Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: thedoc on 13/01/2010 16:26:31
-
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.
[img float=left]http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/copies/RTEmagicC_800px-Halksockar_01.JPG.jpg[/img]It’s not quite putting livers in jumpers and hepatic veins in booties but chemists this week have described how they’ve created a special fabric that can deliver nitric oxide to donor organs.
Nitric oxide is great in preventing damage to organs which aren’t getting enough oxygen. It’s 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, it’s 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. It’s 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 it’s 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.
-
Thanks for spotting the typo RD - now fixed...
-
"Actually, it’s one of the signalling pathways that Viagra capitalises on."
Where do you propose to wear these socks?
-
Very good!
-
How far is this along? Are such fabrics on the market yet? (Huge fan of the show here!)
-
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.
-
"Aztec Cactus Salve" has been previously shown to do just the same thing for $2 less
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.
-
Here is the original article
http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/cm901358z
-
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!
-
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!
Ok I will give it a go!
1)
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.
2)
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.
3)
a)Well the therapeutic use is another matter, but if it helps speed up healing I would give it a go.
-
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 riviera...it'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 “NONOates”), including two water soluble compounds, (Z)-1-[N-(2-aminoethyl)-N-(2-ammonioethyl)amino]-diazen-1-ium-1,2-diolate (DETA-NO) and (Z)-1-[N-(3-aminopropyl)-N-(3-ammoniopropyl)amino]-diazen-1-ium-1,2-diolate (DPTA-NO), and one insoluble compound, DPTA-NO grafted to dextran microspheres (DPTA-NO–g-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.
-
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.
Yes I can, it was this chap:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/biochemistry/profile2692.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nitric-Protocols-Methods-Molecular-Biology/dp/0896035379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283678331&sr=8-1
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**.
-
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?
-
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)
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.
ow 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.
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662836
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20813110
Do you need me to explain either of those to you?
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.
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.... [::)]
-
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.
-
I wonder what part of this you are not understanding..... [::)]
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMD-4576DSX-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01/07/2002&_alid=1451220097&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_cdi=6932&_sort=r&_st=13&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1199&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=133e7816c36779a4944ff800d10a1a4a&searchtype=a
(excuse the long link, would not post any other way)
Mathematical Modelling of Nitric Oxide Regulation of Rete Peg Formation
in Psoriasis- NICHOLAS J. SAVILL, RICHARD WELLER and JONATHAN A. SHERRATT
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Volume 214, Issue 1, 7 January 2002, Pages 1-16
Healthy
human skin does produce nitric oxide, at very
low levels, as a result of chemical reactions within
sweat (Weller et al., 1996b). However, production
is about ten times higher in non-lesional skin of
psoriatics, and about ten times higher again in
the plaques themselves (Weller& Ormerod, 1997;
Orem et al., 1997; Ormerod et al., 1998). These
observations are highly suggestive of a role for
nitric oxide in the development of psoriasis, although
no mechanism has yet been established.
From a clinical viewpoint, this is an exciting
possibility, because nitric oxide levels can be altered
relatively easily, by topical application of
nitric oxide donors or inhibitors.
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.
The nitric oxide molecule is small and is soluble
in phospholipid membranes and thus will
diffuse at approximately the same (high) rate in
different layers of the skin, unimpeded by cells,
extracellular matrix components, etc.
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.
The high production rates of nitric oxide in
psoriatic plaques have been established by
measuring release rates of nitric oxide from the
skin surface.
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 [;D]
-
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?
-
The epidermis is composed of dead cells...your arguments about what happens in live cells do not apply to the case at hand. Why are you working so hard to try to confuse people? It is extremely dishonorable.
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!
You are promoting untried therapy based on a preposterous idea.
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.
Does your Mother know what you're up to?
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.
-
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! [:D]
This place just gets better! [:)]
-
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.
-
It was your original claim that NO crossed the skin barrier.
My original sentence was in response to yours questioning whether it did or not. My response was that I thought it did.
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.
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.
I personally believe you, little buddy. (thousands wouldn't) I'm sure you will have a most interesting career in science
Ah so instead of backing up your statement with evidence, you decide to try and patronise me again. [;D] 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? [:D] [:D] (Rhet)
hope that this tiresome exchange has at least caused people to question the junk science behind these wretched socks.
The junk science that you have yet to disprove,
Well it has certainly shown you up for what you are.
-
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 .
-
So instead of providing any sound arguments you are now trying to say it is my thesis?? [:D] [:D]
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!
-
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!
-
Really? Wow he must look odd with long hair and a large chest [:D] [:D]
-
OK.
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.
-
Careful BC, you will be asked if you are a real chemist and if you have anything to support that! [:)]
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.
Ahhhhh so that's how they work, that's quite clever.
-
Why isn't Viagra supplied in topical form?
There are similar medications which are applied locally ...
Alprostadil is sold in the United States as urethral suppositories, under the brand name MUSE (Medicated Urethral Suppository for Erection) by Vivus ... Muse delivers alprostadil as a penile suppository, inserted into the urethra, at least ten minutes before the erection will be needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alprostadil
[:0]
-
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.
-
"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."
I'm not sure we should let Neil know about this. Excessive application of GTN might lead to unfortunate accidents.
-
Martin,
I suspect you don't have other user's signatures visible. You might find it revealing if you enable them.
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? [:D]
-
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?
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?
One data point, woo. That does not smack of science to me.
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.
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! [::)]
Finally as to the suggestion that I should be mindful of the identities of the other parties in this discussion,how is that scientific?
It isn't scientific, but it does stop you might make you look less like a complete d1ck.
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.
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?
-
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... [:D]
-
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... [:D]
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.
-
Res Ipsa Loquitur
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.
-
Biggus Dickus.
You can't drag Palin into this! Don't you realize that could destabilize the entire Western World?
-
Biggus Dickus.
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?
-
But have you met his wife? Incontinentia Buttockus?
Not in person, but I introduced her to Benny Hill.
-
[;D] [;D]
Did I not mention I have LoB tourettes.... it is not good to encourage me [:o)]
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.
-
[;D] [;D]
Did I not mention I have LoB tourettes.... it is not good to encourage me [:o)]
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 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.
-
I don't expect truly professional scientists to insult me (or my profession as an RN) when I have done that.
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!
-
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.
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 [:-X]
-
philistine Pom
Is that a new razor?? " The new POM razor from philistine, the best a Brit can get" [;D]
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!!! [:D]
-
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:
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.
-
Wowsers!
Looks like Martin doesn't realize some of us are actually Americans.
-
Wowsers!
Looks like Martin doesn't realize some of us are actually Americans.
No true American would use the word Oxters.... [;D]
-
No true American would use the word Oxters.... [;D]
But where else would you put your NOX-SOX?
(OK BC - I know that's not quite chemically Kosher.)
-
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.
-
So... Is putting NOx into one's socks supposed to make a person funnier?
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.