Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3
Author: Subject: Don't you love the smell of chlorinated compounds in the morning?
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 20-3-2012 at 17:35
Don't you love the smell of chlorinated compounds in the morning?


Are chlorinated compounds we use in consumer products safe?

It seems as if the FDA is an outdated organisation that is controlled by the companies it should scrutinise. This is a rather scary prospect, not only for the food aspect, but also the _drug_ aspect. As we all know, when a new drug is made, it had to be approved by the FDA first before hitting the market.

Later on, studies are conducted and show that those compounds are not as safe we thought they were. Even if a compound is safe when high doses are administered for a short period of time, little data exists on long term effects.

I find the development of chlorinated compounds destined for use in consumer products most frightening. Chlorine is usually present in compounds that KILL, think phosgene, bleach, the elemental form Cl2, DDT etc... If that wasn't enough, many other chlorinated compounds are carcinogenic or neurotoxic, PCBs, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and the list goes on.

Why then, are we so convinced that sucralose and triclosan do not pose a threat to human health? I'm fine with triclosan in hand soap, but in toothpaste?




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Bot0nist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Streching my cotyledons.

[*] posted on 20-3-2012 at 18:30


Yeah! What about those pesky chloride salts? Those have to be bad for you too, right? NaCl and KCl are insidious poisons, just biding their time to strike us down... ;)



U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!


Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 20-3-2012 at 18:43


Ahh, those pesky chloride salts. Studies show that drinking salt water can lead to dehydration and death. They are the cause of our ultimate demise :D

Seriously though, organochlorine compounds?

[Edited on 3-21-2012 by White Yeti]




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
497
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

[*] posted on 20-3-2012 at 18:52


Man I think triclosan is bullshit. Seriously, why do we feel the need to fill every body of water with persistant polychlorinated aromatics for no legitimate reason? In the late 90s production surpassed 1 million pounds/year, so it must be several million by now... And for what? This stuff pisses me off.

Quote:
A comprehensive analysis from the University of Michigan School of Public Health indicated that plain soaps are just as effective as consumer-grade antibacterial soaps with triclosan in preventing illness and removing bacteria from the hands.


WTF are people thinking?

I suppose corporations needed a cheap ingredient to add to their products so they can legally plaster ANTIBACTERIAL all over it?

[Edited on 21-3-2012 by 497]




A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-414-hyperinflation-spe...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 21-3-2012 at 11:46


Public ignorance is a major factor as well. I asked some guy if antibiotics killed viruses and instead of pointing out that viruses cannot be "killed" he said yes. Lysol and other cleaning products seem to prey on people's fears of viruses and bacteria.

I met another person why would clean his hands with hand sanitizer after shaking people's hands. This is really sad since our skin is covered in bacteria which keep the skin healthy.

This germophobia has to stop, or else we will end up damaging ourselves and the ecosystem instead of improving human health. This not only goes for antibacterials but also artificial sweeteners.

People lack perspective, the only way to keep people healthy in the long run is to use chemicals that stimulate the immune system, not to make chlorinated organics that kill bacteria. I made a list of fungi that produce immunomodulatory substances (there's quite a bit to choose from) :

Agaricus bisporus
Agaricus subrufescens
Astraeus hygrometricus
Grifola frondosa
Inonotus obliquus
Pleurotus eryngii
Polyporus umbellatus
Phellinus linteus
Sparassis crispa
Tremella mesenterica

Granted, the effects of these extracts are not thoroughly documented, but are they really much worse than artificial chlorinated aromatics?

[Edited on 3-21-2012 by White Yeti]




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 18 years of madness
Thread Split
21-3-2012 at 12:27
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
*****




Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: Fissile

[*] posted on 21-3-2012 at 16:42


Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti  
It seems as if the FDA is an outdated organisation that is controlled by the companies it should scrutinise. This is a rather scary prospect, not only for the food aspect, but also the _drug_ aspect. As we all know, when a new drug is made, it had to be approved by the FDA first before hitting the market.

Later on, studies are conducted and show that those compounds are not as safe we thought they were. Even if a compound is safe when high doses are administered for a short period of time, little data exists on long term effects.

You demonstrate a breath taking ignorance of the drug development and approval process. It could easily be remedied by doing some reading, for example on the FDA website.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 21-3-2012 at 16:53


Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  
You demonstrate a breath taking ignorance of the drug development and approval process. It could easily be remedied by doing some reading, for example on the FDA website.


Don't you think that the FDA's website is a biased source? Don't you find it suspicious that there are very few chemicals that don't pass the FDA inspection? Pharmaceutical companies LOBBY the FDA so that their product can be manufactured and sold.

Some drugs hold potential that is just too good to pass and every day spent testing it represents millions of dollars lost. Result: FDA is rushed and publishes results on short term effects while ignoring the long term effects.

We as consumers become guinea pigs. I'm not comfortable with that because corporations are faceless and heartless. They don't care about consumers, so long as they keep buying their products and their reputation is not hurt too badly by a recall.




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
*****




Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: Fissile

[*] posted on 21-3-2012 at 18:04


Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti  
Don't you think that the FDA's website is a biased source? Don't you find it suspicious that there are very few chemicals that don't pass the FDA inspection? Pharmaceutical companies LOBBY the FDA so that their product can be manufactured and sold.
Sorry dude, but you're just letting more and more of it hang out. Your ignorance that is.

Cite some references man. This is (or used to be) a scientific discussion group. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts, OK?

Not 1 of 1000 compounds that enter development ever receive FDA approval.

Lobby? That has no meaning in the context of the FDA. Interest groups lobby congress, as in contribute to their campaigns, but no one at FDA is allowed to accept a cent from the regulated industry. FDA staff are not even allowed to own stock in companies like Safeway, because Safeway sells food and FDA regulates food.

This would be a good chance for you to learn about the drug development and approval process, but that information resides in the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies and you have a pre-conceived notion that these sources cannot be trusted.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Twospoons
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1115
Registered: 26-7-2004
Location: Middle Earth
Member Is Offline

Mood: A trace of hope...

[*] posted on 21-3-2012 at 18:38


Well, there is always the controversy over the approval of aspartame.
http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm
I have no opinion on whether this is true or not, maybe it is , maybe not. Its always hard to tell when big money is involved.




Helicopter: "helico" -> spiral, "pter" -> with wings
View user's profile View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 21-3-2012 at 18:55


rosiglitazone. A drug that should be taken off the market in light of data collected AFTER the approval of the drug by the FDA. The FDA is restricting its use but is leaving the door open to any company that can prove that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Exerpt:
"The suspension will remain in place unless the marketing authorization holder can provide convincing data to identify a group of patients in whom the benefits of the medicines outweigh their risks."
From:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/202447.php

Face it, the FDA is corrupt, pharmaceutical companies are too powerful and neither one nor the other can be trusted 100%. If the FDA did its job correctly, the drug would not have hit the market in the first place. It seems like consumers are part of the testing procedure. Only after a drug is released onto the market are real studies done on the effects on human health. Only after a few people die from the new invention does the FDA go "Nope, this drug doesn't work, sorry GlaxoSmithKline, your product is killing people, we have to recall your drug and take it off the shelves."




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
madmanhere
Harmless
*




Posts: 18
Registered: 21-2-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: Meh..

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 01:11


Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  
Sorry dude, but you're just letting more and more of it hang out. Your ignorance that is.

...

This would be a good chance for you to learn about the drug development and approval process, but that information resides in the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies and you have a pre-conceived notion that these sources cannot be trusted.

??
http://www.google.com/search?btnG=Google+Search&q=fda+lo...

[Edited on 22-3-2012 by madmanhere]




The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
AJKOER
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2914
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 12:12


In my opinion, the current approval path for any drug is definitely in need of reform.

I believe quite accidentally it is possible to place an ineffective drug (or worst, dangerous?) on the market with FDA approval. How? Start with a billion in seed capital and run 20 simultaneous (or, do it sequentially) studies on your 'wonder' drug. If one (or better, perhaps more) happens, due to pure statistical error at the 95% significance level, to show a statistically significant positive result just once, your in the money! No need to cheat on the drug trial, although I wonder if this is always the case.

By the way, the other 19 failures need not be reported under current rules (how cool).

I also like the idea of selecting a large number of testing candidates with multiple conditions, and if any subgroup with the same condition shows a positive effect, make that a purpose of interest for your wonder drug (a little data mining never hurt the pocket book).

Please, don't change the game, I think I going to be rich! Well, at least, I am honest, as when was the last time the warning label read: "This drug, at best, most likely doesn't work, but it is expected to make somebody else rich, guaranteed."
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4599
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 12:26


The pharmaceutical companies have better things to do than submit paperwork to the FDA for chemicals which they know will not pass.
So of course the FDA passes a lot of chemicals.
However only something like 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100000 chemicals that are looked at are ever passed to the FDA for approval.
If I wanted to corrupt this system I wouldn't bother trying to get the FDA to pass a drug that didn't meet the requirements. I would just pay a test house to come up with data that showed that the drug was "Safe and effective".
"Honest!- none of our lab rats died"

Citing an example of where the FDA has suspended licensing of a drug is hardly evidence that they are in the drug companies' pockets.
Of course problems will come to light after a drug is marketed- that's when it's given to lots of people. Rare problems couldn't show up before then.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
497
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: HSbF6

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 12:43


I've talked in person to a former database contractor that worked for multiple pharma corporations and had access to their proprietary data. They said with complete certainty that pharma corporations fabricate/manipulate data, fail to complete clinical tests, disregard harmful side effects, bribe regulators, and pay doctors per prescription written as standard procedure. There should be no doubt that most corporations are far outside the sphere of ethical business practices. That should be obvious just by looking at the ratio of potential profits from unethical practices vs the losses.



A word to the wise: NEUROFEEDBACK

http://citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/mg21228354.500-re...
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-414-hyperinflation-spe...

"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business."
Buckminster Fuller

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."
Albert Einstein
View user's profile View All Posts By User
GreenD
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 615
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: Totally f***ing high, man!

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 12:52


Quote: Originally posted by 497  
Quote:
A comprehensive analysis from the University of Michigan School of Public Health indicated that plain soaps are just as effective as consumer-grade antibacterial soaps with triclosan in preventing illness and removing bacteria from the hands.


WTF are people thinking?

I suppose corporations needed a cheap ingredient to add to their products so they can legally plaster ANTIBACTERIAL all over it?

[Edited on 21-3-2012 by 497]


I actually work on a project on a big brand name soap maker. We all know that ivory soap is better than anti-microbial soap for removing germs. :) Yet I get paid to make one with the label of Antimicrobial ;)




ʃ Ψ*Ψ
Keepin' it real.
Check out my new collaborated site: MNMLimpact.com
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Twospoons
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1115
Registered: 26-7-2004
Location: Middle Earth
Member Is Offline

Mood: A trace of hope...

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 15:05


As it turns out - you don't even need soap! Simply drying your hands on a clean towel is very effective at removing bacteria.




Helicopter: "helico" -> spiral, "pter" -> with wings
View user's profile View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 15:44


Soap and water are our best weapons against bacteria. Unlike triclosan, bacteria do not build up a resistance to soap because soap is fundamentally non-toxic (unless you add triclosan).

I think at the end of the day, we're just poisoning ourselves with all these antibiotics.
I posted a question on a separate thread, and I figured it would fit right in this one, seeing how this discussion panned out.

Is there a substance that can kill bacteria, but that bacteria have no possible way to evolve a resistance to? One chemical that comes to mind is bleach, but I'm not entirely sure bacteria cannot metabolise it in some way or another. I know heat treatment is something bacteria can't really develop a resistance to, unless archaebacteria somehow transfer genes for making heat resistant enzymes.

I'm not saying we can do without antibiotics altogether, but we can go without triclosan in particular. There are countless other ways to kill bacteria.

I appologise to the moderators for having posted something so close to politics. I didn't realise it at the time. I still think this is a subject worthy of discussion, so long as it doesn't get out of hand.




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
*****




Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: Fissile

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 16:47


Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti  
If the FDA did its job correctly, the drug would not have hit the market in the first place. It seems like consumers are part of the testing procedure. Only after a drug is released onto the market are real studies done on the effects on human health. Only after a few people die from the new invention does the FDA go "Nope, this drug doesn't work, sorry GlaxoSmithKline, your product is killing people, we have to recall your drug and take it off the shelves."
I will try to speak slowly and not use big words.

The typical serious adverse event that causes death occurs in only 1 of 100,000 to 1 of 200,000 people who take the drug.

It costs many millions of dollars to conduct a study of a drug in a population of just 1,000 or 2,000 subjects.

Now what are the chances that the serious adverse event will occur in even one of the subjects in the study. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

Now what are the chances that the serious adverse event will occur in some of the 20 million people who take the drug once it goes on the market? That's right! You are starting to get it. In a population this big you will start to see serious adverse events that could not be predicted in the smaller but horribly expensive clinical study of 2,000 subjects.

If FDA required every new drug to be tested in 20 million subjects, in order to discover all the possible adverse events, guess what? We would never have any new drugs come on the market. If you have cancer or AIDS this would not be a good thing.

As for the balancing of risk versus benefit, this is exactly what the statutes require the FDA to to when considering the approval of a new drug. Did you expect any drug to have zero risk? Dream on.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ripple
Harmless
*




Posts: 19
Registered: 19-1-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 17:38


I think this is point where science fades.

Arguments can be made for or against there being corruption in the FDA. If we're talking straight numbers, their job is to meet the demands of the public, which are focused on longer life while living more unhealthy lifestyles. There is nothing black and white about this job; they approve more products in order to maintain their funding, while they are also seen to be holding back new "life saving" treatments because they're too experimental or unproven.

I think that fully backing or fearing the FDA are both positions of ignorance because neither acknowledge the scale of the role that the FDA fills. Same goes for pharmaceutical companies. These entities represent innumerable interests that can't be all fit into 'good' or 'evil'.

Its understandable that people would want to quantify things on a scale that they can easily understand or relate to but, as people of science, we should all be used to things that are too big for us to fully understand.

Every government, corporation... hell, even individual, acts out of a balance of self-interest and sacrifice and its naive to try and simplify it further.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
PaleoFreak
Harmless
*




Posts: 1
Registered: 23-2-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 18:09


It blows my mind that, at least in my experience,whenever someone sees a problem with a drug they quickly point the finger at "Big Pharma" or "Big Government."

I am thrilled that I can live in a time where most diseases are manageable, where I don't have to fear being diagnosed with a death sentence tomorrow. There is some risk to everything, but this isn't from the approval process or the drug manufacturers fault. (I know your all about to write thimerosal, and that was a manufacturing error without a doubt)

Now the main point of my writing: DDT, the chlorinated compound mentioned in the first post. 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-di(4-chlorophenyl)ethane has been directly linked to saving the lives of over 50 million people (more than any other artificial chemical), mostly children in the poorest countries of the world. I think to imply that DDT was some sort of bogeyman is a gross oversimplification of the problem, and really symbolizes this whole discussion.

In the end nothing is perfect, be it the drug, or the approval process, or the company themselves, but to say that we have a totally broken system is naive.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Bot0nist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1559
Registered: 15-2-2011
Location: Right behind you.
Member Is Offline

Mood: Streching my cotyledons.

[*] posted on 22-3-2012 at 20:34


Quote: Originally posted by ripple  
I think this is point where science fades.

Arguments can be made for or against there being corruption in the FDA. If we're talking straight numbers, their job is to meet the demands of the public, which are focused on longer life while living more unhealthy lifestyles. There is nothing black and white about this job; they approve more products in order to maintain their funding, while they are also seen to be holding back new "life saving" treatments because they're too experimental or unproven.

I think that fully backing or fearing the FDA are both positions of ignorance because neither acknowledge the scale of the role that the FDA fills. Same goes for pharmaceutical companies. These entities represent innumerable interests that can't be all fit into 'good' or 'evil'.

Its understandable that people would want to quantify things on a scale that they can easily understand or relate to but, as people of science, we should all be used to things that are too big for us to fully understand.

Every government, corporation... hell, even individual, acts out of a balance of self-interest and sacrifice and its naive to try and simplify it further.



Wow, you speak very wisely. Seriously, that last line is quotable. Thank you ripple.




U.T.F.S.E. and learn the joys of autodidacticism!


Don't judge each day only by the harvest you reap, but also by the seeds you sow.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
AJKOER
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2914
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 23-3-2012 at 11:56


Around the world, punishment for misdeeds (including bribes) that result in deaths from bad products varies greatly.

Currently in the USA, most go without prosecution, and a few are a sent to a low security federal prison complete with amenities. Or, perhaps fines, but often not even clawbacks of bonuses. To be more forceful in prosecution would be considered anti-business and even anti-jobs.

A century ago, in the old West, most offenders were hung and left hanging for days for a large variety of offenses. A remarkable effective deterrent.

China currently has a similar effective strategy. The executive in charge is quickly tried and shot. The concept of making excuses for ones greed as inherently part of human nature apparently doesn't work well in China. Not surprisingly, many foreign corporations are reluctant to have local subsidiaries on the China mainland itself.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
White Yeti
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline

Mood: delocalized

[*] posted on 23-3-2012 at 16:06


Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  
If FDA required every new drug to be tested in 20 million subjects, in order to discover all the possible adverse events, guess what? We would never have any new drugs come on the market. If you have cancer or AIDS this would not be a good thing.


Forgive me if what I am about to say is excessively blunt.

If we find a cure for cancer or a cure for AIDS, we will just endorse unhealthy behaviour. If we want to improve public health, we must fix the problem at the root. People take unnecessary risks with their health, ignoring long term effects and relying on the fact that the solution is contained in a pill. There is nothing farther from the truth because many drugs increase chances of you damaging your health further.

For example, immunosuppressants repress spring fever, but they also increase your chances of developing a tumour. The choice is yours, spring fever or cancer.

When will people realise that the risks outweigh the benefits for most of the drugs we have made thus far? I can only name a dozen or so drugs that have really revolutionised medicine and that have benefits that vastly outweigh the risks.

We are just developing medicine that postpones death, nothing more nothing less.




"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
View user's profile View All Posts By User
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
*****




Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: Fissile

[*] posted on 23-3-2012 at 16:08


Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER  
China currently has a similar effective strategy. The executive in charge is quickly tried and shot.
Could you please cite an authoritative reference for that?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
*****




Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline

Mood: Fissile

[*] posted on 23-3-2012 at 16:13


Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti  
I can only name a dozen or so drugs that have really revolutionised medicine and that have benefits that vastly outweigh the risks.

We are just developing medicine that postpones death, nothing more nothing less.
I submit that the number you can name may be an incomplete list, based on the blind spots that are apparent from above posts.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3

  Go To Top