0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
We find natural cures etc but still we feel the need to synthesise and manufacture/make the components for these cures.
"with all doubt being cast on reports, studies and research, without reports,studies or research to back up the doubt. what do you think?"Like I said.The best evidence seems to me to suggest that, since many people use fluoride containing toothpaste, the effect of adding it to the water is less significant than it used to be.I'm still waiting for evidence that saccharin causes disease.Re http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/cancer-of-the-chudleigh-valleySomething like one person in 4 gets cancer so the grouping reported is nothing exceptional.
"people who down diet drinks are at a higher risk for obesity"So what?People who down diet drinks are quite often on diets.People on diets tend to be overweight.people who are overweight tend to suffer from metabolic syndrome.
Hamish McCallum, professor of wildlife research at the University of Tasmania, said it's unlikely the chemicals caused the devils' disease.
and some may think it best to find the cancer causing agent and deal with it so we don't need drugs.
His apparent preference for willow bark rather than aspirin seems to be based on the idea that natural =good and artificial=bad.
Authors Susan Swithers, PhD, and Terry Davidson, PhD, surmised that by breaking the connection between a sweet sensation and high-calorie food, the use of saccharin changes the body's ability to regulate intake. "The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with a higher-calorie sugar," the authors wrote.
Monsanto got their start in 1901 selling saccharin to a Coca-Cola addicted public. Questions arose about the safety of saccharin, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture tried to ban it. They failed in their effort against the Monsanto lobby machine.
What did you expect people to think you meant apart from that you want to get willow bark, because it's natural and therefore should be, as you put it "prime"?
A new vaccine added to standard therapy appears to offer a survival advantage for patients suffering from glioblastoma (GBM), the most deadly form of brain cancer, according to a study from researchers at Duke University Medical Center and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The vaccine also knocks out a troublesome growth factor that characterizes the most aggressive formof the disease.
The Duke vaccine is also novel in the way it genetically modifies these dendritic cells, researchers said. It uses RNA that "codes" for CEA, found in a number of cancers. This RNA is then duplicated millions of times, and mixed with the dendritic cells......"The advantage of RNA is that it can be used for all immunity types and can be taken from a single cancer cell," he said. "It's better than a DNA vaccine because we have eliminated a step. DNA vaccines need to produce RNA which then prompts the manufacture of proteins."To date, researchers said no toxicity has been seen in patients during the ongoing phase 1 stage of the trial, which is designed to test safety. Duke is expected to start phase 2 testing of the vaccine's ability to elicit an immune response later this year.
What I am saying is if there is a free and naturally available product that is proven to work, then we should be given the info for a choice to use it if we want. we should be told about about all forms of medications without discrimination.
If science feels the need to manufacture/create the component found in the natural form because it is proven to be effective so their pharmaceutical company can control and make a profit from a remedy found in our gardens, 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.
Aspirin causes internal bleeding, can kill a dog or cat, among other problems, yet it is freely available in the grocery store without mention of this and other bad effects of the drug (larger packaging is required for this, i would imagine). Ibuprofen and some pain killers have now been taken off the grocery shelves, even though the bad effects have been known for decades.
Does science have a conscience? Is science more concerned with getting funding to operate at the hands of multi-corporate rather than finding cures or identifying known cures freely available?
Is science a separate entity by itself then? Should pharmaceutical companies research for charitable purposes and not make profit like every other business aims to?
"you mentioned willow bark not me, i never knew about it til you mentioned it."So what?You clearly implied that you wanted it."yes, natural should be prime. after all isn't that where science gets the components for the synthesised, manufactured, man made version?"No.Not any more.There are some drugs that are based on modified plant toxins, but most new drugs are based on an understanding of the system in the body that they are targeted at.Wouldn't it have been better for you to ask about that before basing your ideas on a mistake?
In 1902, Monsanto's first product was none other than saccharin. Between the years of 1903 and 1905 their entire saccharin production was shipped to a growing soft drink company based in Georgia called Coca-Cola. In 1904 Monsanto introduced caffeine and vanillin to the growing soft drink industry.By 1915, Monsanto sales hit the one million mark. Approximately two years later Monsanto began producing aspirin. Monsanto was the top aspirin producer in the U.S. until the 1980s.
Why do you persistently ignore the the fact that often compounds are manufactured to eliminate negative effects or risks, Sometimes compound have to be altered or sequences mutated to prevent the drug binding where it shouldn't and altering it's target.