Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Holistic Doctors, and medicine
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 286 of 304 (424257)
09-26-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 8:41 AM


STAR*D misinterpretations and cynicism towards science
Hello LindaLou,
It seems your interpretation of the STAR*D study design and motives is flawed. I'm not sure if you've read the original literature or just others' reviews of it - my own comments come from what I believe to be the original general overview of the study:
Rush, AJ et.al. 2006. Acute and Longer-Term Outcomes in Depressed Outpatients Requiring One or Several Treatment Steps: A STAR*D Report. Am J Psychiatry 163:1905.
LindaLou writes:
That studies published in the most prestigious journals can be flawed... For example, the STAR*D study that was much-touted.
I don't see the same flaws as you do, and I hope that if I respond to some of your negative comments regarding the STAR*D report, that it will influence your outlook on biomedical studies in general. Overall it would seem you would like perfectly designed clinical studies, but in the real world such studies would be downright unethical - humans are not lab rats, essentially.
LindaLou writes:
They first excluded from the study anyone who was known not to respond to the drugs they were testing or even to SSRI antidepressants in general.
First of all, this is not quite correct. In reality, they excluded patients who had previously undergone treatment with drugs from the first two steps of the STAR*D protocol, regardless of a positive or negative outcome of those treatments. They wanted a clean slate, not a padding of their data.
Secondly, it would be doubly unethical to put someone in need of treatment on a treatment that is known to produce no positive outcome in that patient. Unethical first because you are prescribing someone unnecessary drugs, and second because by doing so you are not attempting to alleviate their symptoms.
Moreover, there was no placebo control in this study. Why not? Perhaps because most AD studies show little or no efficacy over placebo.
Perhaps not.
The STAR*D study was NOT a clinical trial. It was a "real world" clinical study. The STAR*D study was not so much a designed study but rather a framework in which to follow a large number of patients attempting successive treatment options.
Each drug used had already gone through independent clinical trials - the STAR*D study aimed to identify a best-course of treatment with available drugs, not to bring new drugs to the table. In fact, the patients and doctors had a range of treatments to choose from at each step, including non-drug cognitive therapy. The patients had multiple treatment options at each step, as well as the option to leave the study. In other words, they were receiving "real world" treatment.
Furthermore, being a "real world" study of over 3,600 patients, it would be unethical to allow a significant subset to go untreated, especially with suicide as a possible outcome.
Would you expect a couple of thousand of breast cancer patients to go completely untreated in a clinical study to re-examine the assignment of existing cancer treatments? I would hope not.
This study does not show that ADs help millions of people, though I'll hazard a bet that many were put on the drugs anyway after this study was published.
Many were already on the drugs long before the STAR*D study. Again, the STAR*D study aimed to make the most effective identification and use of existing treatments for a given individual.
What you don't see are studies on how stopping these meds abruptly and switching them affects the body and specifically the CNS. No one seems to be interested in doing those.
Except all of those people doing those studies... Have you used primary literature searches like http://www.pubmed.org? All you have to do is enter something like "SSRI discontinuation syndrome" or "citalopram withdrawal" and you'll find some of those studies that you claim "you don't see". I'm concerned that if you're using secondary sources, you're only exposed to selectively chosen literature - a biased pool of studies.
In fact, in the same issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry containing the STAR*D report, there is at least one study of potential side effects of antidepressant treatment.
LindaLou writes:
NIMH also hired researchers for this study with extensive financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the ADs that were studied. As I said, the case with most of these kinds of studies is that they are done by the very people who manufacture the drugs and who have a vested interest in a certain outcome. I would like to see many more independent studies done with no such conflict of interest.
Okay, a good thing to consider, but all of the potential conflicts-of-interest are clearly listed in the paper:
Rush et.al writes:
Dr. Rush has served as an advisor, consultant, or speaker for or received research support from Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc.; Best Practice Project Management, Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Cyberonics, Inc.; Eli Lilly & Company; Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Gerson Lehman Group; GlaxoSmithKline; Healthcare Technology Systems, Inc.; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Merck & Co., Inc.; the National Institute of Mental Health; Neuronetics; Ono Pharmaceutical; Organon USA Inc.; Personality Disorder Research Corp.; Pfizer Inc.; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Urban Institute; and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Inc. He has equity holdings in Pfizer Inc and receives royalty/patent income from Guilford Publications and Healthcare Technology Systems, Inc.
There is full disclosure, for the other authors as well. Also, (and maybe unfortunately), the study made twenty or so patented treatments available to the patients - it's difficult to get these treatments to the patients if the drug companies are completely uninvolved.
But here's why your conflict-of-interest argument really doesn't hold up: The authors spend much of the paper describing the failures of the treatments being used. Indeed, the entire tone of the paper is that of describing what didn't work. From the conclusion:
Rush et.al. writes:
Studies to identify the best multistep treatment sequence for individual patients are needed, as is the development of more broadly effective treatments.
In other words, the authors conclude that the current drugs aren't good enough, and that it is quite difficult to determine the best way to use them in the real world.
I guess my overall criticism of your position is that you want it both ways. You appear to want the biomedical research world to treat patients ethically and with respect, but then fault them when they do so at the expense of perfectly designed trials. You've discounted a study, and apparently an entire field of medicine, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how clinical medicine proceeds, and without a second thought to ethical considerations. In the process you have strongly implied that a whole host of dedicated doctors and professionals are immoral with no foundation whatsoever - it is patently offensive.
Humans are not lab rats - if you only accept studies that treat them as such, you'll never find a study that suits your taste.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 8:41 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 2:26 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 304 (424265)
09-26-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 10:31 AM


Re: Vitamin C
LindaLou writes:
I know someone who can't take any vitamin C supplements at all. She is an extremely ill person with a number of things wrong with her. My ND says that sometimes the body gets into a kind of defensive mode and rejects much of what is put into it, harmful or helpful, and in that case the helpful things need to be introduced very slowly and carefully. Again . . . anecdote. Maybe this isn't the best place to be saying these things, I'm not going to be winning any debating points.
What is missing in this whole megadose debate is the fact that the sicker one is and the more toxified one is, the less one can tolerate to bowel tolerance. Once the system is detoxified the body is able to handle the increased dosage. When a sick person emerges from bad diet and bad medicine into wholistic detoxifying rejuvinating regimes the immediate effects can often be traumatic and very discomforting. After all, if one has been abusing the body for decades one shouldn't expect to apply the silver bullet in megadose and feel lovely.
I have to leave now but I want to address this anticdote matter and why it is not nearly as insignificant as suggested by some.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 10:31 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by nator, posted 09-26-2007 5:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 288 of 304 (424274)
09-26-2007 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 9:31 AM


Dr. Pauling
He won a Nobel Prize for his work on vitamin C.
Dr. Pauling won the 1954 Nobel for Chemistry.
...for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances.
He then won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1962.
ABE
Oops! Jumped the gun. Sorry Asgara.
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 9:31 AM Kitsune has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 289 of 304 (424278)
09-26-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 9:52 AM


Dr. Pauling
Linus Pauling's mother suffered chronic mental illness for years. It was only upon her death that her physicians realised that she had been suffering from pernicious anaemia. If anyone had thought to check her blood levels of B12 and given her an injection, it would have saved her. This was one possible motivator for Pauling's subsequent interest in vitamins.
Would you be willing to provide the link to this info?
I can't find documentation that Lucy Pauling died of pernicious anemia.
Marie Curie, yes. Lucy, no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 9:52 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Modulous, posted 09-26-2007 1:13 PM molbiogirl has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 290 of 304 (424283)
09-26-2007 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by purpledawn
09-26-2007 6:57 AM


Re: Patents: Purified and Isolated
Yes it is a way around the system, but it still stands that we cannot patent a naturally occurring phenomenon.
How can anyone patent anything without isolating it first?
Your line of reasoning is flawed, to say the least.
The process of isolation doesn't change the nature of the substance.
The fact remains, vitamins have been patented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by purpledawn, posted 09-26-2007 6:57 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by purpledawn, posted 09-26-2007 7:05 PM molbiogirl has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 291 of 304 (424288)
09-26-2007 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by molbiogirl
09-26-2007 12:31 PM


Re: Dr. Pauling
I can't find documentation that Lucy Pauling died of pernicious anemia.
The claim isn't that she died from it, but that she suffered with it until her death. Documentation:
quote:
Linus Pauling was born 28 February 1901 in Portland, Oregon, to a self-taught druggist, Herman Henry William Pauling, and Isabelle (Belle) Pauling, the descendent of a pioneer family. Linus received a strong blow at age nine when his father died of a perforating ulcer, leaving a wife, son, and two daughters on the edge of poverty. Belle Pauling, stunned by her husband's sudden death and disabled by pernicious anemia, spent her remaining years running a boarding house on the outskirts of Portland.
Though the name discrepancy looks unusual I think her full name was Lucy Isabelle Pauling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by molbiogirl, posted 09-26-2007 12:31 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4299 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 292 of 304 (424316)
09-26-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by pink sasquatch
09-26-2007 11:34 AM


Re: STAR*D etc
Sheesh, I'm not going to be able to reply to all these, and this thread is almost at 300.
I certainly don't think millions of doctors out there are evil and want to con us. I think that their system of prescribing medication for so many ills is questionable and not something I want to be involved with unless absolutely necessary. I hope by my diet and supplement regime that I can facilitate this. I've seen enough anecdotal information to be convinced that what I'm doing is healthy and will probably stand me in good stead to heal from the antidepressant, and avoid future diseases such as type II diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Buzsaw certainly seems to have done well, and I choose to believe what he/she is saying.
I have trouble here when I cite books because no one here has those books, and I can't link to them. I have read enough about antidepressants to know that if I'd been in possession of this knowledge in the past, I would have run a mile from anyone trying to prescribe me one. The people I've mentioned here: Drs Breggin, Healy, and Moncrieff, seem to have been dismissed by most.
I would ask people to keep in mind that no one, not the most fervent biological psychiatrist, can truthfully admit that they fully understand how ADs work, or how you actually "test" for a serotonin or a norepinephrine deficiency. But pumping excess serotonin throughout your body, especially when only 5% is in your brain, seems a daft thing to do if you ask me. What do you think Molbiogirl?
Modulous -- so people would prefer to lose their libido in order to get well? It's a shame anyone would have to make that choice, but OK. How about continued sexual dysfunction a year and a half after stopping the drug? This is also what I've got to thank Forest Pharmaceuticals for. I've met people who have had sexual dysfunction for 10 years after the drug. None of us know if it's ever going to get better. But hey, being disabled in order to roll the dice and see if the ADs help us is worth it, right? We're just a few statistics.
Maybe I'll finish here, as this topic is going to close soon, by explaining why I am stubbornly refusing to take the skeptical approach here. I've always preferred to do things "naturally," it seemed intrinsically right to me. But I never had any information about how to do that. It took my AD experience, and finding my ND's list, to learn. And yes she does ask us to trust her as an expert, being a neurologist and an ND, though whenever I ask a question she backs up what she says, sometimes with info from studies, and I also do my best to find out what I can about what she recommends to me. Keep in mind that we're not paying her for this and she's not hawking any products at us, so I can't really see what any nefarious motives could be.
The strongest evidence I found on that list was hundreds of other people, some of whom have been on the list for years, and their testimonies. There were times when I myself thought, "this isn't working, I'm fed up, what proof is there?" Time and time again I'd talk to others on the list, remind myself of the stories of healing there, and find the hope to carry on. Many of them spent years in the hands of psychiatric professionals, taking their drugs, just like people here say they should. In many cases it wrecked lives and wrought permanent damage. With my ND's help they were able to get off those drugs, re-discover who they were, and go on to live drug-free lives. Sorry, but nothing that's been said here is going to cause me to think that this is all a hoax or a pack of lies. I know how this makes me look and I know I, in turn, am not going to convince anyone here. I hope something has been achieved, somewhere, by this conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by pink sasquatch, posted 09-26-2007 11:34 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Percy, posted 09-26-2007 3:43 PM Kitsune has replied
 Message 299 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2007 7:19 PM Kitsune has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 293 of 304 (424336)
09-26-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 2:26 PM


Re: STAR*D etc
LindaLou writes:
Sorry, but nothing that's been said here is going to cause me to think that this is all a hoax or a pack of lies.
I don't think anyone here is saying that anecdote is a hoax or a pack of lies. Sure, some take advantage of people's willingness to rely on anecdote to engage in flim-flam, but I don't think that's what anyone is focused on right now.
You're making several mistakes.
First, you're advancing anecdote as superior to replicated clinical trials.
Second, you're denigrating clinical trials for poor and poorly thought out reasons.
Third, though I'm sure you know this isn't true, many of your conclusions only make sense if one assumes that everyone is the same and reacts the same to the same treatment regimen. That someone has a bad experience with Drug X doesn't mean that everyone else would have the same experience. The side-effects section of the information sheet that comes with antidepressant medication often provides a rough idea of the proportion of patients that might experience any particular one of them. That you evidently fall into this minority merely means you were unlucky, not that antidepressants are bad for everyone and Big Pharma is an evil empire.
Asgara attempted to make clear the problems anecdotal approaches face with this simple question: There are positive and negative anecdotes about antidepressants. Now what?
The obvious answer, and you're a prime example, is that you choose the anecdotes that best match you're own experience. All that means is that you've found a group of like-minded and like-experienced people, which can be wonderful and very meaningfully helpful. But this isn't a basis upon which to build any valid medical conclusions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 2:26 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 4:53 PM Percy has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4299 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 294 of 304 (424353)
09-26-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Percy
09-26-2007 3:43 PM


Re: STAR*D etc
Percy you said:
First, you're advancing anecdote as superior to replicated clinical trials.
In some cases, yes. It's possible to treat mental illness without drugs, though these approaches are not supported by the weight of clinical trials that antidepressants are. And ADs don't have a fantastic track record; they often do not perform significantly better than placebo in clinical trials. Someone needs to study EXACTLY WHAT is going on within the body, and the CNS especially, when a person is on one of these drugs. Many of the effects of the drugs are unknown. What is a side effect? An unwanted effect of a drug on the body. People aren't always aware of them occurring. Clinical trials are being used to make psychotropic drugs available to the public with a sheen of scientific approval but the fact of the matter is that no one actually understands how the drugs work or what they are doing to the body. Only 1% of people with adverse effects from drugs tend to officially report them to the FDA, so how can anyone be sure that there isn't more damage being done out there than meets the eye?
Second, you're denigrating clinical trials for poor and poorly thought out reasons.
Admittedly I would do better there if I had access to the full, original data from the trials. I thought my information was up-to-date and I wasn't aware that a fourth phase of STAR*D had been conducted.
What about these reasons though? Most AD trials only last for a total of 6 weeks. Most everybody put on ADs takes them longer than that. No studies have been conduted on long-term use of ADs, though many people have been taking them for a decade or longer. There are a number of ways that studies can be manipulated to achieve a desired result. If a drug company runs its own clinical trials then there's a conflict of interest. They can engage in tactics I'm sure you're aware of, such as cherry-picking the subjects, piercing the double-blind, using an inactive rather than an active placebo, etc etc. Until the vast majority of trials are conducted independently, then the pharmaceuticals are going to be laying themselves open to these kinds of criticisms.
Finally, almost all trials are conducted on one drug at a time. Many people are prescribed more than one psychotropic drug. If you are diagnosed as bipolar then you can probably expect a cocktail of at least 3. No one knows what this combo of drugs is going to end up doing to your body because it has never been studied.
Your third point was that because I had a bad experience, I think the drug is evil for everybody. That may be what it looks like at first glance. I'm aware that other people find the drug helpful. However, in my post to Asgara I said that even people who have been "helped" can sometimes pay a price. Their depression was a message for them to change something in their lives. A biological psychiatrist would remove the responsibility for putting this right and say it's a chemical imbalance, and give a pill. The whole message of the depression is being lost. This is why I believe relapse rates on drugs alone are so high: the drugs make people think that thier problem is solved; when in actuality the pain has been numbed but the wound remains.
Also, as I said, no one knows what effects ADs are having in the body, and they could be causing damage that people aren't aware of, even if their mood has improved. ADs alter blood sugar metabolism, which is why some people gain weight on them. They create a neurochemical imbalance. Most of the serotonin in the body is located in the gut, and it is no surprise that stomach cramps are a frequently-reported side effect of ADs. ADs change the very structure of the brain. http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/...uronal-cell-death.htm (A study published in Biochemical Pharmacology) http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/...damage-offspring2.htm (from Pharmacology) http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/...iversity-Hospital.htm (summary of a study published in Brain Research)
this isn't a basis upon which to build any valid medical conclusions.
I'd rather not wait for any more studies to show the damage that ADs do. I'm going to avoid them now and in the future, and advise other people to do the same. There are better, healthier ways of treating mental illness.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Percy, posted 09-26-2007 3:43 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by pink sasquatch, posted 09-26-2007 6:53 PM Kitsune has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 295 of 304 (424366)
09-26-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Buzsaw
09-26-2007 11:54 AM


Re: Vitamin C
quote:
Once the system is detoxified
How can I tell if I am "toxified" or not, Buz?
Don't give me a list of symptoms.
I want to know:
What are the toxins?
How do can anyone tell if they are in my body without knowing if I have symptoms?
Where they are, how much is there, and how do you know when they are gone after "detoxification"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2007 11:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 296 of 304 (424379)
09-26-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 4:53 PM


continued STAR*D misconceptions
Hi LindaLou,
You continue to criticize based on misconception and misinformation.
I thought my information was up-to-date and I wasn't aware that a fourth phase of STAR*D had been conducted.
STAR*D originally involved four phases - this is not new information. Perhaps it is not that your information is not up-to-date but rather it is just plain wrong. In my previous message above I already showed you that you were misinformed on various points.
Most AD trials only last for a total of 6 weeks.
Wrong. Or at least completely unsupported.
The STAR*D study that you like to criticize lasted 12 months.
There are a number of ways that studies can be manipulated to achieve a desired result.
True, but though you have no foundation to distrust any particular study, it seems you don't mind calling the professionals involved liars and charlatans.
Finally, almost all trials are conducted on one drug at a time. Many people are prescribed more than one psychotropic drug. If you are diagnosed as bipolar then you can probably expect a cocktail of at least 3. No one knows what this combo of drugs is going to end up doing to your body because it has never been studied.
Wrong. The STAR*D study examined combinatorial treatment.
Also, regarding your first statement in that quote - Phase I clinical trials, which test the safety of a particular drug, are the most common type of clinical trial. Since safety of the new drug, rather than efficacy, is being examined, it is usually the case that the drug is tested by itself. Again, it appears that you are criticizing a legitimate system because you don't understand its design.
Admittedly I would do better there if I had access to the full, original data from the trials.
Then why don't you get the original data?
It is seriously frustrating to see you make both broad and specific denigration of biomedical professionals and important studies when you haven't even examined them! Instead it appears you are relying on second-hand information, information that you have been shown is flat-out wrong.
Make http://www.pubmed.org your friend, not books written by biased individuals.
Someone needs to study EXACTLY WHAT is going on within the body, and the CNS especially, when a person is on one of these drugs. Many of the effects of the drugs are unknown.
Okay, but when such studies are conducted, they are either not to your liking, or you distrust them.
I also hate to inform you that your statement is true for most drugs, not just antidepressants. The complex effects on the body of a given drug are generally unknown.
In a simple sense what is known about most drugs is that they have the potential to be curative or alleviate symptoms, occasionally cause side-effects, and rarely outright kill people - and importantly, that the risk of negative effects is acceptable given the chance of positive effects.
There are better, healthier ways of treating mental illness.
That depends on the illness, and the patient. Do you honestly believe that no one could possibly be helped by psychopharmocology? That for some people it is not the best course of treatment? That what worked for you will work for everyone else?
If so, you are far, far, far more close-minded than those that skeptically consider nutritional treatment in the absence of sound studies.
I'm going to avoid them now and in the future, and advise other people to do the same.
That is what worries me. I hope they take your advice for what it is - based on misinformation, misunderstanding, and close-minded bias.
(By the way, I am genuinely happy that you found the appropriate way to manage your own individual illness.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 4:53 PM Kitsune has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 297 of 304 (424381)
09-26-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by molbiogirl
09-26-2007 12:43 PM


Re: Patents: Purified and Isolated
quote:
How can anyone patent anything without isolating it first?
Your line of reasoning is flawed, to say the least.
Actual the line from your source is: "isolated and purified".
Not just isolated. Again something has to be changed, even minutely, before it can be patented.
This isn't my line of reasoning. It belongs to the patent office. Their rules, not mine. Your own sources back up what I'm saying.
quote:
The fact remains, vitamins have been patented.
I have already agreed that synthetic ones can be patented.
If you feel that natural vitamin molecules have been patented, then show me. I've been waiting since Message 228.
You haven't provided me with that example yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by molbiogirl, posted 09-26-2007 12:43 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by molbiogirl, posted 09-26-2007 7:14 PM purpledawn has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 298 of 304 (424382)
09-26-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by purpledawn
09-26-2007 7:05 PM


Break out the dictionaries
pu·ri·fy 1. to make pure; free from anything that debases, pollutes, adulterates, or contaminates: to purify metals.
i·so·late 3. Chemistry, Bacteriology. to obtain (a substance or microorganism) in an uncombined or pure state.
"Isolating" or "purifying" a vitamin is the same thing!
How it something "changed" if it is simply separated from contaminants?
And I can't "show" you "natural" vitamin C when you continue to insist that if I obtain vitamin C from an orange, it's synthetic vitamin C because I've isolated and purified it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by purpledawn, posted 09-26-2007 7:05 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by purpledawn, posted 09-26-2007 7:51 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 302 by Buzsaw, posted 09-26-2007 8:08 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 304 (424383)
09-26-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 2:26 PM


Re: STAR*D etc
LindaLou writes:
Sheesh, I'm not going to be able to reply to all these, and this thread is almost at 300.
This topic has livened up to the degree that a sequence thread may be promoted so as to allow for additional dialog and debate on the interesting and informative topic.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 2:26 PM Kitsune has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 300 of 304 (424393)
09-26-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by molbiogirl
09-26-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Break out the dictionaries
You're arguing with the patent office. They say "isolate and purify" not "or".
quote:
And I can't "show" you "natural" vitamin C when you continue to insist that if I obtain vitamin C from an orange, it's synthetic vitamin C because I've isolated and purified it!
It isn't my insistence. Those are the rules of the patent office.
If the natural vitamin C molecule is isolated and purified, then the natural vitamin C molecule is not patented.
IOW, there can't be any patent infringement by using the natural molecule.
From what I've read in the sources you and I have provided, scientists don't want people or companies to be able to patent natural substances.
You're running out of time. Do you have an example or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by molbiogirl, posted 09-26-2007 7:14 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by molbiogirl, posted 09-26-2007 7:59 PM purpledawn has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024