1
Physiology & Medicine / What cancer therapies are available?
« on: 24/10/2010 21:05:01 »
The first mention of Willow bark was by Bored chemist post 325380 2/10/10. without evidence in support of his statement.
Ben V, I asked you in my post 326286 10/10/10 “Has cloves ever been responsible for tumors?” in response to your statement that cloves contain a tumour promoting chemical that the medicalised version would have removed. Your comment came without supporting evidence and without replying to my question.
My statement was - why synthesise/create a product when we can use the natural form that is freely available?
Bored chemist’s statement “I said that it would make sense to use a purified product rather than the mixture of compounds formed in a plant... The other thing I said was that you can take something from a plant and modify it to make it more effective.”
OK answered in simple terms.
My next question was if the plant is easily available and works without adverse effect why do we need to synthesise it, such as Radium weed and Cloves.
Not once did I say that natural things are good for you as BC assumed.
When i said “then we should be well informed about our choices and the positive effects and negative effects of all natural and synthetic remedies. to make their own informed choice.”
Natural medication should be ‘prime’ I meant that take away the natural component and some medical therapies may not exist. Natural components which have been proven to be effective should not need to be synthesised. As this synthesisation creates a whole new set of health risks which I have posted here again....(see my previous post 327823)
“Toxic if swallowed. Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin.
Potential Health Effects Eye:
Causes eye irritation.
Skin:
Causes skin irritation. May cause dermatitis. May be harmful if absorbed through the skin.
Ingestion: May cause irritation of the digestive tract. May cause liver and kidney damage. Ingestion may cause high blood pressure, labored breathing, unsteady gait, lung edema, and coma. Human systemic effects include acute renal failure, acute tubular necrosis, cough, diarrhea, dyspnea (labored breathing), headache, hypermitility, nausea, vomiting, ulceration or bleeding from stomach.
Toxic if swallowed.
Inhalation:
Causes respiratory tract irritation. Aspiration may lead to pulmonary edema. May be harmful if inhaled.”
Bored Chemist's quote
Are you saying if it kills aminals then it can be tested on humans? such as Saccharin?
In regard to Aspirin/willow bark.
you are asking me to compare the 2 even though I was not the person who firstly stated Willow bark.
Well I have and it appears to me that all the synthesisation to create the purified product and the modification of the substance to make it more effective has not been proven but Aspirin's toxicity is apparently higher or the same as Willow bark.
unless you can prove different and since BC introduced Willow bark into this forum I think it's his duty to back up his statement not me.
I ask again... If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?
is it just another 'political dogma'?
Ben V, I asked you in my post 326286 10/10/10 “Has cloves ever been responsible for tumors?” in response to your statement that cloves contain a tumour promoting chemical that the medicalised version would have removed. Your comment came without supporting evidence and without replying to my question.
My statement was - why synthesise/create a product when we can use the natural form that is freely available?
Bored chemist’s statement “I said that it would make sense to use a purified product rather than the mixture of compounds formed in a plant... The other thing I said was that you can take something from a plant and modify it to make it more effective.”
OK answered in simple terms.
My next question was if the plant is easily available and works without adverse effect why do we need to synthesise it, such as Radium weed and Cloves.
Not once did I say that natural things are good for you as BC assumed.
When i said “then we should be well informed about our choices and the positive effects and negative effects of all natural and synthetic remedies. to make their own informed choice.”
Natural medication should be ‘prime’ I meant that take away the natural component and some medical therapies may not exist. Natural components which have been proven to be effective should not need to be synthesised. As this synthesisation creates a whole new set of health risks which I have posted here again....(see my previous post 327823)
“Toxic if swallowed. Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin.
Potential Health Effects Eye:
Causes eye irritation.
Skin:
Causes skin irritation. May cause dermatitis. May be harmful if absorbed through the skin.
Ingestion: May cause irritation of the digestive tract. May cause liver and kidney damage. Ingestion may cause high blood pressure, labored breathing, unsteady gait, lung edema, and coma. Human systemic effects include acute renal failure, acute tubular necrosis, cough, diarrhea, dyspnea (labored breathing), headache, hypermitility, nausea, vomiting, ulceration or bleeding from stomach.
Toxic if swallowed.
Inhalation:
Causes respiratory tract irritation. Aspiration may lead to pulmonary edema. May be harmful if inhaled.”
Bored Chemist's quote
Quote
Modern drug design looks at the molecular level at parts of the body- for example the phosphodiesterase enzyme.
Then it produces chemicals (that are entirely synthetic) which will bind to that molecule - for example, the enzyme and inhibit it.
then they check to see if that compound actually does inhibit the enzyme in a chemical assay.
If it does they test it in animals.
If it's not too toxic and it does its job they test it in humans..
Are you saying if it kills aminals then it can be tested on humans? such as Saccharin?
In regard to Aspirin/willow bark.
you are asking me to compare the 2 even though I was not the person who firstly stated Willow bark.
Well I have and it appears to me that all the synthesisation to create the purified product and the modification of the substance to make it more effective has not been proven but Aspirin's toxicity is apparently higher or the same as Willow bark.
unless you can prove different and since BC introduced Willow bark into this forum I think it's his duty to back up his statement not me.
I ask again... If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?
is it just another 'political dogma'?