Geez, Kevin - {{{Like I'm supposed to keep up a coherent discussion with someone who can't even keep straight what's been said.}}}
- I was just being nice. Here's how it went:
You copied post about zinc verbatim from an article. Then, you said, "By that reasoning practically any metallic element should work, even such everyday metals as iron, calcium, potassium, and sodium."
I responded,"The comment about other metals is, frankly, as sound as substituting pennies for quarters in a coke machine because they are both metal. Chemistrywise, some ions are related (halogens, for example) but humans are a bit more complex than flasks and metal ion co-cofactors are often VERY specific,as was demonstrated in the post I put in a few months ago from Blood (it was about zinc and effects on blood vessels). "
You responded"At any rate, it still stands that the fact that zinc ions have a positive charge is hardly a unique aspect of the element. It does you a disservice to defend reasoning that would get laughed out of a high-school chemistry class, much less the NEJM, just because you happen to agree with the conclusion. ... growing more amused by the week."
I responded with "my reasoning" in bold because you said I was defending reasoning that would be laughed out of a high school chem class. I was not trying to quote you verbatim as I can keep 4 windows open simultaneously and can read just fine, but your intentions were obvious when you said I was defending that reasoning and that it did me a disservice. Thus, you indirectly tie your opinion of what proponents mean with your interpretation of the situation (since ZN works other metals should) and with my defending, indirectly, your logic - which I do not.
Here is the point: you said that the people who came defended zinc used logic that could be further extended, if interpreted correctly, that other metals or their ions could be effective. I disagreed with you and said the if you used "could" instead of "should", then one could test that. Geez, man, I was trying to be nice and you twisted it around like I was misquoting you when a verbatim quote was not even my intention. You twisted things around to suit your needs, ignoring what I was trying to say to you.
Look, membrane chemistry is more complicated than beaker chemistry since proteins and lipids are involved. Let me restate my first post to you. Your attempt to extend what you perceive as their logic regarding zinc is not necessarily true because membrane chemistry is complex and may involve specific ions. Your comments and assumptions about metals are totally erroneous. Metallic sodium is highly explosive for one thing.
I was trying to be nice and even conciliatory with someone who does not understand basic biochemistry and how it differs from simple chemistry. Talk about having coherent discussions?
You would not only get laughed out of high school chemistry, you would get blown up. So it goes... |
