Food Additive TBHQ May Protect from H7N9 Bird Flu

Weird. TBHQ seems to stop H7N9 from infecting lung cells. TBHQ is an antioxidant used as a preservative for vegetable oils and edible animal fats. Not sure what I think about this - except is shows they're getting desperate. Kinda plays like the push on statins as an anti-inflammatory flu remedy back in 2005/07.

tert-Butylhydroquinone (TBHQ, tertiary butylhydroquinone) is an aromatic organic compound which is a type of phenol. It is a derivative of hydroquinone, substituted with tert-butyl group.

TBHQ is a highly effective antioxidant.[1] In foods, it is used as a preservative for unsaturated vegetable oils and many edible animal fats.[2] It does not cause discoloration even in the presence of iron, and does not change flavor or odor of the material to which it is added.[1] It can be combined with other preservatives such as butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA). As a food additive, its E number is E319. It is added to a wide range of foods, with the highest limit (1 gram/kg) permitted for frozen fish and fish products. Its primary advantage is enhancing storage life.

It is used industrially as a stabilizer to inhibit autopolymerization of organic peroxides. It is also used as a corrosion inhibitor in biodiesel.[3] In perfumery, it is used as a fixative to lower the evaporation rate and improve stability. It is also added to varnishes, lacquers, resins, and oil field additives.

...At higher doses, it has some negative health effects on lab animals, such as producing precursors to stomach tumors and damage to DNA.[6] A number of studies have shown that prolonged exposure to high doses of TBHQ may be carcinogenic,[7] especially for stomach tumors.[8] Other studies, however, have shown opposite effects including inhibition against HCA-induced carcinogenesis (by depression of metabolic activation) for TBHQ and other phenolic antioxidants (TBHQ was one of several, and not the most potent).[9] The EFSA considers TBHQ to be non-carcinogenic.[4] A 1986 review of scientific literature concerning the toxicity of TBHQ determined that there is a wide margin of safety between the levels of intake by humans and the doses that produce adverse effects in animal studies.[10]

Food Additive TBHQ May Protect from Avian Influenza Virus H7N9

“The recent H7N9 outbreak in China this past March had a mortality rate of more than 20 percent. That strain, which is new, is already showing resistance to the majority of existing drugs used to treat it. The need to develop new antiviral therapeutics now is crucial,” said senior author Dr Michael Caffrey from the University of Illinois.

...TBHQ is an effective antioxidant. It is used as a preservative for vegetable oils and edible animal fats. its E number is E319.

“The additive attaches to the Achilles’ heel of the virus – a loop-shaped portion of hemagglutinin necessary for binding to cells, making cell infection impossible. The loop on the hemagglutinin molecule represents a new therapeutic target, since existing drugs don’t go after it.”

“Any drugs that focus on the hemagglutinin loop would be totally novel to flu viruses, and so resistance, if developed, would still be a long way off.”

...They found that TBHQ was able to prevent the virus from infecting human lung cells in the lab.

The researchers are now looking for ways to enhance TBHQ’s ability to prevent infection.

reply to post by soficrow


Give it a year or so and they are bound to say it causes cancer.

reply to post by Tsu322


Duh. They already did. From my quote above: A number of studies have shown that prolonged exposure to high doses of TBHQ may be carcinogenic.

Not to be disrespectful.

here is a study on that chemical's safety. www.inchem.org... It doesn't look that toxic to me in small doses, and it is a WHO study and not an American study which means that it is probably more reliable.

So we just have to make sure we eat some Chicken McNuggets when the flu is around. Not only do their hamburgers last forever, their McNuggets can help fight the flu

I was trying to find the basis for that chemical, I think it was in some sort of pitch or pine needles, I researched that quite a while ago. It may have been when I was looking up spruce gum or pine needle tea.

reply to post by rickymouse


That study is from the FAO, a branch of WHO I don't really trust. Also, it's from the 1960's and incomplete.

FURTHER WORK OR INFORMATION

Required by 1978.

Appropriate studies on reproduction using tertiary butyl
hydroquinone in mixtures with propylgallates.



* Temporary.

reply to post by rickymouse

and it is a WHO study and not an American study which means that it is probably more reliable

ROFLMAO - haven't such a good laugh for a long time.

Really? More reliable? Who do you think WHO is? They might ostensibly be in Geneva, but they are run by Americans, as everything is UN, NATO etc. Just another arm of the US controlled PTB.

Enough of it is in foods already as trace preservatives.

Any more such as in a supplement of any kind, and research indicates people will have widespread allergies, dermatitis, luekoderma, and even cancer as a result.

reply to post by PuterMan


When it comes to investigating food additives, Who is a lot better. They are trying to reduce health care costs in those countries, healthcare is not as big a percentage of their economy as it is here in the USA. There is research from colleges and other organizations here in the USA but it seems to be ignored by the ones who make the regulations governing additives. Profit and sales usually take precidence over overall safety. I studied how the regulations are made, little testing on long term effects is done or required by the FDA or the companies.

I do a lot of research from many organizations around the world. Even though WHO is influenced by business interests, they are a lot more strict on some chemistry that is known to have negative effects. Here in this country, it seems people are more worried about carcinogens than compromised liver and kidney function. It is easy to consume other foods that neutralize the carcinogenic effects of others. Yet the medical industry does not tell anyone that even though they are aware of it. Neither does the health or pharma industry. I suppose since we didn't pay attention to our parents or grandparents when they showed us how to cook and plan a meal, we don't deserve to be told. We choose foods now that make us feel good. I am not complaining about McD's either, some of the veggies we are told are good for us are only good for half the population. If you can afford a specialist in Metabolism full time to work in the kitchen with your cooking staff, you could probably live without being sick. An old and experienced specialist, one who has experienced reality.

If your liver and kidneys work properly and detox the body you do not get sick as often or as bad. This includes cancers because if your body stays strong you fight cancer when it is tiny and easy to kill.

reply to post by rickymouse

you could probably live without being sick. An old and experienced specialist, one who has experienced reality.

Long time coming back to you - apologies.

I think I do live without being sick. I rarely get colds (and I am tempting fate I have no doubt). Nothing wrong with me in my life except pneumonia once and the usual childhood illnesses.

Virtually all our food is fresh and cooked as I was taught by my Mother and I don't have a specialist in Metabolism full time to work in the kitchen with my cooking staff of 2 (Me and the Mrs)

Oh and I use lard to cook and eat butter, don't get 'low fat' or 'no fat' anything (although that is getting more and more difficult) and refuse to have anything with aspartame or saccharin in it. Those products contaminated with artificial sweeteners never get across the doorstep.