Monsanto's Round Up May Provide Cancer Treatment

[angelatc]

OK, so the title should not say Monsanto, and Round Up should actually be called glyphosate. But since that's what the anti-science crowd does, I guess I should do it too. Like speaking French in France.

Anyway - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749059/

Glycine is a nonessential amino acid that is reversibly converted from serine intracellularly by serine hydroxymethyltransferase. Glyphosate and its degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), are analogs to glycine, thus they may inhibit serine hydroxymethyltransferase to decrease intracellular glycine synthesis. In this study, we found that glyphosate and AMPA inhibited cell growth in eight human cancer cell lines but not in two immortalized human normal prostatic epithelial cell lines. AMPA arrested C4-2B and PC-3 cancer cells in the G1/G0 phase and inhibited entry into the S phase of the cell cycle. AMPA also promoted apoptosis in C4-2B and PC-3 cancer cell lines. AMPA upregulated p53 and p21 protein levels as well as procaspase 9 protein levels in C4-2B cells, whereas it downregulated cyclin D3 protein levels. AMPA also activated caspase 3 and induced cleavage of poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase. This study provides the first evidence that glyphosate and AMPA can inhibit proliferation and promote apoptosis of cancer cells but not normal cells, suggesting that they have potentials to be developed into a new anticancer therapy.

 

[Working Poor]

You know of course that the non essential amino acids are the ones your body makes right?

 

[Kelly.]

great glysophate can cause and fix cancer, thanks mr. science*!



science isnt a person.
it describes a system that proposes questions and answers THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION.
sad to see those that worship the all mighty word of "science" as if they are never wrong.
oh hi flat earthers, come one in and we will cure cancer with a herbicide.

 

[angelatc]

great glysophate can cause and fix cancer, thanks mr. science*!

No scientific body has concluded that glyphosate is a carcinogen.

science isnt a person.
it describes a system that proposes questions and answers THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION.
sad to see those that worship the all mighty word of "science" as if they are never wrong.
oh hi flat earthers, come one in and we will cure cancer with a herbicide.

This is just s single study, it isn't a new protocol. And it could very well be entirely wrong, that's why they use words like "suggesting" and call for more studies in the conclusion.

Don't be so afraid of progress!

 

[Kelly.]

Don't be so afraid of progress!

better living through science, amirite??

 

[angelatc]

better living through science, amirite??

History seems to support that theory in spades, my friend.

 

[Kelly.]

History seems to support that theory in spades, my friend.

continue to worship the cult of science, i will continue to think for myself.

 

[angelatc]

continue to worship the cult of science, i will continue to think for myself.

Sure, nobody is saying that questioning your every belief consistently is a bad idea. But I'm not sure that's what you're doing. Reaching a conclusion then looking for evidence to support it is only a good methodology if you are consistent enough to acknowledge the evidence that does not support your conclusion. When the over whelming body of evidence is that you're wrong, you have to be willing to change your position.

Ideologues don't do that.

 

[Kelly.]

Reaching a conclusion then looking for evidence to support it is only a good methodology if you are consistent enough to acknowledge the evidence that does not support your conclusion.

both sides write off opposing "science" as fake/industry funded/not long enough/to long etc etc... i do it, you do it, pretty much everyone does it.

this is why i want to debate what/why YOU think it is right/wrong.
in your words, not links to science articles/data.

 

[angelatc]

both sides write off opposing "science" as fake/industry funded/not long enough/to long etc etc... i do it, you do it, pretty much everyone does it.

I have never seen anybody except the anti-GMO crowd dismiss a study because of the funding source.

this is why i want to debate what/why YOU think it is right/wrong.
in your words, not links to science articles/data.

Why do you think it is acceptable to write off a study based only on the funding source?

 

[Ronin Truth]

And if that doesn't work, at least it's good to know that you won't have weeds.

 

[Kelly.]

im not going to respond to you picking one of the things i said, applying it to one side as a fact.

i dont trust most studies, regardless of funding source. that said, yes i do think funding source alone is enough to write off study results.
i think that scientific questions can be posed in such a way to favor a desired result. i also dont trust peer review either.

do you think monsanto would publicly release a report that showed one of their top products cause harm?
would that be in the shareholders interest? does that protect shareholder value?

 

[angelatc]

im not going to respond to you picking one of the things i said, applying it to one side as a fact.

But I am supposed to accept everything you say as fact? You made an observation. I agree that it's wrong to discredit a study based on funding alone, but I have never seen a pro-GMO article that discounts an entire body of work based only on that single criteria. That is indeed a fact.

i dont trust most studies, regardless of funding source. that said, yes i do think funding source alone is enough to write off study results.
i think that scientific questions can be posed in such a way to favor a desired result. i also dont trust peer review either.

do you think monsanto would publicly release a report that showed one of their top products cause harm?
would that be in the shareholders interest? does that protect shareholder value?

OK, you you don't understand enough chemistry and biology to be able to make an informed opinion based on the science. That's something you can overcome, but you'll have to work at it.

No, I don't think Monsanto would share a report that proved one of their products was harmful. But that's why the independent scientific organizations across the globe all run their own experiments. For example, just because the FDA approves a chemical here doesn't mean that it is automatically approved in any other nation. It has to pass rigorous testing in ever first word country that wants access to it. It also has to stand up to testing by opponents, and science students who would love to make a name for themselves, and also by the consumers who use it and see the results firsthand.

That's how science actually reaches a conclusion. It takes decades of research, testing, and publication and weighs the entire body of evidence until the results weigh very heavily on one side of the scale.

 

[donnay]

im not going to respond to you picking one of the things i said, applying it to one side as a fact.

i dont trust most studies, regardless of funding source. that said, yes i do think funding source alone is enough to write off study results.
i think that scientific questions can be posed in such a way to favor a desired result. i also dont trust peer review either.

do you think monsanto would publicly release a report that showed one of their top products cause harm?
would that be in the shareholders interest? does that protect shareholder value?

That's it! --The science behind most of these studies have huge conflicts of interest, when you dig a little deeper. Any independent study or research that comes out against that interest is demonize and discredited immediately. It's the equivalent as the government investigating some kind of wrongdoing with a government investigation. The Fox are guarding the hen house.

I, frankly, do not trust any of these so-called studies and peer-reviewed either because of those methods.

 

[angelatc]

Any independent study or research that comes out against that interest is demonize and discredited immediately. .

That's just not true. Pretty much the opposite is true, really. The leftist media picks it up and trumpets it as fact, and by the time the scientists get around to fact-checking the paper, the public is already firmly committed to believing a lie.

You are pretty much the very embodiment of that, actually.

 

[donnay]

That's just not true. Pretty much the opposite is true, really. The leftist media picks it up and trumpets it as fact, and by the time the scientists get around to fact-checking the paper, the public is already firmly committed to believing a lie.

You are pretty much the very embodiment of that, actually.

You have to start to understand that analogy by looking into a mirror first.

Examples: Vioxx, Phen-Fen, Baycol, Avandia--etc. The studies were all skewed and then covered up--people died.

 

[angelatc]

You have to start to understand that analogy by looking into a mirror first.

So you don't know what an analogy is, either.

Examples: Vioxx, Phen-Fen, Baycol, Avandia--etc. The studies were all skewed and then covered up--people died.

If studies were covered up, why were those products pulled from the market?

 

[donnay]

So you don't know what an analogy is, either.





If studies were covered up, why were those products pulled from the market?

Because just like Agent Orange evidence became overwhelmingly harder to deny the cancer connection, the 60,000 deaths, from Vioxx (for example) became harder for them to cover up.

Critics describe the rise and fall of Vioxx as a cautionary tale of masterful public relations, aggressive marketing and ineffective regulation. "The FDA didn't do anything," says Eric Topol, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. "They were passive here."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says the FDA was worse than passive. Investigators for the Senate Finance Committee, which Grassley chairs, met Thursday with FDA researcher David Graham, lead scientist on a study presented in August at a medical meeting in France.

The study, an analysis of a database of 1.4 million Kaiser Permanente members, found that those who took Vioxx were more likely to suffer a heart attack or sudden cardiac death than those who took Celebrex, Vioxx's main rival. Based on their findings, Graham and his collaborators linked Vioxx to more than 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths nationwide from the time it came on the market in 1999 through 2003.

Graham told the finance committee investigators that the FDA was trying to block publication of his findings, Grassley said in a statement. "Dr. Graham described an environment where he was 'ostracized,' 'subjected to veiled threats' and 'intimidation,' " Grassley said. Graham gave Grassley copies of e-mail that appear to support his claims that his superiors suggested watering down his conclusions.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-10-12-vioxx-cover_x.htm

 

[Kelly.]

No, I don't think Monsanto would share a report that proved one of their products was harmful. But that's why the independent scientific organizations across the globe all run their own experiments.

ahh, i see. where we differ is on what we consider to be independent scientists.

 

[Kelly.]

If studies were covered up, why were those products pulled from the market?

what about the time after they were proven safe, but before the time they were pulled from the market?
is it possible that you are using science to prove something is safe, as was the case BEFORE the product was pulled off the market?

regardless of people dieing, im sure there were people who quoted science as this product being totally safe. and i am sure the science backed it up.
again, if you go frame the question right, you can massage the results.