0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
But you need to provide proper evidence of your idea being better than mine.For example, rather than citing silly websites that say that "Artificial sweeteners are extemely toxic"you should actually show some evidence that they have ever caused harm to someone.Until you do that you are never going to convince me or anyone else.In much the same way I am not going to be influenced by an hour and a half video from a guy who is trying to sell a book (for a profit- I mention that since you seem to hate profits so much when pharmaceutical companies make them).I'm also not going to take you seriously when you say anyone interested in saccharin should look here.http://www.dorway.com/because it's a website about aspartame.Are you trying to look foolish?
SaccharinProducts: Hermesetas, Sweet'N Low, Sugar TwinSweetness: 300 times sweeter than sugarPregnancy: Avoid when pregnantFun fact: Saccharin has been banned as a food additive (but not as a tabletop sweetener) from Canada since the '70s.Discovered in 1879, saccharin is the oldest of sugar substitutes; however, its use only became widespread following the sugar shortage during World War II. While early lab studies showed that saccharin caused cancer in rats, numerous organizations, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. National Toxicology Program, have since removed saccharin from their list of suspected cancer-causing chemicals. Their reasoning: The process by which saccharin causes cancer in rats is not applicable to humans.
It seems to happen particularly with diet versions. A quick search on the Internet reveals a disparate group of mostly young addicts who regularly congregate online to share their battle with their drug of choice: Diet Coke.
They’ll call it AminoSweet. The public has learned aspartame is deadly, an excitoneurotoxic, carcinogenic, addictive genetically engineered drug that damages the mitochondria and interacts with drugs and vaccines. It is also an adjuvant, an immune stimulator put in vaccines to activate them. The outcry against this poison is worldwide as educated consumers reject it. Ajinomoto’s deceit is to change names so people will think its a new and safe sweetener
Brain tumor researchers have found that brain tumors arise from cancer stem cells living within tiny protective areas formed by blood vessels in the brain. Killing those cells is a promising strategy to eliminate tumors and prevents them from re-growing.
The research shows that cells are able to switch their genetic profile -- turning off genes expressed by blood vessel cells and turning on genes specific to lymphatic cells.
Bored Chemist is quite right to accuse you of trolling. You are making blanket statements and then refusing to back them up with evidence, clearly ignoring his questions and comments. Please answer his question, or at least acknowledge that your comments (in this case, on aspirin) are merely your opinion. You are usually very good at finding sources to quote, please do so to answer his question. After which, this thread can return to it's original topic.
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET(MSDS)Aspirin1. Product IdentificationSynonyms: 2-Acetoxybenzoic acid CAS No.: 50-78-2 Molecular Weight: 180.16 Chemical Formula: C9H8O4 Urgent contact: Shanghai Sunivo Supply Chain Management Co., Ltd.Tel: +86 21 3393 3299 Fax: +86 21 5830 7878URL: www.sunivo.comAddress: Room 502, Building 5, Lane 289 Bisheng Rd., Pudong District, Shanghai, 201204 - P.R. of China2. Composition/Information on IngredientsIngredient CAS No Percent HazardousMaleic Anhydride 50-78-2 99.5% No3. Hazards IdentificationEMERGENCY OVERVIEWToxic 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. | MSDS | Page
NTP said in one notice it is "especially interested in obtaining additional relevant scientific information in support of or against the petition to delist saccharin" because the three reviews split in their recommendations. Two scientific reviews favored removing saccharin from the Report but an October 30-31 advisory panel -- the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors Subcommittee for the Report on Carcinogens -- recommended by a narrow margin that the sweetener continue to be listed as an "anticipated" carcinogen.
Susceptible PopulatationsSusceptible populations for the potential deleterious effects of artificial sweeteners include diabetics, children, pregnant women, women of childbearing age, breastfeeding mothers, individuals with low seizure thresholds, and individuals at risk for migraines. More studies are required for these susceptible populations. A focus on children is important because they have a higher intake of foods and beverages per kilogram of body weight (Renwick, 2006). Also, more research on the effect of artificial sweeteners on diabetic clients is needed because this population is likely to ingest larger quantities of sugar substitutes.Because artificial sweeteners are in more than 6,000 products, including foods, medications, and cosmetics, it is impossible to completely eradicate them from daily encounters. Controversy exists over the toxicity of the artificial sweeteners presented in this article. Replication studies and long-term assays are required to decrease fear resulting from the limited research that currently exists.
This paper will examine the FDA’s role in the four most contentious artificial sweetener In 1972, the FDA was faced with two studies suggesting saccharin caused cancer in laboratory animals.5 Rather than issuing an immediate and complete ban under the Delaney Clause, however, then- FDA commissioner Charles Edwards removed saccharin from the list of GRAS substances and issued an interim food additive regulation permitting continued its continued limited use pending further studies of its safety.6 Edwards candidly explained the reasoning behind his actions, admitting “Technically, I could have banned saccharin immediately under the Delaney Clause. in 1972,” but that he had elected not to because “saccharin was, at that time, the only remaining nonnutritive sweetener on the market. American consumers demand the availability of diet food products.The American public proved to be considerably less alarmed than Commissioner Kennedy at the evidence of saccharin’s carcinogenicity.
Saccharin is another sweetener found in some soft drinks. It has been found to have teratogenic (causing abnormal fetal development and birth defects) effects in rats. It has also been shown to cause cancer in rats as well. Human studies have not found these effects. However, it is probably best to err on the side of caution when it comes to Saccharin.
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..
I ask again... If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?is it just another 'political dogma'?
If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?
Science has grown so much and is growing is there any medicine found for cancer?Spam link removed - Mod
only treatment is chemotherapy.and more chemotherapy.it will always be the treatment for cancer.always.just like the last 50 years.makes a ton of money.
Quote from: profound on 25/01/2013 20:14:51only treatment is chemotherapy.and more chemotherapy.it will always be the treatment for cancer.always.just like the last 50 years.makes a ton of money.There are in fact multiple treatments.SurgeryRadiation TherapyChemotherapy.Often used in conjunction with each other. Cancer is a systemic disease, and thus best treated with systemic medications. I.E. if you cut it out, but miss a few cells that have already migrated from the primary site, the patient is at MUCH greater risk. So, one generally uses chemotherapy in to augment other treatments.New treatments on the horizon are viruses targeted to the tumor cells, or injection of immunogenic antigens directly into the tumor cells. Cancer cells are rapidly growing, and an alternative to surgery is intra-arterial plugging of the arteries feeding the tumors.
A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ...
Quote from: profound on 26/01/2013 13:09:18A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ... Can you post a link to that study ?
The advantages from a profit point of view is that any company can make a drug,hire a couple of "reviewers" showing marginal improvement,discard,hide,suppress negative results,milk a few billion out of the drug and then move on to the next one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practiceThis is very good article and shows just [how] bad the situation is and why you should never just believe any study no matter where it comes from.The links are in the article.
Quote from: RD on 26/01/2013 14:42:27Quote from: profound on 26/01/2013 13:09:18A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ... Can you post a link to that study ?http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice
Quote from: profound on 27/01/2013 16:27:41Quote from: RD on 26/01/2013 14:42:27Quote from: profound on 26/01/2013 13:09:18A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ... Can you post a link to that study ?http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practiceI couldn't find "80%" in that article ...[attachment=17449] There's dishonesty in all walks of life, but you've yet to provide evidence that it's as high as "80%" in cancer drug research.If modern cancer therapies were ineffective why do people with cancer survive longer now than in the past ? ... http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers