Anything on Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

alex taylor ataylor at
Wed Jul 19 11:27:30 EST 1995

In article <3uhp80$eub at>,
John T. Robicheau <Robicheau at DrugInfoNet.Pharm-Epid.Pitt.Edu> wrote:
>ataylor at (alex taylor) wrote:
>>In article <3ufasv$79g at>,
>>John T. Robicheau <Robicheau at DrugInfoNet.Pharm-Epid.Pitt.Edu> wrote:
>>	Actually, I did some checking and both BST and IGF1 are in fact
>>orally active. Casein was found to exert a protective effect. The point of
>>dispute seems to be over the level of the hormones in the final product
>>and if there are concerns that these hormones are carcinogenic.
>and we know what side you are on.
What side is that? Lets's stick to the substantive scientific issues.

>>to me that there are concerns and that a *responsible* scientist would not
>>be so swift to dismiss them.
>levels of IGF1 are not dangerous. I did the same reading.

Apparently not everyone agrees on this point.
>Yes you are suspicious aren't you?
>No, I don't work for a drug company. As you can see my
>email address ends in (University of Pittsburgh)
	Yes but who *funds* the drug information net? A university email
postcript is hardly demonstrative of independance. I know many graduate
students funded by the private sector. As I understand it there is fairly
hefty corporate funding in your department at your university. Was this
impression wrong?

> > >> -- an industry that has a
>>very poor track record when it comes to public safety. Montsanto in
>But Monsanto isn't a drug company.
	They hold the patent to RBSt, they make RBSt, RBSt is a drug,
therefore Montsanto is a drug company (in addition to being involved in
the agribusiness and the chemical sector) -- and they *still* have a poor
track record on issue of public health with respect to the
safety of their products, regardless of how you would like to quibble about
irrelevant definitions.

> > > Maybe if you were to identify
precisely what your >>relationship with Montsanto or Eli-Lilly is?
>maybe you could enlighten us to where you were when JFK was shot?
	In addition to being rather boring, remarks like the one above
contribute nothing to the discussion of the substantive scientific issues
relating to the safety of the product in question. I have cited a
discussion in the literature which you claim to have read. Do you have a
reply to the concerns of the authors in question? As it stands it seems
that the British group has had the last word on the subject -- and that
was a year ago. I also note that the EEC has placed a moratorium on the
use of RBSt until the year 2000, so obviously the science and health
policy advisors in Europe are taking the position of the British group
seriously. I found the claims of the Brits relevant and the research that
Montsanto had presented to be quite sloppy -- in fact I was amazed that
the Montsanto paper in Science was even published (especially in Science).
I guess all that money and influence go a long way.

 > > > >--  > > > > >Music is the cry of the soul. F.Delius
>John <Robicheau at DrugInfoNet.Pharm-Epid.Pitt.Edu>
Alex Taylor
ataylor at

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list