Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
The research was done in 2007, and the people who did the research have complaints that nobody is taking interest.
How is what you just wrote any sort of reflection of the truth of this situation, or any sort of adequate response to what I wrote? I'm not
criticising anyone for not revealing research at this stage (if people are researching now, that's great)
I'm drawing attention to the fact that the people who conducted the original research are complaining that other researchers/ Big Pharma/ governments
aren't taking this seriously.
My second post was more directed at the fact that you are somehow of the opinion that because you haven't heard about it, it must be some sort of
cover up. Scientists are not obliged to shove all of their findings into main stream media. Asides from the fact that such a thing would be unfeasible
and a waste of time, we have specialised outlets for publishing our findings called scientific journals. If you want to know what's happening in
science, then that is where you look.
Both mainstream and alternative media have an annoying habit of sensationalising small findings before the researchers have had a chance to allow
their research to come to fruition - counting the chickens before they've hatched. You will always see articles about how person X has found that
such and such has had an effect on disease Y and how much of a 'breakthrough' it is. The reason you so rarely hear much more than that is because
a.) media fails to follow up on it (likely because of how long it takes to generate more findings) and b.) one thing or another happens over the
course of the proceeding research that makes its use as a therapeutic agent unfeasible.
Besides - most researchers will provide an outline of current projects via the administrative centres responsible for maintaining their
research organisation? So again I say, your argument is more or less moot, and essentially another made-up nonsense which has no general basis in
Most, but not all. Some research groups do projects that are commercially sensitive and are bound by contract to not discuss their nature with
virtually anybody. The group I work with has a number of such projects. If you look at the web site of any given research group, they will generally
have an overview of the areas they are interested in with a list of relevant publications. Occasionally, they will also have a list of current
projects, often for the purpose of providing information for prospective students.
As for the comment about my post having no basis in reality: in fact one could conjecture that my opinion is far more valid than yours since a.) I
have a degree in science, with major in chemistry (specialising in medicinal chemistry) and b.) am an active post-graduate level researcher within a
university laboratory. As a consequence of a.) and b.), I have a greater insight and level of experience in these matters, which in turn lends a much
higher degree of credence to my opinion of this work and whether or not it has been stifled by the government than you appear to. So in fact my
argument has quite a large basis in the reality of science and medical research.
You constructed a false argument in a knee-jerk backlash. Probably over-sensitive that your made-up nonsense about the non-patentability of
compounds had been called out.? Not best to counter such accusations with more made-up nonsense.
Made up? I take it you didn't look up the patent numbers I quoted? I agree that the compound itself cannot be patented - it's quite a common
molecule and has been known for quite some time. It would be analogous to trying to patent water. However, the treatment can and has been patented.
The only legitimacies for the premise and aims of research not being shared at the outset of the research involve situations where the topic
being investigated might have something to do with national security, or a product/ process/ compound etc that can be used to make money at the
end of it all. Corporate advantage and all that.
Or, if it is in some way Mengelian, and thus shameful/ politically or legally risky to reveal.
More or less. Compounds/processes/technologies that are commercially sensitive will never be revealed until they have secured a patent.Then there are
those that are trade secrets, etc. More often than not, the commercially sensitive projects are those that are intended to end up on the market.
Overall, my point is this: There is no coverup. Since 2007/2008, this paper has been cited over 200 times. As a comparison, I recently read an article
related to my thesis regarding the nature of hypervalent bonds. This particular paper was one of the two papers to first describe what is now a
commonly accepted model for hypervalent compounds. It was published in 1969 and since than has since been cited nearly 900 times. The original paper
in this instance has been around for only 3 or 4 years and already has approximately one quarter of the number of citations as the 1969 paper I am
referring to. It is quite impressive, to say the least.
As well, there have been subsequent studies published by the same group. Multiple, if I am not mistaken. Surely if this was a government cover-up,
they would have been stopped shortly after the first publication? Not only that, but their research has had independent articles published about it by
magazine, as I mentioned in my initial post.
And then of course there is the fact that their treatment has made it into phase II clinical trials. Considering that most lead compounds fizzle out
before they so much as get a look in for phase I and further considering that their study would have to of been government approved, the theory that
the government is hiding their findings seems rather unlikely, wouldn't you think?
So many times I see these threads here about how 'bad' various chemicals and drugs really are for you and about how various
corporations/scientists/doctors are plotting to kill people with these dangerous and 'not properly tested' drugs. That's all well and good - I'm
not here to argue for or against the dangers of presently available medicines. What I have a problem with is when those same sorts of people then go
and issue threads about how some 'medical miracle' is not available to the public despite having had various research articles publishing its
benefits without any real understanding of why it's not being marketed to them. The reason these things take so long (around 15 years from start to
finish as someone else mentioned - not to mention the millions of dollars) is simply because of the rigorous testing that any potential therapeutic
candidate has to be subjected to before it go go anywhere near a person. It strikes me as ironic that people complain about the dangers of modern
medicine and how ill-tested they are while at the same time complaining about what essentially amounts to the fact that researches spend a significant
amount of time making sure drug-candidates do what they are meant to without any severe side-effects. You cannot have it both ways.