 |
|
Reply
| |
I try to explain to people who want to tell me about a "great scientific discovery" they hear about somewhere that usually it's not likely to lead to anything practical, and may even be dangerous. For example, a recent report about a possible "target" for an Alzheimer's disease "cure:"
QUOTE: Research in fruit flies has shown that enhancing the production of a protein called neprilysin can reduce the formation of plaques and neuron death associated with Alzheimer's, at the expense of reducing the flies' lifespan... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080627163146.htm
But let's say, hypothetically, that a research scientists had discovered something that refuted claims made in a biology or medical textbook. What is the process for removing that false information and replacing it with correct information? In short, there is no mechanism or process for doing this. If a drug company can create a drug that they can sell, the researcher is usually going to be thrilled. But if basic notions are challenged by new experimental data, the researchers will be fortunate if they get published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it usually stops there. The textbooks don't get changed. This situation is quite an embarassment now, though only a few people, such as myself, have found examples of faulty textbook claims, such as the one concerning "essential fatty acids." However, until textbooks change, hardly anyone is will to take on any of the claims in them, and so such books take on a religious, rather than scientific characther. It's ironic that when the "theory of evolution" is criticized (usually unjustly), some will defend it (correctly) by saying that it's a theory, not religious doctrine. Yet if it is "just a theory," then it is supposed to be subject to intense scrutiny, to make sure it is accurate. Once enshrined in a textbook, however, it is very unlikely to be removed (at least in the biology and nutritional fields), probably for several reasons, not just one.
The "mainstream media," apparently, would rather talk about "extra-terrestrial alien" stories than about scientific data that contradicts what the "experts" they often feature on their TV shows or in their papers are telling people to do. Of course, when your TV show is sponsored by drug company commercials, there's a clear conflict of interest. If only oxidized cholesterol is dangerous, as the evidence demonstrates, and if one can prevent this problem easily (rather than by lowering cholesterol with drugs, which raises cancer risk while possibly doing nothing otherwise), there should be some attention devoted to this point by some of our great "investigative journalists." I'm not "hold my breath" on this happening, and I don't advise anyone else to do so. Instead, with the resources available on the internet today (such as pubmed.com), we have little choice but to do our own research. One thing I hope to accomplish with this site is to help others to do the kind of investigative journalism for themselves that the "mainstream media," for whatever reason, is simply not doing in these areas. |
|
 First
Previous
2-3 of 3
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
The author of a new scientific report makes a similar point to the passage cited in the post above:
QUOTE: Proteins widely believed to protect against aging can actually cause oxidative damage in mammalian brain cells, according to a new report in the July Cell Metabolism, a publication of Cell Press. The findings suggest that the proteins can have both proaging and protective functions, depending on the circumstances, the researchers said.
"Sirtuins are very important proteins," said Valter Longo of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. "Overexpression can protect in some cases, and in other cases, it may do the opposite. It has to do with the fact that they do so many things..."
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701125905.htm
Again, the claim about a "great new discovery" you hear about on the evening news is usually not tempered by the likely qualification that if there is stress, you can't just inhibit or enhance a protein and expect the stressor to do no damage. Something else with "go wrong" instead. As you ancestors might have said, "a ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of a cure." |
|
Reply
| |
| That's very true. Better be ready with Mead acid in ones cells than sorry with AA when the stress hits especially when the body is no longer protected by the youthful hormones. I found many people loaded with AA, consuming large amounts of vegetable oils but being quite healthy without any chronic inflammatory symptoms, with nice skin etc. But they all share one thing in common - they are completely stress free living easy life being backed with rich parents and doing non-stressy work. Just move such people under some stressy conditions and let's see what happens with them ... Stress can modify many things (and protein functions) and this is completely ignored by the "great scientific establishment". E.g. the scientists are doing experiments with very young animals and applying the results to old people. Or applying the common population blood markers to sportsmen whose metabolism quite differ from the sedentary people. |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
