In article <3uhp80$eub at usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
John T. Robicheau <Robicheau at DrugInfoNet.Pharm-Epid.Pitt.Edu> wrote:
>ataylor at superior.carleton.ca (alex taylor) wrote:
>>In article <3ufasv$79g at usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
>>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 pitt.edu (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
> > >> -- 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
> > > 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>
ataylor at ccs.carleton.ca