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

Rigid diets & taking loadsa supplements to compensate for them.

I do not believe you want to be doing that!

This post was inspired by a recently-published study by Alan Aragon & Brad Schoenfeld, as bodybuilders are a group of people who often eat a rigid diet (some eat skinless chicken breasts, broccoli & brown rice for several meals each day).

See Nutrient timing revisited: is there a post-exercise anabolic window?
"Collectively, these data indicate an increased potential for dietary flexibility while maintaining the pursuit of optimal timing."

This post is also aimed at people who eat severely restricted diets in the (often mistaken) belief that something's making them ill.

People with type 1 diabetes who struggle to keep their blood glucose within reasonable limits (3 to 8mmol/L, or 24 to 144mg/dL) benefit from restricting their intake of high-GL carbohydrates, so this post is not aimed at them. See The problem with Diabetes.

People with type 2 diabetes who severely restrict their intake of carbohydrates must be in caloric deficit, otherwise the physiological insulin resistance caused by high serum NEFAs will mess up just about everything in their body if they are in caloric balance or caloric excess. I've read (so it could be false) that a certain non-skinny blogger who I'm in conflict with (who has type 2 diabetes and who eats a VLC diet) has heart problems and is taking medication(s) for high blood pressure. Hmmm.

People who suffer from gastrointestinal problems after eating gluten-containing foods, or mucus after eating casein-containing foods may have impaired gut integrity. See Gluten - more than just a pain in the guts?

Supplements that I consider of positive value are:-

Fish oils: If the diet is low in oily fish (tinned tuna is not an oily fish), there may be insufficient EPA & DHA (especially in men, children & post-menopausal women). Women of reproductive age can get away with taking flaxseed oil.

Magnesium: If the diet is low in veg/high in dairy, there may be too much Calcium relative to Magnesium.

Vitamin D3: If the lifestyle results in sun-avoidance, insufficiency in Vitamin D is highly likely.

Vitamin K2: If the diet is low in animal fats and/or fermented foods, insufficiency in Vitamin K2 is highly likely.

Supplements that I consider of negative value are:-

Vitamin A: If there's an insufficiency in Vitamin D, supplementing with Vitamin A/β-carotene may exacerbate it. As Vitamin D + Calcium may reduce cancer risk, supplementing with Vitamin A absent Vitamin D3 may increase cancer risk.

Vitamin E: If there's an insufficiency in γ-tocopherol, supplementing with α-tocopherol may exacerbate it. As γ-tocopherol may reduce CHD mortality risk, supplementing with α-tocopherol absent γ-tocopherol may increase CHD mortality risk. Most Vitamin E supplements contain α-tocopherol only. Some Vitamin E supplements contain mixed tocopherols and these are O.K.

Gizmag: Injectable nanoparticles maintain normal blood-sugar levels for up to 10 days.

Fascinating technology featured in Gizmag & posted by someone HERE.

The nano-network that releases insulin in response to changes in blood sugar

"The injectable nano-network is made up of a mixture that contains nanoparticles with a solid core or insulin, modified dextran (which is commonly used to reduce blood viscosity), and glucose oxidase enzymes. When exposed to high levels of glucose, the enzymes convert glucose into gluconic acid, which breaks down the modified dextran to release the insulin. The gluconic acid and dextran, which are biocompatible, dissolve in the body, while the insulin brings the glucose levels under control.

The nanoparticles are given a positively or negatively charged biocompatible coating so that when they are mixed together, they are attracted to each other to form a “nano-network.” The positively charged coatings are made of chitosan, a material found in shrimp shells that has also found applications in self-healing car paint, while the negatively charged coatings are made of alginate, a material normally found in seaweed."

Wow! Cool bananas!

When the only tool in the box is a hammer...

Everything that needs fixing looks like a nail.

People with diabetes mellitus are issued with blood glucose meters - and nothing else.

For people with type 1 diabetes, that's fine. They lack insulin, so they have to inject insulin in the right amounts & types to keep their blood glucose levels within reasonable limits. Applying Bernstein's Law of small numbers by reducing glycaemic load to a minimum keeps blood glucose levels within reasonable limits (between 3 & 7mmol/L) most of the time. See also The problem with Diabetes.

For people with type 2 diabetes and excessive visceral (belly) fat (~85% of people with type 2 diabetes), that's not fine. Their disease is a disease of chronic excess intake relative to oxidation, causing fasting dyseverythingaemia
(hyperglycaemia, hypercholesterolaemia, hyperNEFAaemia, hypertriglyceridaemia, hyperuricaemia, etc). People who have type 2 diabetes don't have only postprandial hyperglycaemia - they also have postprandial hypertriglyceridaemia. See Lifestyle Intervention Leading to Moderate Weight Loss Normalizes Postprandial Triacylglycerolemia Despite Persisting Obesity. Postprandial hypertriglyceridaemia is atherogenic. See Ultra-high-fat (~80%) diets: The good, the bad and the ugly.

However, because the only tool in the box of someone with type 2 diabetes is a blood glucose meter, their disease looks like one of only hyperglycaemia. Applying Bernstein's Law of small numbers by reducing carbohydrate intake to a minimum keeps blood glucose levels within reasonable limits, but makes other things worse if energy from carbohydrates is replaced by energy from fats.

Only if energy from carbohydrates is reduced AND energy from fats isn't increased to compensate (i.e. eat a LCLF PSMF or Modified PSMF until sufficient visceral fat has been lost), does carbohydrate restriction help people with type 2 diabetes.

Cybernetic Serendipity.

I went to this exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in 1968.

Featuring Bruce Lacey’s ROSA BOSOM with MATE

I remember being pinned against a wall by Bruce Lacey’s ROSA BOSOM with MATE, as I was so short, the robot didn't detect my presence. Happy days! See also http://cyberneticserendipity.net/

The above reminiscence is a ploy to talk about serendipity, or happy accident. See Role of chance in scientific discoveries, and List of discoveries influenced by chance circumstances. Aspartame & saccharin get a mention for being discovered by the accidental tasting of chemicals. But there's more!

According to Sucralose: "Sucralose was discovered in 1976 by scientists from Tate & Lyle, working with researchers Leslie Hough and Shashikant Phadnis at Queen Elizabeth College (now part of King's College London). While researching ways to use sucrose and its synthetic derivatives, Phadnis was told to test a chlorinated sugar compound. Phadnis thought Hough asked him to 'taste' it, so he did. He found the compound to be exceptionally sweet."

Sodium Cyclamate was also discovered by accident. "Cyclamate was discovered in 1937 at the University of Illinois by graduate student Michael Sveda. Sveda was working in the lab on the synthesis of anti-fever medication. He put his cigarette down on the lab bench, and, when he put it back in his mouth, he discovered the sweet taste of cyclamate." Smoking in the lab? Naughty, naughty!

Acesulfame potassium was...yeah you guessed! "After accidentally dipping his fingers into the chemicals that he was working with, Clauss licked them to pick up a piece of paper."

So, be careful out there...but not too careful!

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?

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!).

Metabolic Inflexibility: What it really means.

Here's a picture from Metabolic Flexibility and Insulin Resistance.

The Metabolically-Inflexible (MI) & Insulin Resistance

Here's another picture.

Fig 2. ● = Metabolically-Flexible (MF). ○ = Metabolically-Inflexible (MI).

Salient points:
1) Excessively high serum FFA a.k.a. NEFA is bad.
2) Respiratory Quotient (RQ) a.k.a. Respiratory Exchange Ratio (RER) changes due to dietary changes are more sluggish in the MI than in the MF.
3) Under Insulin Clamp conditions, RQ/RER is lower in the MI than in the MF, due to impairment of glucose oxidation and non-oxidative glucose disposal.

I have posted this because of Danny Roddy's post Is Supplemental Magnesium A Surrogate For Thyroid Hormone? , which leads onto A Bioenergetic View of High-Fat Diets.

In the first article, Danny Roddy writes:-
"Additionally, taking magnesium while actively engaging in a diet or lifestyle that reduces the respiratory quotient (e.g., high-fat diet, light deficiency, excessive exercise) seems pretty silly. For example, as a rule, diabetics have a reduced respiratory quotient (Simonson DC, et al. 1988), tend to have higher levels of free fatty acids or NEFA (Kahn SE, 2006), and are often deficient in magnesium (De Valk HW, 1999)."

The second sentence (diabetics have a reduced respiratory quotient...and are often deficient in magnesium) seems to contradict the first sentence (...taking magnesium while actively engaging in a diet or lifestyle that reduces the respiratory quotient seems pretty silly).

Simonson DC, et al. 1988 is Oxidative and non-oxidative glucose metabolism in non-obese type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients.
"In conclusion, during the postabsorptive state and under conditions of euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemia, impairment of glucose oxidation and non-oxidative glucose disposal both contribute to the insulin resistance observed in normal weight Type 2 diabetic patients. Since lipid oxidation was normal in this group of diabetic patients, excessive non-esterified fatty acid oxidation cannot explain the defects in glucose disposal."

Impaired glucose oxidation with normal lipid oxidation lowers RQ/RER. Therefore, lower RQ/RER must be bad, right? Wrong. From the above study:-
"...euglycaemic insulin clamp studies were performed..."
Remember Salient point 3)? Simonson DC, et al. 1988 is an insulin clamp study, the results of which don't apply to free-living people (who aren't insulin clamped).

See also Determinants of the variability in respiratory exchange ratio at rest and during exercise in trained athletes. RER/RQ increases & decreases with increases & decreases in exercise intensity. This is Metabolic Flexibility (MF). Sorry, Danny.

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

\ curves and U curves: Vitamins D3 and K2 again.

Here are some curves relating to Vitamin D. Ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23601272

Hazard Ratios (HRs) vs serum Vitamin D level

The solid lines are the 95% confidence intervals (CI) & mean for all-cause mortality. 95% CI's are the values within which 95% of the subjects tested fall. 2.5% fall below the lower CI and 2.5% fall above the upper CI. The dashed lines are the 95% CIs & mean for coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality. Most of the curves follow a \ curve, indicating that more Vitamin D is better, up to 66ng/mL (150nmol/L, the level that I'm at). The interesting curve is the upper dashed line, which follows a U curve.

The U curve indicates that a Vitamin D level of greater than 30ng/mL (75nmol/L) increases the Hazard Ratio (HR) for CHD in the top 2.5% of subjects only, relative to 30ng/mL, even though the mean HRs for CHD & all-cause mortality (the more important parameter) are decreasing, up to 66ng/mL. What's occurring?

See Vitamin K. The increase in HR for CHD mortality above 30ng/mL in the top 2.5% of subjects only is almost certainly due to calcification within artery walls, due to under-carboxylation of osteocalcin in bone Matrix Gla Proteins, caused by insufficient Vitamin K2 rather than excessive Vitamin D. This is why I supplement with Vitamin K2. See also Vitamin D toxicity redefined: vitamin K and the molecular mechanism.

Is Coenzyme Q10 a supplement or a drug? It all depends.

This is the molecular structure of Coenzyme Q10.

Ubiquinone

I saw the following Tweet by Evelyn Kocur. Back in October 2009, a trial was started, to test the effect of CoQ10 supplementation on congestive heart failure (CHF). See Coenzyme Q10; an adjunctive therapy for congestive heart failure? See also Overview on coenzyme Q10 as adjunctive therapy in chronic heart failure. Rationale, design and end-points of "Q-symbio"--a multinational trial.

The results of that trial have just been made public, but are not yet available on PubMed. See First Drug to Significantly Improve Heart Failure Mortality in Over a Decade. Wait, what? Back in 2009, it was a supplement. Now, because it works, it's a drug.

Supplementation in meaningful amounts of a substance that the body needs but lacks makes the body work better. Who knew?

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!

Flogging a knackered horse, metaphorically-speaking.

Q. What do you get when you flog a knackered horse?

A dead horse.

A. A dead horse. Like, duh! However, some people do this to themselves.

Coffee is a Central Nervous System (CNS) stimulant. A coffee first thing in the morning after getting out of bed gives you "get up and go". What happens if you carry on drinking coffees or "Energy Drinks" throughout the day? Guess!

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.

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.

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. See also Why randomized controlled trials of calcium and vitamin D sometimes fail.

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?

Keep 'em tight, Part 2.

Keep 'em tight was about the ramifications of excessive gut permeability, a.k.a."Leaky Gut".

Graphic From: www.leakygutcure.com

Almost as an afterthought, I added to that post a link to Physiology and Immunology of Digestion. As this article is interesting & informative and since only 706 people have read the first post since it was published (the link was added quite some time later), I thought that I'd give it another airing, with a picture to make the post more attractive.