Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Chemistry => Topic started by: james oliver on 29/06/2012 18:11:41
-
I asked the question earlier about what forces can break atomic bonds. I am ultimately trying to determine what can break the bonds of atoms , that make up the various essential amino acids (including bonds in R groups etc). Some folk curiously feel that amino acids are the most impervious, stable molecules/compounds on earth. I say leave that honor to diamonds (?).
As i understand it, all it takes is for any one bond to "break free" from the collective if you will, for that particular amino acid, threonine say, to no longer be threonine.
The trick part of the non trick question, is how can we break any of these bonds OUTSIDE of the human body's synthesis dynamics?
Thanx Oliver
-
Same guy here; Is heat, the only thing that can break up a molecule? Can another atom or molecule breakup another molecule? I am referring to amino acids. I know that in the body matrix so many 'factors' can cause an amino acid to either decompose, or be modified (morphed into a derivative, but how can we do this outside of the body? how can we degrade, destroy, or change an amino acid?
-
Same guy - I don't want to start a new thread topic each time, so this for now seems the best way to add on to the question/topic; Can the bonds in the amino acids that are in an egg say, be affected by the metal that is the pan? Copper, iron, lead etc. Can any of those metals, without the heat being turned on/up affect the bonds that make up and amino acid? I don't mean the bonds that connect amino acids to each other to form a protein, but just the atom bonds that make up an amino acid.
-
Whose leg i gotta hump to get some answers from this forum?
-
A little patience. This is a forum where the majority of the people have an interest in science, but aren't employees of TNS.
Proteins can be relatively stable, even over very long periods. Some researchers have discovered that demineralizing dinosaur bones can yield some dino proteins over 65 million years old.
You can think of chemical bonds as having different energy levels.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
A relatively stable compound will take a significant amount of activation energy to push forward a reaction, for example oxidization of the bonds in an amino acid. If the energy level of the products is greater than the reactants, then the reaction is endothermic, and will only proceed forward with the addition of energy.
You can make or break these bonds by adding energy in the form of heat, light (photons, perhaps UV), electricity, pressure, or one can lower the activation energy with the use of a catalyst or enzyme (which may also utilize chemical energy such as ATP). Once the reaction is initiated, then more energy is recovered than what was put in if it is an exothermic reaction.
An amino acid is no different from any other carbon, or carbon-nitrogen compound. It can be oxidized to generate energy (something that our body effectively does, creating ketones that are further oxidized to CO2 + H2O. But, it requires activation energy to initiate the reactions.
As far as stable compounds. Carbon Dioxide would have to be high up on the list, being at an energy minimum, although it will readily dissolve in water.
-
While there are people here who could answer those questions I think the problem is knowing where to start.Perhaps your best bet would be to get a textbook or two.
However here's an answer to some of them.
"The trick part of the non trick question, is how can we break any of these bonds OUTSIDE of the human body's synthesis dynamics?"
There are lots of ways. Cooking food or burning things are probably the best known examples but any chemical reaction at all- say the rusting of iron- involves breaking and making bonds.
" Is heat, the only thing that can break up a molecule? "
No, light can do it too and so can electricity in certain circumstances.
"I know that in the body matrix so many 'factors' can cause an amino acid to either decompose, or be modified (morphed into a derivative, but how can we do this outside of the body? how can we degrade, destroy, or change an amino acid?"
Amino acids are just chemicals. They can react with things just like any other chemical.
Amino acids can, for example, be destroyed by bleach.
The direct reaction between the amino acids and the metal of the pan is unlikely- if it happened a lot we wouldn't use that metal to make pans from.
(you wait ages for a reply [size=78%]then two come along at once)[/size]
-
Hi
Thanx for the reply's guys. I figured as much, that heat, light, certain if not all acids etc would indeed alter chemical molecules etc, but beyond seeking confirmation I was wondering if i might have some specific answers if possible; How much heat would be required or how much and for how long would exposure to light affect atoms and or whole amino acids etc?
There were some things in your answers that I could wrap my head around - cooking temps, which we are all familiar with. And bleach. The different type metals is still an issue in that we, can't really see the chemical reactions that might be occurring when the egg is up against a certain metal pan - ?? -- unless someone has actually done those specific tests, first with a copper pan and then iron and then lead and so on and so forth. If anyone has done those type of studies where you examine the molecular makeup of an amino acid before resting it on the particular metals and then examine the structure to see if in fact it has even been slightly altered (protonated even???), that would be great and I would really be interested in those results. Unless i am on the wrong track with that one and the
"metal reaction" is more the interaction with other metals in the body or in minerals (which are both in and outside of the body). ???
I agree that aminos acids are "just chemicals", it is the "relatively stable" concept that leaves me wanting more specificity, as in relative to what? - not rendering the answer 'relative to weak bonds' covalent VS ionic or hydrogen bond etc. which still provides little reference point for me.
Besides bleach, are there other "household items" that might have a better chance at getting at chemical strructure of amino acids, like lemon juice or wine or even the stronger boozes that we use to cook with. I understand acetic acid is found vinegar for instance. We also use sodium hydroxide in plenty of food stuffs (ice cream thickener etc).
Dimethyl sulfoxide is also found in many foods - can this play a role in oxidation of amino acids as well?
And final question (??); this idea of things readily (or not so readily - hydrophobic?) dissolving in water - is the dissolve dynamic a process in which things come apart, bonds break, and atoms go there separate ways etc?
Thanx very much guys for clearing some things up and for future answers. Oliver
-
"Dimethyl sulfoxide is also found in many foods"
It shouldn't be.
Anyway, the bonds that hold together the atoms making up amino acids are covalent bonds.
I could look up the typical bond strengths in KJ/mol if it would help.
-
Dimethyl sulfoxide (C2H6OS), or DMSO, is a sulfur-containing organic compound. DMSO occurs naturally in vegetables, fruits, grains, and animal products. It was stated on one site that Dmso can cause an oxidative loss of certain amino acids.
Are all of the bonds that hold the atoms together covalent? Are there no ionic or hydrogen bonds? What about the side chains or R groups, are those bonds also covalent?
I am focusing in on the 9 essential amino acids. Leucine, threonine, valine, etc
Bored chemist et al - I am writing a book - it involves getting a cohesive understanding of how amino acids work outside the body processes and of course how we think they might work inside the body. The problem so far has been trying to get a consistent sense of the factors that can and do impact amino acids. Every source has differing facts and opinions.
Some things should be without argument, like 2 plus 2 is 4, but for some reason with the amino acids some see them as diamond like, impervious entities, and many see them as "just" chemical compounds/molecules that fair no better or worse than any other. I agree with the latter but I have yet to put together a definitive picture as to how these 9 amino acids will react to certain criteria - heat, light, acids etc.
At this point - a year and a half into research and writing, I am almost inclined to show the many arguments, and let the chemists have at it after publication. I have come to realize that perhaps the problem might be due to the fact that no one has really seen an amino acid at work...inside the body, in real time. Proteins too for that matter. We can simulate body (stomach, liver) dynamics in vitro in a lab all day, with uber carefully controlled particulars.
The human body doesn't work that way, and no two stomachs are alike (in terms of contents). So much of what really happens is based on assumptions of how chemicals react in a test tube. For that matter, have we really ever seen, "micro chemically", what happens when we create an elaborate brine with all manner of wine and lemon acids and salts and spices etc, and let a piece of meat (with all of it's own decay dynamics at work) marinate in it.
Amino acids undergo myriad changes yielding scores of derivatives. We know this from lab work. None of these changes have ever been witnessed in real time in a real body - we just don't have the technology. We can see cell structure to some extent and cell damage as well, but proteins are way too small for even the most sophisticated instruments to see working in real live time in a body. Amino acids are even smaller.
Your thoughts, and thanx for your input. Oliver
-
Trying to write a book on the reactions of amino acids without understanding the rest of chemistry is like trying to write a book on botany, but only looking at lupins.
Anyone who sees them as "impervious" should leave a bucket of urine around the place for a while.
The liver is very well versed in stripping the nitrogen off them (as ammonia) and storing that as urea.
The kidneys are very good at moving that waste nitrogen out of the body and there are plenty of bacteria who are gifted at setting the ammonia free again.
There are plenty of differences between individuals, but there are a lot more similarities.
"For that matter, have we really ever seen, "micro chemically", what happens when we create an elaborate brine with all manner of wine and lemon acids and salts and spices etc, and let a piece of meat (with all of it's own decay dynamics at work) marinate in it."
Yes we have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chemistry
-
BC - I don't have to understand all of chemistry to have "a section" in my book speak to the inadequacies of chemistry. I checked out the link and as suspected it is still founded in theory or studies based on lab work:
"Food rheology is the study of the rheological properties of food, that is, the consistency and flow of food under tightly specified conditions", "Food chemistry concepts are often drawn from rheology,theories of transport phenomena..."
By "inadequacies of chemistry" I don't mean to "diss" science, nor to expose science as fraudulent. My point is we have not really seen what happens to the molecular makeup or structure of many nutrients. Even in the food labs, there is a good level of science, but they are not really trying to gauge the damage done to nutrient molecules, in as much as they are figuring out ways to prevent spoilage or better understand fermenting dynamics and caramelization, and mallard reactions etc.
What goes on in the body is radically different from what occurs in a lab - under "tightly specified conditions". No one has ever seen what a pill does when it enters the mouth. No one has ever seen what a banana does once it enters the mouth. There are plenty of writings about what can happen and what happens when organic matter meets up with salivary enzymes and then the other "juices" in the stomach and throughout the rest of the digestive process, but on a super micro micro level know one has ever actually seen the step by step process - how not just molecules but the atoms that make up the molecules do what they do in real, live time, in the body.
We just don't have the technology for this. And while we are indeed more homogeneous than dissimilar as a species - it is still not enough to make an exacting assertion of "how things work". And it is this exacting issue that is key. It is this lack of exact science that yields a host of problems. This is why we have an increasing amount of "side effects" listed on drug labels. Each year, the list gets longer. The reason; each day some new person steps forth and says " I got this reaction from your drug...".
What also gets longer is the amount of different maladies, pathogens, syndromes, diseases etc (12,000 to date). So much for being all alike.
The fact that there doesn't even exist a picture/photo of a protein, in all it's structural glory, speaks to why i would question what chemistry knows about how proteins really work, exactly, or how they can be damaged. When we have the technology to see a real protein in action, and amino acids doing what they do (derivitating if u will), in real time, in a real body, then I would give better credence to any discussion of how things work.
Then, we all would know the truth about nutrient damage, before we eat food and when the food is inside us. Then we would know to keep it simple perhaps; not mix this with that; lemons and milk say, or vinegar with spinach salad; meat on the grill, pasta in the boiling pot of water.
Part of my book is to minimize if not do away with, speculation and conjecture. And the only way to do that is with actual tests that compare nutrient molecules before being introduced to certain criteria (light heat, humidity, oxygen, different Ph levels etc. and after.
Once we are all looking at the same results, the conversation becomes less broad, less speculative with less conjecture, and zeros in on those realities of the altered molecule - which will be altered, and in most cases, irreversibly.
If anyone on this forum has done these specific tests, that would be great, and I/we would look forward to your imput.
-
"No one has ever seen what a banana does once it enters the mouth. There are plenty of writings about what can happen and what happens when organic matter meets up with salivary enzymes and then the other "juices" in the stomach and throughout the rest of the digestive process, but on a super micro micro level know one has ever actually seen the step by step process - how not just molecules but the atoms that make up the molecules do what they do in real, live time, in the body."
For a start they have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartate_protease
-
I checked out the wiki link - close but no cigar. As we speak, I am efforting a meeting with some local NY chemists who might be willing to do a battery of before and after tests on various nutrient molecules. These test will be in vitro of course, which is sufficient for the one part of the study. Will keep all interested posted. Thanx again.
-
Do you think that the reactions of that enzyme are different depending on whether it is in a laboratory beaker or someone's stomach?
If so, could you please explain how it knows?
-
The reaction of any chemical will always be different in a lab than in the actual living stomach. All enzyme molecules are sensitive to their environment and to the other enzymes or chemicals, and single atomic elements they may come in contact with (salts, iron and other metals etc).
In a lab we can put whatever we want into the equation and the amounts/ratios of each entity - and then watch and monitor and take notes. We have so little control and knowledge of exactly what is in any given stomach at any given time. It's not just the big things we ingest, it's all the combos of things and the differing infrastructure that each stomach creates over time.
We don't have the technology to see each of the hundreds if not thousands of different atoms and molecules that exist and are created in the human body every millisecond - we just can't.
We know in a lab, that a particular enzyme will react with AB and C in a certain way, but again that is a controlled situation. The reason drugs have so many side issues is because we don't know exactly what is going on inside the stomach or liver. The reason one person reacts to a food differently than the next person speaks to how truly dissimilar our innards have become. The reason some illnesses are hard to diagnose is because we cant really go inside and see what is interacting with what, and to reference lab dynamics falls way short of the truth and reality of what is happening in the human body.
-
"The reaction of any chemical will always be different in a lab than in the actual living stomach. "
No, not really. The people who do this sort of thing are quite clever and they control for those sorts of things.
Also, at any particular moment the reactive site of the enzyme simply isn't big enough to have many "other things" in it to affect it.
"We don't have the technology to see each of the hundreds if not thousands of different atoms and molecules that exist and are created in the human body every millisecond - we just can't."
Why would we need to?
"The reason drugs have so many side issues is because we don't know exactly what is going on inside the stomach or liver. "
No, we quite often know exactly what's going on.
-
Bleeding, a rise in bad cholesterol, joint pain, arthritis, headaches, rashes, joint and muscle pain, dry mouth, nausea, blurred vision, constipation or diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue, weight gain, anxiety, hyperactivity, hostility and agitation, loss of sex drive, too much sex drive and an overly extended erection, impairment of the kidneys, liver, or urinary tract; increased risk of bone fracture, suicidal tendencies (including risk of suicide in children), increased sensitivity to sun exposure, weight loss, decreased appetite, nervousness or confusion, allergic reactions, heart palpitations, seizures, fatigue, dilated pupils, sexual dysfunction, sleepiness, increased sweating, increased blood pressure, lightheadedness, dry mouth and nose, impaired cognitive abilities, Severe allergic reactions ( hives; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); confusion; depression; fast heartbeat; hypothermia (fast breathing, shivering) – oh, and death.
BC - these are just some of the things that can go wrong inside the body - just some of the chemical reactions that can't be precisely foreseen. The reason we know about any of these side effects is not through lab study but because people coming in and saying I took this pill for one thing and then this other thing happened. Science then writes this down and adds it to the list of things can MAY happen. They still have to say may on the labeling or commercials because they are not sure... because they can't really see inside the body and know what is truly and precisely and specifically going on. It is the exactness that is lacking - because we don't have the technology - and we may never have that level of technology - it will always be a guessing game and man and science will always be behind the 8 ball because the human body is ever changing, mutating, due to diets, environmental conditions, genetics, and genetic blends when to people make a baby and so on and so forth.
Scientists are quite clever but never as smart as mother nature. If we were, so many diseases would have been eradicated by now (or at least preventive measures that are foolproof - we can't even do that for the common cold) - instead we're going in the opposite direction - we have 12,000 diseases to date and more cropping up each year.
If we were truly smart enough to know exactly what is going on, we would be able to correct so many of the problems. Like a car mechanic who truly knows exactly what is wrong with a car - and can fix it. Oliver
**DMMP
-
What a long and pointless list.
I know things go wrong.
What you won't accept is that in many cases the causes are actually known at the molecular level.
That's why we are able to treat a lot of conditions.
It's called rational drug design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_design)
-
I am not saying we don't know what happens at a molecular level - labs show us that. Again, I am referring to not knowing exactly, as in precisely, everything, that happens the instant you put anything into your mouth, be it a drug or a food (all chemicals still).
We don't have the technology to see and follow every uber subtle, microscopic dynamic, that goes on in the body as it is happening. If we could, we could follow something along it's path and see and identify the exact precise point at which it took a 'turn for the worse' (the bad reactions that we had, say) .
Won't u won't accept is that in many more cases, the causes are not known at the molecular level, and that is why we can treat a lot less conditions that than the millions that we can't treat.
Rational drug design has way to much guess work still - it's the only industry that can get away with such ineptness (that and politics).
It's the only industry that can get away with "this might work" or "lets try this" or.... "you can't sue us when stuff goes wrong cause we already listed a bunch of things on the label that might go wrong so we're covered, and each year we'll add to that list cause we're still guessing, cause we don't have the technology to really see how any of this stuff really works in real time, in real body dynamics, so we don't really know , so we'll just keep throwing stuff on the wall till something sticks, and our insurance will continue to rise but we are super rich (Pfizer) so we don't really care, and while we're at it we have a website dedicated to giving your pets drugs too (google it), cause they can't complain or sue and they are just as naive as the ignorant human masses who fill our coffers each year and haven't yet figured out that we don't really have a clue about how to heal folks, and most of our products might as well be placebos, except that placebos don't have side effects that include death like 70 percent of the drugs we give people.................. In the spirit of long and pointless.
-
We largely know what the "turns for the worse" are at the molecular level.
It's more often at the cellular level that we don't know.
"It's the only industry that can get away with "this might work" or "lets try this" or.... "you can't sue us when stuff goes wrong cause we already listed a bunch of things on the label that might go wrong so we're covered,"
No, not really,have you ever read the end user agreement on any software?
And quite a lot of medicine is in that position- not just pharmacology.
"while we're at it we have a website dedicated to giving your pets drugs too"
Are you saying that sick pets shouldn't be treated?
-
It's easy to identify cells - electron microscopes can do that. The smaller elements that are within cells (proteins, amino acids and the atoms that come together to make them), require more advanced technology, which still, in 2012 isn't entirely accurate.
Mass spectrometry is still not an exacting medium, and that again only allows for study and analysis in vitro.
As for other industries that have user agreements, sure, there are plenty, but "user" in electronics et al doesn't mean if you swallow a computer chip. Drugs can and do do damaging stuff to your body - including killing you - and they do these things each and everyday.
Right now someone is having a bad reaction to some drug. And right now again, and now, and now again... Each second someone in america is having a bad reaction to non smart drugs that were poorly thought out, rushed on the market to satisfy profit needs, and as long as there is a disclaimer - it's all good.
I am not really just singling out pharmacology. They profit the most by a large margin, but they are not alone.
Sick pets should be treated. They should be treated by people who know how to treat, and drug companies don't know how to treat.
Most humans don't know how to treat - in part because we don't know how to "treat" our bodies each and every day so we aren't in need of medications. If you are comfortable living inside that ever increasing viscous cycle that is spiraling downwards, then by all means have at it - and take your pet to hell in a hand-basket as well.
The point of my original post and the point of my book, is on the matter of how far we have gone away from taking care of our bodies in the simplest of manners, which includes simple diet and water, which embraces all manner of microbials in our garden foods (as opposed to rinsing our fruits and vegetables and cooking them).
We are the most unhealthy species by a long shot and the reason is directly related to our diets which more and more includes less nutrients - it is nutrients that is the key to health and to life. Biologists are always puzzled and amazed at how the other species survive and thrive. From alligators and sharks (who have been here for 400 million years), to the many species in the amazon jungle and all tropical rain forests etc, scientists continue to marvel at the resilient, resistant, and super strong immune systems of the many other species that share this planet.
And to that, biologists around the world immerse themselves in dense jungles for weeks on end trying to get "clues" as to how those many species do what they do so amazingly and how we can learn and or mimic them in any way so as to helps humans from a medical standpoint. This is the same with studying alligators and sharks. We are even trying to graft alligator tissue with human tissue in that we may also "not get cancer" (direct quote).
It’s actually quite simple: The one thing all the other species have in common is that they are “Nutrivores”; that’s my way of saying that whether they survive on meats or plants or the sun, they don’t mess with their nutrients, in any way, shape or form.
Diet, which to me means only nutrients, is so fundamentally and critically essential to health. And we humans so brutally mess with each and every nutrient that we can - cooking can be at the top of that "destroy" list. All species are either sick or healthy due to nutrients. This is so, for better or worse, depending on the lack of or amount of vital nutrients provided to our bodies.
The only other "species" which experience the health issues we humans have, including weight problems, is our pets, starting with cats and dogs, who eat the same processed cooked crap that we humans eat.
-
This thread is getting a bit "preachy". Please refer to the Acceptable Use Policy which you'll find in the Guest Book. In particular -
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.
-
I was just thinking the same thing as I wrote that last post; we are getting away from my original post.
Anytime one "promotes" their own idea it automatically and quite naturally invites critical debate. I was not preaching in as much as i was answering a question, one, and two, defending my viewpoint.
My original post had nothing to do with evangelizing. As a result of no chemists on this forum having any specific answer to the early question, inevitably it evolved to a back and forth opinionated debate. I even mentioned that if no one had did these types of experiments that it was fine, and I would seek the answers elsewhere:"If anyone on this forum has done these specific tests, that would be great, and I/we would look forward to your input."
I was happy to stay on the subject of bond strengths and what can breakdown an amino acid. All the other stuff, I have had to many debates about already in the past 3 years - ad nausea - almost to a point where I am getting bored repeating myself after hearing pretty much the same things on several forums (most of my answers at some point are cut and paste from my manuscript - which I don't care to promote either - not yet anyhoo).
If anyone cares to get back to the discussion of how any of the bonds of an amino acid can be broken (outside of the human body) using everyday chemicals, Dimethyl sulfoxide (C2H6OS) for instance, that would be great and for me, way less boring (as in new stuff).
-
"It's easy to identify cells - electron microscopes can do that."
Nobody said it wasn't
"The smaller elements that are within cells (proteins, amino acids and the atoms that come together to make them), require more advanced technology, which still, in 2012 isn't entirely accurate."
protein sequencing (which tells you the proteins, amino acids and atoms present) has been around since 1950
http://actachemscand.org/pdf/acta_vol_04_p0283-0293.pdf (http://actachemscand.org/pdf/acta_vol_04_p0283-0293.pdf)
"Mass spectrometry is still not an exacting medium," spoken like someone who has never used one.
They are, in fact, so precise and exact that there are proposals to redefine the kilogram based on mas spec results rather than a lump of metal in Sevres.
"and that again only allows for study and analysis in vitro."
Sort of.
Actually there's now a lot of work looking at stuff taken out of living systems and put through a mass spec.
"As for other industries that have user agreements, sure, there are plenty, but "user" in electronics et al doesn't mean if you swallow a computer chip. Drugs can and do do damaging stuff to your body - including killing you - and they do these things each and everyday."
It seems to have escaped your notice that people take drugs because they are already unwell.
Sure, the drugs have side effects, but those are generally less of an issue than whatever the illness was in the first place.
" Right now someone is having a bad reaction to some drug. And right now again, and now, and now again... Each second someone in america is having a bad reaction to non smart drugs that were poorly thought out, rushed on the market to satisfy profit needs, and as long as there is a disclaimer - it's all good."
they are doing that right now because, in many cases, if they wait they die.
It's not as if rushing a drug to he market really helps a lot. There will still be sick people when you get there.
There is, of course, a tension between testing and getting a drug into use.
Do you understand that it's never going to be possible to guarantee that a particular drug will be safe for a particular person?
Since it never will work that way why are you grumbling about the fact that we haven't reached perfection yet?
"Sick pets should be treated. They should be treated by people who know how to treat, and drug companies don't know how to treat."
You might have missed this but actually most drug companies have a better idea how their products will act in animals than they do in humans.
Guess what the testing is done on.
"The point of my original post and the point of my book, is on the matter of how far we have gone away from taking care of our bodies in the simplest of manners, which includes simple diet and water, which embraces all manner of microbials in our garden foods (as opposed to rinsing our fruits and vegetables and cooking them)."
Are you seriously considering not cooking all your food?
Have a look at how often the word "raw" turns up here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002618/#adam_001652.disease.causes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002618/#adam_001652.disease.causes)
I'm afraid I can't be bothered going through the rest of your post pointing out the other errors.
If you actually have any evidence rather than, for example, nonsense about mass spectrometry, I think it would help if you cited it.
-
BC - with all due respect, you are not the one to engage in this discussion. I don't want and can't use "links". If u have never done these specific tests yourself - i will be content moving on. because u are bored suggests that u are not on the leading edge of what is actually going on in labs beyond what you read - and anyone can read them as well.
As i mentioned, this month i will be meeting up with some of the leading folk in the field of proteomics - one person in particular is very well up on all the latest advances in that her lab is one of the leading facilities (in NY) in cancer research and development. She herself has has been quite celebrated for her work on the p53 protein and other areas of drug treatment and gene study.
When she speaks to me she doesn't say "Oliver you need to learn chemistry in order for us to discuss anything". I never get that from people in real life - it seems only people on forums (some) need to distinguish themselves and belittle others - as if we are stupid and have no clues about anything chemistry related.
It is I who can no longer be bothered with itemizing your comments and showing you just how off base some of them are. If you believe drug science is perfect and wonderful and headed in the right direction (for me that would be the direction where there are less side effects...) then that is your right. It is also your right to defend chemists and chemistry. It is my right as a citizen and human to take anyone to task and hold them accountable - we do this with politicians, bankers, wall street, educators, architects and city planners and building builders, accountants, baby sitters and nannies, lawyers, doctors, scientists, economists, the military leaders and all other captains of industry. In the city we have letter grades for restaurants - the owners don't like it but it is vital to keep them on their toes and deliver quality products and quality service.
Chemists and chemistry are not exclusive from this scrutiny - it seems so - and science takes advantage because many don't know science so we can be told whatever and we have to except it. Well wonderfully so, many more people each day are not excepting drugs that "may' work yet will definitely cause some mal effects.
You can be delusional about this perhaps and sing the praises of Pfizer et al, but we don't have to dance to the music.
Moderator, sorry for the preachyness, but again, I wanted to discuss Dimethyl sulfoxide etc. I am fully willing and capable of saving my preaching and ranting and raving for my book which most books are wont to do, but it is clearly the ego of others as well as my self that keeps dragging us back into speculative dribble and conjecture- which is not the worst thing, and a lot of it will be included in my book (how others feel...)
I came to this forum not seeking speculation or conjecture rather specific answers of specific circumstances with specific criteria under certain and specific conditions - i got none of that.
I'll have some of that this month and perhaps i'll report back to this forum just exactly what does happen to amino acids when exposed to certain criteria that we use in the kitchen and elsewhere prior to ingesting them. Maybe not BC, but someone of the hundreds viewing this thread might be interested in what we've learned - I know I have thousands already waiting for the release of the book (which I'm not promoting - that would require a title which i have not given to this or any forum)
-
I know I have thousands already waiting for the release of the book (which I'm not promoting - that would require a title which i have not given to this or any forum)
Better start clacking the keys then.
I'm locking this thread.