Oh, Robert. I knew I would find you posting in blitzes in this thread. You are so full on yourself and I wonder who pays you to post all that? Or do you have a personal vendetta you feel you need to further whenever a vaccine-related topic comes up?

Do your own research and ask questions of people other than Robert, please.

I post links and facts. Pro mass vaccine ideologists don't like that. They only want mass compliance and loyalty to the vaccine agenda. No matter what vaccine it is.

Yeah, my ex had chicken pox at 16 and almost died, and he had a high fever and seizures FROM the virus. I know others who were seriously sick and had other of those symptoms and more from the virus itself, and I had encephalitis that wasn't related at all to any shot. On and on you go..having fun scaring people?

And how many people get pneumonia from viruses that aren't related to a shot? From bacteria? Plenty...sorry, but once again you succeeded in showing us your agenda and people can go research for themselves and ask those who actually know facts.

Chicken pox deaths before mass vaccination was extremely extremely rare, on the order of being stuck and killed by lightening. Not enough to justify fear mongering for mass vaccination.

erious side effects were rare but included encephalitis, ataxia, erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, pneumonia, thrombocytopenia, seizures, neuropathy, and herpes zoster.

And occured at a lower rate than complications from contracting chicken pox. Unless you suck at math, youre better off getting the shot

Mathematical model? Expected? Umm..im not convinced. I'll believe it when I see it.

Nothing will convince a vaccine injury denialist. Nothing. And I'm not trying to convince YOU.

Chicken pox is a common disease of childhood that rarely ever resulted in death. The mass vaccination of it has caused outbreaks of shingles.

Dr. Eric

Mathematical model? Expected? Umm..im not convinced. I'll believe it when I see it.

You're criticizing scientific literature for using a mathematical model when the CDC uses "mathematical models to estimate how many die from flu. Hypocritical of you. Which is it?

Is this because you are biased and only see science from your pharmaceutical colored glasses?

What type of filter do they give you in med school that teaches you to deny vaccine injury and gloat in vaccine goodness. It's still up for debate if you even graduated from med school.

Mr. Robert,

You're criticizing scientific literature for using a mathematical model when the CDC uses "mathematical models to estimate how many die from flu.

The simple fact you are ignoring is that the CDC does not rely SOLEY on mathematical models. They actually research the data, and have numbers and not only projections

Hypocritical of you. Which is it?

Its actually not, but requires a modicum of intelligence and knowledge to comprehend

In addition, attacking me does nothing to support your point. Neither does trying to change the subject. In the above, you have done nothing to support your point. That says a lot, actually

It's still up for debate if you even graduated from med school.

Its up for debate if you graduated high school

Its up for debate if you graduated high school

Yes it is. And it still doesn't change the fact that you use unprofessional behavior unbecoming of a medical doctor. You lack self restraint, objectivity, and critical thinking. This is why it's in question.

And if you did practice medicine, it would be a paternalistic style that abused and ridiculed "your" patients that didn't follow or questioned your consulting advice.

The simple fact you are ignoring is that the CDC does not rely SOLEY on mathematical models. They actually research the data, and have numbers and not only projections

Oh, OK because you say so then! Because restating it makes it so.

40,000 influenza deaths year after year after year with no reductions in spite of fluctuations of vaccine uptake. They also disingenuously lumped pnuemonia deaths in with influenza. They modeled it because they don't know the real numbers or they can drastically manipulate modeled projections. You have no problem with this?

Oh, OK because you say so then! Because restating it makes it so

No, not because I say so, but because its true. However, the larger point youre missing is your own hypocrisy. You criticize me for relying on flu vaccine death rates by data modeling (something which ive never claimed by the way) when you yourself post them as your sole primary source for supporting your point.

Secondly, this is classic robert. Diversionary tactics. when you lose one argument you quickly find another completely unrelated topic to shift the attention to

The only person youre fooling with this strategy is yourself

Why don't you answer the question at hand? You have not provided any proof of an increase in herpes zoster rates aside from some modeling of future predictions which can be very unreliable, even in flu vaccine deaths, which I readily concede.

Stop beating around the bush

Yes it is. And it still doesn't change the fact that you use unprofessional behavior unbecoming of a medical doctor. You lack self restraint, objectivity, and critical thinking. This is why it's in question.

Yknow robert, we have had many posts back and forth, and in many of them you have taken it to a personal level many times

On more than one occasion you have indirectly accused me of being a fraud (by misrepresenting my credentials) of being a liar (by supposedly posing as another poster for some insane reason--im not banned, i have no reason to have 2 accounts), you have called me a danger to my patients, and an embarrassment to my profession

Im sure you'll come back and say I have given you evidence for each of these claims. Even that nonwithstanding, you have clearly made it personal. Whether or not you believe these things to be true is irrelevant. They are personal attacks not germane to any discussion. Whether I am a janitor or professor has no bearing on the validity of my arguments

Either way, its way too late for you to sit back and point the finger

Im willing to be the bigger person and move past all that. I will pledge from now on to not make ANY personal attacks, overt or implied, against you. I'll even start right now by ignoring the obvious attacks in your earlier posts.

But the second you make anything personal, even implied, deal is off

ok?

Well, dsb, he follows any thread about anything vaccine-related and just blasts nonsense and attacks anyone who disagrees with him. I have seen him on more than one thread similar to this one...I bet he's just getting started, and this is the usual way it starts...just wait and see how he posts next.

Could you please be specific instead of possibly being erroneous and misinformed yourself?

i was pretty specific and you had no rebuttal for my comments.

No need. Your comments didn't change the argument.

it did, you just failed to comprehend it. Look at the other people commenting about you..youre a joke

Believe me, I used caution. I felt that too many vaccines were being given at once, so I insisted on spacing them out. I am not saying that nobody ever has a reaction to vaccines, but to completely eliminate them because a few people have reactions could bring back a lot of serious diseases, some much worse than chickenpox. To say that I don't respect people is false. I have respect for all people, including the slim minority who have reactions to these things.

biff,

Using Dr. Eric's thought process, a camper is so rarely attacked by a bear that you need scientific proof to determine that it has ever happened

Yeah, its such a drag that im burdened by things like proof, or evidence, or intelligent thought. It must be nice for you not to operate with any of those constraints

Actually, to use your analogy, what you would say if there were reports of a bear attack is to shut down the national park immediately and never speak of it again

You wouldn't send any rangers to investigate, you wouldn't look for any clues of bears like droppings, or tracks, or any evidence whatsoever. You would just close your eyes, shut off your brain, and follow the first inane thought that enters your mind without any consideration of the facts or "scientific proof" as you so eloquently put it

In the meantime, you would direct campers to an area that is SWARMING with bears because you couldn't be bothered to look for "proof" or any facts that the rest of humanity finds so useful

You know what else operates on this planet without concern for facts? Insects. Essentially, you have a lot in common with cockroaches

"Yeah, its such a drag that im burdened by things like proof, or evidence, or intelligent thought."

You're burdened by intelligent thought? LOL, That's the first honest statement you have made. I know it's difficult for you to think and speak intelligently. You're a puppet. Someone else pulls the strings.

ha..you comically misinterpreted that statement..too funny...time to go back to school biff.

any rebuttal of my arguments? Of course not...

"In the meantime, you would direct campers to an area that is SWARMING with bears because you couldn't be bothered to look for "proof" or any facts that the rest of humanity finds so useful"

Sounds like you are talking about the CDC recommending vaccinations and denying any injuries.

"ha..you comically misinterpreted that statement..too funny...time to go back to school biff."

You said you were burdened by intelligent thought. I believe you. Inadvertantly you made an honest statement. It is difficult for you to think and speak intelligently, therefore it is a burden for you to do so.

Sounds like you are talking about the CDC recommending vaccinations and denying any injuries.

wrong. I am talking about you telling people not to get vaccinated because of a miniscule chance of an adverse reaction and thus subject themselves to a much larger chance of a complication from a potentially avoidable illness

t is difficult for you to think and speak intelligently

Wrong again. I suggest some refresher courses in the English language

being "burdened" by intelligent thought does not mean one cannot speak intelligently; it implies that this is a constraint on what one is able to say

In other words, I must use facts and evidence.

So yes, in a way it is more "difficult" for me. I am constantly reading, evaluating publications, and citing sources, while you can just take a dump on your keyboard and call it a post

so if I said, "im burdened by my sad thoughts"--

you would interpret that as meaning its difficult for me to be sad??

Or if I said "im burdened by the disasterous consequences of this plan"

you would interpret that as meaning it is difficult for the plan to be disasterous?

Come on...that makes no sense...

"So yes, in a way it is more "difficult" for me"

I understand. It is more difficult for you to speak intelligently...and it is a burden for you.

I don't find it a burden at all. You are either intelligent on the issue you are talking about, or you are not. The latter would cause you to be burdened with understanding the issue and speaking intelligently about it.

Of course, in your case, a puppet shouldn't be burdened by anything.

If I were an electrician, and understood the proper code that dictated the proper gage wire to be used in a circuit, would I be burdened by this knowledge? No, I would understand this and be able to speak intelligently about it. A puppet electrician wouldn't understand electrical codes, and would be burdened by this lack of knowledge when speaking to other electricians about it.

Don't get upset with me. I didn't tell you that you are burdened by speaking intelligently. You did. I just repeated it, and agree.

so if I said, "im burdened by my sad thoughts"--

you would interpret that as meaning its difficult for me to be sad??

Or if I said "im burdened by the disasterous consequences of this plan"

you would interpret that as meaning it is difficult for the plan to be disasterous?

Come on...that makes no sense...

You said that already.

"being "burdened" by intelligent thought does not mean one cannot speak intelligently; it implies that this is a constraint on what one is able to say"

There is a constraint on intelligent things you can say. I get it. Very limited intelligent dialogue. Is that why you reposted the same gibberish?

I reposted it because either you ignored it or didn't understand it. Now its clear it was the latter. I'll break it down for you

Using your logic, if I made the statement "i am burdened by sad thoughts", your interpretation would be I have difficulty thinking sadly, or I have "very limited sad dialogue"

Clearly, thats not what the sentence means. It means that sad thoughts weigh upon me, and constrain me

Similiarly, when I say "i am burdened by intelligent thought", it does not mean that I have difficulty thinking intelligently, it means that intelligent thought constrains me

Contrast that with yourself, who experiences no such limitations. Thats why I am limited in what I can post (limited to reality that is) while you can write any nonsense that enters in your head

I cannot make it any simpler for you. this is english 101

If you disagree, please state specifically why the logic example I listed is not accurate

You probably would have been better off not saying it in the first place. You make stupid statements, and when they are pointed out, get all upset and defensive.

biff is whipping out the personal attacks

A sure sign he has lost the argument

As always, a pleasure ripping you a new one...

biff is whipping out the personal attacks

A sure sign he has lost the argument

Pot calling the kettle black

As always, a pleasure ripping you a new one...

Oh my what a professional medical doctor you are. Your regulatory board would be proud ....if you had one, Penquin.

when did I say they weren't?

If you put words in my mouth, you can win any argument. Its too bad thats not the way it works

haha...youre a fool. Im done with you. Welcome to the ignore list douchebag

by the way, a parting shot. How embarassing was it for you when your OWN SOURCE directly contradicted what you claimed, and I kept throwing it directly in your face?

Hm?

Have a nice life

Just for the record, you asked for in vivo evidence of LCPUFA oxidation and how it differed from saturated fatty acids. I gave it to you. It cited two sources of LCPUFAs-DHA and AA. Then you questioned where the authors stated that they were in fact LCPUFAs.

Calling me a douchebag does little in disputing your lack of scientific knowledge. Now it's time to runaway to another blog.

I'm still awaiting your response to my question.

How does oxidative modification of critical protein residues such as cysteine, lysine or histadine affect proper protein signaling? Inhibition of s-acylation and de-acylation of these residues via LCPUFA peroxidation isn't important? What about perturbations in ubiquination? What about accumulation of cellular aggregates?

I was just getting started. Feel free to elaborate on these issues.

biff,

i told you before Im not going to continue discussions with you. Not for the least of reasons that you simply don't understand what you are posting.

How do I know? Because its obvious you are copying and pasting phrases you got off the internet. I asked you basic questions about biochemistry that any person who understands the concepts you bring up in the above post could answer in their sleep. Yet you continually ignore them. If you can answer a 5 question quiz correctly, and without the assistance of dr. google (honor system!) I will beg your forgiveness and admit that you know way more about this topic than I do

Feel free to elaborate on these issues.

1. What is a "protein residue"

2. What atoms does a methyl group consist of?

3. Define, in layman's terms, "electronegativity"

4. Whats another common name for the Krebs cycle?

5. Explain, in terms of quantum mechanics, why carbon is the basic building block of organic chemistry? Clue: electron shells

Thats my elaboration on this topic. Feel free to answer those questions ON YOUR OWN (ie, without google)

These questions are childs play to someone who truly understands what you have posted, and may be tough for someone who just copied and pasted without true understanding.

"Thats my elaboration on this topic. Feel free to answer those questions ON YOUR OWN (ie, without google)"

Answering my questions by asking questions is not how one elaborates on the topic.

" I asked you basic questions about biochemistry that any person who understands the concepts you bring up in the above post could answer in their sleep."

So if you understand my questions, answer them. Don't ask different questions instead.

I asked those questions for a reason. They are intimately involved with neuronal dysfunction via oxidative stress. Being that you need proof that DHA and AA are indeed LCPUFAs that oxidize in vivo, I can assume you have no idea why my questions are important.

translation: you can't answer them

"So if you understand my questions, answer them. Don't ask different questions instead."

I'll answer your questions if they are actually your questions. I know you just googled a few phrases though, and pretended you actually understood anything you posted

As I stated, if you are able to pass my little test I will believe that they are, in fact, your questions

1. Wrong. It typically means an amino acid in the context you are using it in

2. Correct

3. Partial credit. Thats not really a great answer

4. Correct

5. Yes, anyone with any understanding of biochemistry needs a foundation in quantum mechanics. It provides the rules for the reactions you describe

you got 2.5 out of five correct. Thats only 50%. You fail. Not to mention I suspect you googled the Krebs cycle

Im not going to answer any questions of someone who copies and pastes to make themselves sound smart

If you don't even know what the term "protein residue" means, which is the first part of your post, I cannot believe you understand the rest of it

If you want to have a discussion of topics that you understand, I'll be happy to.

But you have clearly demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic concepts that are necessary for an intelligent discussion of these topics

"5. Explain, in terms of quantum mechanics, -

Oh, now I should use quantum mechanics talk?

the quantum mechanical model of carbon's electron shells is like first week organic chem and first day biochem...

Yeah that can be post translationally modified by oxidation, thereby affecting protein signalling. No, you're right, I understand this but don't know that cysteine is an amino acid.

Irrelevant to the question. Youre still wrong

It's not a lenthy answer. You asked for a layman's definition. I gave an appropriate one. Simple and direct as well as accurate.

Also straight from wikipedia. Lets compare your answer,

An atom's ability to attract electrons.

to wikipedias:

tendency of an atom or a functional group to attract electrons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity

I don't believe for a second you didn't cheat. Those answers are way too similar. You couldve stated it as the ability of an atom to form an ionic bond; or the ability of an atom fill its electron shell. Both acceptable. But you chose almost the same exact wording as the first hit on google. Too much of a coincidence

I answered 4 of 5 questions and was 100% correct. The last question is fairly straight forward,

You got that first question wrong. I don't know how you can even say you got it right when clear as day in black and white you were wrong. The question wasn't "can you modify protein residues" it was "what is a protein residue?"

Saying it can be modified is a non-sequitor. Its an answer, but not to the question.

but I realize that you won't answer my questions regardless.

Hahaha...sure, whatever makes you feel better biffy.

But if you want, ask me a straightforward question without a lot of jargon, like I did for you. I'll be happy and try and answer it. But Im not a biochemist

And Ive clearly proven neither are you.

Because I could. Remember that.

You got the first one dead wrong. Thats obvious. Yes, they can be modified post translation. But thats not what I asked

You didn't even understand the last question. That was obvious

And I seriously suspect you googled the other answers, especially the electronegativity as your answer was almost word for word similiar to wikipedia's

So I'll remember you are dishonest and you cheat

I guess it's time to call me a douchebag

youre right, that was out of line and I apologize

"asking for proof and not knowing are not synonymous"

If you knew something was true, would you still ask for proof of it.

Dr. Eric, the Earth is not flat, need proof?

Water boils at 212 degrees F, need proof?

You don't understand lipid metabolism and prescribe statins as a cardiologist. I need proof.

how could you be PROVEN WRONG BY YOUR OWN SOURCE?!

how could you be PROVEN WRONG BY YOUR OWN SOURCE?!

how could you be PROVEN WRONG BY YOUR OWN SOURCE?!

how could you be PROVEN WRONG BY YOUR OWN SOURCE?!

Hey Dr. Eric, don't you have some statins to prescribe to patients who don't need them? Isn't it true that your ignorance regarding cholesterol may in fact cause these patients serious harm? I already showed how little you understand about LCPUFAs and their metabolism.

How do you safely manipulate a patients cholesterol levels without a solid understanding of lipid metabolism?

Oh wait, Tell me Dr. Eric, do statins regulate the size of LDL particles?

Hey Dr. Eric, don't you have some statins to prescribe to patients who don't need them?

there are probably some patients I prescribe them to who will not benefit, thats true. Most will, however.

sn't it true that your ignorance regarding cholesterol may in fact cause these patients serious harm?

No. If you have proof to the contrary, Id love to see it

I already showed how little you understand about LCPUFAs and their metabolism.

Im really not sure how you did that. The only thing was I asked where in the study it talked about unsaturated fatty acids when it mentioned omega 3 fatty acids in the abstract

I read it too quickly and missed that one word. It was buried in the middle of some jargon that neither of us fully understand

Ill admit I don't know by name which fats are saturated and which are unsaturated. but I know all "omega-blank" acids are unsaturated.

If you want to use this as evidence of my "ignorance" I guess you could. If you don't want to believe that I simply skimmed over it thats fine too. Id probably do the same

But at least I admit my mistakes. I proved you wrong with your own source on another thread, a fact you still have yet to acknowledge, although we both know it to be true

How do you safely manipulate a patients cholesterol levels without a solid understanding of lipid metabolism?

Ive published papers on lipid metabolism. I'd love to point them out to you on pubmed, but youd probably say its a different eric, and then go on to badmouth me on every dr review website online. Just not worth it

Oh wait, Tell me Dr. Eric, do statins regulate the size of LDL particles?

Thats a very good question. I think they may to a small degree, but by and large, they do not. I also know small dense lipoprotein molecules are more atherogenic. I do not believe large ones are benign, though---the data is pretty ambiguous as of yet though

Interesting question though

"hahah...im about done. Im not going to have a discussion with someone who gets THEIR OWN QUESTIONS WRONG!!!"

I believe you called LDL and HDL cholesterol. I said they were proteins that transport cholesterol. So I'm wrong?

I bet you like the discussions where you're always right. You should try to stick to those conversations. I would suggest avoiding discussions on fatty acid oxidation.

I just read those publications. Exactly what I expected. Bunch of garbage. I especially like the study using the control diet that doesn't account for the sources of fats.

Oh, and how statins could prevent an influenza pandemic.

Maybe we should be handing out statins to children and infants instead of giving flu shots. At least there isn't thimerosal in the statins.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16270286

Abstract

The extremely high sensitivity of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) to oxygen is apparently used by nature to induce stepwise appropriate cell responses. It is hypothesized that any alteration in the cell membrane structure induces influx of Ca2+ ions. Ca2+ ions are required to activate degrading enzymes, such as phospholipases and lipoxygenases (LOX) that transform PUFAs bound to membrane phospholipids to lipidhydroperoxides (LOOHs). Enzymatic reduction products of LOOHs seem to serve as ligands of proteins, which induce gene activation to initiate a physiological response. Increasing external impact on cells is connected with deactivation of LOX, liberation of the iron ion in its active center followed by cleavage of LOOH molecules to LO * radicals. LO * radicals induce a second set of responses leading to generation of unsaturated aldehydic phospholipids and unsaturated epoxyhydroxy acids that contribute to induction of apoptosis. Finally peroxyl radicals are generated by attack of LO * radicals on phospholipids. The latter attack nearly all types of cell constituents: Amino- and hydroxyl groups are oxidized to carbonyl functions, sugars and proteins are cleaved, molecules containing double bonds such as unsaturated fatty acids or cholesterol suffer epoxidation. LOOH molecules and iron ions at the cell wall of an injured cell are in tight contact with phospholipids of neighboring cells and transfer to these reactive radicals. Thus, the damaging processes proceed and cause finally necrosis except the chain reaction is stopped by scavengers, such as glutathione. Consequently, PUFAs incorporated into phospholipids of the cell wall are apparently equally important for the fate of a single organism as the DNA in the nucleus for conservation of the species. This review intends to demonstrate the connection of cell alteration reactions with induction of lipid peroxidation (LPO) processes and their relation to inflammatory diseases, especially atherosclerosis and a possible involvement of food. Previously it was deduced that food rich in cholesterol and saturated fatty acids is atherogenic, while food rich in n-3 PUFAs was recognized to be protective against vascular diseases. These deductions are in contradiction to the fact that saturated fatty acids withstand oxidation while n-3 PUFAs are subjected to LPO like all other PUFAs. Considering the influence of minor food constituents a new theory about atherogenesis and the influence of n-3 PUFAs is represented that might resolve the contradictory results of feeding experiments and chemical experiences. Cholesterol-PUFA esters are minor constituents of mammalian derived food, but main components of low density lipoprotein (LDL). The PUFA part of these esters occasionally suffers oxidation by heating or storage of mammalian derived food. There are indications that these oxidized cholesterol esters are directly incorporated into lipoproteins and transferred via the LDL into endothelial cells where they induce damage and start the sequence of events outlined above. The deduction that consumption of n-3 PUFAs protects against vascular diseases is based on the observation that people living on a fish diet have a low incidence to be affected by vascular diseases. Fish are rich in n-3 PUFAs; thus, it was deduced that the protective properties of a fish diet are due to n-3 PUFAs. Fish, fish oils, and vegetables contain besides n-3 PUFAs as minor constituents furan fatty acids (F-acids). These are radical scavengers and are incorporated after consumption of these nutrients into human phospholipids, leading to the assumption that not n-3 PUFAs, but F-acids are responsible for the beneficial efficiency of a fish diet.

I believe you called LDL and HDL cholesterol.

So I asked you to use layman's terms when asking questions. You did, by asking about good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. I answered with a layman's answer--suddenly, you turn around and claim you want a technical answer. Its intentionally confusing biff, and i think you know that

I said they were proteins that transport cholesterol. So I'm wrong?

Yes. They are lipoproteins, not just proteins. So yes, you are wrong.

as far as your criticism of my articles, im not going to get into that debate with you. Frankly, "theyre garbage" is not very high level criticism

And again, as I told you before, your quiz questions suck because they are debatable. Theyre not facts; its hypothetical theories and possibilites, with evidence on both sides

Take my questions to you--what is a methyl group--there's only one right answer

Previously it was deduced that food rich in cholesterol and saturated fatty acids is atherogenic, while food rich in n-3 PUFAs was recognized to be protective against vascular diseases. These deductions are in contradiction to the fact that saturated fatty acids withstand oxidation while n-3 PUFAs are subjected to LPO like all other PUFAs.

I told you that saturated fats are more resistant to oxidation. You debate facts that are not open to debate. They are scientific facts.

"So I asked you to use layman's terms when asking questions. You did, by asking about good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. I answered with a layman's answer--suddenly, you turn around and claim you want a technical answer. Its intentionally confusing biff, and i think you know that"

Yeah, and you asked me to answer your questions in layman's terms, then jump all over me when I did. How does it feel?

"Cholesterol-PUFA esters are minor constituents of mammalian derived food, but main components of low density lipoprotein (LDL). The PUFA part of these esters occasionally suffers oxidation by heating or storage of mammalian derived food. There are indications that these oxidized cholesterol esters are directly incorporated into lipoproteins and transferred via the LDL into endothelial cells where they induce damage and start the sequence of events outlined above."

The polyunsaturated part of these esters, not the saturated part. That's because they are much more vulnerable towards oxidation than saturated fats.

So how would reducing natural cholesterol synthesis via statins prevent PUFA oxidation? It wouldn't.

If you were to decrease saturated fat levels in a cell membrane, which actually confers protection and resists oxidation, and increase unsaturation, which is very vulnerable towards oxidation, you would actually be promoting cholesterol oxidation.

Do you need more proof? Cmon Dr. Eric, you're the one prescribing statins. You should know this information. Oh, that's right, you're not a biochemist of lipid metabolism expert.

Dammit Jim, I'm a cardiologist not lipid expert!

so if you ever, ever wonder why I don't think you know what you are talking about, this post is a perfect example.

It is so idiotic, and demonstrates a complete lack of the most fundamental basic understanding of biology and biochemistry that I honestly doubt a competent high school student would say something like this

Its really laughable. I honestly laughed out loud for a good minute at this comment. Lets examine all the problems with it

1. This is not clinically relevant:

I think this pretty obvious. Even if differential oxidation could explain what you propose, which it doesn't by the way, it occurs in a manner completely different from inside the body. Your cells make use of specialized enzymes which catalyze reactions to occur in a particular way to generate ATP. Nothing remotely similiar occurs in the environment. Its like saying a match and a flamethrower will burn something at the same rate--they both use fire, right? Come on..

but the next point is the most important, so i'll bold it so you don't miss it---

2. OXIDATION DOESN'T CAUSE FOOD SPOILAGE--MICROORGANISMS DO!!!

My niece learned this in kindergarten. Food spoils from bacterial action, not spontaneous oxidation. Come on biff, this is really elementary school level

Fish spoils faster because it is much more hospitable to bacterial growth. It contains more water and less salt--a bacteria friendly environment

As proof, just salt and/or dry the fish--it will last weeks to months unrefridgerated.

Now you might backpedal and say "well, i meant oxidation by bacteria". While that has little or nothing to do with the fat composition of the meat, and much more with the salt/water content, the idea of comparing a human cell to bacterial is idiotic

the differences in fatty acid metabolism between a human cell and prokaryote are numerous.

this is why I doubt you know what electronegativity is. This is why I doubt you understand the high level material you copy and paste

Because you have just ridiculous posts like this

Better yet, when the fish spoils quicker, cook it and eat it.

While I eat it, why don't you take a shortcut and just shove it up your a$$

"2. OXIDATION DOESN'T CAUSE FOOD SPOILAGE--MICROORGANISMS DO!!!"

I see. Oh, so now micoorganisms only cause food spoilage. You're stepping in it again. I told you to stop talking about things you don't understand.

Let me see. So DHA and AA are not polyunsaturated fatty acids. They do not oxidize in vivo. They are oxidized at the same rate as saturated fatty acids.

And now, polyunsaturated fatty acids will not cause food spoilage unless it is due to microorganisms.

Uh,huh. I'm sure Jane would beg to differ. But then she's knowledgable about these topics.

"so if you ever, ever wonder why I don't think you know what you are talking about, this post is a perfect example."

"It is so idiotic, and demonstrates a complete lack of the most fundamental basic understanding of biology and biochemistry that I honestly doubt a competent high school student would say something like this"

"Its really laughable. I honestly laughed out loud for a good minute at this comment. Lets examine all the problems with it"

"2. OXIDATION DOESN'T CAUSE FOOD SPOILAGE--MICROORGANISMS DO!!!"

Still funny? Hey Dr. Eric, google auto-oxidation of LCPUFAs. When you stop laughing and realize that the above statement is 100% wrong, you can resort to calling me a d#######g. Maybe you can give me another pop quiz.

wow, just wow.

I didn't know there was anyone on the planet who didn't know bacteria cause food to spoil. This really blows my mind

We need to agree on a way to settle this. Seriously. I want to see how you react to be proven wrong for the second time (the first being by your own source)

For the record:

You claim food spoilage is primarily due to auto-oxidation of fatty acids unrelated to microbial activity

My claim: spoilage is primarily mediated by bacteria.

Do I have our claims right? I want to make sure you don't try to wriggle out of this

"I didn't know there was anyone on the planet who didn't know bacteria cause food to spoil. This really blows my mind"

Where did I state food wasn't spoiled by bacteria? Creating a strawman argument now? It figures.

We need to agree on a way to settle this. Seriously. I want to see how you react to be proven wrong for the second time (the first being by your own source)

"For the record:

You claim food spoilage is primarily due to oxidation of fatty acids unrelated to microbial activity"

Strawman argument. I said a piece of Haddock would spoil quicker than a piece of beef. Haddock, a cold water fish high in LCPUFAs, would spoil quicker due to autoxidation of the LCPUFAs. Never stated all food spoilage is primarily due to this or that microbial activity is unrelated. Strawman argument.

"My claim: spoilage is primarily mediated by bacteria."

That wasn't your claim. Here is your claim-

"2. OXIDATION DOESN'T CAUSE FOOD SPOILAGE--MICROORGANISMS DO!!!"

Then you seriously laughed. I don't remember you using the term "primarily" at all. You just went from a strawman argument to outright lying.

"Do I have our claims right? I want to make sure you don't try to wriggle out of this"

No, you made up claims for me, changed your claims and started a strawman argument.

Let's compare your first claim with your modified second claim-

"2. OXIDATION DOESN'T CAUSE FOOD SPOILAGE--MICROORGANISMS DO!!!"

Then you realize that you didn't know what you were talking about and changed this statement to-

"My claim: spoilage is primarily mediated by bacteria."

Do I have our claims right? I want to make sure you don't try to wriggle out of this

not only that, my claim says that spoilage is PRIMARILY mediated by bacteria, which goes unrefuted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_spoilage

I warned you. When you talk about things you don't understand, you'll step in it. Are you still laughing or wishing you never made this comment?-

"2. OXIDATION DOESN'T CAUSE FOOD SPOILAGE--MICROORGANISMS DO!!!"

I guess oxidation does cause food spoilage.

"rancid doesn't equal spoiled genius"

You're not helping your argument. You can always just call me a d$$$$$$$g.

http://www.icomst2009.dk/fileadmin/documents/ICOMST_PS8_Final.pdf

The predominant reason for meat spoilage is microbial activity.

Game, set, match. Better luck next time biffy

"The predominant reason for meat spoilage is microbial activity."

Yeah, in beef. What about fish and shellfish?

Which one is it? Autoxidation does or does not cause food to spoil? First you state it can't happen, then it's secondary.

Like I said, autoxidation of LCPUFAs causes food to spoil. I keep teaching you things and you are ungrateful. Just be happy that you learned something today. You're welcome.

Yeah, in beef. What about fish and shellfish?

backpedalling already biff? Not so fast--i cemented our arguments in black and white

But this destroys your example. the whole point of your exercise was to say that fish spoiled quicker due to a higher concentration of unsat fats....but if you agree beef spoils from micororganisms, your example makes no sense

First you state it can't happen, then it's secondary.

Never said it can't happen. But it causes rancidity, not spoilage. Technically different, but important.

Like I said, autoxidation of LCPUFAs causes food to spoil. I keep teaching you things and you are ungrateful. Just be happy that you learned something today. You're welcome.

I have now proved you dead wrong twice. I can make it more if you like. You can take your welcome and stick it where the fish went

"Never said it can't happen."

"2. OXIDATION DOESN'T CAUSE FOOD SPOILAGE--MICROORGANISMS DO!!!"

"Never said it can't happen. But it causes rancidity, not spoilage. Technically different, but important."

Food expert now? Didn't understand that DHA and AA were LCPUFAs or they could autoxidize in food. But now you are an expert in this area of science. So I guess fish can't spoil because of their high content of LCPUFAs. This is due only to microorganisms. Gotcha, thanks Dr. Eric.

,hahahahhahah..

keep having to go back in time? Youre not escaping this example biff...hahah..i honestly knew you were dumb, but I didn't think you were THIS stupid!!!

How about providing ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE of you claim that differential oxidation is responsible for the relative shelf lives of beef and fish? Just a shred...

Didn't understand that DHA and AA were LCPUFA

No, i don't have the names of fatty acids memorized and which ones are unsaturated vs saturated. But either do you without Dr. Google

You don't even know what makes food spoil!!! you think fish spoiling is due to oxidation!!!! Ha!

P.S. I proved you wrong with your own source