Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 5 of 307 (424420)
09-26-2007 9:46 PM


It is redundant
To isolate and purify is redundant!
Don't ask me to defend the way scientists write. Most of the papers I read are just awful (the writing, that is ... not the science).
There are all sorts of goofy cliches scientists use. "Isolate and purify" is just one of many.
Here's the original cite:
Science 30 May 2003: Vol. 300. no. 5624, pp. 1375 - 1376
Natural Substances and Patentable Inventions
The Patent and Trademark Office and federal courts now routinely hold discovered natural substances patentable if they are "isolated and purified" or otherwise insubstantially modified (3).
Here's the paper referenced as (3):
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 4/Friday, January 5, 2001/Notices
Patenting compositions or compounds isolated from nature follows well-established principles, and is not a new practice.
In a decision finding the patent valid, the court explained that compounds isolated from nature are patentable: ””even if it were merely an extracted product without change, there is no rule that such products are not patentable."
Without change, PD. Without change.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2007 6:56 AM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 19 of 307 (424572)
09-27-2007 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by purpledawn
09-27-2007 6:56 AM


The scientists agree with me...
So show me a patent on a natural vitamin molecule that is unchanged.
I can't.
By your definition, simply removing a vitamin from its source -- not changing it in anyway, just removing it -- constitutes an "unnatural" vitamin.
Science 17 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5763, pp. 946 - 947
What Good Is a Patent? Supreme Court May Suggest an Answer
Can you patent nature?
The first case centers on defining what is a natural phenomenon and, therefore, not patentable. Metabolite has rights to a patent for measuring blood levels of the amino acid homocysteine, but the patent also covers use of the test to infer levels of vitamins B-12 and B-6, which help break down homocysteine. In 1999, Metabolite and another company sued Laboratory Corp.--called LabCorp--for patent infringement and breach of contract. A jury found LabCorp guilty of both offenses and awarded Metabolite $4.7 million in damages. The Federal Circuit upheld the judgment on appeal, further adding that doctors who use homocysteine levels to deduce vitamin B levels, regardless of the method they use, "directly infringe" Metabolite's patent each time they order the test and interpret the medical implications.
LabCorp argues that the relationship between homocysteine and vitamin B is a natural phenomenon that should not be patented. Many patent lawyers expect the high court to strike down that part of the patent.
In June 2006, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for procedural reasons (1), which allowed this patent on a biological fact to stay in effect.
Science 1 December 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5804, pp. 1395 - 1396
When Patents Threaten Science
In 1980 the Supreme Court handed down a seminal decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty (21). Often mischaracterized as opening the door for patents claiming isolated and purified versions of naturally occurring products, including human genetic material, the Court actually distinguished between a product of nature and a patentable genetically modified bacterium cell that did not exist in nature...Scientists can be influential by helping policy-makers understand that open access to basic laws of nature, products of nature, and mathematical formulae is necessary for scientists to explore and innovate. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that fact, but, increasingly, the USPTO in granting such patents and the Federal Circuit in upholding them seem to have forgotten it.
In summary, Science feels (and I agree) that simply removing (isolating/purifying) a compound = that compound is "found in nature"/"natural". Science feels (and I agree) that in order to qualify as "unnatural" the compound itself has to be changed -- not just removed.
The scientific community and the USPTO disagree.
Although, to be fair, BigPharma is arguing your side of the argument so that they will be able to patent naturally occurring compounds.
It is in their financial interest to do so.
The USPTO agrees with BigPharma. For now.
I, like most in the scientific community, feel that a compound (like vitamin C) found in nature -- one that is ONLY isolated/purified -- constitutes a "natural" compound.
ABE
You know, using your definition of "natural", there can be no "natural" vitamin supplements. At all.
Earlier you were arguing that vitamin supplements containing "natural" (i.e. plant or animal derived) compounds and those containing "manmade" (synthesized in a lab) compounds were different.
When I pointed out that "natural" and "manmade" vitamins are the same structurally, chemically, and functionally, you dropped that line of reasoning and moved on to "Well, the USPTO says isolated = not natural."
So.
Are you NOW suggesting that there are no "natural" vitamin pills?
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2007 6:56 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2007 4:15 PM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 24 of 307 (424628)
09-27-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by purpledawn
09-27-2007 4:15 PM


You've lost sight of the discussion again. It isn't about natural and unnatural. It is about what can and can't be patented.
The USPTO brings "natural" and "not natural" into the conversation. You cited the passage. Remember?
an excised gene is eligible for a patent as a composition of matter or as an article of manufacture because that DNA molecule does not occur in that isolated form in nature
You have to take into consideration 2 things:
1. USPTO requires that a NATURAL compound be isolated (aka purified aka extracted) so that it can be patented.
...even if it were merely an extracted product without change, there is no rule that such products are not patentable.
2. USPTO defines a compound (a gene, a piece of DNA, a vitamin) that has been isolated/purified as "not naturally occurring".
an excised gene is eligible for a patent as a composition of matter or as an article of manufacture because that DNA molecule does not occur in that isolated form in nature
USPTO (and BigPharma) are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
By defining an isolated compound (and this includes genes, DNA fragments, vitamins) as a "not naturally occurring", they can patent NATURAL compounds without violating patent law.
The scientific community, on the other hand, would like the USPTO (and BigPharma) to STOP defining isolated/purified naturally occurring compounds (genes, DNA, vitamins) as patentable. It makes research difficult and lawsuits inevitable.
The prior cites from Science make that abundantly clear.
PD writes:
Although it took us quite a while, we can conclude that your above statements were incorrect.
Well, no.
I said that by extracting a vitamin from its source, that vitamin is not changed.
I said that extracted vitamins have been patented.
PD writes:
You claimed that that which occurs naturally in nature can be patented (Message 230) and that vitamins have been patented. (Message 290)
The legal loophole that USPTO exploits is very simple:
THEY DEFINE EXTRACTED COMPOUNDS AS "NOT OCCURRING IN NATURE".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2007 4:15 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2007 8:47 PM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 28 of 307 (424655)
09-27-2007 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by purpledawn
09-27-2007 8:47 PM


Re: Still Can't Patent Vitamins
Vitamin D
United States Patent 4388242
Vitamin E
United States Patent 5235073
Vitamin A
United States Patent 4254100
Vitamin B 12
United States Patent 6972188
Vitamin B 6
United States Patent 6984510
Vitamin B 2
United States Patent 6376222
Vitamin B 1
United States Patent 20060127993
I could go on, but I think it's patently (hah!) obvious that I'm right.
Oh. By the way.
Remember this?
PD writes:
Inventor is the key word. Supposedly we can't patent what is found naturally in nature because we didn't invent it. ... There is vitamin C in an orange, but mankind did not invent it; we discovered it. So no one can patent it, but if we make a synthetic version, then we can.
We can patent natural vitamins. Just as I said.
You argued that they had to be synthetic.
Which isn't true.
PD writes:
If you have evidence that the US government allows people to patent something natural that has not been changed by man, then provide it.
Oh ho! You brought up natural!
Extraction IS NOT synthesis.
Extraction DOES NOT change the compound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2007 8:47 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by purpledawn, posted 09-28-2007 7:32 AM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 32 of 307 (424670)
09-28-2007 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by purpledawn
09-27-2007 8:47 PM


Patents are for that which is manmade.
Message 242
A synthetic drug is manmade, therefore it can be patented. We cannot patent the vitamin C in an orange. We can patent the process of extraction, but not the vitamin C itself.
Message 242
Supposedly we cannot patent something that occurs in nature and Vitamin A only occurs in animal products. Are you saying that we can patent that which occurs in nature?
Message 304
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.
Message 300
Actually, I agree. Most of the vitamin C in products (even from health food stores) is synthetic.
Message 304
It isn't about natural and unnatural. It is about what can and can't be patented.
Message 22
So far you haven't shown me that in the United States we are allowed to patent that which occurs naturally in nature, which means humans had nothing to do with it. Patents are for inventions made by man.
Message 304
I also made no claim concerning synthetic and natural vitamins.
Message 304
It showed that natural and synthetic Vitamin E have differences in how they behave.
Message 304
Natural vs synthetic, which remember synthetic does not mean it isn't made from natural compounds. It just means it was created or altered by man.
Message 304
I could find at least another dozen remarks.
You are all over the place.
You contrast natural vitamin E with synthetic vitamin E ...
When, in truth, both versions of vitamin E are synthetic/manmade/unnatural by your own definition (natural = man had nothing to do with it).
You claim that "most" vitamin C is synthetic, when, again by your own definition, it is synthetic/manmade/unnatural.
You insist you have made no comments re: natural or synthetic, when you have done so on numerous occasions.
You insist it "isn't about natural or unnatural" when you have repeatedly made such distinctions in your posts.
You insist that an extraction process can be patented, not the vitamin that has been extracted.
And yet. I manage to find half a dozen patents in under 5 minutes and, had I been interested in flogging an already dead horse, could have found 3 dozen more (minimum!).
I, on the other hand, have been doggedly repeating the same thing over and over for the last 3 days.
There is no difference between:
a molecule of vitamin C that has been industrially produced
a molecule of vitamin C in its source
a molecule of vitamin C that has been extracted from its source
They are all the same compound.
They are all identically bioactive.
And a version of each has been patented.
Edited by molbiogirl, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by purpledawn, posted 09-27-2007 8:47 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by purpledawn, posted 09-28-2007 7:44 AM molbiogirl has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 48 of 307 (424751)
09-28-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by purpledawn
09-28-2007 7:32 AM


Oops I Did It Again
Wow! You did it again!
"Natural vs. unnatural"!
In our discussion we have discovered that we cannot patent a natural vitamin, but we can patent a synthetic vitamin.
I'm gonna let your obstinacy stand.
I'm done with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by purpledawn, posted 09-28-2007 7:32 AM purpledawn has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 53 of 307 (424878)
09-29-2007 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Kitsune
09-29-2007 2:39 AM


You asked for it, you got it
Can you cite your evidence for this please?
MRI white matter diffusion anisotropy and PET metabolic rate in schizophrenia. Neuroreport. 9(3):425-430, February 16, 1998.
Anterior Cingulate Gyrus Dysfunction and Selective Attention Deficits in Schizophrenia: [15O]H2O PET Study During Single-Trial Stroop Task Performance. Am J Psychiatry 154:1670-1675, December 1997.
Schizophrenic syndromes and frontal lobe performance. Br J Psychiatry 1991; 158:340-345
Frontostriatal disorder of cerebral metabolism in never medicated schizophrenics. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1992; 49:935-942
Auditory attentional deficits in patients with schizophrenia: a positron emission tomography study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996; 53:633-64
Inversion of the hemispheric laterality of the ACG gyrus in schizophrenics. Biol Psychiatry 1995; 38:13-21
Decreased anterior cingulate gyrus metabolic rate in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154:682-684
Cortical-striatal-thalamic circuits and brain glucose metabolic activity in 70 unmedicated male schizophrenic patients. Am J Psychiatry 1993; 150:1325-1336
Hypofrontality in neuroleptic-naive patients and in patients with chronic schizophrenia: assessment with Xenon 133 single-photon emission computed tomography and the Tower of London. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1992; 49:943-958
Dopaminergic modulation of impaired cognitive activation in the ACG in schizophrenia. Nature 1995; 378:180-183
PET brain mapping study of auditory verbal supraspan memory versus visual fixation in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 1997; 41:33-42
Patterns of cerebral blood flow in schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 1992; 160:179-186
Abnormal processing of irrelevant information in chronic schizophrenia: selective enhancement of Stroop facilitation. Psychiatry Res 1992; 41:137-146
Local and distributed effects of apomorphine on fronto-temporal function in acute unmedicated schizophrenia. J Neurosci 1996; 16:7055-7062
Effect of antipsychotics on regional cerebral blood flow measured with positron emission tomography (PET). Neuroimage 1996; 3:S499
Glutamate receptor dysfunction and schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995; 52:998-1007
Now. Let's see you cite your evidence for:
We also all have something called biochemical individuality, which means that one person's biochemistry (and reaction to drugs) can be significantly different from another's. This all makes diagnosing a pathological brain state difficult.
Or for:
Keep in mind that there can be many, many causes of mental illness that can be corrected without resorting to drugs.
Or for:
I believe that's the case for most, if not all, mentally ill people, unless they have suffered actual brain damage e.g. from a stroke or an illness or a genetic condition.
Primary research literature only, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2007 2:39 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2007 5:10 AM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 54 of 307 (424883)
09-29-2007 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Kitsune
09-29-2007 3:32 AM


Your GP could soon receive approval, or even encouragement, to prescribe you an SSRI for tinnitus, weight loss, IBS, headaches, insomnia, or narcolepsy.
And should SSRIs be approved for any of these conditions, that decision will be based on research.
To wit:
The serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram does not affect colonic sensitivity or compliance in rats.
Eur J Pharmacol. 2007 Sep 10;570(1-3):203-11.
A controlled crossover study of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram in irritable bowel syndrome.
Gut. 2006 Aug;55(8):1095-103. Epub 2006 Jan 9.
Open-label treatment with citalopram in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: a pilot study.
Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;7(4):162-6.
They can't be that selective, can they, if they supposedly are able to treat so many conditions?
A medication can be used to treat a wide variety of ills. Even something as simple as aspirin can treat a headache or a heart attack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2007 3:32 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2007 5:14 AM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 58 of 307 (424894)
09-29-2007 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Kitsune
09-29-2007 3:32 AM


Hoffer, Rogers and pals
I actually cited Pauling and Hoffer, both of whom have published in such journals many times.
Abram Hoffer publishes in his own journals. Medical Hypotheses and The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine.
From the Medical Hypotheses website:
Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach to peer review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In Medical Hypotheses, the authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer': choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted.
Translation: Cranks, start your engines!
Dr. Sherry Rogers has a grand total of two (2!) papers on pubmed:
Lipoic acid as a potential first agent for protection from mycotoxins and treatment of mycotoxicosis.
Arch Environ Health. 2003 Aug;58(8):528-32.
Using organic acids to diagnose and manage recalcitrant patients.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2006 Jul-Aug;12(4):44-51
The second of these is another crank "journal", Alternative Therapy in Health and Medicine.
You seem to put a lot of faith in the authorities.
With good reason. I do primary research. I know what's involved.
Even that isn't acceptable now apparently, because the broader scientific community disagrees with them.
You bet your booties.
Any wingnut with an axe to grind can publish a "journal" or an "holistic medicine book".
Instead of looking at anything either of these people have written, you are using an appeal to authority -- "The experts disagree with them, so that should be proof enough for you too."
Lindalou, the very same could be said of your "appeal to (anecdotal) authority".
Look. I work side by side with brilliant men and women who do the sort of work discussed in this thread.
I have seen first hand the thorough vetting journal articles receive.
However, when I make a judgment call re: a paper's worth (or lack thereof), I'm not simply relying on the authority of the journal or the PI.
I know enough about issues that are being discussed to judge for myself what has merit.
That's what I've been trained to do. That's what every scientist has been trained to do.
There is no harm in experimenting with them.
Oh. You are so very, very wrong.
From today's news.
insolence | ScienceBlogs
Naturopath guilty of malpractice
Because if you're going to make health claims and claim to treat patients, you should be held just as accountable as any physician:
A Carson City "anti-aging" doctor has pleaded guilty to malpractice for failing to diagnose an elderly patient with the cancer that ultimately killed him.
It is Dr. Frank Anthony Shallenberger's second discipline by the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners in 12 years.
Shallenberger's plea last week regarding patient David Horton's care came on the heels of the board's dismissal of another family's complaint related to Shallenberger's treatment of their sister, Ellen Gallagher, of Sacramento, who died on Labor Day 2006.
Get a load of the treatments used:
In February 2000, Horton complained to Shallenberger of rectal bleeding and abdominal pain -- symptoms of colon cancer. But the medical board complaint said Shallenberger told Horton, formerly of Carson City, that he suffered from hemorrhoids and advised him to use suppositories and take baths in witch hazel.
"At no time from the initial presentation of (Horton's) medical symptoms did he examine the patient, order a test or record in the medical records why those actions weren't taken," Cousineau said.
"If you ask a beginning medical school class what is at the top of your list for a 75-year-old man with rectal bleeding and abdominal pain, it's colon cancer," said Horton's daughter-in-law, Dr. Katherine Gundling, an internist who heads the allergy and immunology clinic at the University of California, San Francisco.
"You rule that out first and worry about the rest later," she said. "Shallenberger's treatment was unbelievable."
Here's an e mail that further illustrates my point:
Dear Health Freedom Fighters:
There is a developing story from California that involves a mother with a 17 year old child who HAD melanoma. The mother, chose to go against her allopathic (conventional) doctor's orders (to have surgery and chemotherapy) - and instead try advanced natural medicine first - since she understood that supporting the body's ability to heal is more effective than destroying it as chemotherapy does.
Not surprisingly this approach worked! This young man is now CANCER FREE!! However, the allopathic doctor is insisting that the child must have chemotheray as well as surgery, which the mother refuses to have her child undergo. Interestingly, doctor, the allopathic doctor's unnecessary treatments will be compensated by the insurer or state, while the holistic strategies that actually worked are not eligible for coverage.
The Department of Child Services was called and her son was taken away from her and put in foster care. The DCS claimed she failed to properly care for her child. Note here: the advanced methods which worked are being defined as "child abuse" while the doctor's assault (which is what we call touching someone against their will) is supported by the power of the state. Is this Health Freedom?
Next, the mother was put in jail for 5 days in maximum security and suffered injuries in the neck and arm from jailers. Her child is still in foster care, where he was forcibly vaccinated.
Here is the newspaper report of the boy in question:
FLOYD, Va. -- A 17-year-old who won a court battle against state officials who tried to force him to undergo chemotherapy for his lymphatic cancer is in remission following radiation treatments over the past year, the teen and his doctor said.
Starchild Abraham Cherrix's case spurred debate on whether the government should get involved in family medical decisions. It also led to a state law named after him that gives Virginia teenagers and their parents the right to refuse doctor-recommended treatments for life-threatening ailments.
Tests show that the sole remaining tumor in Cherrix's body -- a nickel-sized mass in his right lung -- appears to be gone, radiation oncologist Dr. Arnold Smith told The Associated Press by telephone from his clinic in Greenwood, Miss.
Cherrix is not cured, but "he is N.E.D., our abbreviation for 'no evidence of disease.' He's in a total remission," Smith said Thursday.
"There may be some microscopic tumor somewhere still there, but everything we see is gone," Smith said.
Cherrix said he understands that he is not cured. But he's full of energy and optimistic.
"I've been cancer-free four times now, but this time it looks much, much better," he told The AP on Wednesday in an interview in Floyd, the southwest Virginia mountain town where he lives with his mother and four younger siblings. They moved there in May from Chincoteague, an island across the state.
You'll note that he had chemo and radiation.
Yet, it was the quackery that cured him!
Here's what Orac has to say:
As you may recall, Abraham Cherrix is a now 17-year-old adolescent who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma in late 2005. In February 2006, after a round of chemotherapy, there was still residual tumor left, after which his oncologists made a very standard recommendation in cases like this: More chemotherapy plus radiation. It was then that Abraham, then 15, in concert with his parents, decided that he wanted to pursue quackery rather than evidence-based medicine. And, showing a lot of evidence of magical thinking, he chose a doozy of a bit of quackery as well. Specifically, he chose to go to Tijuana to undergo the Hoxsey therapy, a treatment involving an herbal concoction developed by a man named Harry Hoxsey. This is a therapy supported by no good evidence and, indeed, for which there is good evidence that it doesn't work.
How likely, though, is it that this new remission that Abraham has reportedly achieved will be durable or permanent? Sadly, not very. It's possible, and I certainly hope that this is one area where I turn out to be wrong, with Abraham being one of the lucky few for whom radiation alone can take care of relapsed Hodgkin's disease, but in reality treating these new tumors as they pop up is a lot like the game of Whac-A-Mole.
Contrary to the triumphant trumpeting of this announcement by certain bloggers, no doubt to be followed by Mike Adams (who has already published articles erroneously claiming that the Cherrix case is evidence that the Hoxsey therapy "works") and other defenders of quackery weighing in today, if they haven't already ... Expect a lot of crowing about how well "alternative medicine" works (never mind that it was almost certainly the radiation that shrank Abraham's tumors to an undetectable size) and in favor of "health freedom" (in reality the "freedom" from having to listen to regulatory bodies that try to make sure, however imperfectly, that ineffective or unproven treatments are not touted as miracle cures).
Unfortunately, I could find many other equally tragic cases. Should you wish me to research others (where diet and vitamin treatments for life threatening diseases were used and resulted in death or injury) I would be more than happy to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2007 3:32 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2007 8:11 AM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 59 of 307 (424895)
09-29-2007 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Kitsune
09-29-2007 5:14 AM


Your point being-? That this is OK?
Should an SSRI prove to be an effective treatment for IBS (or any other condition), of course I would approve.
People will be experiencing the full spectrum of side effects, including sexual dysfunction, nausea, emotional numbness, and even suicidal ideation and psychosis (all recognised side effects of SSRIs) in order to treat headaches and tinnitus?
Lindalou, it is simply not true that each and every patient experiences the entire panoply of side effects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2007 5:14 AM Kitsune has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 60 of 307 (424897)
09-29-2007 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Kitsune
09-29-2007 5:10 AM


Hoffer
You will notice that Hoffer stopped publishing after 1971.
These articles aren't available online, they're so old.
Are you suggesting we rely on 50 year old data to treat schizophrenia?
There've been a few advancements in medicine since 1959, you know.
Like ... oh I dunno ... PET scans.
I would ask you to please read several of the posts I have written here, as I have explained why these kinds of studies do not always translate into people being cured, especially where drugs are involved.
No treatment is 100% effective.
That millions of children should be taking these drugs for ADHD and bipolar disorder, "epidemics" that were virtually non-existent a generation ago. Children as young as 2 years old are put on these drugs. It's for their own good, right?
This is off topic.
Should you wish to start a new thread on this topic, it is very easy to do so.
Simply jump on Proposed New Threads and write it up.
I will join you there and we can discuss ADHD, overmedication, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2007 5:10 AM Kitsune has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 68 of 307 (424959)
09-29-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Modulous
09-29-2007 12:05 PM


You are quite right, Mod.
wiki writes:
In chemistry, enantiomers (from the Greek , opposite, and , part or portion) are stereoisomers that are nonsuperimposable complete mirror images of each other, much as one's left and right hands are "the same" but opposite.
Entantiomers are different structures. They have different chirality (aka handedness).
Chiral molecules have different chemical properties.
Just as different as H2O:H202 (water:hydrogen peroxide).
Almost all important molecules are chiral: amino acids, sugars, DNA.
I'm not sure if similar things should be mentioned with regard to the other vitamins, but I'm almost certain that it doesn't come into the equation with Vitamin C.
In order to be "handed", a molecule has to have 4 different "groups" attached to a central molecule.
Vitamin C can be chiral, but it isn't industrially produced in a racemic mixture ( a mixture of D and L forms). For one very important reason.
The D enantiomer of vitamin C shows no biological activity whatsoever.
Viamins E, D3 and K can be chiral and when industrially manufactured, can be racemic mixtures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2007 12:05 PM Modulous has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 69 of 307 (424965)
09-29-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Kitsune
09-29-2007 8:11 AM


Hoffer and Pauling
He has also been published in The Lancet and the American Journal of Psychiatry. These were studies involving niacin.
A pubmed search reveals nothing. Cites, please.
Here is what Wikipedia says about Hoffer's reasons for his decisions...
Lindalou, stop for a minute. Think about this. The man published his work in the 60s.
If his work (from the 70s on) were publishable (that is, if it stood up to scrutiny in any way) his work would have continued to be published in repsected journals.
Just as Dr. Pauling's controversial work was published.
The need for this quack to start his own journal speaks to his bankrupt ideas, not his persecution.
Believe it or not, controversial work is published all the time.
Just one example:
newscientist.com writes:
A controversial research paper suggesting that people taking the street drug Ecstasy for just one night might later develop Parkinson's disease has been retracted, after a labelling error was discovered on bottles used in the study.
George Ricaurte and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore published their work in Science in September 2002, provoking widespread alarm in the media.
The team found that three consecutive doses of ecstasy, or methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), given to squirrel monkeys and baboons caused profound damage to dopamine-producing neurons in their brains. These are the neurons lost in Parkinson's disease.
But the group has issued a retraction in Science saying they discovered that all but one of the animals received amphetamines instead of the intended MDMA.
Granted, this was the result of a bone headed error.
But it illustrates my point.
Research is vetted even after it's published.
If I read you right, you will say that he was a crank who was rightly ignored. I see him as a humanitarian who was deeply frustrated, as Pauling was, that an establishment increasingly interested in the biological psychiatric approach was ignoring the positive work he was doing in orthomolecular medicine.
Dr. Pauling's frustration should offer you a clue as to the effectiveness (and importance) of peer review.
Journals didn't publishing Dr. Pauling's work "just because" he was a respected scientist.
They published (some of) his vitamin C work because it stood up to scrutiny.
I found 20 of Dr. Pauling's vitamin C papers listed on pubmed.
His work, however, was heavily criticized.
quackwatch.org writes:
In 1976, Pauling and Dr. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician, reported that a majority of one hundred "terminal" cancer patients treated with 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily survived three to four times longer than similar patients who did not receive vitamin C supplements . However, Dr. William DeWys, chief of clinical investigations at the National Cancer Institute, found that the study was poorly designed because the patient groups were not comparable . The vitamin C patients were Cameron's, while the other patients were under the care of other physicians.
The Mayo Clinic conducted three double-blind studies involving a total of 367 patients with advanced cancer. The studies, reported in 1979, 1983, and 1985, found that patients given 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily did no better than those given a placebo.
You'll notice that his claims were taken seriously and tested extensively ... and found to be lacking.
(btw. Before you start in on Dr. Barrett. There are over 2800 papers re: vitamin C and cancer.)
An interesting side note:
The Linus Pauling Institute of Medicine, founded in 1973, is dedicated to "orthomolecular medicine." The institute's largest corporate donor has been Hoffmann-La Roche, the pharmaceutical giant that produces most of the world's vitamin C.
So much for BigPharma not dumping BigBucks on vitamin research.
Another interesting side note:
A dispute between Pauling and Arthur Robinson, Ph.D., gives additional evidence of Pauling's defense of vitamin C megadosage was less than honest. Robinson, a former student and long-time associate of Pauling, helped found the institute and became its first president. According to an investigative report by James Lowell, Ph.D., in Nutrition Forum newsletter, Robinson's own research led him to conclude in 1978 that the high doses (5-10 grams per day) of vitamin C being recommended by Pauling might actually promote some types of cancer in mice . Robinson told Lowell, for example, that animals fed quantities equivalent to Pauling's recommendations contracted skin cancer almost twice as frequently as the control group and that only doses of vitamin C that were nearly lethal had any protective effect. Shortly after reporting this to Pauling, Robinson was asked to resign from the institute, his experimental animals were killed, his scientific data were impounded, and some of the previous research results were destroyed. Pauling also declared publicly that Robinson's research was "amateurish" and inadequate. Robinson responded by suing the Institute and its trustees. In 1983, the suit was settled out of court for $575,000. In an interview quoted in Nature, Pauling said that the settlement "represented no more than compensation for loss of office and the cost of Robinson's legal fees." However, the court-approved agreement states that $425,000 of the settlement was for slander and libel.
Any honest scientist would report significant negative findings.
Dr. Robinson's results were published.
Mech Ageing Dev. 1994 Oct 20;76(2-3):201-14.
Suppression of squamous cell carcinoma in hairless mice by dietary nutrient variation.
Experientia. 1976;32(7):848-9.
Degradation of encephalitogenic protein in aerobic ascorbic acid solutions.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1973 Jul;70(7):2122-3.
Acceleration of the rate of deamidation of GlyArgAsnArgGly and of human transferrin by addition of L-ascorbic acid.
Dr. Pauling's negative results were not published.
Not only did Dr. Pauling suppress negative findings, he testified on the behalf of quacks.
Pauling also testified in 1984 before the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance in defense of Michael Gerber, M.D., who was accused of improperly administering to patients. One was a 56-year-old woman with treatable cancer who”-the Board concluded”-had died as a result of Gerber's neglect while he treated her with herbs, enzymes, coffee enemas, and chelation therapy. The other patients were three-year-old twin boys with ear infections for which Gerber had prescribed 70,000 or more units of vitamin A daily and coffee enemas twice daily for several weeks. Gerber lost his license to practice medicine as a result of the hearings.
The mark of a True Believer.
When you research a new drug, do you ever pause to think about the people out there who will suffer severe reactions from it -- for the greater good? Do they not matter as long as the statistics are small enough?
You know, penicillin has serious side effects. Up to and including death.
To reject a medication because it can have a serious side effect in a small percentage of patients is to reject all medication.
...if a drug is capable of causing this in patients, it should be banned. It is a horrendous affliction for anyone to deal with.
Huh. No more penicillin for you!
Back when lobotomies were in vogue, would you have been arguing in favour of those because they were tried and tested?
Lobotomies (of a sort) are still performed.
Neurosurgery for psychiatric disorders: from the excision of brain tissue to the chronic electrical stimulation of neural networks.
Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2007;97(Pt 2):365-74.
Over the last fifteen years, the advent of deep brain stimulation (DBS) methodology coupled with accurate stereotactic techniques and guided by elaborate neuroimaging methods have revolutionized neurosurgery, particularly for the alleviation of certain disabling movement disorders.
J. Child Neurol. 2007 Apr;22(4):456-61.
Differentiating between benign and less benign: epilepsy surgery in symptomatic frontal lobe epilepsy associated with benign focal epileptiform discharges of childhood.
Surgical removal of a focal cortical dysplasia in the left frontal lobe yielded freedom from seizures and positive behavioral and cognitive development. Nocturnal benign focal epileptiform discharges of childhood persisted until puberty (follow-up, 50 months). Early diagnostic differentiation of idiopathic syndromes such as idiopathic benign focal epilepsy of childhood from symptomatic focal epilepsies with a potentially less benign course is important. In symptomatic frontal lobe epilepsy, epilepsy surgery may yield an excellent outcome despite the presence of concurrent benign focal epileptiform discharges of childhood.
I suppose you object to these procedures as well.
The rest of your post is more anecdotal "evidence".
As such, it isn't worth commenting on.
I will say, however, that you ignored an important comment I made in my last post.
I am trained to think thru the principles behind any given claim made in a paper.
I don't simply accept a paper's conclusions based on its publication in a respected journal.
No research scientist does.
One final note:
quackwatch.org writes:
Pauling attacked the health-food industry for misleading its customers. Pointing out that "synthetic" vitamin C is identical with "natural" vitamin C, he warned that higher-priced "natural" products are a "waste of money."
Ah yes. A waste of money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2007 8:11 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Fosdick, posted 09-29-2007 7:48 PM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 74 by Kitsune, posted 09-30-2007 4:53 AM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 70 of 307 (424970)
09-29-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Kitsune
09-29-2007 8:11 AM


Megadose Damage
1. Beta-carotene facilitates carcinogenesis. The carcinogenic response in lung tissue to high-dose beta-carotene supplementation reported in the human intervention trials is caused by the instability of beta-carotene in the free radical-rich environment in the lungs, particularly in cigarette smokers.
Procarcinogenic and anticarcinogenic effects of beta-carotene. Nutr Rev. 1999:57:263-72.
2. Iodine is essential for thyroid function. Yet supplementing with iodine can do more harm than good. High iodine intake can permit thyroid tissue damage as a result of low thyroidal GSH-Px activity during thyroid stimulation.
Dietary Iodine and selenium interact to affect thyroid hormone metabolism of rats. J Nutr. 1997;127:1214-8.
3. The homocysteine raising effects of niacin have been noted in human studies. In a multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled trial, the effects of niacin compared with placebo on homocysteine levels in a subset of 52 participants with peripheral arterial disease were examined. During the screening phase, titration of niacin dose from 100 mg to 1000mg daily resulted in a 17% increase in mean plasma homocysteine level from 13.1 to 15.3 micromol/L. At 18 weeks after randomization, there was an absolute 55% increase from baseline in mean plasma homocysteine levels in the niacin group and a 7% decrease in the placebo group.
Elevated homocysteine is a known risk factor for the development of cardiovascular problems and the build-up of unwanted material in blood vessels, such as plaque. Some studies have shown that for each 5 micromoles per liter increase in homocysteine level, your risk for heart challenges may increase by as much as 60 to 80%.
Niacin treatment increases plasma homocyst(e)ine levels. Am Heart J. 1999;138:1082-7.
4. High dose vitamin A "therapy" has well known phototoxicity and photomutagenicity effects. Such intakes are associated with greatly increased exposure to toxic metabolites of vitamin A such as retinyl palmitate, 13-cis-retinoic acid, and 13-cis-4-oxo-retinoic acid.
Exposure to retinoic acids in non-pregnant women following high vitamin A intake with a liver meal, Int J Vitam Nutr Res 75 (2005), pp. 187-194.
5. High dose vitamin A "therapy" during pregnancy leads to retinoic acid syndrome. This includes defects of the craniofacies (small or absent external ears and auditory canals, cleft palate micrognathia, low-set ears), central nervous system (micro- or anophthalmia, cerebellar or cortical defects, microcephaly), thymus, and cardiovascular system (transposition of the heart vessels, aortic arch hypoplasia, ventricular septal defects).
WHO (1994). Assessing human health risks of chemicals: derivation of guidance values for health-based exposure limits.
Environmental Health Criteria, 170.
6. High dose vitamin A "therapy" leads to bone loss.
Excessive dietary intake of vitamin A is associated with reduced bone mineral density and increased risk of hip fracture.
Ann Intern Med 1998;129:770-8.
7. Manganese is highly neurotoxic in megadoses.
J-Appl-Toxicol. 2000 May-Jun; 20(3): 179-87
Neurotoxicity of manganese chloride in neonatal and adult CD rats following subchronic (21-day) high-dose oral exposure.
8. High dose iron "therapy" produces ocular toxicity (damage/loss of vision). Not to mention nausea and vomiting.
Haematologica. 1991 Mar-Apr;76(2):131-4.
Toxic effects of high-dose deferoxamine treatment in patients with iron overload: an electrophysiological study of cerebral and visual function.
9. High does vitamin C "therapy" can lead to renal failure.
Renal failure secondary to massive infusion of vitamin C.
JAMA 252:1684, 1984.
10. High dose "therapy" of beta carotene leads to orange discoloration of skin, weakness, low blood pressure, and low white cell count. Supplemental beta-carotene may increase the risk of lung cancer, prostate cancer, intracerebral hemorrhage, and cardiovascular and total mortality in people who smoke cigarettes.
Effects of beta-carotene supplementation on azoxymethane-induced colon carcinogenesis.
Biofactors. 2006;27(1-4):137-46.
11. High dose zinc "therapy" leads to genitourinary problems.
High dose zinc increases hospital admissions due to genitourinary complications.
J Urol. 2007 Feb;177(2):639-43.
12. High dose copper "therapy" results in fatigue, poor memory, depression, insomnia, increased production of free radicals, and suppressed immune function. Not to mention violent vomiting and diarrhea.
The effect of copper supplementation in humans on plasma lipids, antioxidant status and thrombogenesis.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2006 Aug;25(4):285-91.
...
You know, I could research the adverse effects of calcium, chromium, folic acid, iodine, magnesium, B5, phosphorous, potassium, B6, and selenium.
All have well documented toxic effects.
But I think you get the picture, right, Lindalou?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2007 8:11 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Kitsune, posted 09-30-2007 5:26 AM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 73 of 307 (424998)
09-29-2007 10:35 PM


An analogy
I would like to draw an analogy.
As I grazed ScienceBlogs this evening, look what I found in the comments section of tsmith | ScienceBlogs ...
I thought the HIV denialists were nuts until i saw the video Hiv Fact or fraud last summer. Its pretty rude that many reputable scientists have questioned the hiv hypothesis, and have been insulted by many. Here is the video I saw last Year.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
Keep in mind that most scientists who question hiv have no conflicts of interest, unlike John Moore.
People question HIV because there is no reliable animal model (virtually every animal injected does not die of aids) and there is not much virus present, (its only in a small fraction of T cells) Like 1 in a hundred or so.
Many take the middle road, Like Luc montagnier the discoverer of HIV, Who in his book "virus" in 2000 still stresses the need for co factors, specifically shyh ching Lo's mycoplasma penetrans. This microbe causes disease and death in every animal injected as lo showed. DR. Nicolson has found this microbe via pcr in CFS, ALS, GWI and you can see his research here.
Page Not Found - AEGIS Security & Investigations
Garth Nicolsons new book must be read about mycoplasma and Gulf war Syndrome.
http://www.projectdaylily.com
Im not saying that HIV does or Does not cause AIDS but there needs to be more study, and scientists who questioned should be debated publicly, not insulted personally.
Crank "scientist" with book?
Check.
Accusations of "conflict of interest"?
Check.
Protestations that "more studies need to be done"?
Check.
Halfassed "understanding" of the biochemical processes involved?
Check.
Remind anybody of anything?

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024