Science News Archive

There are similar medications which are applied locally ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alprostadil

Oh. You guys are still going on with this little p***ing match. (Si voul ballere Signor Contino!)

I started in reading Huck Finn today but the actual pertinent story was "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" It's about a bunch of supercilious "experts" who are married to the logical fallacy of reasoning by analogy who meet a pragmatic no-nonsense Yankee.

It is fallacious reasoning by analogy to claim that (a)because nerve gases are absorbed through the skin, or (b)MUSE is absorbed by the uretheral mucosa, or (c)transdermal nitro patches work therefore it is proven that these socks work to deliver pharmacologically active NO across the epidermal barrier

Here's a simple experiment you can try at home. Since you fellows assert that transdermal NTG works by delivering NO across the dermal barrier, why don't you rub some on your penis and see if it promotes an erection like Levitra does?

Don't bother. I tried it myself years ago. Nothing happens...whereas I can confidently assure you that Levitra works quite well thank you. How can that be if your reasoning is sound? (Besides that, your lady friend will very likely refuse your affections "with that stuff coating your thing")

Martin,

I suspect you don't have other user's signatures visible. You might find it revealing if you enable them.

The sun came up yesterday and today but, strictly speaking, it's false reasoning to assume that it will come up tomorrow.

I didn't say that the fact that some things go through the skin proves that NO will; I just said it makes it reasonable to assume that it might.
It is, on the other hand, unreasonable to assume that it wont.

Your understanding of the penis also seems limited.
Firstly , the normal response of the penis to being rubbed with anything is to become erect. I guess you had forgotten that.
Secondly the idea that transdermally supplied GTN will promote erections is pretty mainstream science. Here's a reference you can belittle.
"The presently available scientific documentation, although less extensive, indicates that NO donors, such as topically applied nitroglycerin (GTN; for example, 1-2 puffs of an ordinary GTN spray applied to the shaft of the penis), might be a reasonable alternative. Further larger-scale research on the efficacy and tolerability of topical GTN is needed to establish its full therapeutic potential in the treatment of erectile dysfunction."

from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9891191
Or this one
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/166/1/115

Thirdly, the placebo effect could do wonders here.

I'm not sure we should let Neil know about this. Excessive application of GTN might lead to unfortunate accidents.

Well quite. But there is no point, not only does it state in my profile I am female, I have also made reference to it when Martin claimed I was a character out of a book, but he appears to lack sufficient reading comprehension.
Hence his references to calling me 'Mister' and 'little buddy'.

I didn't realise you can hide other peoples signatures, I just assumed he was being a ****.

It is a pity because I now can't take Martin up on his scientific offer of rubbing stuff onto my penis to see if it becomes hard. In my experience, you don't even have to rub them for that to happen! Does that mean I emit GTN which affects men in my immediate vicinity? 

I don't care how many papers you've read. I am the personal owner and operator of a penis that does not become erect...

(a) no matter how much you rub it
(b) no matter how much topical nitroglycerine you apply to it- because it doesn't deliver pharmacologically significant levels of NO.
but
(c) responds well to oral ingestion of phosphodiesterase inhibitors (ie:Viagra et al) which does cut the mustard NO wise.

Now that is a concrete reproducible fact that can be verified easily by anybody who cares to give it a try.  NTG applied topically simply does not provide effective levels of NO sufficient to work..I don't care what kind of phony and poorly designed study may say differently. Ask the man that owns one, why don't you?

Now then, if slathering NTG directly on the skin doesn't deliver NO...just maybe I am justifiably skeptical of these preposterous socks' ridiculous claims.


Finally as to the suggestion that I should be mindful of the identities of the other parties in this discussion,how is that scientific? Facts is facts no matter who speaks them. NTG doesn't reverse ED because it just plain doesn't put enough NO across the skin to do that. All the King's horses and all the King's men don't change that simple, concrete and easily verifiable fact.

You really are floundering now aren't you?



One data point, woo. That does not smack of science to me.



Being sceptical is healthy. I am sceptical of the claims of the socks. That does not equate to NO being unable to pass through the skin. Your original argument was based on skin being composed of a dead layer which nothing can pass through, now you are bringing a dysfunctional penis into the argument! 




It isn't scientific, but it does stop you  might make you look less like a complete d1ck.



Oh so now it has gone from zero NO being able to cross the skin to not enough!! You are too funny!!

Let's consult the I Ching.

Oh look! Hexagram number 4 - Youthful Folly

THE JUDGMENT


YOUTHFUL FOLLY has success.
It is not I who seek the young fool;
The young fool seeks me.
At the first oracle I inform him.
If he asks two or three times, it is     importunity.
If he importunes, I give him no information.
Perseverance furthers.


Ancient wisdom prevails.

Ancient claptrap prevails.

It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong.

Martin, do you realise that, since you can say "I am the personal owner and operator of a penis that does not become erect...

(a) no matter how much you rub it...",
your dick doesn't work properly?


Given that you have problems in that department, it's not a valid yardstick  for how well penises in general react to GTN.

Just because yours doesn't work, doesn't mean that other people's don't.
One data point isn't good science; when you know it's an atypical point, then it's not science at all.

This morning as I was getting ready to get the bus to work I didn't have much time to spend on this; but I had no problem finding journal articles in what seem to be peer reviewed literature (I posted links to a couple) that show that GTN jolly well does help in at least some cases of erectile dysfunction so for you to say "NTG doesn't reverse ED because it just plain doesn't put enough NO across the skin to do that. All the King's horses and all the King's men don't change that simple, concrete and easily verifiable fact." is laughable.

This is a science website; if the best you can do is cite the I Ching, then you have really missed the point.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

BC,

When you said "yardstick", were you referring to the US Yard or the Imperial Yard?

Either way, if a any man here has a penis that is comparable to a yard stick I want his number... 

Either way, if a any man here has a penis that is comparable to a yard stick I want his number... 


It's just as well it was yards rather than cubits. Then we'd be talking about biblical proportions.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

I try not to brag about it.

It speaks for itself that Martin started off with a false statement "The epidermal layer is composed of dead cells-whose function is to keep things (i.e. like NO molecules) out of the body.".
There were also a few ad hom attacks thrown in.

Then refused to accept scientific  literature that shows he was wrong.
He also tried to argue that because he has problems with it, nobody would respond to GTN.
He failed to accept that argument by analogy, while strictly not logical proof, is strong evidence in favour of an idea.

Yep, Res Ipsa Loquitur indeed.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Biggus Dickus.

You can't drag Palin into this! Don't you realize that could destabilize the entire Western World?

You can't drag Palin into this! Don't you realize that could destabilize the entire Western World?


But have you met his wife? Incontinentia Buttockus? 

Not in person, but I introduced her to Benny Hill.

Did I not mention I have LoB tourettes.... it is not good to encourage me 

Welease Bwian.


OT, (ish) why do people insist on carrying on with a false argument rather than admit their are wrong? What is it in peoples psyche that makes them continue to look more and more foolish rather than just say " Hey you might be right there-you learn something new every day"  I have seen it on every forum I have ever visited and on all manner of topics.

I knew there was a bit of legal Latin that (more or less) fitted the bill.

Whenever a fellow named Rex,
Flashed his very small organ of sex,
He always got off,
For the judges would scoff,
De minimis non curat lex.

I once worked with a guy (he was in sales) called Brian Reid. Unfortunately the poor fellow had a slight speech impediment. He would come into meetings and introduce himself to customers -

"Hi. I'm Bwian Weed."

Everytime he did it I had to pretend I was looking for something deep inside my briefcase.

BTW, I did post this a long time ago on TNS, but you do know you can change the language option on Google search to "Elmer Fudd"?

Res Ipsa Loquitur = the thing speaks for itself

But when five self styled pundits are spouting baloney all that results is baloney to the fifth power. Now it has been asserted by the local wink, wink, nudge, nudge snicker brigade that I have been talking through my hat because I have said that the epidermis consists of dead skin ..it was asserted that this is the "stratum corneum" It is further asserted by the "experts" that the function of the epidermis is not to keep things out but to "keep water in"

Here is a relevant passage from the online Merck Manual ( which you may read at this url
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec18/ch201/ch201b.html

"The outermost portion of the epidermis, known as the stratum corneum, is relatively waterproof and, when undamaged, prevents most bacteria, viruses, and other foreign substances from entering the body"


Furthermore as proof that NO is absorbed transdermally it was offered by these learned and honorable persons the claim that transdermal absorbtion of nitroglycerin definitely yields NO in pharmacologically active amounts similar to Viagra.

If that piece of big lie propaganda were true. Then everybody who shells out $10 per dose for Viagra is a fool because Transdermal NTG (costs pennies) would do the job. Has anybody noticed NTG ointment flying off the shelves?  It does not because this is plain old garden variety twaddle being passed off as truth.

Res Ipsa Loquitur = the thing speaks for itself

also "caveat lector"  let the reader decide for themselves. On the one hand (mine) you have my easily verifiable proof. On the other side (my learned -it says here - colleagues) and their obvious load of sniggering double entendre and hot air.

So I say go and look and then decide for yourself if you want to see who is mistaken. Scientific progress is not accomplished by having a pedantic band of self-styled experts. It is accomplished by testing hypotheses. I have refuted the hypothesis that topical NTG is not different from oral phosphodiesterase inhibitors. therefore providing indirect proof that transdermal absorbtion of NO is at best insignificant.

I don't expect truly professional scientists to insult me (or my profession as an RN) when I have done that.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

You seem not to have understood the significance of the word "most" in your quote;
"The outermost portion of the epidermis, known as the stratum corneum, is relatively waterproof and, when undamaged, prevents most bacteria, viruses, and other foreign substances from entering the body".
Also,

"If that piece of big lie propaganda were true. Then everybody who shells out $10 per dose for Viagra is a fool because Transdermal NTG (costs pennies) would do the job.

Not tonight dear, the most commonly reported side effect of GTN is a headache.

Has anybody noticed NTG ointment flying off the shelves? 


No, but I understand that other nitrates sell well, for a related purpose.

It does not because this is plain old garden variety twaddle being passed off as truth.
You are the one passing twaddle.

You have been insulting and patronising from the word go, and you are still persisting in trying to prove you are right when you are blatantly wrong.

Geezers signature has never been more apt.

I will leave you to BC, he has more patience to deal with wallies than I have,

Hi folks! It's me MartinTheK.

Thanks for having the patience to let this little show go on. I've stayed with it partly out of my own repugnance at snow jobs, and partly to show what a typical Pom does when you disagree with one of them. So watch yourselves.


Now, some may tell you that "Pom" is a derogatory term, but it was ruled to be inoffensive by the Australian Advertising Standards Board in 2006 and by New Zealand's Broadcasting Standards Authority in 2010.

So get yourself a cool drink and settle in as we return to this laugh filled episode of spot the Pom!

That even leaves me speechless with disbelief.... 

So being British is wrong now too, this is what all typical British folk apparently when faced with an American.

I wonder where that leaves Geezer?
Or any other non-Brits who have perfectly reasonable discussions with us 'Poms' on here?

I really don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you Matin, if I didn't know better I would say you were some spotty teenager with a chip on his shoulder.

Martin, this is getting worryingly close to nationalistic abuse.
Please try and refrain from sweeping statements about any group, national or otherwise - as it may end with you getting removed from the forum.

As for the fact that two parties are not in agreement on a forum is hardly news, is it?

I also have to wonder if repeatedly spouting Latin phrases is going to do much good in winning wider support for your arguments.  I would say it just seems pompous, but then I am a philistine Pom 

Is that a new razor?? " The new POM razor from philistine, the best a Brit can get" 

I can imagine the abuse I would get if I started on a Yank abuse rail here, I restrict myself to the abuse of Jimbob and the occasional verbal frisk up of Geezer 

Erm, perhaps we should lock this thread before it gets any more hostile?

Hey I only said I was going to frisk you up!!! 

So far, Martin seems to have insulted the American chemical society, several people on this forum (including me), one of their supervisors, any number of researchers whose published results he disdains, and the population of the UK.

I can't speak for the rest of them, but my thoughts on the matter are clear enough.
I don't care. It's not just a matter of "sticks and stones...".
If the insults came from anyone who I felt had any credibility I might take them to heart.
As things are, it seems to me to be rather like having a 3 year old in the middle of a tantrum shouting "You are horrid and you smell of wee!".
It's not a particularly good state of affairs, but it's not worth getting upset about.

The science is well documented.
Plenty of examples exist of chemicals penetrating the skin in quantities large enough to have pharmacologically significant effects.
Martin calls these "big lie propaganda"

It seems that, based on just one test with one drug under circumstances where it might have been expected to fail anyway, he concludes that this is impossible.

He seems to have failed to understand some of the things he has quoted- for example the Merck manual article says that the skin keeps most things out.
That's really not the same as keeping everything out.

He claims we have been insulting him. Well, the limerick was a dig at his use of legal Latin rather than anything else.
I may have been a bit harsh in my criticism, but I'm not sure I said anything that was actually insulting. It's also fair to say that, since I never mentioned his profession, I didn't insult it.

Throughout the day I have wondered why I am so less tolerant of what many British people like to think of as "good manners". Why does it irritate me more lately?

Then, just now, those disgusting rats at BP ran another one of their revolting pieces of garbage that wouldn't fool a 7 year old. They run 5-6 times a day saying (a) BP isn't really British. (b) In any case they are innocent of any blame and (c) they are benevolent souls dedicated to putting smiles on the faces of the folksy Americans who have been the victims of this unfortunate act of God.

I could not puke enough.

Now I am not going to read whatever posts have recently been made, but I will leave you gentle readers with an observation which you are free to ignore. (Just as I could care less whether you spend your money on these #$%^%$ socks.)

My observation:
Unless you are actually meaning to be grossly offensive, when dealing with Americans over the age of four, think carefully before employing your usual talent for snotty, toffee-nosed repartee throughout the future.

Martin
The plot is over here with the nitric oxide discussion.

You seem not to have answered any of my points.
Have you found out what "most" means yet?

Incidentally, I see that you have failed to notice the role of the company whose kit actually failed and caused the oil spill.
BP, (headquartered in London, but formed by the merger of British Petroleum and the American Oil Company) so not entirely British, are legally responsible for the action of their contractor, Transocean.
Of course since Transocean is American, their failure can't be anything to do with the mess.

"Now I am not going to read whatever posts have recently been made."
Martin, at least bother to read this bit:

Wowsers!

Looks like Martin doesn't realize some of us are actually Americans.

No true American would use the word Oxters.... 

But where else would you put your NOX-SOX?

(OK BC - I know that's not quite chemically Kosher.)

It might not be strictly kosher - but it's a great name.  copyright it quick; or just tell the company you'll give them a great name in exchange for a few pairs to try out over the winter.  perhaps we could get some geezer-anecdotal evidence on the efficacy of the NOX-SOX.

Since nitric oxide is slowly oxidised by air to NO2 and the mixed oxides of nitrogen are called NOx I think it's reasonable to call them NOx SOx or NOX SOX if you can't be bothered to find the subscript function.

I've done a deal with Variola. She's going to be sell them as:

"NOX SOX by POX"

Whoa! dude; that idea ROX.

Well, sometimes you just have to think outside the BOX.

"Summary research papers continue to flood the scientific journals and insights into the biological activity and potential clinical uses of nitric oxide (NO): a gas controlling a seemingly limitless range of functions in the body. Each revelation adds to nitric oxide's already lengthy resume in controlling the circulation of the blood, regulating activities of the brain, lungs, liver, kidneys, stomach and other organs.

The molecule governs blood pressure through a recently recognized process that contradicts textbook wisdom. It causes penile erection by dilating blood vessels and controls the action of almost every orifice from swallowing to defecation. The immune system uses nitric oxide in fighting viral, bacterial and parasitic infections, and tumors. Nitric oxide transmits messages between nerve cells and is associated with the process of learning, memory, sleeping, feeling pain, and, probably depression. It is a mediator in inflammation and rheumatism."

So...  Is putting NOx into one's socks supposed to make a person funnier?
Perhaps another method would be to fill the socks with nitroglycerin....  just pay a bit of attention to the concentration.

It would be easy to test the transfer of the NO into the blood.

Nitrogen has 16 different isotopes, of which 2 of them are stable. 
Likewise, Oxygen has 13 different isotopes of which 3 are stable.

So, if one treated the socks with 15N 17O, then looked for an increased amount of 15N or 17O in the urine or blood, it would give the answer.

DMSO is supposed to cross the skin easily, and could potentially be a carrier for other meds (I assume "Thick Skin" is also included).

Anyway, I don't think I'd do it unless it was for specific treatment such as Diabetes, or perhaps prevention of frostbite for skiing or climbing.  And, even with that, one would have to be careful that it didn't have secondary effects such as causing hypothermia.

No. Obviously, you are confusing it with N2O.

Well, looking back on this discussion I am glad I didn't post at the time.

Now a good few months have passed I am curious to know whether this fabric has seen any advances yet? When the fabric is available in garment-sized amounts I want to get some for an experiment.