[echochartruse]

 we should have priority finding ways to eliminate cancer causing agents

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/cancer-of-the-chudleigh-valley

[Variola]

We find natural cures etc but still we feel the need to synthesise and manufacture/make the components for these cures.
     

With respect BC has answered this point many times as to why. I am puzzled as to why you cannot seem to accept the explanations as to why, and still seem to be insisting that the natural way is better/more effective/preferable.

[Bored chemist]

"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-valley
Something like one person in 4 gets cancer so the grouping reported is nothing exceptional.

[echochartruse]

"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-valley
Something like one person in 4 gets cancer so the grouping reported is nothing exceptional.

If you read further reports about Tasmanian cancers you will find that there were (not sure of present figure) 3 people from 5 in the entire world with a very rare cancer in an area where there are very high incidence of all other cancers including the Tasmanian Devil's rare and contagious evolving cancer.
that to me is significant.

what i am saying is Saccharin is unnecessary and found to have caused diseases which are fatal. Why 'create' a manufactured synthesised product that is detrimental to our health just because someone or many may think that overweight.......

"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.

and you may feel the way to manage these people's health problem is to at least let them feel they are doing good for their health by 'downing' a synthesised man made version of their worst enemy which has been proven to cause fatal diseases.

In regard to fluoride... you say it is less effective in our water, so why do it? especially if the proven negative effects are worse than the cure.? once the governments agree to introduce fluoride they think they can balance their debt caused by the introduction by closing the dental health care services.

[Bored chemist]

"that to me is significant."
Then learn about statistics.

"and you may feel the way to manage these people's health problem is to at least let them feel they are doing good for their health by 'downing' a synthesised man made version of their worst enemy which has been proven to cause fatal diseases."
Or I may think that they are better off taking drugs that have been tested and found to work and to be cost effective.

[echochartruse]

and some may think it best to find the cancer causing agent and deal with it so we don't need drugs.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080128-devils-cancer.html
flame retardant found in Rare Tasmanian Devils.

here researchers find flame retardant in the Tassie Devils which they suspect is causing their rare cancer.
They assume the flame retardant is being digested when they eat mattresses that may have been dumped.! []
The researchers for some reason forget to mention the GM fire retardant mono culture crop of trees which cover a very large area where these cancers are occurring.

and then with the toxic cancer causing chemicals found in the devils, some assume it can't be those chemicals causing their cancer. []

Hamish McCallum, professor of wildlife research at the University of Tasmania, said it's unlikely the chemicals caused the devils' disease.

[Variola]

and some may think it best to find the cancer causing agent and deal with it so we don't need drugs.
   

Celery parsnips and coffee are all carcinogens, does not mean they cause cancer.


Cancer is a natural occurrence in the body, it is not soly caused by one thing or another. Usually the body deals with cancer just fine, cells repair themselves or apoptose, when they don't cancer can arise.
Cancer can happen even if you live in a bubble with no exposure to any carcinogens whatsoever.
I really do recommend you read up on the biology of cancer.

[Bored chemist]

OK, this is now getting silly.
What in the name of all that's Holy is " the GM fire retardant mono culture crop of trees" mean to mean?
While we are at it, while I support Echochartruse's right to eat what he likes in the same way that I choose to drink more whisk(e)y than is probably good for me, I think we need to remember that this is a scientific website so let's make a few things clear.
His apparent preference for willow bark rather than aspirin seems to be based on the idea that natural =good and artificial=bad.
That's nonsesense.
The most toxic man-made materials are the nerve gases- they typically take a miligrams or so to kill you.
The Natural toxins include things like BTX which is about a thousand times more toxic.
Fundamentally, death is natural so it is absurd to think that natural things must be good for you.

Willow bark works as a painkiller because it contains salicylic acid. The same salicylic acid is produced in the body from aspirin. and it's what gets rid of headaches.
However, the free acid is rather toxic at high concentrations- in particular the phenolic hydroxy group damages the proteins in the stomach. With aspirin, those hydroxy groups are blocked (by sticking an acetyl group on them). That reduces the damage it does in the stomach. The acetyl groups are broken off in the body, but at that stage the free acid has been diluted down and causes less trouble.

So, not only is it an observable fact that aspirin is less toxic than the free salicylic acid found in willow bark, but we even know why this is the case.
On the other hand Echochartruse prefers something which is
more toxic,
less reliable (because the concentration in the bark is rather variable) and
more expensive.
It's his decision- but it's hard to for me to see it as rational.

Incidentally, re the fire retardants in the devils. So what? A while back Americans were not fit for human consumption because their DDT levels were too high. But they lived without any noticeable ill effects.
Also it's probably important to look at what the Nat Geog article which he cited actually says.
"But we're not toxicologists; we need experts to look at the data and get some meaning."
"we found PBDPE in an animal" means that we have very sensitive methods for measuring chemicals; it doesn't mean that the chemical is doing anything.

Also
"It's a really, really strange tumor. All the tumor cells in all the devils are essentially a clone—they are all derived from one individual," McCallum said.

"The event that caused that original mutation to malignancy will never be known," he continued.

"It happened a minimum of ten years ago"

"STOP PRESS"
Death toll from saccharin remains stubbornly at zero!

[echochartruse]

hey you are assuming again.
did I say?..

His apparent preference for willow bark rather than aspirin seems to be based on the idea that natural =good and artificial=bad.

No I didn't.

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?

[echochartruse]

Saccharin?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080210183902.htm artificial sweetners cause weight gain

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.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980422065353.htm
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.

Saccharin has been banned in Canada for decades after scientifically proving it causes bladder cancer. Now science says it causes cancer in rats but that is irrelevant to humans!

http://nutrihealth.in/2008/10/worst-food-additives/

just because it is on the market doesn't mean it is safe - just because it is a natural product doesn't mean it is safe.

for those who care, read this.. all of this. Please listen to the doctors on the video especially.
http://www.bonfirehealth.com/our-doctors/dr-paul/posts/the-diet-soda-death-trap

see also       www.dorway.com

[Bored chemist]

"hey you are assuming again.
did I say?..
Quote
His apparent preference for willow bark rather than aspirin seems to be based on the idea that natural =good and artificial=bad.
No I didn't."

On  the other hand you did say
"Where do I buy willow bark please? "
and
"natural cures should be prime and synthesized should be alternate"

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"?

And, re saccharin,
"Now science says it causes cancer in rats but that is irrelevant to humans!"
exactly, so why are you still going on about it being a "killer"?

Death toll still zero.

[echochartruse]

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"?

you mentioned willow bark not me, i never knew about it til you mentioned it.

yes, natural should be prime. after all isn't that where science gets the components for the synthesised, manufactured, man made version?

In regard to Saccharin, if you watched the video, there is a natural alternative to sugar that has no calories and has other benefits too but we are unable to use it as we do Saccharin due to corporate monopoly.

Please watch the video on the link till the end with an open mind.

[echochartruse]

back to cancer

Duke vaccine extends survival for patients with deadly brain cancers
Published: Monday, October 4, 2010 - 17:03 in Health & Medicine
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/10/04/duke.vaccine.extends.survival.patients.with.deadly.brain.cancers

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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?

What video did you want me to watch?
It's getting late. I had a look at one of the links you posted and it says
"Artificial Sweeteners: A History of Lies and Poison
Don’t have time to read this? Want the bottom line, the take away? Artificial sweeteners are extemely toxic and should be one of the foods you never, ever eat.!"
It's common experience that practically everybody in the Western world eats a variety of artificial sweeteners, yet we are still alive.

It is therefore perfectly obvious that the page you picked is talking obvious nonsense.

Yet you have the front to tell me "Please watch the video on the link till the end with an open mind."

Anyone who believes that sort of thing seems to have a mind so open it will let in any rubbish.

Another of your links tells me
"Caffeine – psychoactive, addictive drug; may cause fertility problems, birth defects, heart disease, depression, nervousness, behavioral changes, insomnia, etc."
Yeah; have you noticed that the people who drink coffee are all screwed up in this way?
I must be in real trouble- I drink diet cola.
But hang on!
Wait a minute; caffeine is natural. Practically nobody actually makes caffeine (except, perhaps, as a lab exercise) because it's easy and cheap to extract it from plants.
Since it's natural, it's another of your favoured "prime" chemicals.
Have you noticed that the links you cite don't actually agree with your professed views?


I am delighted to see that someone has developed another drug to add to the arsenal of anti cancer agents.
It's a little unfortunate that it acts on a cancer that's fairly uncommon.
"GBMs occur in only 2–3 cases per 100,000 people in Europe and North America. " (ex WIKI)
Still I have every hope that it will help those few people, and perhaps, the same idea will be extended to other cancers.

What you seem to have missed here is that, according to your doctrine, they should be opening up the patient's brain and adding a poisonous plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphorbia_peplus
It is natural and, therefore, according to you should be "prime".
My thought is that we can do better than that. I think the people at Duke would agree with me.

[Variola]

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.

I agree totally. However what the public does not need is to be told to use natural remedies or the raw compound when it can have negative or unknown side effects. As has been mentioned before on here, several times, the raw or natural base for the medicine is NOT always the best way of taking it.

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.

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.
 

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.

And chewing the natural bark version of aspirin can have the same effects. It binds irreversibly to it's COX target. As I recall ( BC may know better) Aspirin is one of the less adulterated drugs there is. 

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?

[/quote]

[Geezer]

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?

Hey! Way cool idea Ms V. JimBob and I are really into transcendental medication.

[echochartruse]

"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?

exactly my point!
found in natural situation then synthesized, if you had read my posts.


I think you have missed the plot.
As you said here you are tired, haven't read my posts so why bother replying? Maybe you should have a nana nap and then if you feel up to it you can then read the posts, the link, the video and the report here  www.dorway.com, then try to understand it and then comment. Or maybe you are just too set in your ways to see another point of view.

[echochartruse]

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.

interesting firstly Saccharin then Aspirin.

I would suggest anyone having Saccharin and for those who care about their health
to see the 80 page scientific report.  www.dorway.com   that some can't face reading athe truth and not just because they are too tired. the scientific report just might open your eyes, change their point of view. Or should I assume you are saying not all scientific reports are correct?

we all know Aspirin causes internal bleeding if taken regularly. yes natural drugs can have adverse effects too but my choice would be to have natural first if possible.

I'm not saying because it is natural it is safe or the best method.
What I am saying is if there is a natural method that works why synthesis it or change it?

willow bark or aspirin it appears to me there are dangers with both. so why dont we have a choice? Unfortunartely most man created drug's effects are not known for decades. then it seems when they are revealed, some are brain washed by either advertising or their old ways or maybe what they have been taught or maybe their thought process is so rigid, no matter what proof you put in front of some, they refuse point blank to even look at it for any consideration, already having their mind made up.

[echochartruse]

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.
 

willow bark or aspirin?

i don't know about willow bark, never used it, never had the choice given.
But I do know that there is still negative effects and risks of the manufactured aspirin ( Still NOT eliminated) with brand new health risks.

[Bored chemist]

Hang on. Go back and read what I said.

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..


Did you notice that the drug is entirely synthetic and there are no plants involved anymore?

Now don't write trash like ""I think you have missed the plot." when it is clearly you that missed the point.

Don't write "As you said here you are tired,"
when I hadn't said it. (I said it was late- that's not the same thing.
Don't write "As you said ... you ... haven't read my posts so why bother replying?
When, since I rebutted them I clearly had read them.

Don't write "Maybe you should have a nana nap and then if you feel up to it you can then read the posts, " when, as I pointed out, it is clearly nonsense.


Don't expect me to grub about in your multiple posts looking for a video. (Incidentally, did you know you are not meant to double post here?)

As for "Or maybe you are just too set in your ways to see another point of view."
I think the best reply is
Dear Pot,
Thank you for your comment's
signed
Kettle.

You seem not to have realised that I am not set in my ways; I'm quite happy to change them. That's the way science works.
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?

You publicise your strange beliefs (fair enough, I think free speech is important) and then when I point out that these beliefs are at odds with reality you talk gibberish and cite other sites that do the same.
You refuse to see the obvious truth that if saccharin killed people then most of us would be dead. We aren't so it doesn't.

You refuse to accept answers that are given.
For example "What I am saying is if there is a natural method that works why synthesis it or change it?" has been answered several times. Better selectivity, greater effectiveness lower toxicity better reproducibillity, lower cost (in many cases), fewer side effects, and so on.

You are showing all the signs of being a troll.


You refuse to answer questions asked bout your drivel.
Here's yet another question you won't bother to answer.
when you say "I do know that there is still negative effects and risks of the manufactured aspirin ( Still NOT eliminated) with brand new health risks."

WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?


I suggest that if your next post doesn't answer that question clearly and succinctly you should leave the forum, (or be banned if the moderators agree that you are trolling).