Reptile & Amphibian Forums

How far we have come....

~SoBeK~
=============================================================

Scientists prepare to turn fiction into fact with first full-face transplant

Tim Radford, science editor
Thursday May 27, 2004
The Guardian

US scientists are preparing to perform the world's first full-face transplant. The 24-hour operation involves lifting an entire face from a dead donor - including nose cartilage, nerves and muscles - and transferring them to someone hideously disfigured by burns or other injuries.
A team at the University of Louisville in Kentucky has submitted a 30-page request to the university's ethics committee, New Scientist reports today.

Peter Butler, a surgeon at London's Royal Free Hospital, called for a debate on the procedure in 2002. The Royal College of Surgeons urged caution and decided last year that, for the time being, the risks outweighed the possible benefits.

But John Barker, leader of the Louisville team, told New Scientist: "Caution by itself will not get us any closer. If Christopher Columbus were cautious, I'd probably be speaking with a British accent."

Faces have been replaced before. In 1994, a nine-year-old child in northern India lost her face and scalp in a threshing machine accident. Her parents raced to hospital with her face in a plastic bag and a surgeon managed to reconnect the arteries and replant the skin.

There have been similar successes in the US and Australia. Hands have been transplanted, as well as thighs and knee bones, and a one-month-old baby girl survived a hand and arm transplant. Transplants of kidneys, lungs, hearts and other tissue are now routine: the only constraint is a shortage of donors.

But a full-face transplant - of the kind used on Nicolas Cage and John Travolta in the science-fiction thriller Face/Off - is a bigger challenge. More than 30 muscles are involved in facial movements - it takes 17 muscles simply to smile.

Surgeons would need to save not just the donor's skin - from hairline to jawline and from ear to ear - but also the nose, mouth and lips, eyebrows and eyelids, subcutaneous fat, some of the muscles, the nasal substructure and the nerves.

Then they would have to painstakingly reconnect all of this to someone rendered almost unrecognisable by burns or scarring. The recipient would then require a lifetime's supply of immunosuppressive drugs to maintain the new face.

Some burns victims have had more than 50 skin-graft operations to rebuild faces that they believe to be still hopelessly disfigured. Surgeons argue that whole-face transplants would produce better results.

New Scientist worked with a television company, Mentorn, and an animation firm to conduct a "virtual transplant", stretching the facial skin of a virtual donor over the bone structure of a virtual patient.

Appearance is dictated not just by skin, but by bone structure, and surgeons are not sure how closely a reconstructed face would resemble a donor's at the end of the operation. The technical challenges are huge. So are the ethical dilemmas.

"The main problem in these people is coming to terms with their new appearance. And they'd have to come to terms with a new appearance anyway. So why are you doing it? If they have to come to terms with a new identity they may as well come to terms with their altered identity as with someone else's identity," said Peter Rowe, chairman of the ethical committee of the British Transplantation Society.

"Then there is the disfigurement of the potential donor. One has a duty to respect corpses. They were once living people and one should treat a corpse with respect. All these things are arguable, but they are likely to cause profound disquiet among a substantial sector of the population, we feel."

Wow!!
This is cool!

Isnt technology wonderfull? We have progressed so far and done so much in such a short period of time.............
Cloned sheep?
Cloned rats?
Mebbe a cloned human or two?
Or some stem cells from babies?
And organs to harvest a-plenty?

We are now Gods. We can create (sic) life. We can cause death.

And it is all governmentally legal and approved!

Its a wicked world we live in, where living children needs are ignored..where old people that have worked their whole lives are homeless...and children go to bed without any food...where veterans are treated like dirt and the mentally ill are put in prison and then released upon the streets after their sentence is served.

BUT.........we have FULL FACE TRANSPLANTS now!!

Hallelujiah (Can I get an amen?)

Fred Albury

If true...the impact could be tremendus.

I knew a man many years ago who had lost his face to a fire. Lisening to his calm attractive voice I was glad for his sake that he had been blinded and so was spared the horror that his face had become.

That was 31 years ago and the man may well be dead. I think the help that replacing a ruined face can give, the salvage of a ruined life has value. Think of the others who are disfigured that this could help.

That makes the research important.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

np
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

What's really sad is all the alarmists. One group of alarmists says one thing, another group says another, and the public throws money at them.

First they say we have many children starving in the US. Then they say we have an obesity epidemic because more than 60% of the children here are over weight? Make up your minds please? Are they too fat from over-nutrition or are they starving? Ever seen those "children go to bed hungry" commercials? Every kid in the commercial is chubby, to say the least!

At least spending lots of money on new technologies (like face transplants) leads to advancements that will make other things cheaper for the rest of us.

Rodney

Point well taken. This new technology could be a true boon to those that have been burned and disfigured because of fire or industrial injury. In that way it is a blessing.

The implications of its use for less "honorable" means still exist, however.

So, this technique could prove a true Godsend to those that have suffered greatly, and for that Rearfang is entirely right and I am entirely wrong.

As far as Cloned Sheep, Rats, Mice, and Stem Cell research involving the use of human embryos..I am against it. Thats MY opinion. A LOT of money is thrown at these procedures while people in this country still starve.And are homeless.

Yes...the typical American diet is FULL of Saturated fats and cholestorol as well as sodium and hormones. And the statistics show that American children by and large ARE obese.....but thats NOT from eating good healthy food. You can get fat from eating high sodium foods, macaroni and cheese, fast food items, and even high carbohydrate diets which are cheaper to purchase(Potatoes, bread) and also milk products which arent necessary for anyone but baby cows.Filler foods.

But....if you think that for one minute that because the diet here STINKS, that a ton of American children don't go to bed without food, don't eat breakfast, don't have good lunches and live in deplorable conditions or are homeless themselves...than you have your head stuck in the sand....in your nice comforatable home......watching the images on CNN or ABC.

Heres a partial list of the atrocities that occur in this country, even as we spend BILLIONS of OUR tax dollars on this war to enrich the ALLREADY wealthy:

*Homelessnes: The amount of year round shelters is miniscule, leaving men, women and yes CHILDREN to fend for themselves on the streets. Women and their children are often the victims, deposed from their homes by an abusive spouse. Winter shelters have a limited window time period. But every year around Thanksgiving and Christmas shelters open and there seems to be food aplenty for all people. Afterwards it returns to its same deplorable, embarassing state.

*Mentally Ill: Thousand upon thouand of these people were released from instituitions in the early 1990's, to fend for themselves on the streets. Only to be incarcerated later on at the tax payers expense. Victimized in prison, and not undergoing compentent treatment, their condition only worsens, and then they are released and thrust BACK on society again.. left for police to deal with. And the cycle continues.

*Vietnam Vets: What can be said about this? Recently President BUSH actually CUT Veterans Benefits. Go figure. In a time of war, we are going to "honor" our brave fighting men, who sacrificed for this country by CUTTING THEIR BENEFITS? B.T.W, this includes Gulf War vets also, who came back with Gulf War Syndrome, which was swept under the rug by the government. Vietnam Vets make up a large portion of the homeless, the drug addicted and the mentally scarred people in our society. We honor them by not seeing them, we step over them on sidewalks, look the other way when they ask for change. Pathetic. Wrong. No honor.

*Elderly: Cutbacks in Social Security, Medicare, and Programs to feed and house the Elderly have left many to either become homeless, or live on shoe string budgets and have a choice betwen eating properly and paying the rent. These are the disposable members of our society, along with children, and we show it in the callous disregard that we have for their well being, and for funding programs to help those that need it. Families often DO NOT take in their elderly parents nowadays, either because they can't afford to, or (Disgracefully) becaue they dont want to be "Burdened " with the responsiblity. Again...totally Pathetic. Wrong.

*Children: Cutbacks in School funding, despite George Bushs promise of "leaving no child behind" occur daily. Teacher layoffs, cutbacks in Teachers assistants and old, antiquated books, delapidated classrooms with roofs that leak in the winter, as well as a pupil to teach ratio of 30-40 to 1 leave many children severly compromised when it comes to their learning, as well as leaving teachers and admin stressed. Health care for children is still lacking, as well as affordable housing for them and their parents. Every year, you see more and more FAMILIES with children at Homeless shelters. A society can be judged by how well it takes care of its children and its elderly...this one FAILS on both accounts.Again.....truly pathetic and wrong.

I leave you with these quotes from Dr.Martin Luther King Jr:

"There are those who say that withdrawl{from the war} will affect our nations security....How secure can a nation be when it is losing major battles in its OWN cities, while capturing remote villages in a distant land at a huge expense of the loss ofhuman life and immense financial cost"

"We are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill one Vietkong, while we begrudgingly appropriate a few dollars to feed a starving child in America"

Sincerely,

Fredrick Albury

....Except I polietly disagree on the subject of stem cells. This is another area where some major medical advancements are possible.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Vietnam Vets make up a large portion of the homeless, the drug addicted and the mentally scarred people in our society.

While this is true, they are a large portion due to their total numbers, it is not really accurate. Vietnam vets are over represented (compared to the general population) when it comes to income, business ownership, home ownership and a few other good things. They are under represented (again, compared to the general population) when it comes to drug addictions, mental health, homelessness, and some other bad things. I don't know if it was their military training, that tought them decipline, that influenced their success, or the softness of the general public that caused the general public to have more problems, but what you stated is a myth. They are doing better than the general public on average. While they are not doing as well, compared to veterans of other wars, they are doing better than the general public is.

While I don't think Bush should have cut vet. support. I have a couple of questions about this fact. First, there are about 1,100 vets. that die every day from old age. (Just saw this fact on the news, because of memorial day) Was this cut actually a total dollar cut on vet. benefits, to account for the decrease in the number of living veterans, or a per person cut? Considering the reduction in the number of vets. that remain alive today, a cut in total spending on them could actually still be an increase in spending per person.

The other problem is hormones. This is also a myth. Hormones are a protein! When we eat them, they are destroyed and only enter our blood stream after they are broken down into smaller molecules. (When was the last time you were concerned about the protein molecules in your meat? I can't eat that fish, I will grow gills! -LOL) The only way they could effect us, is if we inject them directly into our blood stream before they are broken down! And they are so complex and specific in their action, that they wouldn't even effect us unless they were human hormones anyway. And farmers wouldn't be using human hormones on their livestock, because this hormone wouldn't work on farm animals! Hormones used on cattle for instance, are only injected into the animal's blood stream, because they will not work if placed in the feed. Farmers would much rather place them in the feed if possible, because it is a lot easier and less work intensive.

As for our diet, I think it has far more to do with our sedentary "soft" lifestyle than with out diet. Most sedentary people on a diet that you would consider "healthy" will become obese, while most active people on a diet that you consider "unhealthy" will have good weight, heart rate, cholesterol, etc.

I eat what you would consider "crap". Fast food (McDonalds, Pizza, etc.) at least 6 times a week and Potato chips, cookies, etc. regularly! I probably eat vegetables only about two to four times a week, and fruits very rarely--maybe once a month. And guess what, I have very low cholesterol (last check was at 154), and am fairly thin (5'10" and 165 lbs.). I attribute this to the fact that I only eay once or twice a day, and I am on my feet most of the day. If I sat at the computer all day, ate more frequently, etc. I am sure I wouldn't be in nearly as good of shape. I am a little over 40 and people think I look like I am in my mid 20's.

I don't think diet has nearly as much to do with it, as genes and exercise.

As for the poor, did you see what someone at the "average" poverty level (and receiving govt. benefits) lives like, according to the govt.? They own 2 cars, a home, work 10 hours a week, have cable TV, multiple color TVs, air conditioning, etc. If a lot of kids aren't eating, it's because money is being wasted on comfort items, or the parents are lazy. ($10 will buy a lot of rice!--but it won't buy 1/10 of what a lot of parents will spend on a good pair of tennis shoes)

Rodney

First of all as a Vietnam era vet....Thankyou! (I feel so displined). I have only one request....buy my new novel so I can kep up with this successful average (my income sucks).

Bush cutting veteran benifits is SO TYPICAL. Our country only pays attention to those they need at the momment. I'd trade my bad Knee anytime for the pittance I recieve for it.

The trouble with statistics is once again they are very good at dehumanizing people and placing us in neat little packages where we can be ignored better (ah...that felt good to write).

Actually I think you need to go back to the drawing board on the hormone issue. I went to my uncle on that, who is a retired Microbiologist (University of Boston). He said "Any Protein no matter how it is absorbed by the body will have an effect."

Anyone involved with bodybuilding is aware for example, that HGH (human growth hormone) causes dramatic changes in your body, so you are correct there.

Steroids are really a bigger issue on this. They have huge positive...and Negative effects. I have a death in my family to prove that one. And they inject those in cattle! And yes, steroids that are injected or fed to food animals can retain a degree of effectivness even after someone eats a steak from such a animal.

As for poverty...Come on down and take a walk thru some of our "Luxury happy" poor peoples homes. Sorry but thay might be the case in California, but here kids go to bed hungry and barefoot...without TV and games.

Most of them couldn't read your statistics....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Apologies for the typos....I am wealthy enough to have a dictionary....just too lazy to use it when I'm not writing (lol)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Actually I think you need to go back to the drawing board on the hormone issue. I went to my uncle on that, who is a retired Microbiologist (University of Boston). He said "Any Protein no matter how it is absorbed by the body will have an effect."

Steroids are really a bigger issue on this. They have huge positive...and Negative effects. I have a death in my family to prove that one. And they inject those in cattle! And yes, steroids that are injected or fed to food animals can retain a degree of effectivness even after someone eats a steak from such a animal

While I agree that any protein will have an effect on the body, proteins are broken down into amino acids in the stomanch/intestines. Different types of proteins (like fish vs. foul vs. mammal vs. vegetable) will end up with different breakdowns. Sure, a particular type of protein with more alanine and less glycine will have a different effect on the body than a protein that has less alanine and more glycine. But once broken down by digestion, all the body sees are the animo acids. It doesn't know if the alanine came from fish, fowl, cow, hormones, or beans. And large complex molecules, like hormones, will be first broken apart into smaller protein molecules and eventually into the amino acids. Once that hormone molecule is broken, in any way, it is no longer that hormone any longer! It is something else. And then consider amounts. For instance, a 800lb cow may have only 5gms. of hormone injected into it during it's life. A lot of the hormone is "used up" by metabolic processes. Now you slaughter the cow and get, lets say, 400lbs of meat, and 400lbs of waste. If you then break down 400 lbs of meat into 400 lbs. of amino acids, and the 1 remaining gm. of hormones that were injected into 1 gram of amino acids, do you really think that there is a noticeable effect from the slightly different mix of amino acids in that paltry 1 gm. of animo acids mixed into the 400 lbs of amino acids? Please ask your uncle about this when you see him.-- (Are hormones digested into amino acids? Does the body know the difference between some amino acids that come from hormones vs. meat? Are hormones ever given by any other method than injection?)

As for steroids, that's another issue, and I was not aware of them being used on feed animals (except for vetrinary/injury reasons). I also am not aware of their digestibility. If they are not readily digestible like hormones, that is indeed a problem. I am aware of injectible hormones being used regularly in feed cattle, because it is cheaper to get an animal to a certain weight with feed and hormones than it is with feed alone. I am pretty sure you can buy injectible bovine hormones over the counter even. (I get livestock catalogs that sell them, but I can't remember if a prescription is needed or not.) I do remember that the hormones sold do say that they only work on cattle, or that they only work on equine. (there are equine growth hormones as well--like horses aren't big enough!). If a equine growth hormone won't work when injected into a bovine, do you really think they would work on humans? And if they don't work on us when injected, do you really think they would work when ingested?

As for HGH, yes, it does work. But it is by prescription only, it is very expensive, and it is injectible only. I have never heard of any hormone that could be taken orally, due to the digestion problems stated. They are all injected. (This really ticks me off, all these wacko "health food" companies that make and sell this stuff to the gullible public in pill form, and make a fortune off something that can't possibly work.)

Rodney

Uh...Rodney. Steroids are Ammino acids....and they definitly affect the body-even secondhand.

Need I say more?

More later...Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

am printing out your respomnse so that I can show it to my uncle...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

rodney sayz, "The other problem is hormones. This is also a myth. Hormones are a protein! When we eat them, they are destroyed and only enter our blood stream after they are broken down into smaller molecules. (When was the last time you were concerned about the protein molecules in your meat? I can't eat that fish, I will grow gills! -LOL) The only way they could effect us, is if we inject them directly into our blood stream before they are broken down! And they are so complex and specific in their action, that they wouldn't even effect us unless they were human hormones anyway. And farmers wouldn't be using human hormones on their livestock, because this hormone wouldn't work on farm animals!"

Which is about as wrong as one can get. We inject HCG - Human Chorionic Gonadotropin in frogs which induces reproductive behavior. The human hormone in fact, has an immediate and profound effect on the amphibian. So clearly hormones are not necessarily species specific.

I really don't have time to correct all the wrong stuff rodney says here. Suffice it to say you would be advised to double check all of his assertions. He seems to be so bogged down with ideology that the facts tend to escape him.

Some types of hormones are species specific and some types of hormones are not species specific.

We were talking about hormones in our food, and I was talking about how this is a myth. The synthetic hormones that are in our food are growth hormones.

Growth hormones are species specific!

We were not talking about other classes of hormones that are not injected into our food, nor non-species specific hormones. We were talking about growth hormones in our food. Trying to change the subject at hand, and arguing about a non-related tangent area, makes you look foolish once again. Unless your diet is largely consists of frog leggs from artificially cycled frogs, that have been treated with hormones and then injected directly into your blood stream, I don't see how this is relevant in any way.

And besides that point, once ingested, our stomachs and intestines use acids and enzymes to break down complex molecules into amino acids so they can then be used by our bodies. Once a hormone is ingested, it will not have any effect on our systems, other than the fact that it is food. (unless you have an ulcer or something, so it can actually have direct access to your blood without being digested first.) Do we really care that a cow we are eating was in estrus, so it has natural hormones in it's meat? Or a bull in rut? If ingesting hormones really effected us, we would have hundreds of natural, effective aphrodisiacs! All we would have to do to get a real aphrodisiac effect, is eat animals that were slaughtered while in heat, and full of sex hormones! If we have never been concerned about natural hormones in our food, or seen any effect from them, why would we ever care about man made ones?

I really don't have time to correct all the wrong stuff rodney says here. Suffice it to say you would be advised to double check all of his assertions.

That's really funny. You have plenty of time to misrepresent what I have said, time and time again, and you can't disprove what I have said, now all of the sudden you don't have time to disprove anything I have said? How about just one thing? What have I said that is wrong? Everything you have argued that I am wrong about, or that I have "made up" has been an argument you made based on something we weren't even talking about. Yet, I have always backed up my statements with evidence, when asked. Yet you are unable to provide any evidence to substantiate your side on any subject.

You continuously tell people to only listen to left wing television and radio, and to ignore the right. If you take your own advice, I can see why you are so misinformed. I tell people to listen to both sides, then do some more investigating on their own, and to then use common sense to make up their mind. So who is the biased one? The person who wants one side to be silenced, or the person that wants both sides to be heard, so people will make informed decisions?

I'd offer almost the same advice to anyone who reads pulatus's posts. Except, I would say to view anything he says with skepticism, and make sure the point he is arguing about has something relevant to do with the subject at hand! (Like synthetic hormones that are not used in our food being compared as the same as growth hormones that are used in our food.)

Sorry for the over use of bold lettering, but it is an attempt to help pulatus to better understand, and to not misconstrue!

Rodney

Growth hormones are NOT species specific. We get a percentage of what we use from our food supply. Wrong again....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The hormone used for milk production and for meat production is called "somatotropin". This is the same hormone used to equines, but the equine form will not work in cattle and the cattle form will not work in horses.

Here is a short excerpt from the FDA about it's safety. If you don't believe them, just do an internet search of hormone and "species specific" and you will find lots of other info. You can also find this info. on many human health sites. Doctors have know this for years, because it has been well studied, but the public is misled continually about this, by environmental nuts, health nuts, and food supplement nuts.

The agency will soon publish data from the studies it relied on to
demonstrate the safety of the milk and meat from the treated cows.
There are three important reasons why milk and meat are safe:
1) BST is a protein, not a steroid hormone, and proteins such as BST
when consumed orally are broken down into inactive fragments in the
gastrointestinal tract during digestion. Studies have demonstrated that
while BST is active in rats when injected, it is inactive orally in these
test animals at doses equivalent to 100 times that administered to cattle.
And, in fact, cows are injected with BST, not given it orally, to keep it
from being broken down in their digestive tracts.
2) Even if it were injected in humans, BST is inactive in people and
would not affect a person given it. While there is a human somatotropin,
its molecular structure and that of bovine somatotropin, or BST, are very
different. That is one of the reasons for BST's inactivity in humans, as
was shown in the 1950s when attempts were made to treat human dwarfism in
children by injecting them with BST. It had no effect.
3) BST has ALWAYS been present in the milk of all cows because it is
produced naturally in the cows' pituitary. The treatment enhances the
amount of BST to which the cows are exposed, but no more reaches the milk
than the upper limits of what occurs naturally.
These safety factors have long been known. FDA Commissioner Young
testified before a Congressional committee in 1986 that sponsors of BST
"..have provided data adequate to authorize the use for human consumption of
milk and meat derived from animals treated with bovine growth hormone in the
clinical trials, and have received permission from

www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00140.html

Just doing what I can to shatter public opinion, wives-tails, and beliefs with facts.

Rodney

Try reading this little tidbit from the FDA Rodney.

http:www.fda.gov?cvm/index/consumer/hormones.htm

July 2002: THE USE OF STEROIDS FOR GROWTH PROMOTION IN FOOD PRODUCING ANIMALS

Simply put, it talks about the use of synthetic Steroid Hormones and that "Extensive testing to determine SAFE levels in edible tissues for these compounds" is Necessary to make sure that the amounts used on food producing animals is low enough that the residual is at a safe level for human consumption.

It lists the synthetic steroid hormones: trenbolone acetate, zeranol and melengestrol acetate (MGA)

If the steroids used in these animals cannot be passed on to consumers in the meat they eat...Why is there a need to regulate the amount to "safe " levels????

There is your smoking gun.....right from the FDA.

My uncle confirmed what he stated earlier that any Hormone/steroid injested, injected or what ever, will have a potential effect on the human body.

Further (AN INTERESTING SIDE BAR) I found another item from

THE PRACTICAL PEER-REIVIEWED JOURNAL FOR PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS

www,postgradmed.com/issues/1999/13_99/niewoehner.htm

Refering to bone density loss in people who inhale steroids for treatment of Asthma.

Far from an easily digested, and harmless group of substances that have no effect on people.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I have heard all the hysteria concerning growth hormones being given to cattle. I looked into it, a while back, because of some doctors that I heard talking about the subject, saying that it is totally bogus. I heard all the hysteria, saying things like, "People are getting larger because of all the growth hormones in our meat." Then, there is the rebuttal that we are over-fed/over-nutrientized (compared to previous generations) and that is the reason for increased size of Americans. Plus, people from foreign cultures that don't eat beef, (or "production" meat) are growing larger also, so blaming larger size on growth hormones is bogus since cultures without artificial growth hormones in their food are experiencing the same thing.

(by the way, I tried the URLs you listed, but neither worked.)

The FDA clearly said, in the article I showed you earlier, that growth hormones are safe because when in the food supply, they are digested, and they don't work in humans anyway because of the species specific nature of growth hormones.

Also, I think we are talking about apples and oranges again! I am talking about growth hormones that have been heavily utilized for about the last 20 years (that are injected protein hormones) and you are talking about steroid hormones that have been approved much more recently. I don't know how widespread their use is. And, yes, they are hormones that promote growth, but they are not the same as growth hormones which are classified as "protein hormones". I also know that certain steroids can be ingested and still be effective, while others can't.-- since some of them are not necessarily digested like the protein hormones are. But I have never heard of a growth hormone product being effective when ingested--they are all injectibles or implants--as far as I am aware.

During the process of digestion in the stomach and intestines, proteins are broken down by enzymes to their building blocks, the amino acids, that are absorbed by the body.

http://www.degussa-foodingredients.de/foodingredients/html/e/health/eng/kh/p2.1.htm

If digestion breaks down a protein into amino acids, what difference does it make what it originated as? If you need some metal to build something, do you care that it came from a dismantled Ford vs. a Toyota? I am sure, being a snake lover, you are aware that snake venom can be ingested safely, because it too is a protein that is broken down in the stomach into amino acids, but a couple of drops or less in the blood will kill you.--Same thing applies. (just make sure you don't have an ulcer first!)

and 2. Can EquiGen™ be used in other species?
No. Equine somatotropin is only effective and safe for use in horses, as somatotropins are species-specific hormones and vary significantly in structure. Equine somatotropin administered to other species will be recognized as a foreign protein and inactivated, while also presenting a risk of serious allergic reaction.

http://www.bresagen.com.au/equigen/faqs.asp

Somatotropin is the same growth hormone given to cattle and dairy cows, though it isn't exactly the same! Bovine somatotropin is different from equine somatotropin, and they are not interchangeable! The point is, these growth hormones have been tried by injecting them directly into humans, and they had no effect. If injecting them in much larger doses, than what would occur in meat, has no effect, what effect would ingesting a much smaller dose have? None.

Human Safety Considerations
Early clinical researchers studying bST were hopeful of its usefulness in treating human dwarfism. However, though the protein could be safely injected into humans, it was not biologically active. Growth hormones are species-specific. Since it is a protein hormone, it is digested by humans into peptides and amino acids like any other protein. In fact, when presented to a cow orally, bST is not active. The cow's digestive system simply recognizes it as dietary protein.
Though the human safety of naturally-occurring bST had been established in the 1950's, many more extensive studies were required by FDA prior to the approval for marketing milk from test cows in 1985. Then, prior to approving the marketing of recombinant bST in the U.S., many other issues, such as animal health and labeling, had to be resolved.

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/foodsci/ext/pubs/bstandmilk.html

It lists the synthetic steroid hormones: trenbolone acetate, zeranol and melengestrol acetate (MGA)

There is your smoking gun.....right from the FDA.

First of all, this isn't a smoking gun. (I found one of the URLs you provided!) The FDA said, in this article, that "safe" levels needed to be determined because artificial steroids have a different half life than naturally occurring ones. Because of this different "half life", they want to make sure that there wouldn't be a "build up" of the compound in the tissues. They didn't say that they knew that it was dangerous to eat in certain amounts or not, they only said they wanted the producers to prove it was safe, based on the assumption that naturally occuring levels of natural hormones are completely safe, before it was approved. It passed because the naturally occurring hormones from non-dosed animals are at a similar level to the synthetic hormones of those that are treated with these "pellets".

I find it amusing that the FDA, and the public, assumes naturally occurring hormones are totally safe at the levels normally found in meat, thus artificial hormones are totally safe at the same level. Why aren't naturally occurring hormones considered dangerous? Why are normally occuring levels always considered safe? Strange assumptions if you ask me! Many naturally occuring things can be dangerous! I find it amazing that almost all the alarmist claims made about anything, make this same argument. Anything occuring naturally is good, anything man-made is bad!

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/hormones.htm

As for your inhalent argument. I agree with what you said, but it is unrelated. Something inhaled can behave totally different from something eaten. Some drugs are given as inhalents specifically because they can't be ingested without the stomach destroying them, before they get "into" your system. Just like injecting vs. ingesting. I am not saying that all hormones have no effect on humans, so they are all harmless. I am saying that growth hormones (which have been accused of causing problems in humans) when ingested, have no effect because they never make it into the blood stream as a hormone.

Rodney

Ok....I'm thinking this is a glass half full VS glass half empty thing,

Personally when someone talks about "Safe Levels" that naturaly means to me that there are "Unsafe Levels" the question being..."Why are they unsafe....and what can they do to you if unsafe levels are reached?

For the FDA to admit a potential problem, there has to be a smoking gun.

You read the same thing I did and got a whole different meaning from it....A question of interpretatation.

On a lighter note:

A quote from one of my favorite authors, Ambroice Bierce-from THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY.

"Conservative: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Vietnam Vets are doing well? And better than average? LOL

I am toatlly amazed that anyone would post and say that Vietnam era vets are doing well as a whole. This statement is a giant cookie jar(Crock) of bat guano. It is laughable and at the same time indicates the mentality of people that dont want to own up to the misdeeds perpetrated by the current and past governments.

And the majority of people that are low income and struggling to survive live in HOUSES they OWN? Amazing statistic. Indeed. Especially since home wonership is a DREAM for many americans, especially in areas like California, San Fransisco, New York, etc.

I will agree that people live much more sedate lifestyles nowadays. but the average worker puts it 10 or more hours a week of OT on TOP of his 45 hours mimimum workweek. We have switched from an agricultral lifestyle , where fathers and sons and daughters and mothers often worked side by side dureing the course of the day...to one that is based in Industry, which doesnt involve the members of a given family working together, and often draws the main providor away from the home..and nowdays BOTh parental members away from the home...in order to even afford to keep it.

Just as Rearfang said....this administration has CUT VETERANS benefits,whilst at the same time ESPOUSING the merits of PATRIOTISM and volunteer service in the current military occupation of a foregin nation. Whomever is needed currently is considered most fully...but lets not forget sending them into battle without proper armour, flatjackets....

Excusable? Nope

So...dispelling THREE FINE MYTHS that no one in their right minds beleives:

1)That Vietnam Era Vets have it as good or better than the average American.

2) That we honor our Vientam Vets by giving them the tools they need to live and fund same accordingly for their invaluable service.

3) That most people under the poverty line dont own their own house with three t.v.'s and two fine automobiles.

Fred Albury

Here is a link to some statistics and myths about Vietnam and Vietnam vets.

People sure get touchy when you challenge their false beliefs with evidence!

www.vhfcn.org/stat.htm

Rodney

Maybe it's because you feel the truth is found in statistics and it doesn't jell with real life.

I have continued to say that statisics and such can be bent to mean anything the producer of such want's it to. That does not make it anymore real than those three TV two car poor people. By that standard I am well below poverty.

Only two TV's and a truck a VW. (lol)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Well, Frank, just because you are one of the ones "below average" doesn't make those statistics false. People "above the average" are what makes "the average" occur between you and them! And people that are above the average wouldn't make that statement about "statistics not relating to reality". Kind of a "the grass is always greener" argument. If you are below the average, you tend to question the statistics, if above, you don't. It's a perception vs. reality problem, not a statistics vs. reality problem.

I have two brothers. While I am also well below what the govt. considers poverty level, my brothers are both self made millionaires (not multi millionaires, but much better off than I). Out here, the average home goes for $580K! Most people I know have homes in the $800-900K range, and those aren't mansions, just average 3-4 bedroom homes. I also have a couple millionaire uncles and some "below poverty" aunts. I am not getting rich, but I am getting by OK, and my "below" poverty level is so much higher than the average standard of living in other countries, that I would be considered rich by their standards. Consider countries where the people make an average of about $2 a day (like Iran/Iraq). I can barely get by on a bit more than 50 times that amount! The point is, my "below", and my aunts "below" makes up for my uncles and my brother "above". I could easily be one of the "aboves", but I made up my mind long ago that I would rather make much less money and run my own business raising animals, than work in an office. I figure, most people work for the goal of getting enough money to retire, so they can do what they want. If I was retired, I would be doing this anyway, so why not do it now?

That's the funny thing. All the govt. has to do is raise the base line for poverty, and instantly there are thousands of people that are now below poverty level--even though their lifestyles haven't changed one bit. Everytime the minimum wage is raised, that brings up the poverty level a bit. Our standard of living is so much higher today than years ago, that Americans won't even do the work they used to (like working in the fields). We forget about this laziness and arrogance (I'm too good to do that) and then complain about poverty levels that are far higher than they ever have been.

Rodney

for pointing out what we have been trying to tell you. That someone like me is classified as Below poverty level is ridiculous.

It also points out that the definition (so called) poverty level has been raised so high that the real poor (and there are plenty of them are lost in the statistics (which is EXACTLY) what we have been trying to tell you!)

By raising the bar on the poverty level, the government can incorporate people who are not poor into the demogaphic to create a "Statistical Average" that proves that "Poverty Level" people are not as poor as they really are. Thus instead of having a problem they can theorise that the Poor people are "just wasting their money" and they are not really poor!

Don't you love how statistics can be bent to make something true that just isn't so?

Like I said. I only need to drive a few miles from my house to see the truth.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I agree, I also think it is ridiculous that I am considered below poverty level. I live quite well. Much better than my grand parents ever did!

However, I see it completely different from you. I believe the poverty levels keep being raised so that government programs that provide services/funds to people at the poverty level can continue to exist, or grow even, to get more funding next year, etc. There are a lot of people that have government jobs providing these services, and a lot of politicians that think they "look good", based on "their" programs. I really don't think the poverty level is being raised, so the "standard of living" of poverty level citizen's average goes up, so they can then claim "there isn't a problem" and lower benefits. That really doesn't make much sense to me. Raising something because you want to lower it? Or raising something so it doesn't look like a problem?

Don't you think that they wouldn't want to raise the poverty levels, because then it could be said that the number of people in the US, that are below the poverty level, is increasing? And that would make them (the various people in government) look bad because of this increase in poverty numbers? Can you hear the accusations now, if they lowered the poverty line just a little, and then claimed that the number of people, at or below the poverty line, went down?

I see your point, but I don't buy it.

I do agree that someone at the top portion of the poverty level is much better off than someone at the bottom, however. Mostly because the poverty line is drawn much too high in my opinion. Draw it lower, and there will be more funds available to those who really need it. (not to mention all the extra funds that will be available because of all the govt. employees/red tape that won't be needed, when the "upper" poverty level people are cut out of the system.) (another reason I am a republican!)

I sure haven't seen anything like you suggest however (except for a trip to tijuana, Mx.!)

Rodney

Did anyone see a (Republican)elephant? (keeping in mind the story of the blind men and....) it was too good to pass up (lol).

The joy of being totaly party free....ah me!

There's merit to your arguement.....But, it also would justify cutting certain relief programs if they could statistically prove that the "poverty level" people did not need as much assistance. That would allow the government to divert more funds to pet projects.

In our world of "double think" they can pay lip service by pubilicly admitting a higher poverty percentage and at the same time shoot down useless "liberal" programs that they can claim are unneccessary, because our poor are "too well off to need them."

Smoke...mirrors...and...elephants!

Never trust a well fed congressman.....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I agree, it does work both ways.

I do find it despicable that someone with a million in the bank, who doesn't work, is considered to be at the poverty level since his income (from interest) is so low, while someone who is working his but off, has nothing in the bank, and makes $30K, is not only not at the poverty level, but he pays taxes that can then be paid to the millionaire in "poverty" benefits. (The millionaire would only make $10K in interest, at a 1% interest rate. So they would be below poverty income levels.--eligible for earned income tax credits/etc.)

I really think income taxes should be tide to hours worked as well as total dollars made. For instance, someone who makes $30K and works two full time jobs shouldn't pay the same amount in taxes as someone who works part time and makes the exact same income. (But boy would that make tax laws, fraud, etc. a rats nest!---like it isn't one now!)

Rodney

But the Income Tax was supposed to only last till 1946. Another example of government getting a taste of "American Pie" and not wanting to let go....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."