• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

valencey hormone mutating cell structure of unknown origin?

Mikeybd27

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
119
[h=3]Discovery of taxolEdit[/h]The chemotherapy drug paclitaxel (taxol), used in breast, ovarian, and lung cancer treatment, is derived from Taxus brevifolia. As it was already becoming scarce when its chemotherapeutic potential was realized, the Pacific yew was never commercially harvested from its habitat at a large scale; the widespread use of the paclitaxel (taxol) was enabled when a semi-synthetic pathway was developed from extracts of cultivated yews of other species.[27]Unlicensed pharmaceutical production use of closely related wild yew species in India and China may be threatening some of those species.[28]
This is sited from Wikipedia. However I think there is a lot more to this with use of cortisone and natural hormone supplements. Any thoughts?
 
Uhh... I do not get what you are saying here?

Are you trying to treat fucking lung cancer with "natural hormone supplements" instead of a proven chemotherapy drug?
If so, don't do it, you are just going to die a horrible death, your lungs turning into a festering mass of necrotic tissue as the metastases spread throughout your body.
 
All I’m saying is we are synthetically extracting from a unknown source of yews and what ever species are now struggling to grow naturally. We need to stop what we are doing and investigate and address the problems at hand first. We are just radiating the process further and causing imbalances in known agents.
 
All I’m saying is we are synthetically extracting from a unknown source of yews and what ever species are now struggling to grow naturally. We need to stop what we are doing and investigate and address the problems at hand first. We are just radiating the process further and causing imbalances in known agents.

It doesn't matter where the precursor is extracted from, as by the time the paclitaxel has reached the stage where it is ready to be put into a finished drug product, it will have been extensively purified. If they do treat the yews with steroids or whatever else, it won't show up in the finished drug.
 
All I’m saying is we are synthetically extracting from a unknown source of yews and what ever species are now struggling to grow naturally.

"We" are extracting a precursor to paclitaxel from needles of the European yew (not "an unknown source of yews"), then converting that precursor to actual paclitaxel.

We need to stop what we are doing and investigate and address the problems at hand first.

The problems at hand are that (a) many, many people would die from cancer without paclitaxel, and (b) that continuing to extract from Pacific yew bark would drive the Pacific Yew to extinction, leading us back to problem (a).
The aforementioned semi-synthetic method neatly solves both of these.

We are just radiating the process further and causing imbalances in known agents.

"Known agents"? Honestly, anybody who talks about vague "imbalances" as if this was TCM or classical greek humoralism probably shouldn't be using the word "known" in a pharmacological context.

As SJP said, paclitaxel is a chemical compound that is refined to the highest degree of purity, not freaking herbal tea.
 
I’m not suggesting any better solution other than always looking to the future and maybe trying something new. When I said known agents I was referring to our own antibodies getting wiped out from external malfunction. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/world-war-cancer/amp
I know they say a lot of mushrooms have anticancer properties. We should start a huge mushroom global research program. When I see Chaga healing wounds in trees and Yarsagumba growing through certain mummified caterpillars that died in the ground for unknown reasons. I know this mycelium network heals toxins from the earth.
 
Last edited:
Do you think leukemia came from leuco dye?

If you are asking about etymology: both "leukemia" and "leuco dye" come from the Greek "leukos," for "white." Leukemia is a disease of the white blood cells, and leuco dyes can be interconverted between coloured and colourless forms.
 
I?m not suggesting any better solution other than always looking to the future and maybe trying something new. When I said known agents I was referring to our own antibodies getting wiped out from external malfunction. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/world-war-cancer/amp

Oncologists are well aware of the side-effects of existing anti-cancer drugs. Pharmaceutical researchers are always trying to look for more well-tolerated treatments. Unfortunately, cancer cells are cells of the host gone rogue. It is relatively easy to selectively kill bacteria, which sit on a branch on the opposite end of the evolutionary tree. It is also possibe to train your cells to identify certain viruses (via vaccination), and even kill viruses that cannot be vaccinated against by creating drugs that selectively stop the enzymes that a virus uses to hijack your cells.

But cancer? It's still a human cell. Any drug that effects a cancer cell will also be able to affect a host cell. You have to target it based on its behavior - anticancer drugs generally kill cells as they are attempting to undergo mitosis. Malignant tumors are basically trying to proliferate as rapidly as possible, so the drug hits them much harder than host cells that (by comparison) only undergo mitosis once in a blue moon. Problem is, your body still has to keep replacing some cells to stay alive. The chemo will still wrack your body to some extent, at least temporarily.

But in the end, when you've got cancer, other concerns become secondary. If the chemo kills your bone marrow, then so be it - you can get new bone marrow from a donor, but you cannot be brought back from the dead if the cancer has already killed you.

I know they say a lot of mushrooms have anticancer properties. We should start a huge mushroom global research program.

There already *is* a huge global research program on mushrooms. Pharm companies stand to gain billions from the next big anticancer drug, so they're scanning anything and everything for antitumor or otherwise interesting pharmacological activity. The problem is that it takes a long, long time to get a drug through clinical trials, and not everything that has "anticancer properties" is safe or effective to use in humans. As you yourself posted, fucking mustard gas has excellent "anticancer activity", but is far from an ideal treatment.

When I see Chaga healing wounds in trees and Yarsagumba growing through certain mummified caterpillars that died in the ground for unknown reasons.

Are you trolling us? Yarsagumba is growing in mummified caterpillars because it is an entomopathogenic fungus. The fungus is what killed the caterpillar. It is a parasite, eating its hosts alive.

I know this mycelium network heals toxins from the earth.

Like, don't get me wrong, Anthony Rapp is amazing as Paul Stamets on "Star: Trek Discovery", but "Star Trek: Discovery" is not a documentary, and real-life Paul Stamets should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for responding, no I’m not trolling I just don’t believe everything I read and hear. I think our system is flawed. Just do can’t really explain it but I know there’s something better. sorry if I’m annoying you. This has been bothering me since I was a kid. I really started seeing connections after I worked on a farm for 4 years. There is a problem and it’s not just 1 thing it’s everything. Humans have a way of making everything so complicated. It really shouldn’t be, it should be easy and fun even though if it’s hard work. For example in music theory I don’t believe there are any sharps just flats but I don’t think we should ever write them just make the note lower case and the capital letter would be a regular note, the sharp would just mean that it’s played heavily. Just little things like this would make everything easier to understand. The bees are struggling as well as the bats why is this. I think it has a lot to do with every human out there struggling just to make ends meet racing around being trendy just to fit in even though it’s really not who they all are. We are humans not some political satire. This just creates more confusion in the world. In turn creates a nasty environment for animals who rely so heavily on senses to see where to go. I know I went completely off the subject but I do think we need a better system in bio chemistry as well. I just know that much about it to really say yet. But I think it.
 
Humans have a way of making everything so complicated. It really shouldn?t be, it should be easy and fun even though if it?s hard work.

But we are literally talking about curing cancer here, i.e. killing bad human cells without also killing off the good human cells. That just *is* complicated, or at the very least complex.

Imagine a doctor performing emergency surgery to in order to remove a razor-sharp bullet fragment from a patient without cutting an artery and causing them to bleed to death - could you imagine this being "easy and fun"?
What about a SWAT team trying to take out a terrorist group without having any harm come to the hostages - you think there is a way to make this "easy and fun"?

Because this is essentially what cancer treatment comes down to.

I know I went completely off the subject but I do think we need a better system in bio chemistry as well. I just know that much about it to really say yet. But I think it.

I mean, there are certainly aspects in which the way we *teach* biochemistry could be improved to make it less complicated, but in the end, it is always going to be an immensely complex subject.

Sorry if I am coming off as abrasive, but there are brilliant people out there who have dedicated their lives to curing cancer, and have come up with some amazingly effective treatments, yet do not get the respect they deserve for it. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that Hodgkins lymphoma was a death sentence. Today, this type of cancer is easily treatable.
Yet people do not accept these treatments for the amazing accomplishments they are, insisting that there has to be a 100% effective cure for all cancers out there that is being held back by "the man"/"big pharma". Oncologists may not always have the best bedside manners, but atleast they're not bullshitting you like some quack who's telling to you that you can cure your cancer by just smoking lots of weed (spoiler: You can't. Bob fucking Marley died of cancer because he wouldn't listen to the docs when they told him they'd have to amputate his big toe to make sure his melanoma wouldn't return).

Often, these conspiracy theories about "big pharma" holding back the ultimate panacea betray not just a fundamental misunderstanding about the way biochemistry works, but also basic economics (the pharmaceutical industry is not a monolith; if Pfizer developed a cancer panacea, they would quickly rake in billions, and would not give a fig if it meant major losses for Novartis, Eli Lilly, Boehringer, etc... after all, those are *the competition*. Also, old people not dying of cancer means them getting even older, which means they get to live to buy drugs against heart disease, arthritis, dementia (...) as well as more of the anticancer drug, should the cancer return). It also conveniently ignores the fact that pharma CEO's also tend to be old dudes, who tend to be very much afraid of losing friends, loved ones and their own lives to cancer.

Don't you think that it is extremely frustrating for doctors to have patients come in that could have been cured with relative ease had they come in a year earlier, but now that the cancer has progressed to an advanced stage, their chances of survival are much slimmer? And of course they're not blaming the quacks for delaying the potentially life-saving treatment, they're getting pissed off at "big pharma" for not being able to cure their tumors now that they're metastasizing all over their bodies.
 
True well said. There has been a lot of cancer in my blood line. My father had leukemia and needed a bone marrow transplant. Lucky my aunt was a match. He has been in remission now for 24 years. But he had a lot of ups and downs. The doctor said at one point he only had a 20% chance of living. I remember he had tried some kind of experimental cell bomb I forget the actual name of it. But I think it was supposed to go in and just destroy certain cells. Idk but I’m gonna ask him about it. My cousin is suffering from cancer throughout his is lungs, pelvis, and upper body.
But that is just two of many many people in my family who have suffered.
I bought a biochemistry book at the thrift store the other day. My main concern with big pharmaceutical are the side effects. A lot of a time even after you stop, you still have side effects. I don’t like that bayer and Monsanto merged and are working with marijuana. I want to protect the seeds of the world and have organic plants thrive in bio mycelium natural soils.

 
Mikeybd27, if only you'd taken an interest in biochemistry earlier and had pursued a career in science instead of the inept clowns doing it at the moment. We'd surely then have a cure for cancer by now!

Maybe even one that grew naturally in massive fields of "bio mycelium natural soils".

8)
 
Mikeybd27, if only you'd taken an interest in biochemistry earlier and had pursued a career in science instead of the inept clowns doing it at the moment. We'd surely then have a cure for cancer by now!

Maybe even one that grew naturally in massive fields of "bio mycelium natural soils".

8)
Ha! None sense! LOL.
On the other hand does anyone know what this is RedDot™1 Far-Red Nuclear Stain, 200X in H2ORedDot™1 is a far-red cell membrane-permeable nuclear dye similar to Draq5™. The dye is ideal for specifically staining the nuclei of live cells.
 
Ha! None sense! LOL.
On the other hand does anyone know what this is RedDot™1 Far-Red Nuclear Stain, 200X in H2ORedDot™1 is a far-red cell membrane-permeable nuclear dye similar to Draq5™. The dye is ideal for specifically staining the nuclei of live cells.

It is a dye used to mark the nucleus ("nuclear" as in the nucleus of a cell, not nuclear as in "radioactive") when doing biochemical/molecular biological research on cells.
"Far red" means the colour is on the very edge of the visible spectrum, where red transitions into infra-red.
"cell membrane permeable" means it can pass through the cell membrane.
And apparently it is especially well-suited for experiments on living cells.
 
Top