posted
MSG is in store-bought ramen noodles, and it gives you cancer. Maybe PSI really likes them and is relieved they won't kill him? Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I wonder how long it will take to develop treatments, if this really works? I guess I'm just being selfish, but I'd feel much happier if these things were going to be ready tomorrow.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clinical trials will take a few years, twink. Assuming they're successful it's probably 5-10 years before the hit the market depending on how far they are with ADME screens. Actually, if things look good and the FDA is eager for them to hit the market they could roll the development, which means they can submit data in chunks as they do it as opposed to all in one go. Maybe 3 years in that case? But I doubt it. Since this is really the first treatment of its kind there probably isn't a lot of literature out there that they can cite, they'll have to do everything themselves.
Really interesting idea on their part though, I'll try to remember about this study 5 years from now (good luck, me) to see where it stands.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to have to research that one--I'd love for you to be wrong about it (not that I'm saying that you are--I just like MSG as a flavor enhancer enough to hope that you are).
quote:PSI is also a woman
In addition to whom?
Yeah, I know twinky, I wish they were starting the human tests on this later on this afternoon. I know too many people who have been afflicted with cancer. I would love for this to pan out, and to do it quickly.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is very little that doesn't contain MSG, which is a naturally occuring amino acid contained in cheese*, milk, mushrooms, meat, fish, poultry, seaweed, cereal(grain)glutens, beets, and many other vegetables.
* In amounts far higher than found in most Japanese/Chinese cuisine, One of the highest levels is found in mozzarella, so those who want to minimize their MSG intake should especially avoid pizzas.
posted
I've been thinking about that too, celia. It'd suck to have all of your cells suddenly explode. Be messy too.
The thing is, in reading the article it would seem that they only thing they've done to the virus is disable its ability to slip past cell's defenses. They haven't, at this point, added anything at all to the virus that isn't in the virus' natural form. If I'm reading the article correctly, and that is the case, it seems pretty safe.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's me. Kayla "no, really it's just gas, I don't need an appendectomy" the Hypochondriac.
Did I mention that if my son drinks soda, we get a call from the school the next day asking if anything is going on at home?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Actually, I prefer the term "gobbets", as in "wipes gobbets of Noemon from sleeve", thank you very much!
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like everything else on the planet, if you buy a bucket of MSG and eat it it's going to be bad for you. Moderation, like always, is the key.
As far as the virus mutating goes, well, I guess that's what clinical trials are for. Not all virii have the same mutation rate and you can bet there are going to be some hard core risk/benefit analyses done of this little guy.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think of you as a hypochondriac, Kayla. Look, I respect you very much. I genuinely missed your postings during your hiatus from Hatrack. And I respect your research skills. But you know as well as I that anyone can publish anything whatsoever on the Web. So it is unsurprising that someone collected annecdotes of negative reactions to MSG. A simple collection of annecdotes don't make it so.
Would I find it surprising that your son reacts to soda? No. Most sodas contain caffeine, known to cause neurological and physiological effects. And high blood concentrations of sugar are known to cause physiological effects which in turn will affect behaviour. And the same blood concentration will cause different effects, even opposite effects, depending on the individuals' own metabolisms. And carbonation is known to force nutrients into the blood stream faster than normal absorbtion (which is why one gets drunker drinking champagne than by drinking the same amount of wine with the same concentration of alcohol in the the same amount of time). And some people have uncommon reactions to low-calorie sweeteners as well as to other artificial or natural flavorings.
Then there is the permission effect. If you tell a kid "No, you can't have a soda right now because you have [something important/necessary] to do. And soda makes you bounce off the walls.", odds are the kid will bounce off the walls when given soda, irrespective of their own metabolism. It works for adults, too. There is a college psychology experiment in which subjects are divided into three groups: the first getting just tonic water, and told it's just tonic water; the second getting just tonic water, and told it also contains alchol; and the third receiving a beverage of alcohol and tonic water, and told so. The subjects in the second(non-alcohol)group act/interact FAR more similarly to those in the third(alcohol)group than they do to the first(non-alcohol)group. People have an idea of what is acceptable/expectable/common behaviour when one is sober, and have an idea of what is acceptable/expectable/common behaviour when one has ingested alcohol. Told by authority that they are drinking alcohol, perfectly sober people unconciously use that as permission to engage in behaviour they associate with alcohol-drinking.
MonosodiumGlutamate is nearly ubiquitous in any normal diet looked at as a whole. It is so common that the tongue contains its own flavor receptors for umami along with those for sweet, sour, salty, and bitter. Considering its "meaty" effect, quite possibly to inform the brain that one is ingesting protein.
Is it possible that too much MSG is bad for one? Yes, but so is too much sugar, or too much salt, or too much acidity, or too much bitter compounds.
Is it possible that some people are more sensitive/reactive to MSG than others? Of course, some people have odd reactions to rice.
But that some people have unfavorable reactions to a food substance doesn't mean that the vast majority of people can't eat it safely.
And frankly, it is quite difficult to test the annecdotes of bad side-effects. Remember MSG has a taste -- receptors specificly designed to detect the substance -- which also means it probably has other physiological effects. eg Meat is digested differently than cake, therefore it would be unsurprising that a "meaty"substance would inform the digestive system to prepare itself for steak just as a "sweet"substance would inform the digestive system to prepare for cake. And so it is difficult to distinguish between physiological effects caused by MSG, and physiological effects caused by the placebo/permission effect of having been told by an authority that certain negative syptoms could/should occur.
The problem is that the "health"food/supplement industry is overloaded by "authority"s, often quite ill-informed, with agendas that give "permission" to react negatively to common foods, beverages, and drugs, eg: "Aspirin is bad for you." People who take the equivalent of a child's aspirin (about 1/4 of an adult pill) per day have fewer, later, or milder occurences of heart disease, cancer, neurological dysfunctions (including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's), etc, and live longer. "Coffee is bad for you." People who drink up to the equivalent of half a pot (about a quart/liter) of normal-strength coffee also show a lower/later/milder incidences of heart disease, cancer, neurological dysfunctions, etc, and live longer. "Use carob instead of chocolate, it's better for you." On the contrary, carob is now known to contain harmful substances. And all scientific tests of chocolate have come up very positive for the consumer. "Don't eat eggs. They have too much cholesterol." They also have a large amount of one of the omega-fatty-acids which are known to reduce the incidence of coronary disease. I'm unaware of any study that compares the good of the omega-fatty-acid vs the bad of cholesterol in eggs in terms of longterm health effects. I'm unaware of any study which indicates that cholesterol is any worse than fat-in-general or even just eating-too-many-calories as far as creating blood cholesterol in the subset of folks who have a high-cholesterol problem.
Which is why I have an inclination to counter disparaging remarks concerning common food substances unless I know of scientific studies supporting the claim.
posted
I think MSG is often added to food because it stimulates the mechanical fullness satiety cycle (one of three satiety cycles) characteristic of adequate protein intake. I think it also hyperstimulates the taste buds somehow. While it may occur in many foods, I think most people would benefit from avoiding items that contain it as an added ingredient.
While rapid satiety might sound like a good dieting measure, I believe the digestive system becomes "used" to an MSG load so that if a lower MSG meal is eaten, one might eat more to compensate.
Back to the virus, everything can mutate. And depending on the parameters this virus follows, I wonder if it would be inclined to attack fast growing tissues like the endothelium of the gut, endometrial tissues, and growing fat cells.
My first paranoid thought, though, is that this won't get any further than exercise because if cancer can be cured by a virus that can be caught by other people, where is the money for the doctors then? I bet they put people in quarantine bubbles for this treatment.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, actually, my first post was just showing Noemon that there was no carcinogen effect. You are the one who inferred that I thought it was bad for you. Secondly, we don't let him have caffeine. He gets root beer that doesn't contain caffeine (like not Barq's) or Sprite. After the sprite, he isn't nearly as bad as after the root beer. There are other foods that set him off, too. But that is neither here nor there. I'm not a big fan of the whole "you are what you eat" thing. I was just goofing with you after you took what I posted the wrong way. Ya big dweeb. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
1) Stage I clinical testing (1-5 years) 2) Stage II testing (1-10 years) 3) Stage III testing (1-10) 4) FDA approval
Solids results in animals, while interesting, are really worthless. So many other factors affect the ability of the drug to work, that it's impossible to predict anything.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wouldn't seem to rule out human trials in 2005.
The link to MSG was only inferred from a reference to Ramen noodles, which still hasn't been explained. I mean, maybe it was a post that was supposed to go on some other thread. Not sure what other thread it would be less of a non sequitur on, but there it is.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm just saying not to get your hopes up. I think like 1/50 drugs make it from animal trails past Stage I. I can't remember the exact numbers.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kinda thought it was a dyslexia thing that had driven the thread off topic. But hey, I was willing to run with it. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I ever tell you about the brilliant trilogy my husband was working on? It's called The Machine that G.O.D. Built. They guys name is George Oliver Deardon, or something like that. Anyway, he creates a machine that basically resequences the human DNA to cure things like cancer and stuff. Of course, being humans, we bastardize it so we can change our eye color. Unfortunately, this happens before long-term outcome studies are done and by the time they figure it out, the human race can no longer reproduce. And that is just the first book.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, the point was, even the most miraculous things have unintended side effects. I think that is why it takes so long. However, if there are people that could be saved, that would die before the testing is done, they should be helped. The side effects really don't matter to them. Those won't occur till after they would have already been dead to begin with.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, didn't a say what aspectre did except in one jillionth of the space
Pook, not all viruses have airborne transmittance. You ken bet yer britches that this one won't be. It might be possible to transmit it if two people decide to become blood brothers in the Old Norse manner though. I'm not going to speculate on its attacking other fast growing tissues, I don't know enough about the genetics of cancer to say something I know isn't stupid.
Ummm... Phanto where are you getting those numbers? Are you thinking of the different phases of clinical trials? If a drug is going to take up to 25 years to get through human trials it'll be canned, it's just not cost effective. Generally you look to phase I taking about a year and a half to determine dosages and rough safety data for humans. Phase II runs about 2.5 years during which time you actually start to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug and look for any side effects at your desired dosage level. Phase III goes for about 3 years and you’re just confirming everything and getting an estimate for long-term effects (although it’s hard to know until the drug hits shelves). FDA approval usually takes a year to a year and a half, depending on the size of bribe you can afford
Animal tests aren't just "interesting", they're incredibly important. It's really expensive to do large scale testing on animals; if drug companies could get around it they would. As an aside, there are a lot of fairly robust computer programs out there that can simulate the pharacokinetics of drugs (GastroPlus and SimulationsPlus come to mind), hopefully in another decade or so many animal tests will no longer be needed as we will be able to just plug the numbers into some software. But for now, to get any idea of dosages and the dynamics of a drug it really is necessary to use critters. Sadly, the guidelines set on animal testing aren't nearly as stringent in North America as they are in Europe and you can use animals wherever you want. While it's expensive, it can save a lot of time if you use small sample sets in the discovery phase rather than a long series of in vitro studies. In that case it can actually be cheaper to test in animals, but shouldn't be allowed (IMHO).
As for the number of drugs that make it from one phase to the next, that really depends on where you are in production. You can churn out in the area over several thousand different compounds in a day in the beginning, with the number of total compounds tested being in the 10s and nearing 100s of thousands (depending on the ease of hit and lead testing) (this is the brute force method and is the one used by all companies big enough to afford it). Although I guess you wouldn’t classify those as “drugs” per se. The number of compounds that make it through phase III human trials is actually closer to 1 in 3, with the number of compounds that make through the entire round of human trials being somewhere around 1 in 5 and 1 in 10. It's so expensive to dose humans that you're usually perfectly happy to scrap the drug before it reaches that point if there's a hint of failure.
Right, so human tests and the FDA paperwork usually take ~7.5 years, so I went with 5-10 which averages out to 7.5. But that’s enormously optimistic on my part because this kind of thing has never been done before. It’ll probably take closer to 15-20 years all told. Which is closer to the numbers you gave but reached for the wrong reasons There’s a huge potential return, I wonder who’s funding this? The cost of that many years of human trials is going to be several hundred million dollars.
Huh, this wound up being longer than I thought it’d be…
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fallow, I prefer the title "Moonchild". If you want to get technical, Cancer isn't a disease so much as a misunderstanding at the cellular level. That's why it's so hard to treat without nearly killing the patient.
quote: I don't know enough about the genetics of cancer to say something I know isn't stupid.
I do know cancers are often treated in the breasts and uterus, and if everyone quit smoking colon cancer would reportedly be the most deadly cancer.
It would stink to have my breasts explode.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
