|
|
Post by agedhippie on Sept 6, 2016 21:50:57 GMT -5
I remain curious----why do agedhippie, matt, now sophie. etc all reply in concert, and to date, have never posted a single reference to a link, an article, a source for verification?
Just wondering, saying--- Most of my posts are based on personal experience so it's difficult to cite articles in support.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 23:53:18 GMT -5
mnkd.proboards.com/post/78324see link above. I'd be happy to explain anything that you felt needed a source. I believe matt has said he was a ceo of a small biotech, not sure what agedhippie's story is. I've acquired my knowledge over time from school and work experience. To be honest, most of what I know has become second nature such that I don't even know what's common knowledge and what's not. I would rather not hunt down links to prove my knowledge, but I may try to do so, depending on what is asked. Some things may be easier to find than others. Some things may be the application of my knowledge. If you read my link above, sometimes links are hard to find that will not only be reliable but also encapsulate the exact point I'm trying to convey. I will do my best. You must be new to the internet? Or perhaps even new to voicing your opinion, stating claims, information, etc...? Did you acquire any factual information within your knowledge? That had a source? If you cannot FIND a source of your "knowledge", then perhaps your "knowledge" needs serious help in that department. Look at my posts. I provide sources. I also state IMO or blantantly state I am speculating. I have provided more sources than all three of you: you, matt, and agedhippie. Providing a source doesn't have to mean it is a fact that you are sharing, half of the stuff I write includes factual sources with factual information, but I will write about things that are just MY opinion, and STATE it. Please feel free to provide sources for all the posts I have called you on to back up your "knowledge". People that research a ton and share/read information with others very often, whether factual or speculation, are use to having to provide sources. I am basically saying you are full of it. |
|
|
|
Post by avichen on Sept 9, 2016 0:04:46 GMT -5
hey hey... I'm no medical expert but just a T2D patient, all I know is non that I know of get lung cancer using inhaled medication, and I have 2 person that I knew died of lung cancer bcoz they were healthy but extremely heavy smokers. and that settles it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 1:32:08 GMT -5
I remain curious----why do agedhippie, matt, now sophie. etc all reply in concert, and to date, have never posted a single reference to a link, an article, a source for verification?
Just wondering, saying--- Most of my posts are based on personal experience so it's difficult to cite articles in support. So you worked with MannKind, LLC? How did you known anything about MannKind, LLC if you did not? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 2:26:19 GMT -5
I remain curious----why do agedhippie, matt, now sophie. etc all reply in concert, and to date, have never posted a single reference to a link, an article, a source for verification?
Just wondering, saying--- Besides, I'm not sure why I'd have to explain any of what I said to an MD. Right?  mnkd.proboards.com/post/67100Yes, actually, you should be even more prepared to proved a source to an MD or DO. They want to read something beyond the opinion of an arrogant "know it all" that cannot provide any sources for anything other than a past post of their opinion. Even me, a mere layman, wants you to provide one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 3:31:13 GMT -5
A substance doesn't have to have a direct cause and effect relationship (i.e. cigarette smoking) to increase the incidence of cancer. There are numerous biological signaling pathways in the human body, too many to list, and some of those control apoptosis (programmed cell death) which control which older cells will die so that they can be replaced by healthier young cells. Apoptotic pathways can be upregulated to downregulated by an equally numerous set of proteins, peptides, and other signaling molecules, and without large and longer-term studies it is impossible to exclude the possibility that any particular drug or delivery method, if different from what nature intended, will not increase the incidence of cancer. At the end of the day without high quality data from long-term trials EVERYBODY is just guessing. Interesting. What probablility then would you say that now, in 2016, that cannabis has direct links with cancer, since, ...ever? I haven't forgotten about your statements and views of the FDA. You can bet I will call you out on it all soon. With plenty of sources. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 14, 2017 18:33:05 GMT -5
A substance doesn't have to have a direct cause and effect relationship (i.e. cigarette smoking) to increase the incidence of cancer. There are numerous biological signaling pathways in the human body, too many to list, and some of those control apoptosis (programmed cell death) which control which older cells will die so that they can be replaced by healthier young cells. Apoptotic pathways can be upregulated to downregulated by an equally numerous set of proteins, peptides, and other signaling molecules, and without large and longer-term studies it is impossible to exclude the possibility that any particular drug or delivery method, if different from what nature intended, will not increase the incidence of cancer. At the end of the day without high quality data from long-term trials EVERYBODY is just guessing. Interesting. What probablility then would you say that now, in 2016, that cannabis has direct links with cancer, since, ...ever? I haven't forgotten about your statements and views of the FDA. You can bet I will call you out on it all soon. With plenty of sources. Weehaw cannabis and apoptosis. and apoptosis regulation. quote: and without large and longer-term studies it is impossible to exclude the possibility that any particular drug or delivery method, if different from what nature intended, will not increase the incidence of cancer reply: there have been long term studies on this already. Look how many people in our society have smoked pot since the 60's. The studies have been done. Just the conclusion needs to be written. A medical expert and market expert in one. weehaw.
|
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Mar 14, 2017 18:52:39 GMT -5
Is that even how cancer develops or spreads? Your reasoning seems very generic and non-scientific based purely on assumption. It will not cause a cancer, and it will not help it spread. What it may do is help it grow. Given a pre-cancerous lesion what you are doing is introducing a growth factor into an existing situation where you really do not want things to grow and become established. Think of it like watering a plant - if it's just barren soil no amount of watering will make a plant suddenly appear, but if there is a plant there watering it will keep it alive and now you are adding Babybio in the form of insulin to help it grow. One of the reasons I avoided Januvia is because the mechanism it uses to reduce your blood sugar inhibits the mechanism the body uses to clean up pre-cancers. I believe that you came up with this argument of growth factor before. So you do not feel rebutted but the combination of tiny concentration and short residence time? To stay with your metaphor: very small amount of water that basically does not get to the roots at the plant. No plant can survive into that. |
|
