61–70 of 144 posts
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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
provides no proven benefit in humans 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.
Mouse models are rapidly becoming obsolete as it's becoming easier than ever to model entire, differentiated tissues grown from red blood cell-derived adult stem cells. 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 possibl…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an expert, but human lifespans have only risen to relevant heights very recently. It's simply not enough time for it for evolution to kick in.
Average life expectancy is a commonly misunderstood (and widely misrepresented) concept. We hear things like "Humans really only lived into their 40s in the Stone Age," or what have you. This is untrue. Average (arithmetic mean) life expectancy was a lot lower because it was heavily skewed by infant mortality. Up until very recently, many more babies died within their first few years of life. We've dramatically impro…
Also somewhat owing to the recognition of Alzheimer's as a disease state (coincident with amyloid beta plaques) rather than just part of "getting old". The difference between "more prevalent" and "better identified" is difficult to determine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: Ok, ok, I totally screwed that up. Damnit. Sorry, everyone. Grams aren't kilograms. The freaking base unit shouldn't have a prefix. 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.
2000 mg is 2g (a kg is 1000g, or 1 x 10^6mg) Have you worked on software for NASA Mars probes in the past?
Yeah, I know, I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mouse models are rapidly becoming obsolete as it's becoming easier than ever to model entire, differentiated tissues grown from red blood cell-derived adult stem cells. 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 possibl…
>>Mouse models are rapidly becoming obsolete as it's becoming easier than ever to model entire, differentiated tissues grown from red blood cell-derived adult stem cells. 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 engineeri…
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing to me that people are willing to experiment with an unapproved chemical that provides no proven benefit in humans, yet aren't willing to use human-proven therapies with known benefits such as statins.
provides no proven benefit in humans 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It kind of scares me that people with terminal or completely debilitating diseases don't have widespread access to whatever experimental treatments are available. Imagine watching yourself die and reading articles about promising treatments you are unable to obtain. That is scary.
There's a thin line between an experimental treatment with some potential merit being trialed on vulnerable people, and a mad scientist just trying things "to see what will happen." 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 es…
I am having an epiphany. Maybe this "Alzheimer protein" is supposed to be the brain's defenses to something much worse. Maybe this protein is a "reaction" similar to skin rashes when it absorbs poison ivy's urisol. If Alzheimer was simply a deficiency of nutrients, I wouldn't think this way, but if it really is a protein that "can be cleared", why did it get there in the first place?
I'm not an expert, but human lifespans have only risen to relevant heights very recently. It's simply not enough time for it for evolution to kick in.