43 replies to this topic

[Forever21]

Empirical inductive generalizations are disproved by a single counter example.

I gave 3 in my reply to your alarmist post.

What?!
Please elaborate

I posted 2 "alarmist" anti-supplement threads in a predominantly pro-supplement forum community (I know *rolls eyes*)

He posted this thread to prove a point. But I won't touch this for now.

[lynx]

Empirical inductive generalizations are disproved by a single counter example.

I gave 3 in my reply to your alarmist post.

What?!
Please elaborate

all crows are black.

until you see a white one.

[Dmitri]

Empirical inductive generalizations are disproved by a single counter example.

I gave 3 in my reply to your alarmist post.

What?!
Please elaborate

I posted 2 "alarmist" anti-supplement threads in a predominantly pro-supplement forum community (I know *rolls eyes*)

I'm not a fan of mega dosing or taking hundreds of supplements like some members here, but I can see why they're giving you a hard time. There are several studies in respected journals that show benefits using certain forms of Vitamins, yet you decide to listen to studies that keep using the same forms that have been proven ineffective time and time again. You do have to wonder why some scientists keep using the harmful form of E when it’s known to have no benefit.

[ajnast4r]

You do have to wonder why some scientists keep using the harmful form of E when it’s known to have no benefit.

honestly that blows my mind sometimes

[kismet]

Empirical inductive generalizations are disproved by a single counter example.

I gave 3 in my reply to your alarmist post.

What?!
Please elaborate

I posted 2 "alarmist" anti-supplement threads in a predominantly pro-supplement forum community (I know *rolls eyes*)

He posted this thread to prove a point. But I won't touch this for now.

You don't have a clue, now do you? Michael Rae certainly posted more anti-supplement threads than you ever did, even though he is an advisor (!) and he was never "warned". Do you know why? Because his topics were constructive, all his claims deeply routed in science and logic and he never used blanket statements to flamebait.
I'm just wondering if you are a troll, why would you donate to imminst?!

Lynx, abelard lindsay thank you for your great posts. Simple yet complete rebuttals, just pointing out the logical fallacies in forever21's posts.

[Mind]

Just another blog with the same content and somewhat unconstructive title

Seems most readers there are also on to the design flaws in some of the trials. However, I still think the news is worth noting. I certainly want to know as much information about diet/supps as possible and remove the potentially harmful practices.

[Forever21]

You don't have a clue, now do you? Michael Rae certainly posted more anti-supplement threads than you ever did, even though he is an advisor (!) and he was never "warned". Do you know why? Because his topics were constructive, all his claims deeply routed in science and logic and he never used blanket statements to flamebait.
I'm just wondering if you are a troll, why would you donate to imminst?!

Lynx, abelard lindsay thank you for your great posts. Simple yet complete rebuttals, just pointing out the logical fallacies in forever21's posts.

No you're the one who doesn't have a clue. The post that you replied to does not belong to this thread. It was a reply to a seperate thread that the moderators deleted. The original thread title is gone. The replies were merged to this thread. So the point and intent of the OP is gone.

Do not question my donation to ImmInst.

Edited by Forever21, 26 November 2008 - 02:19 AM.

[Forever21]

I'm not a fan of mega dosing or taking hundreds of supplements like some members here, but I can see why they're giving you a hard time. There are several studies in respected journals that show benefits using certain forms of Vitamins, yet you decide to listen to studies that keep using the same forms that have been proven ineffective time and time again. You do have to wonder why some scientists keep using the harmful form of E when it's known to have no benefit.

If by "you decide to listen to studies" you mean these studies (especifically the ones I've posted) are what led me to quit my supplement regimen, then you're wrong. You should know this. You replied to my threads before where I mentioned quitting my supplement regimen. That was way before when I posted these CNN threads. I have doctors too (1 in anti aging) and I've read Michael's posts before and have talked to other respected members and team members of this community about supplements. So please don't suggest that I derived my decision from a quick browse online. I enjoy(ed) posting what I find on the news (as you can see from my video posts in the multimedia forum) during coffee break when there's nothing else to do, but don't think I use these as deciding factors.

Edited by Forever21, 26 November 2008 - 02:45 AM.

[meursault]

I'm not a fan of mega dosing or taking hundreds of supplements like some members here, but I can see why they're giving you a hard time. There are several studies in respected journals that show benefits using certain forms of Vitamins, yet you decide to listen to studies that keep using the same forms that have been proven ineffective time and time again. You do have to wonder why some scientists keep using the harmful form of E when it's known to have no benefit.

If by "you decide to listen to studies" you mean these studies (especifically the ones I've posted) are what led me to quit my supplement regimen, then you're wrong. You should know this. You replied to my threads before where I mentioned quitting my supplement regimen. That was way before when I posted these CNN threads. I have doctors too (1 in anti aging) and I've read Michael's posts before and have talked to other respected members and team members of this community about supplements. So please don't suggest that I derived my decision from a quick browse online. I enjoy(ed) posting what I find on the news (as you can see from my video posts in the multimedia forum) during coffee break when there's nothing else to do, but don't think I use these as deciding factors.

Wow, this is all really helpful, really scientifically sound information. Thanks for bickering publicly instead of through private messages!

[StrangeAeons]

I enjoy(ed) posting what I find on the news (as you can see from my video posts in the multimedia forum) during coffee break when there's nothing else to do, but don't think I use these as deciding factors.

Here's a shot at salvaging this thread. You've given it such a broad title, and now you should defend it. Instead of citing the studies we all know are flawed, and bickering in a petty manner, please, for the love of open-ended rational discourse, LIST YOUR ACTUAL REASONS for being anti-supplement. Posting a study that does not represent your actual views, and in fact is a flawed representation of your views, is obvious flamebait. You knew that if you posted this title, and that article, people would come out in droves to point out the flaws; then you come and state that this is not "really" your criteria for being anti-supplement. I don't care if it's your coffee break, that's not an excuse for being a blatant provacateur. You should lead with your strongest arguments (against supplements, not other posters, not "the supplement industry"). Seeing as you have failed to do so earlier, at least redeem yourself by posting your evidence, your factually based evidence against the actual use of supplements. No more innuendo and ad hominem.

[Forever21]

I enjoy(ed) posting what I find on the news (as you can see from my video posts in the multimedia forum) during coffee break when there's nothing else to do, but don't think I use these as deciding factors.

Here's a shot at salvaging this thread. You've given it such a broad title, and now you should defend it. Instead of citing the studies we all know are flawed, and bickering in a petty manner, please, for the love of open-ended rational discourse, LIST YOUR ACTUAL REASONS for being anti-supplement. Posting a study that does not represent your actual views, and in fact is a flawed representation of your views, is obvious flamebait. You knew that if you posted this title, and that article, people would come out in droves to point out the flaws; then you come and state that this is not "really" your criteria for being anti-supplement. I don't care if it's your coffee break, that's not an excuse for being a blatant provacateur. You should lead with your strongest arguments (against supplements, not other posters, not "the supplement industry"). Seeing as you have failed to do so earlier, at least redeem yourself by posting your evidence, your factually based evidence against the actual use of supplements. No more innuendo and ad hominem.

I didn't see the need to redeem myself.

Edited by shepard, 01 December 2008 - 10:17 PM.
Removed vulgar name calling.

[Shepard]

Let's try to keep this thread on the topic at hand and not the original poster.

[Forever21]

What the hell? I can't say that too?

The guy spent 177 words lambasting me with caps / screaming and I can't say one word?

Edited by Forever21, 01 December 2008 - 11:22 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

Let's try to keep this thread on the topic at hand and not the original poster.

yes

the topic is regarding supplement efficacy.

The fact is for a majority of supplements popularized today there really is not that much data at all, either for or against. History will tell us that mean we should error on the side of believing the substance doesn't work. There are of course exceptions that have been well studied, but those are rare (and no, mouse studies don't count, every single drug that has ever been tried in a phase 1 clinical trial has worked just fine in some animal model first, and yet we often find severe side effects even in phase 1, and those people get paid for that risk, and often a drug is terminated in phase 2 or 3).