So, apparently there is a drug for Alzheimer's that works but has not been on the market for 30 years.

[Maraya1969]

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Smells like bullshit to me.

[Warpy]

5. The guy sounds like he went about things bassackwards

Most drugs whose patents are sold to big pharma don't pan out. Early trials in healthy human beings turn up unacceptable side effects or mid trials in sick people don't work.

Either he hasn't wanted to sell his patent to a big drug company capable of doing all the heavy lifting because he wants to make all the profit himself, or drug companies have looked at his data and were unimpressed.

[Maraya1969]

26. Why don't you read these studies before you say, "bullshit". They are small yes, but significant.

https://academics.utep.edu/LinkClick.aspx?link=Moss+et+al.%2c+1999.pdf&tabid=73107&mid=167024

https://academics.utep.edu/LinkClick.aspx?link=Moss+et+al.%2c+2013.pdf&tabid=73107&mid=167024

[Warren Stupidity]

43. My wife's mother and aunt both died from this disease.

this is woo of the worst sort.

[madokie]

2. As Warren said

this sounds like bullshit. Emphasis on the Bullshit part, btw

[Maraya1969]

27. See post #26. Right above you.

[madokie]

30. To start with they weren't there before I replied

[1-Old-Man]

3. Yep, and Detroit squashed the patent for a carburetor that gets 200 MPG back in the '50s.

[In_The_Wind]

7. Not at all surprising.

Detroit squashed the patent for a carburetor that gets 200 MPG back in the '50s.

Think how much healthier this planet would be now.

[indianjoe3295]

11. sure they did....

The "mileage" any vehicle is capable of getting depends on many factors. The fuel delivery system, engine design, vehicle weight, gearing,...even Gasoline formulation. For example,...you can't take a 300hp engine design of the 60's and strap a "200MPG" carb on it and get that gas mileage. They probably stalled on implementing more efficient designs because of retooling costs,...but 200MPG,....nope !

As for this drug,...it sounds phony too.

[heaven05]

17. there

are engines that can run on water, so 200 mpg, maybe not, but 100 more than likely.

[bvar22]

37. There are NO engines that "run on water" in its natural, liquid state.

Any engine that "runs on water" must rely upon a serious Energy Input device of some sort first,
like converting it to steam,
or using electrolysis to separate the Hydrogen from the Oxygen atoms,
or elevating the water to a higher elevation,
which means that the engine is NOT "running on water",
but running on the energy put into the water from an external source.

Despite what you have heard, NO engine "runs on water".

[MattBaggins]

45. But Hyde said it on That 70s Show

[heaven05]

47. oh

you again. I don't believe you and never will.

[bvar22]

48. Well, keep banging on your head.

You'll kill more of the few remaining brain cells,
and I've heard that entering the completely vegetative state is accompanied by a sense of peace. Keep it up, you're almost there.

I will repeat:

*There are NO engines that "run on water" in its natural liquid state on planet earth,
and there will NEVER be. Some type of energy input to the water is required before it can "run" anything else.

*The 200mpg carburetor that can be bolted on to your gas guzzler is also a complete MYTH.

As much as I would love to believe those myths,
the Rules of Physics still apply on Planet Earth, if not in the dimension where you currently live.
.
.
.
.
but DO keep on hitting yourself in the head.

[heaven05]

52. Hey

like I said, even if what you say is right, I don't waste too much time with mean spirited individuals that TRY to make themselves look smarter at the expense of others. I DID NOT ask you to repeat anything. You are an individual that deserves everything you get. I don't like you here, so in person I would probably and on your shoes. So yes, I shall ignore you from now on. No matter your snide remarks.

[In_The_Wind]

18. One can only hope for better things for all of us.

[Maraya1969]

28. You are stating that the engine design was the same as all the others back then. It would

obviously be very different, hence the patent.

[Turbineguy]

51. 200 MPG

Gasoline has a specific gravity of 0.739 and a calorific of 23,500 BTU per pound. 1 HP equates to 2545 BTU. 200 MPG would be 694.66 btu/mile. That's about 1/4 of a horsepower in a 100% efficient engine. Walking would be faster.

[elias7]

33. Not really the same thing. No incentive to maintain status quo on Alzheimer's

Not every golden goose that comes down the pike lays golden eggs. Not this drug, and probably not the carburetor either.

[jmowreader]

40. I've looked into this carburetor

It relies on "low vapor pressure" gasoline, which evaporates very easily. Basically, put a bowl of gas on top of your engine, wait till it boils, then scavenge the steam and put it in the engine.

They haven't made that kind of gas in decades, and they only made it in winter. Most of us don't want cars you can't get fuel for.

[Codeine]

4. Published in the respected, peer-reviewed journal "YouTube."

That's where ALL the major medical breakthroughs of our day are found.

[FSogol]

23. Is there a video about the water-based solution you can add to your carburetor to get 100 MPG?

I heard the oil companies and the gubermint kept us from having it.

[Maraya1969]

29. Everyone is so cynical! Read post #26 or the other one with the studies of this drug perhaps first?

[SidDithers]

6. Well, if it's on YouTube, it must be true...

Sid

[tridim]

8. Cannabis?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/cannabis-may-help-reverse-dementia-study-20130206-2dxsk.html

[MattBaggins]

46. Smoking pot cured my anal warts

[reusrename]

53. Did you have to "inhale?"

http://jackbrummet.blogspot.com/2011/08/etymology-lesson-blowing-smoke-up-your.html

[Overseas]

9. Methanesulfonyl Flouride MSF -- here is an article from UT El Paso bulletin

http://newsuc.utep.edu/index.php/latest-news-2/933-former-utep-professor-crowd-funds-to-get-promising-alzheimers-drug-on-the-market

Donald Moss, Ph.D., former professor of psychology at The University of Texas at El Paso, has started the company Brain-Tools to get a safer, more effective drug to Alzheimer’s patients to help improve and prolong their memories and delay symptoms.

Only recently retired, Moss identified methanesulfonyl fluoride, or MSF, during the 1980s at UTEP as an ideal treatment for Alzheimer’s. Studies have shown it is three-to-five times more effective than all Alzheimer’s drugs currently out on the market, with far fewer side effects.

Today, some 30 years later, the drug has still not made it to patients.

[bananas]

10. Their website is brain-tools.com

https://brain-tools.com/

[thesquanderer]

12. What a cheesy looking site (n/t)

[MineralMan]

13. Begging for dollars.

[NJCher]

21. I would be concerned about a graphically stunning site

That's what the scam artists do--the good ones, anyway.

I know 'cuz that's what I used to do: work for big pharma making slick looking web sites.

This site looks like it was put up by a couple scientists who needed a site and who don't necessarily have the contacts or want to spend the dough for a full-blown professional site.


Cher

[rusty fender]

35. And you are a movie star and singer!

I really thought that you were the singer/star Cher. I thought she was from NJ also.

[timdog44]

14. I'm not sure if this works

or not. But this kind of thing sure brings out the skeptics. I don't think I have ever seen any of these same skeptics come out when the big pharmaceutical companies bring new drugs on the market that kill thousands of Americans or citizens of what ever country they happen to be using as their guinea pigs. As soon as the patent on the methane sulfonyl fluoride runs out I can guess who will pick it up. The wealthy have the patience to wait these things out.

Just imagine if this is true. And then imagine all the people who have been affected by this disease. FDA good. Mongo bad. An open mind is an intelligent mind. I, for the life of me, can not understand the reliance on modern American medicine and the demeaning skepticism of anything else. I am tired of having to have sick care be the standard. Health care is the model we should be striving for and showing skepticism for other modalities and life style changes to effect good heath is self defeating.

[Orrex]

34. If something other than "modern American medicine" is demonstrated to work, that's great!

Let's see the evidence for such medicine, and I for one will happily accept it.

I have never encountered a skeptic who has dug in his or her heels and denied an objectively demonstrated phenomenon. The problem appears to be that proponents of a given phenomenon (psychic abilities, "alternative" medicine, etc.) maintain a much lower standard of evidence and react with hostility when this fact is pointed out. Similarly, I have never encountered a skeptic who denies that pharmaceutical companies have released products that later turn out to have negative health consequences, though skeptics do often point out that such consequences may be statistically rare.

By "lower standard of evidence," I refer to anecdote and personal testimony, rather than to the higher standards of evidence such as empirical analysis and reproducible observation.

Sometimes a proposed phenomenon is rejected outright as a hoax if the phenomenon is weakly supported and if the truth of the phenomenon would invalidate a great volume of well-established understanding. Other phenomenon require belief in a nefarious conspiracy to suppress the phenomenon, and this also triggers suspicion in many skeptics, in part because that's exactly how snakeoil has been marketed for centuries--by claiming that "the government" or "big pharma" or "big oil" doesn't want us to know about this-or-that phenomenon. Also, when laypersons use the word "modality" in discussions of the failings of western medicine, it's usually a sign that something fishy is going on.

In short, if a new and revolutionary phenomenon is put forth as true, it is up to the proponents of the phenomenon to demonstrate it. Skeptics are right to doubt, because it would simply be irresponsible to accept these extravagant claims (100 miles per gallon of water, secret Alzheimer's cures, etc.) without strong supporting evidence.

[timdog44]

36. I can accept what you say.

Skepticism also belongs in the corner of those of who are skeptical of the FDA and big pharma.

But if the ability of a common substance can do a cure it should be pursued. The connection between cannabis and the possibility of curing or aiding in the cure of cancer has been well documented. And that documentation always starts with anecdotal evidence. And so the skepticism I have is that it is not profitable for big pharma and so they will not do the research. Anyone with a patch of dirt and a seed can grow cannabis. The same can not be said for manufactured pharmaceuticals.

You always catch me on your signature line. From the very first post I made until now. Clever. I like them.

[Orrex]

39. Very true about natural substances

We need to be conscious of safety ("Mmm... Death Cap mushrooms look delicious&quot and legality ("officer, I'm growing this for personal medicinal use&quot , but you're correct that common or natural substances shouldn't be overlooked for their therapeutic benefits.

Skeptics tend to be especially skeptical about claims that the healing powers of Common Substance X are being suppressed, or that Common Substance X has some incredibly powerful but suppressed benefit. It's not that these are impossible; it's just that these claims need to be well substantiated before we can embrace them.

And thanks for the kind words about my sigline!

[timdog44]

41. I guess one other situation

that gets forgotten is when modern American medicine is stopped in it's tracks. They have nothing else to offer. There is Alzheimer disease that they have nothing to offer. There are a number of cancers they have nothing to offer. They have an impressive 5 year survival rate on a number of cancers, but what are the six rates. And the "skeptical" substances could be use as an adjunct. And so in these cases safety is not a priority. But I still understand what you say.

Me personally, if I have a diagnosis that I know will come to no good end with the American way of sick care, I will be elsewhere.

[Orrex]

42. That's an entirely legitimate concern

If medicine has reached an impasse, it's entirely natural to seek other solutions. Skeptics seldom begrudge people the option to explore alternatives, but when such alternatives are put forth as superior or definitive, that's when skeptics cry foul.

A desperate person who has exhausted the possibilities of conventional medicine might gain some comfort from an alternative treatment even if that treatment offers no actual benefit, and that's fine. But that person's testimonial might inspire another person might try that alternative procedure in preference to actual medical treatment. That's their right, of course, but it's dangerously irresponsible to provide (or to act on) such testimonials in the absence of solid evidence.

[HappyMe]

15. Good grief!

Because YouTube is a great source for all things medical.

[CanSocDem]

16. More evidence...

...for the slow-learner, that "free-market" medicine is more interested in treatment as opposed to an actual cure.

.

[heaven05]

19. i am

sure that the filthy lucre is at the bottom of this. The loss of PROFIT drives every discussion, at the corporate level, when it comes to something that would truly help humankind with our diseases and such. I am sure there have been plenty of health aids squashed because they would take away corporate profit. Those margins are everything and damn the human suffering.

[Maraya1969]

25. Thank you! Because that is what the point of this is. And all the people who just brush

it off as a hoax haven't looked into the site or the drug or the studies.

The point is the guy wants a damn patent and so potentially millions of people have not been able to take a drug that would have helped them in the last 30 years because he wants his money.

[whatthehey]

20. This is mine. So THAT's where I left it! As I get older my memory ain't so good.

[timdog44]

31. My mother and my mother-in-law both suffered with Alzheimer disease. I know what

it is like. I don't even wish this on you. Not funny. Especially when we are talking about something that could arrest or even cure this worst of all diseases. To see someone know that something is wrong, and then the frustration of knowing they can not do anything about, to the point of sitting down next to my mother and her not knowing who I am. Or sitting with my mother-in-law and having her ask me to move a little further away as she did not realize who I was. Then it is not funny. And if there is anything out there with the remotest possibility of helping, and not being able to get to market with it, is infuriating. Drug companies have poo pooed many good cures because of the non profitability of same. Drug companies are money grubbers who don't care how many people they kill as long as they can show share holders the $$$$. I do not own any drug company shares to the point of selling most mutual funds that are invested in them.

[NJCher]

22. there are two studies at the links on his site

Here are two journals with studies on MSF:

https://academics.utep.edu/LinkClick.aspx?link=Moss+et+al.%2c+1999.pdf&tabid=73107&mid=167024

https://academics.utep.edu/LinkClick.aspx?link=Moss+et+al.%2c+2013.pdf&tabid=73107&mid=167024

I have not yet read the studies, only scanned them. There are others.

I'm not so sure I would classify this guy as a scammer so quickly.

It's pretty evident that our system for developing drugs does not serve people well. It only serves investors well. So why is it such a stretch that a potentially promising drug could fall through the cracks, especially now that its patent time is nearly up?


Cher

[plcdude]

24. they probably

forgot about it.

[timdog44]

32. You are

not in the remotest, cute. Do you make fun of cancer? Or AIDS/HIV? Or lung diseases?

[bvar22]

38. I certainly hope this is true,

...but over the years we have heard so many claims of new drugs or treatments
that can stabilize or reverse the effects of this horrible disease
that have turned out to be just hype that it is hard to put faith in this one.

[Spike89]

44. Let's be consistent on demonizing "big pharma"

First, there is no company called big pharma--big pharma is a collection of very competitive pharmaceutical companies.

The claim that "big pharma" fears natural substances is absurd. Bayer, one of the poster children for big pharma, made its initial fortune off a herbal remedy that it easily extracted from willow bark (aspirin). There are 1000s of patent drugs made from natural sources such as poppies, cod liver, coca, etc. If the federal government allowed it, they could have prescription-grade, dose-regulated cannabis in the drug stores tomorrow, in chewable tablets, liquid form, and possibly in patches. They'd make tons of money, just like they do with everything else they can convince the government to allow them to sell.

Capitalist pharma isn't without its real drawbacks (research focuses much more on chronic treatments for common maladies than cures). That doesn't mean they won't take the money (and great press!) from selling a cure if they stumble upon it--especially if a competitor owns the patent for the current chronic treatment.

I'm no friend of big heartless corporations and I very much feel it would be a healthier world if pharmaceutical companies were much more heavily regulated, but they are fiscal entities, not supernatural evil creatures. They can always be counted on to follow the money, and there is tons of money in natural remedies that work.

[siligut]

49. The Feuerstein-Ratain Rule

The rule basically states that a company's Phase III trial will be a failure if the trial is cancer related and the company has a market capitalization of under $300 million with 120 days or less to go before the data release. This rule has been researched for over 10 years and is 23 for 23 so far, basically a 100% success rate for investors who follow this rule. Additionally, companies that have a pending Phase III but have a market capitalization of at least $1 billion have a success rate of 78%.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1329651-3-biotechs-and-the-feuerstein-ratain-rule?source=yahoo

So, from this it can be construed that the FDA favors big pharma in the approval of drugs as well. And in that this 'rule' regards cancer treatment, which stands to be very lucrative for its company, we can agree that money is a concern. However, I must disagree with your statement that there is tons of money to be had in natural remedies that work. Unless it can be patented, any money to be made will be shared among competitors.

[Spike89]

50. Easy enough to get a patent

Willow bark was used for thousands of years as pain relief. Patents were given not only for packaging it into a pill, but multiple patents were given for everything from adding red dye and sugar (children's versions), adding caffeine, even putting a coating on the pill that makes it easier to swallow.
Pharmaceutical companies would (and have) gotten patents on many natural substances that they tweak into a manufactured product--sometimes the product is even inferior to the natural substance, but doctors will prescribe (and patients will pay for) the less effective manufactured version because it is dose-controlled, screened for quality/effectiveness, and less likely to be adulterated.