Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Aluminum pans-a health risk?
Message-ID: <478@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 19:57:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadre.478
Posted: Fri Aug  9 19:57:17 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 14:38:34 EDT
References: <2015@ukma.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Distribution: na
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 120

The posting by Stoll concerning Aluminum and Alzheimer's Disease
is a fascinating example of the kind of reasoning that leads to
health faddism.  A dissection of its arguments may be enlightening.

It starts with a observed scientific fact, discovered by legitimate
medical researchers:

>The first indication that aluminum was a serious brain toxin came to
>light back when kidney dialysis first started.  The first series of
>patients all turned into vegetables after about 6 months of dialysis.
>
>Obviously, 6 months of life was not worth spending the rest of your
>earthly existance as a vegetable (these people didn't die--they just
>lost their cognitive function--almost exactly like Alzheimer's).  The
>researchers discovered that the Aluminum preservative in the solution
>settled into the brain tissue (just like autopsies show in
>Alzheimer's).  When the Aluminum was removed from the solution the
>problem never recurred.  Unfortunately, all those who were vegetables
>stayed that way (just like Alzheimer's).

The words "just like Alzheimer's" suggest a hypothesis which was
quite legitimate at the time of the first discovery, that since
there was a dementia in which Aluminum was implicated, perhaps it
plays a role in Alzheimer's.  This was not lost on medical researchers,
who pursued this lead.  Unfortunately, the connection seems to be
fortuitous (as other posters have shown).  Now tell a little story
that makes it seem like legitimate "scientists" have lied to the public
in the past:

>
>There were a few solitary "voices in the wilderness" back in the 40's
>warning about the dangers of Asbestos.  Economic, and political,
>pressures covered up the evidence.  Finally, 30 years later the
>accumulation (which takes 30-4- years to cause the damage) of evidence
>was so overwhelming that even the most obtuse "scientist" was forced
>to agree.  You all know that story by now.


Now the bald unsubstantiated statement:

>
>Aluminum is the same.  
>

Followed by statements that might sound plausible, but that the
writer has no evidence for (it only took a few months for Aluminum
to cause dialysis dementia):


>It takes 30-40 years, in this culture, for the
>accumulation to cause severe and permanent damage.  

Now the Birch-like conspiracy theory:

>There are a few
>solitary "voices in the wilderness", who are trying to warn us about
>Aluminum.  The same people are still around who, for economic and
>political reasons, are trying to cover up the data.  

Bomb Alcoa!  Save our precious bodily fluids!

Now the rising paranoia:

> Start reading the
>lables on the things you eat.  Nearly everything has some Aluminum
>added to it.  Most public drinking water supplies have a high
>concentration of Aluminum added to them--; it is a cheap method of
>flocculation (part of the sewage treatment).

Now throw in a few false facts:

>
>Since the present epidemic of Alzheimer's started exactly 40 years
>after this country started adding lots of Aluminum to those things we
>take into our bodies, don't you think it behooves a prudent person to
>err on the side of caution until----------?

As a matter of fact, dementia of the senile variety has been recognized
since antiquity.  As early as the 17th century we find descriptions
of patients who probably had Alzheimer's disease.  Of course, it wasn't
until the 19th century that pathology had advanced to the point that
Alzheimer could separate out those having the disease he described
from the mish-mash of other dementias.  At that time the population
over 65 was less than 4%, whereas now it is over 10% and growing.
Then, no one made a fuss over what was seen as the natural course
of aging, now people expect to live longer and don't want to become
demented.  There is absolutely no evidence that the incidence of
Alzheimer's has increased when population aging is taken into account.

Now for the proof:

>
>My grand mother used to tell me that Aluminum Pans were poisonous.
>She is dead now so I will never find out how she knew (she died at age
>88 in full possession of her faculties).  My mother laughed at my
>grandmother's foolishness and flaunted her new set of Aluminum pans
>(after all, they were so much lighter--and saved so much $).  My
>mother is now 69 years old and has Alzheimer's.  It seems the Aluminum
>Pans weren't such a bargain after all.

Of course, isn't it obvious?  This kind of reasoning is thought to
account for superstitions.  The black cat crossed my path this morning
and now look what happened.  It must have been the cause of my trouble.
The human mind looks very hard for cause-and-effect.  It tends to
latch onto any convenient cause, especially if it fits some preconceived
notions.  Isn't health faddism just a modern superstition?  

>
>Obviously there are many factors involved in Alzheimer's disease.  One
>of them is the old adage: "Use it, or lose it!".  People who watch a
>lot of TV are a lot more likely to get Alzheimer's.  If it weren't for
>the renal dialysis serendipidous discovery, I would wonder about the
>Aluminum controversy too.

I don't know whether he is serious about the TV.  I would say that with
today's programs, the Alzheimer's patients are about the only ones who
could stand it.

Please, you vitamin-freaks, don't stop posting.  It is the best entertainment
around.