Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 I spent a good part of yesterday researching the various claims that microwaving food is deleterious to human health. Frankly, when weighing the evidence critically, I don't think there is credible evidence to support this contention. I agree with Phil that Hertel's evidence is slight and his credentials are open to question. Generally, a single piece of research is meaningless until others have replicated that research and proven it dependable. In addition, one of the principles of critical reading is to identify any biases held by the author as part of judging the validity of their position. Most of the cites supporting the idea that microwave oven cokking is dangerous to human health appear to be very biased in their belief and uncritical in their citation of any supporting literature. Just my two cents. Bob , " " < wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > > Do a Google search for " hans hertel microwaved food " for more > > information. > > Google has many hits referring to a published experiment, said to > have been done by Hertel & a colleague. However, a search of Google > Scholar failed to locate that paper, as did a search of Medline. > > Various WWW references call Hertel a medical researcher, professor, > biologist, food chemist. However, I understand that Dr Ing. Hans > Hertel was an engineer. He worked as a food scientist for a Swiss > firm. > > http://tinyurl.com/62x4wx says: " Hans Hertel ... and seven fellow > vegetarians confined themselves to a hotel for two months in the late > 1980s. There, they consumed milk and vegetables prepared in the > microwave oven and in other ways. > > Hertel emerged with an astonishing pronouncement. Eating microwaved > milk and vegetables caused changes in the men's blood that " appear to > indicate the initial stage of a pathological process such as occurs > at the start of a cancerous condition. " > > Hertel didn't actually find that microwaved food caused cancer. And > his " study, " which no researchers have tried to reproduce, was never > peer-reviewed of published in a scientific journal. > > " Without knowing more about how he conducted his study, what he > measured, how he measured it, and what he found, it's impossible to > even begin to evaluate his findings, " says Barry Swanson, a food > scientist at Washington State University in Pullman. Hertel has > dropped out of public view. " > > That " experiment " was published in a magazine and rehashed in several > WWW sites as a serious experiment. If THAT is the extent of Hertel's > microvave research, it is risable. The work was not published in a > reputable journal (I'm not surprised!); there were no controls; there > was no follow-up experiment and other food scientists have not > thought it worthwhile to repeat the work. > > I could not find (in any peer-reviewed science journal) a single > paper authored or co-authored by Hertel in food science. Maybe I > missed some. So, if any of you can find links to ANY paper published > by Hans Hertel in a peer-reviewed science journal, please email the > link. > > IMO, the paucity (if not absence) of Hertel's scientific publications > suggests that he cannot have been a serious scientific researcher. > > Best regards, > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Bob Rountree, a highly respected practitioner and medical researcher in Boulder was very clear about the negative effects of microwaves on certain nutrients. I think this was in 2005 at Robert Crayhons Nutrient expo. I don't have the notes from the talk. I don't expect folks on this forum to change their opinions based on my unspecific tertiary report, but I have enough respect for Bob that I will not use a microwave for foodstuffs if I can avoid it. If memory serves, he talked about cancer fighting nutrients in berries, and how microwaving the berries eradicated specifically those nutrients. If anyone in Boulder is in touch with Dr Rountree, we may be able to get him to provide more information. If anyone has a good relationship with Xymogen, that may also be a way in b/c Bob is affiliated with them. Thanks, Tim Sharpe On Behalf Of Bob Flaws Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:47 AM Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? I spent a good part of yesterday researching the various claims that microwaving food is deleterious to human health. Frankly, when weighing the evidence critically, I don't think there is credible evidence to support this contention. I agree with Phil that Hertel's evidence is slight and his credentials are open to question. Generally, a single piece of research is meaningless until others have replicated that research and proven it dependable. In addition, one of the principles of critical reading is to identify any biases held by the author as part of judging the validity of their position. Most of the cites supporting the idea that microwave oven cokking is dangerous to human health appear to be very biased in their belief and uncritical in their citation of any supporting literature. Just my two cents. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 , " Tim Sharpe " <listserve wrote: > > Bob Rountree, a highly respected practitioner and medical researcher in > Boulder was very clear about the negative effects of microwaves on certain > nutrients. I think this was in 2005 at Robert Crayhons Nutrient Something like this still doesn't have a lot of meaning. Certain nutrients get affected. What does that mean for the person that eats it? The food isn't as nutritious? Anyway, a good study like this would also have to look at those same nutrients after the berries were: boiled on a stovetop; fried on a stove-top; deep fried in oil; baked in an oven; broiled in an oven; cooked on a gas bbq grill; cooked on a traditional bbq grill; roasted on an open fire; etc. The nutrients probably never stood a chance anyway... :') Brian C. Allen, MSTOM Oriental Medicine and Health Services http://omhs.biz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Are there several issues here? One is the danger of microwaves and the other is that microwaves harm nutrients. The first is a real danger and the second is rendering the herbs not as effective. And also whether the medium, plastic containers and/or the actual apparatus (i.e. standing next to the microwave cooker) can cause damage to the consumer. The plastic container issue I think most would agree is a real problem. Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Doug, Wasn't the original statement a mere " microwaves destroy a lot of the qi in fluids and foods. " Wasn't this also prefaced by " I believe " ? If nutrients are proven to be destroyed with microwaves then I agree that " qi " is damaged. How else can we evaluate such a statement if not evaluating the nutrients? We can evaluate it through taste and smell, but this is not good enough for the people who only want Western research, which I feel is severely limited when evaluating most aspects of CM. Now, if this damage is anymore than a stovetop, I do not know. If this microwave cooking changes some molecules to make them more harmful, I am not sure. There is some compelling research out there. I personally have not used a microwave for 19+ years. I will say that I have the utmost respect for Bob Roundtree as a researcher. He is quite the badass and is probably more savvy and experienced than people on this list. Of course we " can " and should question everything, but his words go a long way in my book. -Jason _____ On Behalf Of Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:50 PM Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? Are there several issues here? One is the danger of microwaves and the other is that microwaves harm nutrients. The first is a real danger and the second is rendering the herbs not as effective. And also whether the medium, plastic containers and/or the actual apparatus (i.e. standing next to the microwave cooker) can cause damage to the consumer. The plastic container issue I think most would agree is a real problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Tim were is the evidence coming from? Many good Dr have strange beliefs. alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 From a speech entitled " Detoxification Update " at Boulderfest 2005, Bob Rountree states: According to The Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, you lose 97% of flavonoids from cooking with microwave, boiling you lose 66% of the flavonoids, if you steam you get minimal loss. I'm sure the handouts for the lecture contain more, unfortunately I didn't buy those. In his explanation, Bob goes into the biochemistry of Myrosinates hydrolyzing glucosinolates (cleaving glucose groups). Cooking vegetables deactivates myrosinase, thus you have to rely on the myrosinase indigenous to your gut. It's difficult to follow all this without looking at the slides. I don't know how much of the myrosinate biochem applies to the microwave info. Regardless, his research is at least in part from the peer reviewed JAFC mentioned above. If someone is able to contact him in Boulder, I'm sure we can get more. As Jason stated, Bob is a big dog in this field, and he's not prone to what I call " pop culture nutrition " . From a research perspective, if he says it, it would take a lot for me not to believe it. Again, I can't ask others to have blind faith, we each have our own trusted sources. -Tim Sharpe On Behalf Of bcataiji Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:11 PM Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? , " Tim Sharpe " <listserve wrote: > > Bob Rountree, a highly respected practitioner and medical researcher in > Boulder was very clear about the negative effects of microwaves on certain > nutrients. I think this was in 2005 at Robert Crayhons Nutrient Something like this still doesn't have a lot of meaning. Certain nutrients get affected. What does that mean for the person that eats it? The food isn't as nutritious? Anyway, a good study like this would also have to look at those same nutrients after the berries were: boiled on a stovetop; fried on a stove-top; deep fried in oil; baked in an oven; broiled in an oven; cooked on a gas bbq grill; cooked on a traditional bbq grill; roasted on an open fire; etc. The nutrients probably never stood a chance anyway... :') Brian C. Allen, MSTOM Oriental Medicine and Health Services http://omhs.biz --- Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including a practitioner's directory and a moderated discussion forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Hi Roger, > Do a Google search for " hans hertel microwaved food " for more > information. Google has many hits referring to a published experiment, said to have been done by Hertel & a colleague. However, a search of Google Scholar failed to locate that paper, as did a search of Medline. Various WWW references call Hertel a medical researcher, professor, biologist, food chemist. However, I understand that Dr Ing. Hans Hertel was an engineer. He worked as a food scientist for a Swiss firm. http://tinyurl.com/62x4wx says: " Hans Hertel ... and seven fellow vegetarians confined themselves to a hotel for two months in the late 1980s. There, they consumed milk and vegetables prepared in the microwave oven and in other ways. Hertel emerged with an astonishing pronouncement. Eating microwaved milk and vegetables caused changes in the men's blood that " appear to indicate the initial stage of a pathological process such as occurs at the start of a cancerous condition. " Hertel didn't actually find that microwaved food caused cancer. And his " study, " which no researchers have tried to reproduce, was never peer-reviewed of published in a scientific journal. " Without knowing more about how he conducted his study, what he measured, how he measured it, and what he found, it's impossible to even begin to evaluate his findings, " says Barry Swanson, a food scientist at Washington State University in Pullman. Hertel has dropped out of public view. " That " experiment " was published in a magazine and rehashed in several WWW sites as a serious experiment. If THAT is the extent of Hertel's microvave research, it is risable. The work was not published in a reputable journal (I'm not surprised!); there were no controls; there was no follow-up experiment and other food scientists have not thought it worthwhile to repeat the work. I could not find (in any peer-reviewed science journal) a single paper authored or co-authored by Hertel in food science. Maybe I missed some. So, if any of you can find links to ANY paper published by Hans Hertel in a peer-reviewed science journal, please email the link. IMO, the paucity (if not absence) of Hertel's scientific publications suggests that he cannot have been a serious scientific researcher. Best regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Some of this is anecdotal, but there is the image of what microwaves are, compared to fire or steam, which may make the concept more accessible. Some hospitals don't allow microwaving of baby foods and formulas because of hot spots, but that is a physical not nutritional concern. The effectiveness of microwave, which is exposure to intense (ac watts) rapid polarity changes on millions of frequencies per second (Mhz), depends upon the water or moisture content of the exposed substance. Water would heat the fastest. Isomerism is the properties of molecular electrical integrity, which is linear even up to the change that an organic substance undergoes even up into boiling, (herbs for example). The wild excitation of microwaves sets up a vibrational pattern unique and new used in the human food chain. Fire/ heat/ boiling is a steady increase, like a dc power, microwave is a instant rapid electomagnetic shaking. And like the effects of genetically modified foods, we may have to look at the change in the intestinal flora, or immune strength of humans to see if this process is wholesome. And the anecdotal part is this; a guy i knew working a norad radar station in the north and they put fake owls on the landscape to attract crows, and when the crows flew thru the radar (microwave beams) the sizzled and died in the field. Wow what fun. --- On Tue, 6/24/08, Tim Sharpe <listserve wrote: Tim Sharpe <listserve RE: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 6:19 PM From a speech entitled " Detoxification Update " at Boulderfest 2005, Bob Rountree states: According to The Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, you lose 97% of flavonoids from cooking with microwave, boiling you lose 66% of the flavonoids, if you steam you get minimal loss. I'm sure the handouts for the lecture contain more, unfortunately I didn't buy those. In his explanation, Bob goes into the biochemistry of Myrosinates hydrolyzing glucosinolates (cleaving glucose groups). Cooking vegetables deactivates myrosinase, thus you have to rely on the myrosinase indigenous to your gut. It's difficult to follow all this without looking at the slides. I don't know how much of the myrosinate biochem applies to the microwave info. Regardless, his research is at least in part from the peer reviewed JAFC mentioned above. If someone is able to contact him in Boulder, I'm sure we can get more. As Jason stated, Bob is a big dog in this field, and he's not prone to what I call " pop culture nutrition " . From a research perspective, if he says it, it would take a lot for me not to believe it. Again, I can't ask others to have blind faith, we each have our own trusted sources. -Tim Sharpe [] On Behalf Of bcataiji Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:11 PM Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? , " Tim Sharpe " <listserve@. ..> wrote: > > Bob Rountree, a highly respected practitioner and medical researcher in > Boulder was very clear about the negative effects of microwaves on certain > nutrients. I think this was in 2005 at Robert Crayhons Nutrient Something like this still doesn't have a lot of meaning. Certain nutrients get affected. What does that mean for the person that eats it? The food isn't as nutritious? Anyway, a good study like this would also have to look at those same nutrients after the berries were: boiled on a stovetop; fried on a stove-top; deep fried in oil; baked in an oven; broiled in an oven; cooked on a gas bbq grill; cooked on a traditional bbq grill; roasted on an open fire; etc. The nutrients probably never stood a chance anyway... :') Brian C. Allen, MSTOM Oriental Medicine and Health Services http://omhs. biz ------------ --------- --------- ------ Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including a practitioner' s directory and a moderated discussion forum. http://www.chineseh erbacademy. org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 By all means, let's see what Dr. Roundtree has to say about this issue. However, in that process, let's also keep in mind that, as a part and principal of Xymogen, Dr. Roundtree is a personally invested proponent of a particular sub-set of Western medicine. Why I say this: I personally don't care all that much about the actual topic under discussion: microwave ovens, good or bad? What I'm lobbying for is critical thinking and reading as medical professionals. Judging the biases of an " authority " is just as important to critical thinking and reading as are judging their credentials. In other words, Dr. Roundtree is not a disinterested medical scholar or researcher. Therefore, assessment of his point of view must be tempered by that fact. Pl-l-lease, this is not an attack or criticism of Bob. It most emphatically is not. I respect Bob greatly. I am merely pointing something out in terms of the standards of critical thinking and reading. In fact, readers might want to Google " the principles and practice of critical thinking " or something like that to understand what I'm talking about. As an extension of this, as an employee and principal of Blue Poppy Enterprises, Inc., Bob Flaws is not a neutral and disinterested medical scholar or researcher. Similarly, as a principal of Eastland Press, Dan Bensky is not a neutral and disinterested medical scholar and researcher. Same goes for Subhuti Dharmananda as a principal of Seven Forests, Ted Kaptchuk as a principal of K'an, John Chen as a principal of Evergreen Herbs/Lotus Seminars, John Scott as a principal of Golden Flower, etc., etc., etc. When any of us or anyone else who has a financial stake in a company selling goods and services to the profession hold an opinion, there is the potential for a conflict of interest and, therefore, a biased opinion. In such cases, readers of that opinion should rightly question the " authority's " biases and motives (which may or may not be neutral and above reproach). If one does not question such potential conflicts of interests, then one is not reading or thinking critically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Bob is correct, eminence based medicine can be full of biases that needs to be flushed. Assessing evidence is not simple and takes effort. Lets apply the same standards to CM as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 I think the point below is valid, but fail to see its relevance here. Comments on the effects of a kitchen appliance on flavonoids has IMHO no bearing on personal vestiture. The recommendation after all was to cook by steaming. I think we'd all have to agree that there is no conflict of interest there. Boulderfest by design (due to CEU complications) as a whole typically refrains from mentioning products and companies. Bob Crayhon created another symposium called Nutrient Expo as an outlet for practitioners to talk about specific products. Curiously, when Bob Rountree spoke at nutrient expo I don't recall him mentioning a single Xymogen product, though perhaps I missed a reference. This reminds me of an issue I had when this thread got started. I wholeheartedly agree that we must maintain academic rigor when making claims, citing ones sources etc. Forcing that point on a post that started with a clearly stated opinion seemed misplaced to me. Again, as mentioned above, I agree with the concept, disagree with the application. This point has been covered, clearly we agree to disagree. I'll post further comments in a subsequent post. -Tim Sharpe On Behalf Of Bob Flaws Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:13 PM Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? By all means, let's see what Dr. Roundtree has to say about this issue. However, in that process, let's also keep in mind that, as a part and principal of Xymogen, Dr. Roundtree is a personally invested proponent of a particular sub-set of Western medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 The articles that I saw in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry said that microwaving eliminated myrosinase activity after two minutes and steaming eliminated it after seven. This was in brassica vegetables. Here is a link . http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/2006/54/i20/abs/jf0607314.ht ml Sean On Behalf Of Tim Sharpe Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:13 PM RE: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? I think the point below is valid, but fail to see its relevance here. Comments on the effects of a kitchen appliance on flavonoids has IMHO no bearing on personal vestiture. The recommendation after all was to cook by steaming. I think we'd all have to agree that there is no conflict of interest there. Boulderfest by design (due to CEU complications) as a whole typically refrains from mentioning products and companies. Bob Crayhon created another symposium called Nutrient Expo as an outlet for practitioners to talk about specific products. Curiously, when Bob Rountree spoke at nutrient expo I don't recall him mentioning a single Xymogen product, though perhaps I missed a reference. This reminds me of an issue I had when this thread got started. I wholeheartedly agree that we must maintain academic rigor when making claims, citing ones sources etc. Forcing that point on a post that started with a clearly stated opinion seemed misplaced to me. Again, as mentioned above, I agree with the concept, disagree with the application. This point has been covered, clearly we agree to disagree. I'll post further comments in a subsequent post. -Tim Sharpe <%40> [ <%40> ] On Behalf Of Bob Flaws Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:13 PM <%40> Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? By all means, let's see what Dr. Roundtree has to say about this issue. However, in that process, let's also keep in mind that, as a part and principal of Xymogen, Dr. Roundtree is a personally invested proponent of a particular sub-set of Western medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Following the research mentioned in The Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, I feel confident stating that if you affect nutrients, you affect qi. I'm not making a qualitative assessment, it is what it is. Now, according to the research below, if flavonoids are affected differently by microwaving than they are by boiling, wouldn't it stand to reason that our formulas would be affected? According to the Bensky MM, Chen Pi has the flavonoids: hesperidin, neohesperidin, tangeretin, and a bunch with long chemical names that I'm too lazy to type. Bai Zhu however lists no flavonoids. If I write a formula to resolve damp that contains those two herbs, would it not have a different effect if I microwave (97% flavonoids lost*) vs boil (66% flavonoids lost)? The classical literature generally teaches us the relationship between herbs by relating them to boiled decoctions. We adulterate that knowledge when we alter our methods. No one is suggesting that Chen Pi would fail to work if microwaved, but would we need to change its ratio? Obviously no one knows, but the answer is quite possibly yes. Now add 12 other herbs with varying levels of flavonoids. What happens to our perfectly balanced formula? Now further consider that just b/c we only have research on flavonoids doesn't mean that other nutrients aren't also affected. Maybe so, maybe no, either way it adds to uncertainty. Are we talking about qi? I don't know about you, but I am. I see the same problem in ground raw herbs. Most formulas not prescribed as a honey pill are formulated based on a boiled decoction. When you destroy plant fiber you increase the chance of releasing active constituents in different ratios. Doesn't mean the formula won't work, but how do we dose such a beast? Furthermore, highly starchy/fibrous plants will probably be much more affected by this change than leave, flowers, etc that have less ability to sequester their nutrients in dense fiber. In prescribing ground raw I've found myself altering dosages based on my estimation of how the herb state will affect the formula. I've commonly seen ren shen dosed this way (lower dosage if ground). * as a footnote, since none of us has seen the actual research regarding microwaves and flavonoids, I list the percentage in my discussion merely as a means to illustrate that some difference has been observed in research. Clearly we should further investigate and take care not to firmly set a specific flavonoid ratio as written in stone. It's more written in water at this point. Tim Sharpe On Behalf Of Tim Sharpe Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:20 PM RE: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? From a speech entitled " Detoxification Update " at Boulderfest 2005, Bob Rountree states: According to The Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, you lose 97% of flavonoids from cooking with microwave, boiling you lose 66% of the flavonoids, if you steam you get minimal loss... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Tim, I believe that on a forum such as this, opinions need to be supported by evidence. Otherwise, best not to voice them. This is a discussion forum concerning the practice of medicine after all. I'll be out of town till next Tuesday. Good luck and best wishes to everyone. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Thanks Sean, as I stated, I'm not sure the myrosinase activity info truly applies to my microwaved flavonoids post. Pending sufficient gut flora (which can't be assumed in most sick patients) we all innately have myrosinase, and thus still benefit from brassica vegetables to a varying degree regardless of cooking methodology. Flavonoids on the other hand, once lost, don't magically revitalize. On listenting to the lecture, it seems as though the Flavonoids comment was added as an aside wedged in between other research on brassica. Also, the research you cite is from 2006, Bob's talk was in 2005. Great find though. If anyone uncovers more please be sure to post. -Tim Sean Doherty Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:25 PM The articles that I saw in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry said that microwaving eliminated myrosinase activity after two minutes and steaming eliminated it after seven. This was in brassica vegetables. Here is a link . http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jafcau/2006/54/i20/abs/jf0607314.ht ml Sean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Bob, So what is Dr. Roundtree's financial incentive in informing us about his research on microwaves, which BTW I am sure, was more than an afternoon? -Jason _____ On Behalf Of Bob Flaws Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:13 PM Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? By all means, let's see what Dr. Roundtree has to say about this issue. However, in that process, let's also keep in mind that, as a part and principal of Xymogen, Dr. Roundtree is a personally invested proponent of a particular sub-set of Western medicine. Why I say this: I personally don't care all that much about the actual topic under discussion: microwave ovens, good or bad? What I'm lobbying for is critical thinking and reading as medical professionals. Judging the biases of an " authority " is just as important to critical thinking and reading as are judging their credentials. In other words, Dr. Roundtree is not a disinterested medical scholar or researcher. Therefore, assessment of his point of view must be tempered by that fact. Pl-l-lease, this is not an attack or criticism of Bob. It most emphatically is not. I respect Bob greatly. I am merely pointing something out in terms of the standards of critical thinking and reading. In fact, readers might want to Google " the principles and practice of critical thinking " or something like that to understand what I'm talking about. As an extension of this, as an employee and principal of Blue Poppy Enterprises, Inc., Bob Flaws is not a neutral and disinterested medical scholar or researcher. Similarly, as a principal of Eastland Press, Dan Bensky is not a neutral and disinterested medical scholar and researcher. Same goes for Subhuti Dharmananda as a principal of Seven Forests, Ted Kaptchuk as a principal of K'an, John Chen as a principal of Evergreen Herbs/Lotus Seminars, John Scott as a principal of Golden Flower, etc., etc., etc. When any of us or anyone else who has a financial stake in a company selling goods and services to the profession hold an opinion, there is the potential for a conflict of interest and, therefore, a biased opinion. In such cases, readers of that opinion should rightly question the " authority's " biases and motives (which may or may not be neutral and above reproach). If one does not question such potential conflicts of interests, then one is not reading or thinking critically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Bob, I do not think that Tim ever suggested otherwise. He actually said, " I wholeheartedly agree that we must maintain academic rigor when making claims, citing ones sources etc. " There have been plenty of sources cited. -Jason _____ On Behalf Of Bob Flaws Tim, I believe that on a forum such as this, opinions need to be supported by evidence. Otherwise, best not to voice them. This is a discussion forum concerning the practice of medicine after all. I'll be out of town till next Tuesday. Good luck and best wishes to everyone. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 I think the question should be are microwave ovens potentially harmful and if so as responsible physicians should we inform our patients against their use in particular with warming medicinal teas? Hertel's creditiblity or accuracy isn't the issue in my book. I agree with Jason regarding critical thinking. I benefited from a class on the subject that I had in college and I recall the 13 logical fallacies (quoted from Introduction to Logic by Irving M. Copi 6th ed.): 1) Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force) - when one appeals to force or the threat of force to cause acceptance of a conclusion. 2) Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive) " argument directed to the man " - instead of trying to disprobe the truth of what is asserted, one attacks the character of the person who makes the assertion. This is fallaciou, because the personal character of a person is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what the person says or the correctness or incorrectness of that person's argument. 3) Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial) - when one ignores the question of whether their own view is true or false and seeks instead to prove that their opponent(s) should accept their view because of special circumstances (i.e. a cleargy could argue that their position should be accepted because its denial is incompatible witht he Scriptures.) 4) Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) - arguing that something is true (i.e. existence of ghosts) because no one else has been able to prove there aren't any. 5) Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity) - when pity is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. 6) Argumentum ad Populum - directing an emotional appeal " to the people " or " to the gallery " to win their assent to a conclusion unsupported by good evidence. 7) Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority) - stating the fact that because a particular individual is an acknowledged expert who has studied the matter thoroughly that such and such a conclusion is correct because it is the best judgement of such an expert authority. 8) Accident - treating a statement which in many connections is not misleading as if it were true always and without qualification (i.e. in Plato's republic, " one should pay one's debts " ... " suppose a friend when a friend who is in his right mind has deposited wepons with someone and asks for them back when not in their right mind, ought they to give them back to them? 9) Converse Accient (hasty generalization) - seeking to understand and characterize all cases of a certin kind, one can usually pay attention to only some of them. But those examined should be typical rather than atypical. A fallicy occurs if one considers only unusual or atypical cases and hastily generalizes to a rule that fits them alone. (i.e. a physician observes thta administering an opiate alleviates the suffering of those who are seriously ill, one may propose that narcotics be made available to everyone. 10) False Cause (non causa pro causa) - to mistake what is not the cause of a given effect for its real cause. (post hoc ego propter hoc) - the inferecne that one event is the cause of another from the mere fact that the first occurs earlier than the second. 11) Petitio Principii (begging the question) - In attemptin to establish the truth of a proposition, one often casts about for acceptable premisses from which the proposition in question can be deduced as conclusion. When the proposition and conclusion are essentially stating the same thing essentially this is circular argument. (i.e. Shakespeare is a better writer than Robbins because people with good taste in literature prefer Shakespeare. And if asked how one tells who has good taste in literature, one might reply that such persons are to identifed by their preffering Shakespere to Robbins. 12) Complex Question - " Have you given up your evil ways? " If answer No then you it implies that you have had and are still having evil ways. If answer Yes then it implies that you had previously had evil ways. 13) Ignoration Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) when an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is directed to proving a different conclusion. (i.e. You should vote for this proposition because presumably everyone agrees that decent housing fo all people is desireable. The queston is, will this particular measure provide it. In the scientific method: Observation, hypothesis, experimental testing, Conclusion (analysis of data). Frequently it is failure to reject the null hypothesis that tends to lend creditability to a particular hypothesis until further experimental evidence refutes that hypothesis. Science rarely is proving anything instead it attempts to objectively see if it fails to disprove that something. That is how science works! Part of our duty as physicians charged with the task of reporting to our patients in a responsible & accurate fasion so as to advise them within our scope of practice as to their medical options in their best interest of their health. To do so affectively one method (that embraced by Western medicine) is the evidence based medicine model. If using this model we need to become proficient at accurately and affectively analyze the scientific research to take into consideration the above mention logical fallacies as well as to scrutinize limitations and possible sources of error of the experimental process or clinical study. (i.e. these recent " sham acupuncture studies " why are they achieving statistically significant results compared with the test acupuncture?) Many people jump to the conclusion that it doesn't matter where you put the needles! Is this an accurate conclusion or perhaps their may be some therapeutic value to the sham acupuncture protocol. Another fallacy is to presume that one could use this sham acupuncture protocol to treat an other medical condition. Who know's maybe it is a cure all point prescription and nobody knows it? One point being, we have to consider the plausability of as many reasonable possibilites as we can come up with. And, remember that we are not saying that it is a fact but, instead are concluding that based on a statistical analysis of the data we are agreeing with their conclusion of failing to reject the null hypothesis (which tends to support the cause and affect relationship between the therapeutic method). As for microwave ovens action on food and its affect on ones health. My girlfriend who previously lived in Norway brought to my attention that much of Europe doesn't use the microwave anymore for health concern reasons. And, she has provided me in the past with several articles that failed to reject that hypothesis. Many of them provided scientific information on the alteration of chemical bonds, converting certain trans-amino acids into their synthetic cis-isomers. One such article published by Dr. Lita Lee in the December 9, 1989 Lancet mentioned that heating the baby's milk bottle in the microwave the amino acid L-proline, was converted to its d-isomer, which is known to be neurotoxic (poisonous to the nervous system) and nephrotoxic (poisonous to the kidneys). I keep an objective mind when I read this stuff (and my background is in biochemisty from UCSD where I had to read and scrutinize over a hundred scientific papers) and thanks to my girlfriend who is also an acupuncturist, we recommend to our patients that they don't use microwave ovens at all. It isn't the risk of ionizing radiation but, the affect of the oscillation of the electromagenitic (EM) field which interacts with the negative & positive charges on the molecules (particularly the di-polar water molecule) which causes these molecules to flip back in forth in accordance with the oscillations of the microwave EM field. This results in friction between the molecules which produces heat. As we all know, heat can cause molecules to undergo chemical reactions for example the breaking of double bounds in C=C compounds. Have you ever noticed what happens when you put a piece of fresh french bread in the microwave oven. If you put it in there for more than a few seconds it gets hard and doesn't taste good. Obviously, it has undergone some sort of transformation presumably chemical to achieve an altered state. Try it for yourself if you don't believe me. But, don't take my word for it that would be argumentum ad verecundiam. Do your own literature research and draw your own conclusions. I could be a crack pot for all you know! As for conflict of interest possiblities I disclose that I have nothing to benefit financially, politically or otherwise with regards to the use of microwave ovens other than my interest as a discerning & consciencous health care professional. --- On Wed, 6/25/08, wrote: RE: Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 5:12 PM Bob, So what is Dr. Roundtree's financial incentive in informing us about his research on microwaves, which BTW I am sure, was more than an afternoon? -Jason _____ [] On Behalf Of Bob Flaws Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:13 PM Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? By all means, let's see what Dr. Roundtree has to say about this issue. However, in that process, let's also keep in mind that, as a part and principal of Xymogen, Dr. Roundtree is a personally invested proponent of a particular sub-set of Western medicine. Why I say this: I personally don't care all that much about the actual topic under discussion: microwave ovens, good or bad? What I'm lobbying for is critical thinking and reading as medical professionals. Judging the biases of an " authority " is just as important to critical thinking and reading as are judging their credentials. In other words, Dr. Roundtree is not a disinterested medical scholar or researcher. Therefore, assessment of his point of view must be tempered by that fact. Pl-l-lease, this is not an attack or criticism of Bob. It most emphatically is not. I respect Bob greatly. I am merely pointing something out in terms of the standards of critical thinking and reading. In fact, readers might want to Google " the principles and practice of critical thinking " or something like that to understand what I'm talking about. As an extension of this, as an employee and principal of Blue Poppy Enterprises, Inc., Bob Flaws is not a neutral and disinterested medical scholar or researcher. Similarly, as a principal of Eastland Press, Dan Bensky is not a neutral and disinterested medical scholar and researcher. Same goes for Subhuti Dharmananda as a principal of Seven Forests, Ted Kaptchuk as a principal of K'an, John Chen as a principal of Evergreen Herbs/Lotus Seminars, John Scott as a principal of Golden Flower, etc., etc., etc. When any of us or anyone else who has a financial stake in a company selling goods and services to the profession hold an opinion, there is the potential for a conflict of interest and, therefore, a biased opinion. In such cases, readers of that opinion should rightly question the " authority's " biases and motives (which may or may not be neutral and above reproach). If one does not question such potential conflicts of interests, then one is not reading or thinking critically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 I believe that Bob is a true-believer in a certain sub-set of Western medicine (just as you and I are true-believers in CM. I've been trying to come up with a name for that sub-set, but haven't so far. Perhaps call it the Townsend Letter sub-set.) And I think concern over things like microwave ovens goes along with that sub-set's general concerns and mindset. Further, as a principal in Xymogen, Bob is no longer a financially disinterested promoter of that sub-set. That's all I was saying. Sorry, I'm not clearer about this. I have yet to find the exact words to characterize the movement within Western medicine of which I think Bob is a leading proponent. Is the term environmental medicine applicable? Or ecological medicine? You tell me. Of course, Bob is a believer in and proponent of orthomolecular medicine. My point is, once one believes certain things, then other beliefs are more easily and commonly held. One becomes predisposed to accept certain beliefs and certain types of evidence for those beliefs. I guess I'm not being very clear about this because this is the first time that I have tried to articulate these ideas. Since this all may not be terribly important, perhaps we should leave it as is. Bottom line, I respect Bob as a doctor very much. All I was ever suggesting was that one has to look at who is saying what and why they might be saying what they are saying. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 LMAO! I'm so sorry.. can't let this one go. I couldn't possibly imagine what would happen to my body chemistry if I was locked up with 7 vegetarians in a hotel room for 2 months. It would make 'supersize me' look like jane fonda's workout. But then, I would probably have crawled into that microwave after 2 days. Geoff , " " < wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > http://tinyurl.com/62x4wx says: " Hans Hertel ... and seven fellow > vegetarians confined themselves to a hotel for two months in the late > 1980s. There, they consumed milk and vegetables prepared in the > microwave oven and in other ways. > > Hertel emerged with an astonishing pronouncement. Eating microwaved > milk and vegetables caused changes in the men's blood that " appear to > indicate the initial stage of a pathological process such as occurs > at the start of a cancerous condition. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Bob, I think you're actually quite clear in the point you are making. It is about evaluating claims directly and objectively, while attempting to avoid pre-ordained conclusions based on personal bias. Also it is about avoiding the pitfall of quoting authorities without evaluating the source of their information. Easier said than done sometimes, but important nonetheless. Personally, I won't ever eat microwaved foods. That is based on my gut instinct about it, not on any science. There is always the possibility that unique carcinogenic compounds are formed by this type of cooking. I have no evidence for this, but I have made a personal choice to avoid the foods and exposure to the machines. In my past experience, these gut instincts have helped me avoid dangerous substances that were originally believed to be safe and years later found to be harmful. However, these are simply gut instincts and don't constitute evidence, and when entering into a discussion, these beliefs need to be disclosed as subjective feelings and nothing more. I also think Bob Rountree is an incredible healer and teacher, but I was unable to confirm the flavonoid info attributed to him (if in fact he actually said those things!). All the research I have seen indicates that microwave cooking has no more of an adverse effect on nutrients than other forms of cooking. In fact, boiling depletes nutrients the most, and char grilling creates the most dangerous (known) carcinogenic compounds. Does this convince me to eat microwaved food? No. I'm following my instincts on this one, that there may be some as yet undiscovered danger to this cooking method. But this personal belief does not constitute evidence, so it only gives me the right to express it as a personal belief, not a fact. - Bill Schoenbart , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001 wrote: > > I believe that Bob is a true-believer in a certain sub-set of Western > medicine (just as you and I are true-believers in CM. I've been > trying to come up with a name for that sub-set, but haven't so far. > Perhaps call it the Townsend Letter sub-set.) And I think concern > over things like microwave ovens goes along with that sub-set's > general concerns and mindset. Further, as a principal in Xymogen, Bob > is no longer a financially disinterested promoter of that sub-set. > > That's all I was saying. Sorry, I'm not clearer about this. I have > yet to find the exact words to characterize the movement within > Western medicine of which I think Bob is a leading proponent. Is the > term environmental medicine applicable? Or ecological medicine? You > tell me. Of course, Bob is a believer in and proponent of > orthomolecular medicine. My point is, once one believes certain > things, then other beliefs are more easily and commonly held. One > becomes predisposed to accept certain beliefs and certain types of > evidence for those beliefs. > > I guess I'm not being very clear about this because this is the first > time that I have tried to articulate these ideas. Since this all may > not be terribly important, perhaps we should leave it as is. Bottom > line, I respect Bob as a doctor very much. All I was ever suggesting > was that one has to look at who is saying what and why they might be > saying what they are saying. > > Bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Steve All cooking alter proteins, look at a boiled egg. The question is what do we know about the affects on humans. Bob is correct in saying that a general world view can bias ones assessment of the same evidence. Techofobes dont need much evidence to believe technology is harmful. But for example is a BBK steak better for you that microwaved steak? 400 29th St. Suite 419 Oakland Ca 94609 alonmarcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 effects. one's technophobes. BBQ than ....and so on. From the precision/concision police. On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:51 PM, alon marcus wrote: > Steve > All cooking alter proteins, look at a boiled egg. The question is what > do we know about the affects on humans. Bob is correct in saying that > a general world view can bias ones assessment of the same evidence. > Techofobes dont need much evidence to believe technology is harmful. > But for example is a BBK steak better for you that microwaved steak? > > > > 400 29th St. Suite 419 > Oakland Ca 94609 > > > > alonmarcus > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 I think we're taking things a bit far at this point. I have Bob ON TAPE. I listened to it to confirm as I posted. The audio and printed info is available for sale through Crayhon Research, which is where I purchased only the audio. I provided the name of the speech and when and where it occurred. I even provided the source journal of Bob's comment. The only issue at this point is what does that research actually say? Without a more specific citation we are at a standstill. As so often happens on this list, we become mired in semantics and clinical reality gets tossed in the can. Let's look at what we know. We have rumored evidence of flavonoid alterations. We are able to witness ourselves, as mentioned in Bill's post, the structural changes in bread that is microwaved. Many of us, myself included, have read research indicating differing nutrient loss rates pending cooking method (boiled, steamed, fried, grilled, etc) Those studies are reported via regular media outlets. We have at the very least reason to suspect that microwaved foodstuffs may be different in some way than boiled foodstuffs. This in all likelihood will to varying degrees change the balance of herb formulas as discussed in my earlier post. Using herbs in a non-traditional way IMHO equates to experimenting on our patients. Many of us do this all the time when we combine Wx and Chinese herbs, or supplements with herbs. I myself do it, but let's call a spade a spade. It is understood in those instances that we are varying from the millennia of herbal knowledge that is our training. Can we for a moment consider whether we might need to be concerned with the clinical realities of using microwaves. Then progress to the nature and extent of that concern. I don't want to completely rehash my earlier post on this topic relating to raw herb powders, let me just say that this may be a big deal for some herbs, especially flavonoid rich citrus varieties. -Tim Sharpe bill_schoenbart Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:23 AM Re: Can Hertel be taken seriously? I was unable to confirm the flavonoid info attributed to him (if in fact he actually said those things!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.