On 30 Sep 1995 07:20:20 GMT,
Stevejoe <stevejoe at qconline.com > wrote:
>>Well, it seems our good friends at nih.gov are irritated by our discouse...
>I guess they haven't got the guts to post so all can see - so they would
>rather email me for harassment.
>>Let's get something staight here - we are talking about toxicity in regards
>to neurotoxins as well as possible side effects such as cancer. I got into
>this discussion because I am interested in neurological problems and I am
>not the one who initiated this breast implant topic.
>
Many of the medical questions which come up on the Internet, even
those posed by lay people, involve subjects which are poorly
understood scientifically and the subject of intense controversy
within the medical and scientific establishments themselves. (This
is why the questions arise in the first place.)
To expect such questions to be quickly resolved or even scoped out by
a couple of "off the cuff" answers by the particular professionals who
just happen to be reading the news group that day is expecting more
than the system can possibly deliver. And when it involves possible
legal liability the probability of getting a straight answer declines
even further.
Toxicology falls into this category - much of the traditional
material in this field seems valid, but there are many outstanding
questions regarding the mechanisms by which the human body responds to
toxins. DNA repair, while necessary to LARGELY eliminate random
errors in copying which arise even in the absence of toxins, is just
one mechanism. Some of the other mechanisms are at the systemic
level, not just the intracellular level, and these are VERY poorly
understood.
One enigma, where it is not even known conclusively that toxins
are involved, is Parkinson's disease. There is a known toxin
which can cause neural death in the substantia nigra similar to PD,
but the pathogenesis of PD itself is still unknown. The most recent
twins data shows zero concordance in identical twins, which increases
the circumstantial evidence for environmental factors.
Unfortunately, a conventional education in medicine concentrates
on what is already known, or believed to be known, to the point
where it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that almost
everything is well understood, and that only a few minor details need
to be cleared up. This situation is aggravated by the mindset of the
medical profession, which is that physicians should always be
prepared to deliver an unequivocal answer to any question. A reply
such as "Sure beats the hell out of me!" is a definite no-no!
AJR
