Science News

Nothing like a good pair of nitric oxide socks

Sun, 10th Jan 2010

Listen Now    Download as mp3 from the show Listen Here! The Science of Sound and Hearing

During these cold winter months you might like to strap yourself into some lovely fluffy socks, perhaps that your granny made you at Christmas.  And now you can get special socks for donor organs and people with diabetes, according to a paper from Chemistry of Materials this week.

Picture of Swedish original non-skid socks from Nowali.Itís not quite putting livers in jumpers and hepatic veins in booties but chemists this week have described how theyíve created a special fabric that can deliver nitric oxide to donor organs.

Nitric oxide is great in preventing damage to organs which arenít getting enough oxygen.  Itís actually a molecule which many animal cells use to communicate with other cells.  And one of the tasks nitric oxide performs is as a muscle relaxant, which means it can dilate blood vessels and increase blood flow.  Actually, itís one of the signalling pathways that Viagra capitalises on.

So this fabric contains zeolites which are molecular cages of aluminium and silicon oxides.  And those cages will soak up gas molecules like nitric oxide and then release them in a controlled manner.  The way they make the bandage fabric is to construct a water-repellant polymer, then embed some of these zeolites in it.  They can control how fast nitric oxide is released by making the polymer more or less water repellent.  So to get the nitric oxide flowing you just need to add moisture.

And the scientists working on this, Kenneth Balkus and Harvey Liu at the University of Texas, are solving a problem here that many have struggled with before in medicine.  Itís quite tricky to find reliable ways of storing and then delivering nitric oxide in a controlled manner.  Because, as with many good things, too much is toxic.

So apart from wrapping donated organs ready for transplantation, the zeolite fabric could be used for people with diabetes, in whom itís been found that nitric oxide production is compromised. Wearing this fabric might increase blood flow in all sorts of extremities, and they could really benefit from some NO socks.



Subscribe Free

Related Content


Make a comment

Thanks for spotting the typo RD - now fixed... BRValsler, Wed, 13th Jan 2010

"Actually, itís one of the signalling pathways that Viagra capitalises on."
Where do you propose to wear these socks? Bored chemist, Wed, 13th Jan 2010

Very good! chris, Wed, 13th Jan 2010

How far is this along? Are such fabrics on the market yet? (Huge fan of the show here!) Bacon Wizard, Fri, 3rd Sep 2010

So you put these on your feet and the NO tippy-toes through the epidermis to work its pharmacological action all over your little piggies?  Now pull the other one. You wouldn't, by any chance, have something like a double blind randomized study to show how well these actually work?

I wonder what these happen to cost? As it happens my secret formula "Aztec Cactus Salve" has been previously shown to do just the same thing for $2 less as a serendipitous side effect of its miraculous powers to restore hair and banish wrinkles. Watch for the infomercial coming soon to a midnight cable TV program near you. MartinTheK, Sat, 4th Sep 2010

Gimme a break. Everyone knows Tincture of Moth Vomit is the only cure.

Forunately, I can supply it at a mere $19.95 for an entire microliter. Geezer, Sat, 4th Sep 2010

Here is the original article

Variola, Sat, 4th Sep 2010

OK. Let's open this article and ask ourselves questions like real scientists would...

1. This is a news blurb in a publication of the American Chemical Society.
(a) Why is it not in a critically reviewed medical Journal?
(b) What do chemists know about wound healing or mice with diabetes?
(c) How did it come to be in this journal? (i.e. was it sent to them by some huckster, I mean "Marketing Consultant"?

2. The premise of this article presumes that NO gas freely passes thru the skin?
(a) If that is true, why do we need lungs?
(b) Why doesn't the Oxygen all leak out and we die of suffocation as we read this?
(c) Why isn't Viagra supplied in topical form?

3. The only real therapeutic use of these stockings is in (possibly) treating diabetic foot ulcers.
(a) Would you put a pair of socks on an open foot ulcer ( In a diabetic with compromised healing in the first place!) and then lace up your shoes for a walk to the market?

Good news Mother! I met a man on the way to market and I have traded the cow for this pair of magic socks which will cure your diabetic ulcers! MartinTheK, Sat, 4th Sep 2010

Ok I will give it a go!

a) I suspect because it has not undergone trials yet, so there is nothing medical to review.
b)Quite a bit, most chemists understand the basics of biochemistry.
c)Because it is a chemical materials journal, the authors proves they could incorporate a gas into a material.

a) It does, it is very permeable and passes easily through membranes. Best guess is that when in the air NO takes on a different form and has to be processed, it is highly reactive with oxygen etc
b)Leak out of where???
c)Because most men don't wear socks on their knobs? Seriously I think viagra comes in at a different point in the pathway.

a)Well the therapeutic use is another matter, but if it helps speed up healing I would give it a go.
Variola, Sat, 4th Sep 2010

It just goes to prove the profound understanding my old man ( the door to door siding salesman ) had of the human mind. Some people were just plain born to be "fleeced". If those arguments seem sound to you, who am I to refute you  with tiresome questions - like whoever told you that fairy story about NO crossing the epidermis freely? I wonder if you would kindly oblige me with some sort of factual reference outside the realm of Science Fiction.

You know this could be my ticket to buying that villa overlooking the harbor in Korcula on the Adriatic's obviously somebody's meal ticket.

I just goggled "transdermal NO" to check on this buncomb that transdermal absorbtion of NO exists outside of fairyland...Here's what I turned up...

(1) some bodybuilders peddling some kind of snake oil formulation guaranteed to turn you into another Hercules (results depend upon diet and exercise - go figure.)

(2) A chemist at the University of Akron, Ohio who is studying this using....

"Three diazeniumdiolates (formerly ďNONOatesĒ), including two water soluble compounds, (Z)-1--diazen-1-ium-1,2-diolate (DETA-NO) and (Z)-1--diazen-1-ium-1,2-diolate (DPTA-NO), and one insoluble compound, DPTA-NO grafted to dextran microspheres (DPTA-NOĖg-dextran) were used to transdermally deliver NO to rats. "

So if you are (a) willing to slather your tootsies with "diazeniumdiolates" and (b) you are a rat - then yes you could absorb NO through the skin of your feet.

So go know.

MartinTheK, Sat, 4th Sep 2010

Yes I can, it was this chap:

He is one of my lecturers and also a good friend, so I asked him.  If you look at his research( and book), you will find that his field is nitric oxide. Much as I would like to put my faith in your 'google search' I would trust the word of a researcher above that.
Next time you want to insult my intelligence by suggesting I am buying into fairy stories and patronize me by saying my posts are  science fiction, perhaps you might realise that I am a degree student, I am studying molecular medicine, I recently took modules taught by the above researcher on NO amongst other things, so you can kiss my a**.
Variola, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

OK.Your prof is flogging a book on Amazon called "Nitric Acid Protocols". Oooooh! Shiny! But I'm from Missouri (or at least I drove thru it last June)

Now kindly show me a critically reviewed article in a reputable medical journal to support your frankly incredible claim that NO freely passes through the human epidermis.

Are you sure you're a graduate student? When I was in my graduate seminars in Pharmacology (back in the day) we learned how to support our arguments without inviting people to kiss our a**. The way we did that was to politely say, "show me the facts to support your most remarkable assertion." When they couldn't do that then they were fair game to be asked if they had recently visited fairyland and maybe had a toot with the little people.

In my experience people start in using profanity when their statements have been shown to be ridiculous twaddle--or they have a financial interest in some kind of junk they are trying to sell.

That wouldn't be you would it? So why not just use dat lil ol' cut and paste function and show us your proof the way real graduate students do? MartinTheK, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

Not really, it happens to be a book he wrote. Oh an it is Nitric Oxide Protocols, not acid. Might suggest he knows a thing or two about NO though, certainly more than an ageing oik from Missouri.

Actually I think you will find I don't need to, I have asked my lecturer, a researcher in the field of NO and he has told me that NO is permeable through membranes. It is up to you to prove him and me wrong.

What you don't like is being shown up to be wrong, hence you are now floundering and demanding papers. However I will help you out a bit here.

Do you need me to explain either of those to you?

Nah I am making it all up!!! When you were a graduate? Can you actually remember back that far? Now you see for me to support an argument politely, it would have to be asked politely, not suggesting I had gone to fairy land or that it was science fiction. I thought when you posted those questions you were interested in whether the socks would actually work, so I put a few answers back in the hope of opening up the discussion, see if anyone had any ideas. But instead you replied in a patronising and insulting tone. Hence my reply that you can kiss my a**. I am not known for my tolerance of fools on here.

As for the socks, I have doubts whether they would work for any length of time, and if the amount of NO embedded would last for enough time to warrant the cost of the socks. However that does not stop NO being permeable in membranes.

Now Martin, if NO is NOT permeable in membranes, how do you suggest it works? You might have to blow the dust off your books for that one.
All you have done so far is googled it.... 

Variola, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

You show me two articles showing that NO crosses membranes. That is not in dispute. The question at hand is whether or not NO crosses the epidermis (the skin barrier) which you have not shown...because no one has ever shown it to do so..and which simple logic tells us would be a miraculous phenomenon.

We are still waiting to see your proof, Mister.

Now you may wonder why I am pursuing this question so doggedly. If, in fact, NO doesn't cross the skin barrier these socks are worthless junk that some scoundrel is trying to flog to diabetics as useful prevention of foot amputations (as an "off label" treatment) instead of real medicine.....I hate scum who cheat and prey upon the sick. I could be easily talked into a long and exemplary prison sentence for the lot of them - and double that for people with a degree.

MartinTheK, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

I wonder what part of this you are not understanding.....

(excuse the long link, would not post any other way)

Mathematical Modelling of Nitric Oxide Regulation of Rete Peg Formation
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Volume 214, Issue 1, 7 January 2002, Pages 1-16

Skin produces NO in combination with sweat,sweat is on the outside of your body.
It is not a pump system and does not rely on protein carriers. It is permeable through the membrane.
Topical, meaning applied to the skin. This backed up by other cited papers in the article.

Oh look, it is permeable through the phospholipid later, that means it can move freely in and out of cells, even skin layers. It can even squeeze through in between epithelial cells.

It is released from cells, show me some proof that it cannot enter back in?

I am losing the will to live with this conversation. I have the word of a researcher in NO, which you are trying to doubt because you are wrong. Why don't you email him and tell him he is wrong?
I have stated my position, all you have done is googled some rubbish. Either prove NO cannot be absorbed through the skin, or admit you are wrong and back down. I am not going to waste my time replying to your ill-informed posts until you do.

As for my peevish comments and 'scientific traditions'..... lol you think googling is a scientific tradition and far outweighs the word of a respected researcher? Hahahahhahahahaha 

Variola, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

The epidermal layer is composed of dead cells-whose function is to keep things (i.e. like NO molecules) out of the body.Your arguments about what happens in live cells simply do not apply to the case at hand. Why are you working so hard to try to confuse people? It is extremely dishonorable.

These socks are almost certainly worthless garbage (p>> 99.9%). Worse than that - they would divert people from effective therapy and consume scarce health care funds. You are promoting untried and pernicious therapy based on a preposterous idea. Does your Mother know what you're up to?
MartinTheK, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

I repeat:

Skin produces NO in combination with sweat,sweat is on the outside of your body.
It is not a pump system and does not rely on protein carriers. It is permeable through the membrane.
Topical, meaning applied to the skin. This backed up by other cited papers in the article.
It can even squeeze through in between epithelial cells.

So top skin is totally dead and nothing can pass through it huh?? Best tell that to manufactures of medications that reply on being absorbed by the skin. Desquamation is not a suit of armor!

I repeat:

As for the socks, I have doubts whether they would work for any length of time, and if the amount of NO embedded would last for enough time to warrant the cost of the socks.

I doubt it she died some years ago.

Are you being deliberately thick or do you need to take a course in reading comprehension? 

I repeat either show me that NO cannot be absorbed by the skin or back down.

Variola, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

The wonderful world of science forums....

*My lecturer, an NO researcher says NO can be absorbed into the skin.

*Papers state that NO can be absorbed into the skin. They cite other papers than also state this.

But because Martin_The_K states it cannot permeate, supported by a few google quotes, I am to believe the opposite! 

This place just gets better!  Variola, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

It was your original claim that NO crossed the skin barrier. I have thrice asked you to show some reputable source to support your claim and the best you can come up with is to ask me to prove that it doesn't. Apparently that's all you've got. I personally believe you, little buddy. (thousands wouldn't) I'm sure you will have a most interesting career in science

I hope that this tiresome exchange has at least caused people to question the junk science behind these wretched socks.
MartinTheK, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

My original sentence was in response to yours questioning whether it did or not. My response was that I thought it did.

I have provided-

*The opinion of my lecturer a researcher in NO and backed his credentials up by posting links to his profile. Are you now saying he is not reputable? His papers on NO are not reputable?

*Several peer-reviewed papers that dispute your opinion.

You are now relying on trying to claim I have not provided reputable source, that is a pretty poor show Martin.

Ah so instead of backing up your statement with evidence, you decide to try and patronise me again.  Martin, I am 35 yrs old, I have 3 kids and a house, I already have a professional career behind me, and I am midway through my career change. Do you really think I am going to be bothered  whether an ageing 'nurse' believes a word I say?  (Rhet)

The junk science that you have yet to disprove,
Well it has certainly shown you up for what you are.

Variola, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

At this point I am reminded of the advice of Mark Twain, "Never argue with a fool because people passing by won't be able to tell the difference between you."

If you ever find something that actually supports your thesis (actually, now it's your 'opinion' you say), I would be interested in seeing it .

MartinTheK, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

So instead of providing any sound arguments you are now trying to say it is my thesis?? 

Do you not think people can read this thread??? I am not sure whether you really are being dense, or you really do believe you can rewrite history!

Keep going Martin, I am actually looking forward to your posts now, they are becoming more entertaining! Variola, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

Excuse me...I'm spending the day reading Huckleberry Finn again....You know, I could almost swear there's a guy just like you in it! MartinTheK, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

Really? Wow he must look odd with long hair and a large chest  Variola, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

Martin, just for a start your assertion that "The epidermal layer is composed of dead cells-whose function is to keep things (i.e. like NO molecules) out of the body."
is wrong.
The stratum corneum is made of dead cells.
Also, it's primary purpose is to keep water in.

It happens to do a reasonable job of keeping stuff out; but it's not that good.
Are you aware of nicotine patches and such?
Did you know that most nerve agents are able to penetrate intact skin in large enough amounts to kill people?
A slightly more obscure variation on the nicotine patch is the glyceryl trinitrate patch used in the treatment of angina. They work quite well. As it happens they work because the GTN gets  converted to nitric oxide.

Since it's clear that all these big molecules like sarin, nicotine or GTN can get through the skin (all the layers of it) it is absurd to say that nitric oxide can't.

You position is ridiculous and you owe Variola an apology.
Bored chemist, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

Careful BC, you will be asked if you are a real chemist and if you have anything to support that! 

Ahhhhh so that's how they work, that's quite clever.

Variola, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

There are similar medications which are applied locally ...

RD, Sun, 5th Sep 2010

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") MartinTheK, Mon, 6th Sep 2010


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

Geezer, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

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."

Or this one

Thirdly, the placebo effect could do wonders here. Bored chemist, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

I'm not sure we should let Neil know about this. Excessive application of GTN might lead to unfortunate accidents. Geezer, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

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?  Variola, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

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.
(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. MartinTheK, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

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!!

Variola, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

Let's consult the I Ching.

Oh look! Hexagram number 4 - Youthful Folly


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. MartinTheK, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

Ancient claptrap prevails.

It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong. Variola, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

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?

Bored chemist, Mon, 6th Sep 2010


When you said "yardstick", were you referring to the US Yard or the Imperial Yard? Geezer, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

Either way, if a any man here has a penis that is comparable to a yard stick I want his number...  Variola, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

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. Geezer, Mon, 6th Sep 2010

Res Ipsa Loquitur MartinTheK, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

I try not to brag about it. Geezer, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

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. Bored chemist, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

Quod Erat Demonstrandum Geezer, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

Biggus Dickus. Variola, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

You can't drag Palin into this! Don't you realize that could destabilize the entire Western World? Geezer, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

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?  Variola, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

Not in person, but I introduced her to Benny Hill. Geezer, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

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. Variola, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

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.
Bored chemist, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

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"? Geezer, Tue, 7th Sep 2010

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 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

"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

MartinTheK, Wed, 8th Sep 2010

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".

"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.

Bored chemist, Wed, 8th Sep 2010

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, Variola, Wed, 8th Sep 2010

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! MartinTheK, Wed, 8th Sep 2010

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. Variola, Wed, 8th Sep 2010

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  peppercorn, Wed, 8th Sep 2010

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  Variola, Wed, 8th Sep 2010

Erm, perhaps we should lock this thread before it gets any more hostile? Geezer, Wed, 8th Sep 2010

Hey I only said I was going to frisk you up!!!  Variola, Wed, 8th Sep 2010

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. Bored chemist, Wed, 8th Sep 2010

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. MartinTheK, Thu, 9th Sep 2010

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. Bored chemist, Thu, 9th Sep 2010

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

peppercorn, Thu, 9th Sep 2010


Looks like Martin doesn't realize some of us are actually Americans. Geezer, Thu, 9th Sep 2010

No true American would use the word Oxters....  Variola, Thu, 9th Sep 2010

But where else would you put your NOX-SOX?

(OK BC - I know that's not quite chemically Kosher.) Geezer, Fri, 10th Sep 2010

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. imatfaal, Fri, 10th Sep 2010

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. Bored chemist, Fri, 10th Sep 2010

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

"NOX SOX by POX" Geezer, Sat, 11th Sep 2010

Whoa! dude; that idea ROX. Bored chemist, Sat, 11th Sep 2010

Well, sometimes you just have to think outside the BOX. Geezer, Sat, 11th Sep 2010

"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." Hugh888, Thu, 2nd Dec 2010

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. CliffordK, Fri, 3rd Dec 2010

No. Obviously, you are confusing it with N2O. Geezer, Fri, 3rd Dec 2010

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. Bacon Wizard, Fri, 30th Sep 2011

See the whole discussion | Make a comment

Not working please enable javascript
Powered by UKfast
Genetics Society