Anything on Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
kerrr at CRYPTIC.RCH.UNIMELB.EDU.AU
Tue Aug 15 01:45:10 EST 1995
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950814190601.15513A-100000 at noel.pd.org>, Betty
>Martini <betty at noel.pd.org> wrote:
>> You asked for references. I gave you references on IGF which supports
>> that the insulin growth factor is the regulator of cancer.
the only regulator? regulates what? growth or differentiation? neoplasia?
>I'm sorry, those references say no such thing. What do you mean by "the
>insulin growth factor is the regulator of cancer"? Do you mean that no
>other growth factor is implicated in cancer? That is simply not true. In
>one of your previous posts, you said a great deal about insulin-like
>growth factors (not, incidentally "the insulin growth factor"), and
>attributed things to them that have little basis in fact.
..and here I am thinking to myself that there is more than one IGF and
there is more than one growth factor around that supports growth of
neoplastic cells in as many different models as you care to name..
I find it hard to believe that IGF supports every single type of caqncer
ever found. In addition, Betty quoted me a New York Times article that
said 100% of people over 50 have cancer. This was later clarified to
thyroid cancer that had been arrested. How does the body arrrest a cancer
? I would be more interested in talking about that than IGF & world
domination , although this is a neurosci group.
>The reason I take issue with you has very little to do with BST, but
>rather the fact that you are taking other people's work out of context and
>using it to support ideas that are extremely questionable, such as the one
>I quote above. If I were one of the researchers concerned, I would be
>extremely upset if my work was being used to suggest, as you suggested,
>"IGF, the powerful growth factor, lights the fuse. IGF releases those
>controls. When scientists look closely at cancers they see enormous
>amounts of IGF. I believe that IGF initiates the process of the
>enormous replication of cancerous cells. IGF then continues to
>aid in the rapid growth of that tumor."
again, no backup. all cancers? you must be exagerating. Enormous amounts of
IGF. emotive spamming doesn't convince anyone except maybe the author.
>> You asked for references on IGF and they didn't seem to satisfy you. Are
>> you saying - "No evidence will satisfy me"? If you're not interested in
>> this discussion then go to something else but don't prevent the public
>> from being informed.
oh really.......Betty the food additive crusader saves the world. Again
you jump to the conclusion that anyone who is not with you is against you,
then infer that they are preventing the public from being
informed.....arrogance in the extreme.Who gave you the right to arbitrate
debate Betty the very sin that you accuse the big boys of doing whilst they
are poisoning us & taking our money, pets, house tra lal la.....
emotive statements do not convince your audience neither do they contribute
to sifting the wheat from the chaff.
>My concern is that you are *not* informing the public - rather, I would
>suggest that you are muddying an already complex field by making
>unsubstantive claims. I am not suggesting for a moment that you are doing
don't be so sure bucko
I just think it is dangerous to make sweeping
>statements about things that one is not absolutely sure of.
>> It just happened that before this subject ever appeared in this newsgroup
>> I had been discussing it.
I heard this excuse connected with a crackpot creationism thread that you
spammed onto a while ago. put up or shut up.
You see, they said that BST was not active -
>> after all, they gave it to dwarfs in the 50's. We decided to go back to
>> the 50's and find out what happened to the dwarfs who used BST. They got
>> this disease and died. Robert Cohen said - and now we could see it in
>> the population. The next day a note appeared in this newsgroup asking
>> about this disease!
I wonder who posted the note? anyone that you may know ;-)
>> Many times I could have added to the discussions. They were talking
>> about body builders using this stuff. They already did by injecting
>> themselves - they got large areas of necrosis in their thighs. I didn't
>> add that or somebody might have wanted references for that too.
>This again illustrates both my point. What is causing the necrosis?
anything does, if you shoot saline into a muscle for long enough, you'll
see this effect. Good call though.
>have no idea - you assume it is BST. What caused the subjects in the 50s
>to die? Again, you have no idea, but assume it was BST. I don't know
>either (although in the case of the growth hormone experiments, the
>evidence would suggest a prion disease) - but I am not jumping to
no, youre not Andy. I like your suggestion, as I'll bet that the GH stuff
was from pituitary extracts from cadavers. This ties in with a lot of "slow
viruses" that are found in animal models & these critters haven't been
hitting up with BST or IGF into their thigh muscles.
>Division of Biology, 216-76
>California Institute of Technology
More information about the Neur-sci