layton Posted December 3, 2003 Posted December 3, 2003 Agreed. That, and Nanotechnology! Did you hear about the nanotechnology using gold plated glass balls that can be attached to macrophages (or something...was trying to drive in snow during this part) that when stimulated with low energy pulses of light, will heat up and destroy cancer cells (attached and metasticized). Preliminary Rat studies have been hugely successful and COMPLETELY gotten rid of the cancer, even 6 months after!!! Human research will begin in 6-12 months. They're even thinking about doing this PROACTIVELY so you don't even develop cancer. Smoke em if you got em. We still have to worry about inclusion bodies, oxidation, and possibly our DNA clocks. Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 4, 2003 Posted December 4, 2003 michael_layton said: Agreed. That, and Nanotechnology! Did you hear about the nanotechnology using gold plated glass balls that can be attached to macrophages (or something...was trying to drive in snow during this part) that when stimulated with low energy pulses of light, will heat up and destroy cancer cells (attached and metasticized). Preliminary Rat studies have been hugely successful and COMPLETELY gotten rid of the cancer, even 6 months after!!! Human research will begin in 6-12 months. They're even thinking about doing this PROACTIVELY so you don't even develop cancer. Smoke em if you got em. We still have to worry about inclusion bodies, oxidation, and possibly our DNA clocks. I used to work for a company that was trying to use Yttrium 90, a strong beta emitter, to kill cancers. The Y90 was chelated to a molecule containing biotin. Antibody to receptors found on the cancer cell was cloned to have a strepavidin site on it. Give the antibody to the patient. The AB binds to cancer cell. Then give the Y-90/biotin. The biotin binds to the avidin and hence the Y-90 to the cancer cell. The cancer cell is toast. Normal, healthy cells aren't killed because they don't have the receptors. Too bad the project was killed for lack of money, because it worked. There were patients who had failed up to 6 different kinds of treatments. The were some who had complete responses who otherwise would have died within a few months. Quote
LUCKY Posted December 14, 2003 Posted December 14, 2003 Tried it for a year , spent a bunch of money,It did nothing for my bad knee. I also did not note any other good results SNAKE OIL ??? Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 14, 2003 Posted December 14, 2003 There are many knee problems for which one would not expect glucosamine to have any effect. Torn ligaments are an example. Quote
mothboy88 Posted February 6, 2004 Posted February 6, 2004 A consumer group did a survey of glucosamine/chondroitin products sold in places like GNC and found that many formulations did not contain the advertised amounts of the active ingredients. Perhaps the FDA doesn't check up on such products if they're sold as "supplements". I'd do some research before rushing out to Costco or whatever and picking up a 55-gallon drum of the cheap brand. Regarding inconsistant dosages - My father, who happens to be a MD for what its worth, says that the best brand he knows of for glucosamine is actually the kind that they sell at Costco. Sorry, I can't remember the name. Apparently its imported from Germany where supplements and herbal stuff are supposed to be regulated much like the FDA regulates pharmcueticals in the US. He concurred with your info Slothrop and said the quality control of the domestic stuff is terrible. Quote
mothboy88 Posted February 6, 2004 Posted February 6, 2004 There are many knee problems for which one would not expect glucosamine to have any effect. Torn ligaments are an example. Also, glucosamine has not been shown to be effective with pain related to alien embyros that are gestating in one's knee. Quote
miller Posted February 6, 2004 Posted February 6, 2004 good info - thanks everyone. reading through this thread, ive heard a lot about knees and ankles. has anyone used it to help shoulder/elbow tweaks (especially shoulder)? cheers, todd Quote
Dru Posted February 7, 2004 Posted February 7, 2004 michael_layton said: Agreed. That, and Nanotechnology! Did you hear about the nanotechnology using gold plated glass balls that can be attached to macrophages (or something...was trying to drive in snow during this part) that when stimulated with low energy pulses of light, will heat up and destroy cancer cells (attached and metasticized). Preliminary Rat studies have been hugely successful and COMPLETELY gotten rid of the cancer, even 6 months after!!! Human research will begin in 6-12 months. They're even thinking about doing this PROACTIVELY so you don't even develop cancer. Smoke em if you got em. We still have to worry about inclusion bodies, oxidation, and possibly our DNA clocks. I used to work for a company that was trying to use Yttrium 90, a strong beta emitter, to kill cancers. The Y90 was chelated to a molecule containing biotin. Antibody to receptors found on the cancer cell was cloned to have a strepavidin site on it. Give the antibody to the patient. The AB binds to cancer cell. Then give the Y-90/biotin. The biotin binds to the avidin and hence the Y-90 to the cancer cell. The cancer cell is toast. Normal, healthy cells aren't killed because they don't have the receptors. Too bad the project was killed for lack of money, because it worked. There were patients who had failed up to 6 different kinds of treatments. The were some who had complete responses who otherwise would have died within a few months. If it worked so good why coiuldn't they attract any venture capital hmmmm Quote
Ade Posted February 7, 2004 Posted February 7, 2004 If it worked so good why coiuldn't they attract any venture capital hmmmm Just because something doesn't get VC funding doesn't mean it's not a good idea. There are plenty of good businesses that VCs cannot or will not fund and plenty of bad businesses that have gotten funded. Quote
Mtguide Posted February 7, 2004 Posted February 7, 2004 (edited) According to research stated in the book Optimum Sports Nutrition by Michael Colgan,the Twinlab brand of supplements has consistently been shown to be the most reputable and trustworthy maker of supplements.If the label says that their Joint Fuel contains 750 mg of glucosamine sulfate per capsule,that's what is actually found in the analysis,time after time. I've used Twinlab's Joint Fuel for over 10 yrs,and it's definitely made a difference for me(shoulder and knee joints).At times I've tried other brands,and have actually noticed that many were not as effective.Nature's Way and Nature's Life are two other brands that seem to be full strength,or accurate regarding what they claim the content of their products to be.Natural Factors is one brand I have found not to be trusted. I've also heard about glucosamine sulfate being tied to elevated cholesterol levels.Anyone else have any personal experience or further info on this? Edited February 7, 2004 by Mtguide Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.