I haven't seen this anywhere else particularly, but it rings true. I'll be following up for sure.
The conclusions drawn here are a stretch. Urine is where you find waste products, and what is in your urine isn't likely to be also in your brain, or at doses that are anywhere similar. You kidneys and bladder are in the business of dealing with waste, your brain is not. My guess is that most components in urine aren't going to be good for rats if injected into their eyes as in the study cited. DMSO is not good for you, but that doesn't mean that asparagus is bad for you. There are actually a few compounds in asparagus that have anti-cancer properties, some of which are actively being investigated. Dose and context is everything. Aspirin is an anti-inflammatory at low doses, but can increase risk of hemmoragic stroke and GI bleeding at higher doses. Physiology is far more complicated than this blog post suggests. Toxicity is not defined as 'yes' or 'no'. There is much evidence that a 4-5 beers or glasses of wine per week are good for you, but there is also plenty of evidence that 4-5 beers or glasses of wine per day are not.
I agree that the thinner ones are better grilled. They crisp up nicely. A few weeks back I was being given a tour of an organic farm. He had wild asparagus growing everywhere. He suggested I just pick a spear and eat one. I did and it was delicious. I love asparagus. I particularly like pickled asparagus in a Bloody Mary. -or a Caesar. Ftfy forwardslash
This is what I'd call BAD science. I'm a scientist, and the research being quoted here is inaccurate. Asparagus isperhaps the single most powerful food source to DETOXIFY the body of harmful chemicals. This is because it ALKALIZES the body. Back in the 70's and before, it was thought to be highly acidic for the body due to the metabolic by-products excreted in the urine. Simple ignorance of the scientists at the time has since been corrected. Unfortunately, those who consider themselves "Rockstar Researchers" are rarely either. Scientific Research does NOT consist of pulling information off the web without checking references and scientific accuracy. This however, is sadly the case as people are sloppy in thinking and reporting. Asparagus is an amazing vegetable. Yes, it also metabolizes DDT. It's something that should've been studied long ago but then again, where would the future of medicine be if people knew they could heal their bodies simply. Don't believe MOST of what you read. Use your own intelligence, get the facts and stop spreading fear. Disease can only live in a predominantly acidic body (translation: an acidic body is the corpse signaling all the bacteria, microbes, etc whose job it is to consume the body after death). Conversely, it's scientifically known that disease cannot even exist in an ALKALINE (ph) body. Do the math, people. Just understand your bodies first and then act. Please don't pass along Fear between our species. Fear is the greatest "enemy" of humanity. Live Free! Thanks!
Am I missing a joke here that gives this insult a point?
Then say: Not: Do you see the problem here with your approach?This question is ludicrous. Equating eating asparagus to drinking paint thinner is obviously hyperbole.
Are you retarded?
I do and I don't. The word retarded has become more charged than it was when I was younger, and I think people are more sensitive to it now leading to getting muted for a single use. I won't be using that again on flagamuffin's posts (or apparently any words as I'm muted) just because it detracts from the point I'm trying to make. However, the abstract stupidity of the silly comparison did not warrant me explaining that is ludicrous hyperbole. It would be condescending to explain every joke you make, right? And moreover, it's kind of silly to get muted for expressing a valid point of view because someone else didn't like how you phrased it. That article is not well-researched and it uses poor science and scare tactics to drum up something you would see on Fox News. "Next at 10, is Asparagus giving you brain damage?" No. It's not. Millions of people eat it all the time and we aren't walking around with brain damage akin to taking a career's worth of hits in the NFL.
The problem here is that you started out rude without actually making a point. Why should flagamuffin bother to respond? You haven't given anything valuable as input yet. You didn't "express a valid point of view", you straight up insulted the other person for something that you don't even know they believe. The discussion has nowhere to go after that but down. Start with a well-reasoned contradiction. Start with "Millions of people eat it all the time and we aren't walking around with brain damage akin to taking a career's worth of hits in the NFL." Start with "That article is not well-researched and it uses poor science and scare tactics to drum up something you would see on Fox News." Don't start with the equivalent of "You and your opinions are stupid". It's not conducive to polite discussion. It's clearly unacceptable. More to the point, what sort of conversation were you trying to create with that comment? What positive reaction were you hoping for?it's kind of silly to get muted for expressing a valid point of view because someone else didn't like how you phrased it
I suppose that if they, or yourself, did not find anything of worth then they can ignore the response altogether. But other people did immediately get the reaction that I was going for which is to point out the poor nature of the article in an incisive and humorous way. By simply reiterating the author's words for a second review out of the context of the article, a reader can immediately realize that the comparison does not make sense, and then think more critically about the article. We can't just take science at face value, that's the best part about science. The reply was shared twice before I was muted. I think flagamuffin was a little heavy handed instead of actually discussing this like you have.