Wow, you can buy some EPPS (the chemical in the article) here for £39.20?
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/54465?lang...
Looks interesting research but I'm sure this stuff probably can't be that good for you!
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/54465?lang...
Looks interesting research but I'm sure this stuff probably can't be that good for you!
I'd take any health risks over dementia, personally, and I'm sure most would, too. Looking forward to the FDA blocking this on "safety" grounds.
People tend to vary wildly in choices and opinions. Who knew!?
But some people think their choice or opinion is somehow the "correct" one and should be imposed on everyone ;-)
Admittedly it seems like a bit of a gamble to just start popping drugs whether they've been studied or not, but people spend lots of money on "natural" supplements which are at least usually reasonably safe but are even less likely to work.
While there are some drugs that are clearly effective, there are big problems in Big Pharma's approach to clinical trials, including burying half the trials' results and poor experiment design. And once a drug makes it to market, expanding that market without testing becomes a priority. Do you think Risperdal was a one-off, or is it a representative case study of how drugs are marketed by at least a major part of Big Pharma?
For example, Ben Goldacre. He is cynical about 'Big Pharma', and has written about it in one of his books[0]. At the same time he appears to support efforts to open up private medical research -- he recently cofounded AllTrials[2] along with the BMJ, Cochrane, PLOS, and a few other high-profile reputable sources[3].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma [1]: http://www.cochrane.org/ [2]: http://www.alltrials.net/ [3]: http://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/ben-goldacre-joins-oxford-unive...
There's not much worse than having your mind die while your body is still alive.
Just to pick another unrelated chemical example that is well known, 30ml of methanol will kill you but 10ml will make you permanently blind.
How is this relevant?
I know there's very good reason to be wary of mouse models, but in cases (as this appears to be) where the physiological mechanism of disease is both (a) understood and (b) the same from mouse to human, a little less skepticism may be warranted.
It's also now possible to do clinically-useful testing of targeted treatments using genetically-edited control tissue cultures against unedited tissue cultures.
The point is that it's better to test something that is as close to the patient as possible, not guess with other species or even other people whom express genes differently.
FYI: making a new mouse models requires lots of chopping off heads of mice whom don't possess the desired gene. While transgenic, highly-edited living models might be nice, there's probably a more humane/simpler/reproducible way to do the exact same thing.
No they aren't. Transgenic mouse models are a $billion industry. We do not understand biological mechanisms nearly enough to not use live animal models. We are not even able to recreate single cell organisms with our level of knowledge and engineering.
>>FYI: making a new mouse models requires lots of chopping off heads of mice whom don't possess the desired gene. While transgenic, highly-edited living models might be nice, there's probably a more humane and simpler way to do the exact same thing.
Ah, the real root of your argument. Do you even know what the word humane means? I work in a labroatory and the animals are treated better than the people. Yes, a lot of mice are killed.. but for a reason. You say there's probably a simpler way to do the exact same thing, but there simply isn't. I wish more people were actually educated in this matter, but emotional responses tend to get more results.
But regardless, you're rationalizing your own biases and agendas on outdated techniques and racing to the bottom with a disrespectful, ad hominem approach. How pleasant and humane of you. Maybe you should look to the future instead of attacking what isn't in your narrow focus, because you come across as a troll.
Watch this, and learn something: https://youtu.be/ilVjSnE5t44
But if the animals in question are not part of the study at all, I don't see how it matters much. Maybe there's a little mouse guillotine. Maybe one person on the team owns a reptile pet that is very well fed. The reason why rodent models are used in the first place is that they're mammals, easy to care for, breed, and handle, and no one really cares if they die by the millions.
If they were outside the lab, they would likely get poisoned or crushed by snap traps. (That's better than what a cat would do.) Cuteness won't save you from my wrath if you eat my food and then poop in whatever you left behind. At least the ones that died in the labs had real jobs, instead of living hedonistic freeloader lifestyles inside someone else's couch.
We should be far more concerned about side-effects of a drug intended to treat acne or erectile dysfunction than for drugs targeting life destroyers such as cancer and Alzheimer's.
At some threshold of disease viciousness, society (and the FDA) should relax substantially on the risk-aversion, because the patient is already facing the worst-case scenario.
This is a fair point, but the rest... well ... still manages to miss the above argument. Side-effects aren't observed in a vacuum, but efficacy is still observed in laboratory conditions, so we really can't comment on whether (or how) this molecule affects other systems.
In the future, medical clinicians won't have to guess as much because adult stem cells can now be created from red blood cells, allowing personalized medication with a petri model of actual patient tissue, to screen problems like interactions and allergies before administration.
"Statins are beneficial, but some have questioned whether their benefits are due to their ability to lower cholesterol or to their anti-inflammatory effects, or both. There are two competing hypotheses, the LDL hypothesis and the statin hypothesis. A new study in The New England Journal of Medicine sheds some light on that controversy and tips the balance in favor of the LDL hypothesis."
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/update-on-cholesterol-a...
That said, regardless of whether or not they're proven/approved/tested, drugs are never magic bullets. The ones used to treat the most serious chronic diseases always come with serious risks and profound side-effects. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
2000mg/kg = 2, right?
Like 2kg of medicine for every one kg of body mass? That seems impossible to consume. Even 0.1 kg/kg seems really, really high.
Or is mg here used for micrograms rather than milligrams? So it's actually 2000 μg/kg.
No, 2000mg/kg = 0.002
> Like 2kg of medicine for every one kg of body mass?
No, 2g for every kg of body. And that's some safe limit, not therapeutic dose.
> Or is mg here used for micrograms rather than milligrams?
No, it's milligrams.
Have you worked on software for NASA Mars probes in the past?
Yeah, I know, I know.
2kg = 20000000mg.
Hope that clears that up.
It kind of scares me that people think they can buy untested chemicals online and self-medicate with them. But then again I'm not into the whole "Bath Salts" scene which is all about that.
A lot of terminal people have, historically, had pretty terrible things done to them on the guise of "well they were going to die anyway!"
I for one welcome medical and academic oversight of experimental treatments. Terminal people are especially in need of protection as they will grasp to any hope no matter how slim or misguided.
It kind of scares me other people would presume to dictate what I can and can not put into my own body.