http://www.theheart.org/article/765927.do

"Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of
CVD risk factor effects looms here, too

January 19, 2007 Shelley Wood

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - A new modified fat made through a process
called interesterification is shaping up to be the chief contender to
substitute for the trans fats being banished from processed foods and
restaurants. But researchers who compared the effects of different
fats in human diets are warning that interesterified fats may be just
as bad as the trans fats they are poised to replace [1].

Writing in a paper published online January 15, 2007 in Nutrition &
Metabolism, Dr Kalyana Sundram (Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Kuala
Lumpur) and colleagues report that compared with a diet high in palm
olein (a saturated fat), diets high in either trans fats or
interesterified fats significantly raise both LDL/HDL ratio and
fasting blood glucose while significantly reducing fasting insulin
levels.

The study was supported by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board, which has a
major stake in the ongoing fat wars and the hunt for a healthful,
stable fat with a long shelf life.



Meddling with Mother Nature's molecules
In an interview with heartwire, senior author on the study, Dr KC
Hayes (Brandeis University, Waltham, MA), explained that
interesterification grew out of the observation that stearic acid, the
fatty acid predominant in chocolate and cocoa butter, unlike other
saturated fatty acids, did not appear to raise cholesterol levels.
"People got the idea, hmm, let's just take the saturated fatty acid
stearic acid out of different oils . . . and put it into an oil like
soybean oil. Why not? There's three fatty acids hanging off of soybean
oil, why not replace one of the polyunsaturated fatty acids, which
makes it an oil, with a neutral saturated fatty acid, and you harden
or solidify the product. . . . This is the coming rage in replacing
trans fats."



That's not the way nature set it up.




But Hayes, who says he's "been looking at fats and oils for 35 years,"
is concerned about the physiological effects of meddling with fat
molecules. His own research has suggested that replacing a
polyunsaturated fatty-acid molecule in vegetable oil with stearic acid
might pose problems if that stearic acid is placed in the middle fatty-
acid position on a fat molecule, since it is not as easily
metabolized.

"That's not the way nature set it up. If you look at cocoa butter,
which is this nice neutral fat, all of the stearic-acid molecules are
on the outside, they are in the one and three positions, they're
almost never in the middle. So now when I artificially put my stearic
acid in I get about equal amounts [of saturated fatty acid] in
positions one, two, and three."

To test their fears about interesterified fats, Hayes and Sundram,
with Dr Tilakavati Karupaiah (National University of Malaysia), tested
diets rich in the three different fats in 30 volunteers. Each
volunteer consumed all three diets, each with strictly controlled
total-fat and fatty-acid composition, in random rotation during four-
week diet periods.

After four weeks, both the trans-fat and interesterified-fat diets
significantly elevated both the LDL/HDL ratio and fasting blood
glucose, with the interesterified-fat diet boosting LDL/HDL ratios by
almost 20% as compared with the saturated-fat (palm-olein) diet.
Fasting insulin at four weeks was 10% lower following the trans-fat
diet and 22% lower following the interesterified diet, as compared
with the saturated-fat diet. Postprandial glucose on the
interesterified diet was also strikingly higher than on the saturated-
fat diet.



Jumping on the next bandwagon?
According to Hayes, interesterified fats are already on the market,
being used primarily as a replacement for trans fats in margarines and
baked goods. Unlike trans fats, which are required to be listed on
labels, interesterified fats are typically listed as "fully
hydrogenated" or even as "interesterified fats." Because there has
been little public attention being paid to these new manufactured
fats, Hayes worries that people may not be aware of the potential
harm.

Indeed, whether or not there is harm to be had in interesterified fats
remains to be seen.

"To be honest, I can't predict what the implications would be," Hayes
said. "We looked at these data and we said, wow, we better tell the
world. Let's send it out there and see what other people find, because
I'm sure it will stir interest and make people look more carefully at
the issue."

Twenty-five years ago, he reminded heartwire, people had concerns
about trans fats but assumed that they would never be eaten in large
enough quantities to be harmful. History proved otherwise. "I'm not
saying interesterified fat is bad stuff for sure, but I am saying,
Let's figure out why we saw what we saw, and let's not jump on the
next bandwagon without really having a closer look at what the
possibilities are."

Hayes is quick to acknowledge the fact that financial support for the
study was provided by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board. Sundram is
employed by the board and Karupaiah worked with the board as a
graduate student. Hayes himself is a member of the Malaysian Palm Oil
Advisory Council.

"It's obviously a conflict of interest; I realize that and I'm not
trying to disguise or hide that," Hayes said. "But I also think I know
more about different kinds of fats, including palm oil, than most
people in the world. I see where it's good and where it's weak, and my
main goal is to try to get a better fat in the public's hands, in the
public's mouth, in the public's bodies."

He continues, "From my perspective, natural fats are still nature's
way of doing it. If nature's fat does something you don't like, try
blending it with a natural fat that you do like, and that's the way to
get to the best solution, as opposed to modifying it, as opposed to
saying, we'll trick nature and make this partially hydrogenated or
fully hydrogenated."

***********

On 30 Jan 2007 08:55:53 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:





http://www.theheart.org/article/765927.do

"Interesterified" fats poised to replace trans fats, but specter of
CVD risk factor effects looms here, too

January 19, 2007 Shelley Wood

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - A new modified fat made through a process
called interesterification is shaping up to be the chief contender to
substitute for the trans fats being banished from processed foods and
restaurants. But researchers who compared the effects of different
fats in human diets are warning that interesterified fats may be just
as bad as the trans fats they are poised to replace [1].

Writing in a paper published online January 15, 2007 in Nutrition &
Metabolism, Dr Kalyana Sundram (Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Kuala
Lumpur) and colleagues report that compared with a diet high in palm
olein (a saturated fat), diets high in either trans fats or
interesterified fats significantly raise both LDL/HDL ratio and
fasting blood glucose while significantly reducing fasting insulin
levels.

The study was supported by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board, which has a
major stake in the ongoing fat wars and the hunt for a healthful,
stable fat with a long shelf life.

Meddling with Mother Nature's molecules
In an interview with heartwire, senior author on the study, Dr KC
Hayes (Brandeis University, Waltham, MA), explained that
interesterification grew out of the observation that stearic acid, the
fatty acid predominant in chocolate and cocoa butter, unlike other
saturated fatty acids, did not appear to raise cholesterol levels.
"People got the idea, hmm, let's just take the saturated fatty acid
stearic acid out of different oils . . . and put it into an oil like
soybean oil. Why not? There's three fatty acids hanging off of soybean
oil, why not replace one of the polyunsaturated fatty acids, which
makes it an oil, with a neutral saturated fatty acid, and you harden
or solidify the product. . . . This is the coming rage in replacing
trans fats."

That's not the way nature set it up.

But Hayes, who says he's "been looking at fats and oils for 35 years,"
is concerned about the physiological effects of meddling with fat
molecules. His own research has suggested that replacing a
polyunsaturated fatty-acid molecule in vegetable oil with stearic acid
might pose problems if that stearic acid is placed in the middle fatty-
acid position on a fat molecule, since it is not as easily
metabolized.

"That's not the way nature set it up. If you look at cocoa butter,
which is this nice neutral fat, all of the stearic-acid molecules are
on the outside, they are in the one and three positions, they're
almost never in the middle. So now when I artificially put my stearic
acid in I get about equal amounts [of saturated fatty acid] in
positions one, two, and three."

To test their fears about interesterified fats, Hayes and Sundram,
with Dr Tilakavati Karupaiah (National University of Malaysia), tested
diets rich in the three different fats in 30 volunteers. Each
volunteer consumed all three diets, each with strictly controlled
total-fat and fatty-acid composition, in random rotation during four-
week diet periods.

After four weeks, both the trans-fat and interesterified-fat diets
significantly elevated both the LDL/HDL ratio and fasting blood
glucose, with the interesterified-fat diet boosting LDL/HDL ratios by
almost 20% as compared with the saturated-fat (palm-olein) diet.
Fasting insulin at four weeks was 10% lower following the trans-fat
diet and 22% lower following the interesterified diet, as compared
with the saturated-fat diet. Postprandial glucose on the
interesterified diet was also strikingly higher than on the saturated-
fat diet.

Jumping on the next bandwagon?
According to Hayes, interesterified fats are already on the market,
being used primarily as a replacement for trans fats in margarines and
baked goods. Unlike trans fats, which are required to be listed on
labels, interesterified fats are typically listed as "fully
hydrogenated" or even as "interesterified fats." Because there has
been little public attention being paid to these new manufactured
fats, Hayes worries that people may not be aware of the potential
harm.

Indeed, whether or not there is harm to be had in interesterified fats
remains to be seen.

"To be honest, I can't predict what the implications would be," Hayes
said. "We looked at these data and we said, wow, we better tell the
world. Let's send it out there and see what other people find, because
I'm sure it will stir interest and make people look more carefully at
the issue."

Twenty-five years ago, he reminded heartwire, people had concerns
about trans fats but assumed that they would never be eaten in large
enough quantities to be harmful. History proved otherwise. "I'm not
saying interesterified fat is bad stuff for sure, but I am saying,
Let's figure out why we saw what we saw, and let's not jump on the
next bandwagon without really having a closer look at what the
possibilities are."

Hayes is quick to acknowledge the fact that financial support for the
study was provided by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board. Sundram is
employed by the board and Karupaiah worked with the board as a
graduate student. Hayes himself is a member of the Malaysian Palm Oil
Advisory Council.

"It's obviously a conflict of interest; I realize that and I'm not
trying to disguise or hide that," Hayes said. "But I also think I know
more about different kinds of fats, including palm oil, than most
people in the world. I see where it's good and where it's weak, and my
main goal is to try to get a better fat in the public's hands, in the
public's mouth, in the public's bodies."

He continues, "From my perspective, natural fats are still nature's
way of doing it. If nature's fat does something you don't like, try
blending it with a natural fat that you do like, and that's the way to
get to the best solution, as opposed to modifying it, as opposed to
saying, we'll trick nature and make this partially hydrogenated or
fully hydrogenated."

***********

Just what is the thing called "Nature"?

jack- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just what is the thing called "Nature"?

Now that question coming from you, tells us everything we need to
about your intellectual capacity and mindset.

On 31 Jan 2007 07:28:32 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Just what is the thing called "Nature"?
Now that question coming from you, tells us everything we need to
about your intellectual capacity and mindset.

Your adding silly things to peoples sigs shows what you are up to, and
shows your lack of substantive argument.

So tell me, do you believe there is some entity called "Nature" or
not? If not, as I would hope, then why are you quoting it?

jack

On Feb 1, 4:04 am, spam...@spam.heaven wrote:
On 31 Jan 2007 07:28:32 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Just what is the thing called "Nature"?
Now that question coming from you, tells us everything we need to
about your intellectual capacity and mindset.

Your adding silly things to peoples sigs shows what you are up to, and
shows your lack of substantive argument.

Hold it right here. When have I ever added any silly things to people
sigs?

3) Advanced degree university allopathic professor pinheads will make
up some high sounding rationalization to justify their ignoring the
real world in their curriculums as they educate the next generation of
completely nutritionally-ignorant doctors and nutritionists.Wow, you are bucking for a bonus from your meat industry employer?

jack- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

The only one I've seen adding things to sigs lately was you
adding text to my sig to make false references to the meat industry.
Does that indicate what "you are up to" and your "lack of substantive
argument.". In your case, that is already obvious in your posts
without your having to add silly things to sigs.

So tell me, do you believe there is some entity called "Nature" or
not? If not, as I would hope, then why are you quoting it?

jack

That is someone elses words, not mine. But most of us would recognize
and understand the point being made.

Why are you be-labouring such an inconsequential point? Possibly to
avoid addressing the issue presented and steering it away from the
issue? Typical food industry cult tactic.

TC - Meat Industry Advisor.

On 1 Feb 2007 09:45:08 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 1, 4:04 am, spam...@spam.heaven wrote:
On 31 Jan 2007 07:28:32 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Just what is the thing called "Nature"?
Now that question coming from you, tells us everything we need to
about your intellectual capacity and mindset.

Your adding silly things to peoples sigs shows what you are up to, and
shows your lack of substantive argument.

Hold it right here. When have I ever added any silly things to people
sigs?

An example follows:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: evidence and proof - low-fat diets fail and are dangerous
Date: 30 Jan 2007 08:30:51 -0800

[......]

3) Advanced degree university allopathic professor pinheads will make
up some high sounding rationalization to justify their ignoring the
real world in their curriculums as they educate the next generation of
completely nutritionally-ignorant doctors and nutritionists.Wow, you are bucking for a bonus from your meat industry employer?

jack- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Funny, a food industry troll accusing me of being a food industry
troll.

TC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The only one I've seen adding things to sigs lately was you
adding text to my sig to make false references to the meat industry.
Does that indicate what "you are up to" and your "lack of substantive
argument.". In your case, that is already obvious in your posts
without your having to add silly things to sigs.

Your honesty is as great as your understanding of the scientific
method.

So tell me, do you believe there is some entity called "Nature" or
not? If not, as I would hope, then why are you quoting it?

jack

That is someone elses words, not mine. But most of us would recognize
and understand the point being made.

No, you quoted it. What exactly does it mean? It sound like the fuzzy
nonsense you subscribe to.

Why are you be-labouring such an inconsequential point? Possibly to
avoid addressing the issue presented and steering it away from the
issue? Typical food industry cult tactic.

Who is belabouring it, except you? I merely asked what was meant by
this crucial concept in the article you quoted. I seem to have hit one
of your sore spots, sorry.

So tell me, do you believe there is some entity called "Nature" or
not? If not, as I would hope, then why are you quoting it?

jack

That is someone elses words, not mine. But most of us would recognize
and understand the point being made.

No, you quoted it. What exactly does it mean? It sounds like the fuzzy
nonsense you subscribe to.

I quoted the entire article. That does not make them my words. You
cannot be that dense, can you? Hang on, you are that dense. Geez, I
forgot who I was responding to for a sec.

You somehow think that by posting an article, I, for some reason, have
to completely agree with and defend every single minor and
insignificant point in the article. Should I also correct grammatical
mistakes and edit it to dumb it down for your highness?

And it is interesting how you industry food cultists grab ahold of any
tiny and insignificant point to argue as if arguing that tiny little
irrelevant point somehow will cause the unrelated larger issue of the
post to be somehow lessened or nullified. That is not how debate
works. You should address the issue being discussed. But, since you
are evading the main point, I can assume that you concede on the main
point.

But, feel free to agree or disagree on any and all tiny irrelevant
points. It's is called freedom of conscience. You don't like the term
"nature". Good for you. You are such an intellectual. Just don't
expect everyone to follow you down every stupid path you chose to
follow, every time to chose to.

Why are you be-labouring such an inconsequential point? Possibly to
avoid addressing the issue presented and steering it away from the
issue? Typical food industry cult tactic.

Who is belabouring it, except you? I merely asked what was meant by
this crucial concept in the article you quoted. I seem to have hit one
of your sore spots, sorry.

Again I find myself being asked to answer stupid questions about
stupid stuff that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
Stupid food industry cult nonsense questions.

You figure out for yourself what "nature" means, write it done on a
piece of paper, roll it up into a tight little ball and shove it up
your ass. That is how important your stupid off-topic picayune nit-
picky moronic questions are to me.

But that's ok. When you nitpick like that you automatically concede on
the main point.

Which is the new slow poison that is going to get foisted on the
public in the name of getting rid of trans fats and replacing it with
some other highly processed garbage manufactured chemically-altered
vegetable fats.

TC - Interplanetary Beef Shill

On 2 Feb 2007 07:04:06 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

So tell me, do you believe there is some entity called "Nature" or
not? If not, as I would hope, then why are you quoting it?

jack

That is someone elses words, not mine. But most of us would recognize
and understand the point being made.

No, you quoted it. What exactly does it mean? It sounds like the fuzzy
nonsense you subscribe to.

I quoted the entire article. That does not make them my words. You
cannot be that dense, can you? Hang on, you are that dense. Geez, I
forgot who I was responding to for a sec.

Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Meddling with Mother Nature's molecules"

" That's not the way nature set it up."

" That's not the way nature set it up."

" From my perspective, natural fats are still nature's
way of doing it. If nature's fat does something you don't like, try
blending it with a natural fat that you do like, and that's the way to
get to the best solution, as opposed to modifying it, as opposed to
saying, we'll trick nature and make this partially hydrogenated or
fully hydrogenated."

And then, of interest:

"I'm not
saying interesterified fat is bad stuff for sure, but I am saying,
Let's figure out why we saw what we saw, and let's not jump on the
next bandwagon without really having a closer look at what the
possibilities are."

[Good advice! Why don't you take it?]

Hayes is quick to acknowledge the fact that financial support for the
study was provided by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board. Sundram is
employed by the board and Karupaiah worked with the board as a
graduate student. Hayes himself is a member of the Malaysian Palm Oil
Advisory Council.
"It's obviously a conflict of interest; I realize that and I'm not
trying to disguise or hide that," Hayes said.

[Aha, one of your evil conflicts of interest?]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You somehow think that by posting an article, I, for some reason, have
to completely agree with and defend every single minor and
insignificant point in the article. Should I also correct grammatical
mistakes and edit it to dumb it down for your highness?

I assumed that if you posted an article you would be cognisant of the
main thrust, which is obviously that "doing things contrary to NATURE"
was somehow wrong. I merely asked for clarification of the main thrust
of this artcle, but if you say you haven't got s clue what you post
here, we'll leave it at that.

And it is interesting how you industry food cultists grab ahold of any
tiny and insignificant point to argue as if arguing that tiny little
irrelevant point somehow will cause the unrelated larger issue of the
post to be somehow lessened or nullified. That is not how debate
works. You should address the issue being discussed. But, since you
are evading the main point, I can assume that you concede on the main
point.

And that issue is? That anything contrary to "nature" is somehow
wrong? I still don't know what this "nature is.

But, feel free to agree or disagree on any and all tiny irrelevant
points. It's is called freedom of conscience. You don't like the term
"nature". Good for you. You are such an intellectual. Just don't
expect everyone to follow you down every stupid path you chose to
follow, every time to chose to.

Where did I say I don't like "nature" I asked what it was.
But if you don't even know what your article was about...

Why are you be-labouring such an inconsequential point? Possibly to
avoid addressing the issue presented and steering it away from the
issue? Typical food industry cult tactic.

Who is belabouring it, except you? I merely asked what was meant by
this crucial concept in the article you quoted. I seem to have hit one
of your sore spots, sorry.

Again I find myself being asked to answer stupid questions about
stupid stuff that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
Stupid food industry cult nonsense questions.
You figure out for yourself what "nature" means, write it done on a
piece of paper, roll it up into a tight little ball and shove it up
your ass. That is how important your stupid off-topic picayune nit-
picky moronic questions are to me.

So what did you think the thrust of your article was?

But that's ok. When you nitpick like that you automatically concede on
the main point.

Which was?

Which is the new slow poison that is going to get foisted on the
public in the name of getting rid of trans fats and replacing it with
some other highly processed garbage manufactured chemically-altered
vegetable fats.

So you really and truly derived this from that article? Wow, what
planet are you from?

TC - Interplanetary Beef Shill

jack

"Meddling with Mother Nature's molecules"

Go eat some sugar, you moron.

On 3 Feb 2007 19:34:33 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Meddling with Mother Nature's molecules"
Go eat some sugar, you moron.

So you can't tell us of any dietary carbs that are not really sugars?
Thought not. Must have been embarrassing for you when you looked that
up.

And you didn't realise that this article you posted was about some
kook journalist who thinks "nature" is the only true path or some such
other nonsense?

jack

On Feb 5, 4:18 am, spam...@spam.heaven wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 19:34:33 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Meddling with Mother Nature's molecules"
Go eat some sugar, you moron.

So you can't tell us of any dietary carbs that are not really sugars?
Thought not. Must have been embarrassing for you when you looked that
up.

Give me a list of whole food carbs that are "really" sugar.

And you didn't realise that this article you posted was about some
kook journalist who thinks "nature" is the only true path or some such
other nonsense?

jack

Read the article again. It wasn't the journalist that used that term.
Why are you wasting bandwidth?

On 6 Feb 2007 07:31:31 -0800, "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 5, 4:18 am, spam...@spam.heaven wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 19:34:33 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Meddling with Mother Nature's molecules"
Go eat some sugar, you moron.

So you can't tell us of any dietary carbs that are not really sugars?
Thought not. Must have been embarrassing for you when you looked that
up.

Give me a list of whole food carbs that are "really" sugar.

Well, a list of one. Starch which is a chain of pure glucose that is
released on contact with saliva in the mouth.
I don't believe there are any more. Can you name any? Apparently not.

On 6 Feb 2007 07:31:31 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 5, 4:18 am, spam...@spam.heaven wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 19:34:33 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Meddling with Mother Nature's molecules"
Go eat some sugar, you moron.

So you can't tell us of any dietary carbs that are not really sugars?
Thought not. Must have been embarrassing for you when you looked that
up.

Give me a list of whole food carbs that are "really" sugar.

Well, a list of one. Starch which is a chain of pure glucose that is
released on contact with saliva in the mouth.
I don't believe there are any more. Can you name any? Apparently not.

So your original nonsense assertion that the human diet should contain
ZERO sugars is dead wrong, as I said?

And you didn't realise that this article you posted was about some
kook journalist who thinks "nature" is the only true path or some such
other nonsense?

jack

Read the article again. It wasn't the journalist that used that term.
Why are you wasting bandwidth?

It was the thrust of the author (Shelley Wood, who wrote the article,
according to your quote). But if you don't know what you post, what's
changed. Arguing about who used what expression doesn't change the
fact that you quoted an article that claimed that altering fat
molecules was against "NATURE" and you apparently don't know what this
"NATURE" is. Or didn't you read it properly, and are now embarrassed
that you posted it?

jack

On Feb 6, 6:31 pm, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 07:31:31 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 5, 4:18 am, spam...@spam.heaven wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 19:34:33 -0800, "TC" <tunder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Meddling with Mother Nature's molecules"
Go eat some sugar, you moron.

So you can't tell us of any dietary carbs that are not really sugars?
Thought not. Must have been embarrassing for you when you looked that
up.

Give me a list of whole food carbs that are "really" sugar.

Well, a list of one. Starch which is a chain of pure glucose that is
released on contact with saliva in the mouth.
I don't believe there are any more. Can you name any? Apparently not.

So your original nonsense assertion that the human diet should contain
ZERO sugars is dead wrong, as I said?

There is no such thing as an essential sugar or starch. That is
something we call a scientific certainty.

And you didn't realise that this article you posted was about some
kook journalist who thinks "nature" is the only true path or some such
other nonsense?

jack

Read the article again. It wasn't the journalist that used that term.
Why are you wasting bandwidth?

It was the thrust of the author (Shelley Wood, who wrote the article,
according to your quote). But if you don't know what you post, what's
changed. Arguing about who used what expression doesn't change the
fact that you quoted an article that claimed that altering fat
molecules was against "NATURE" and you apparently don't know what this
"NATURE" is. Or didn't you read it properly, and are now embarrassed
that you posted it?

jack

No it was not the thrust of the article. It was one comment among many
others by a researcher to dumb things down for idiots like you. And
you are too stupid to get the gist of what he was saying and you
misinterpreted it as being somehow a key part of what was being said
when is was just a simplistic aside to the issue. MORON.

Learn the fucking language.