First of all, learn how to properly quote other posters' posts, retard.
this is the very opposite of the scientific method, so the pure idiocy of this post cannot be overstated. Do you realize that you have no controls, no statistically analysis, nothing resembling
How would you go about conducting a scientific study to prove that vitamin E increases the risk of death? You would get a control group that has been scanned to have perfect health - and not things like artherosclerosis that can blurr the results -, give them exactly the same diet with no supplements other than vitamin E in the exact same amount for all of them. That's the closest thing you could get to a double blind plecebo controlled study. With the exception of a control group(plural), my personal experience comes as close to being scientific as possible, since my diet is exactly the same it was 10 years ago and since vitamin E is the only supplement I took during that entire time period consistently, at the exact same amount day after day. End of story. I would be really interested in seeing the study that shows that vitamin E increases the risk of death. I doubt that it was as controlled as you think it was, and I doubt it was more controlled than my own personal experience in this case. I don't think it's possible to get a hundred people to eat exactly the same diet day after day for years and take only vitamin E at the exact same amount day after day for all that time.
f you had a modicum of reading comprehension you would realize i said what defintion? there are a couple. According to the father of modern toxicology you are wrong. If you excluding essential nutrients from being poisons that makes no sense according to the widely used definition of substance which does harm to the organism.
Going by your logic, then the very concept ofa poison shouldn't exist, and Paracelsus should be regarded as a mystic rather than a scientist. The basis of science are concepts and definitions(principles) and both you and Paracelsus are providing none. What you are doing is called appeal to authority, and it is the lowest one can go in a discussion short of ad hominem.
If everything at a given dose can be regarded as a poison, then we must either eliminate the very concept of poison or accept that what defines a poison is not determined by the quantity of the substance ingested, but rather by whether it provides physiologically for the body at a certain dose or not. Caffeine doesen't. The burst of energry if gives you is caused by the release of glycogen stored in the liver from the epinephrine release. In this case, it is the carbs, proteins and fats ingested that are giving you the energy. It increases mental alertness by inhibiting adenosine, which causes a release of norepinephrine and dopamine, both made from tryrosine, an amino acid. So what is increasing your mental alrtness are substances made from the tyrosine you ingested and not from the caffeine per se. Caffeine adds
nothing to the body. In act it depleted the body of B vitamins and Calcium. Caffeine is a poison because in even low doses it leaves the body worst off than it was before and not better, and the increased vitality that follows ingesting it are nothing more than a neurochemical cascade caused by the disruption that it causes to the adenosine pathways in the brain, and not by really making any system in the body stronger. You are a fucking fool if you think caffeine is not a poison.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
