Twitter. I am no longer on that person's quackery list.

Bias:

A long time ago, I mentioned a study Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease.

"RESULTS: The mean LDL cholesterol levels were 77 mg per deciliter (2.0 mmol per liter) during treatment with 80 mg of atorvastatin and 101 mg per deciliter (2.6 mmol per liter) during treatment with 10 mg of atorvastatin. The incidence of persistent elevations in liver aminotransferase levels was 0.2 percent in the group given 10 mg of atorvastatin and 1.2 percent in the group given 80 mg of atorvastatin (P&lt:0.001). A primary event occurred in 434 patients (8.7 percent) receiving 80 mg of atorvastatin, as compared with 548 patients (10.9 percent) receiving 10 mg of atorvastatin, representing an absolute reduction in the rate of major cardiovascular events of 2.2 percent and a 22 percent relative reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.89; P&lt:0.001). There was no difference between the two treatment groups in overall mortality."

"CONCLUSIONS: Intensive lipid-lowering therapy with 80 mg of atorvastatin per day in patients with stable CHD provides significant clinical benefit beyond that afforded by treatment with 10 mg of atorvastatin per day. This occurred with a greater incidence of elevated aminotransferase levels."

Unfortunately, the statement "There was no difference between the two treatment groups in overall mortality." is incorrect. According to the full study (hidden behind a pay-wall) there were 26 more deaths in the 80mg/day group than in the 10mg/day group. That's not statistically significant, as the group sizes were ~5,000 each. However, the statement didn't mention statistical significance.

Therefore, the statement "Intensive lipid-lowering therapy with 80 mg of atorvastatin per day in patients with stable CHD provides significant clinical benefit beyond that afforded by treatment with 10 mg of atorvastatin per day." is also incorrect. Dying is worse than having major cardiovascular events (heart attacks & strokes), which are survivable.

Why is there a disparity between the publicly-viewable abstract, the full study and reality? From the full study:-

"Funding for the study was provided by Pfizer Inc., New York, New York. Dr. Shepherd has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Oxford Biosensors, Pfizer Inc., and Schering-Plough, and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Schering-Plough. Dr. Kastelein has received consulting fees and lecture fees from Pfizer Inc., AstraZeneca, Merck, and Schering-Plough, and grant support from Pfizer Inc. and AstraZeneca. Dr. Bittner has received consulting fees from CV Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., Abbott, and Reliant, and grant support from Pfizer Inc., Atherogenics, Merck, Kos Pharmaceuticals, Abbott, CV Therapeutics, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Deedwania has received consulting fees and lecture fees from Pfizer Inc. and AstraZeneca. Dr. Breazna, Dr. Wilson, and Dr. Zuckerman are all employees of Pfizer Inc. Mr. Dobson is an employee of Envision Pharma Ltd., which was a paid consultant to Pfizer Inc. in connection with the development of the manuscript. Dr. Wenger has received consulting fees from CV Therapeutics, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Merck, and Pfizer Inc., and grant support from Pfizer Inc., Merck, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute."

Atorvastatin is manufactured by Pfizer Inc.

Conflict of interest:

I like the article Is Vitamin D Shooting Me in the Foot?, because Dr. Ken D. Berry prescribes his patients an effective dose of Vitamin D3, even though it results in him losing money due to the drastic reduction in the number of benign skin cancers for him to freeze-off. Now, that's what I call integrity!

Can a breast cancer surgeon (who receives payment for curing breast cancer using surgery) give a truly impartial opinion on other cancer cures, or cancer prevention? Does he always clearly state his competing interest? I think not!

Cancer, part 2.

In cancer, I discussed omega-3 and methylglyoxal.

Methylglyoxal

This time, I'm just going to do a Research Review, by publishing a list of PubMed searches with the following Filters activated: Abstract available, published in the last 10 years, Humans.

Cancer AND "Dichloroacetic Acid".

Cancer AND "Magnesium".

Cancer AND "Methylglyoxal".

Cancer AND "Omega-3".

Cancer AND "Vitamin D3".

Cancer AND "Vitamin K2".

I added searches for Magnesium and Vitamin K2, as I supplement with those and want to see if they have a positive or negative effect on Cancer. I added Dichloroacetic Acid (DCA), as I've read about it.

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?

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 discarded 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 (I was putting quoted text in ""). 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!