Raize
New member
This type of incorrect, inflammatory information makes me crazy.
I'm sure the author is aware that when researching a known human carcinogen such as ethinylestradiol (mainly seen in birth control pills, and thought to be the cause of a higher than expected rate of endometrial cancers), universities, scientists, or whomever is conducting the research will often use a compound that may exhibit some protection against the suspected culprit; in this case estrogen. For example, the article you post quotes, "Syrian hamsters were treated with ethinylestradiol" and goes on to say "(these hamsters were then) maintained on a diet containing alpha-naphthoflavone (alpha NF)". The net effect in this particular study was that regardless of their feed type, the cancers occurred as was expected. This is very common, for example if Vitamin C was thought to be protective against benzene (a known human carcinogen), the study may say "Syrian hamsters were treated with benzene and maintained on a diet rich in Vitamin C." It may go on to say that after 6 months, undifferentiated carcinomas were present in over 60% of the treated population (hypothetical of course). Would it then be responsible for you to come on here and say that the manufacturer's of orange juice don't care about giving their customers cancer...pointing to the study I created?
I don't mean to be rude, and apologize if coming across that way however when this type of misinformation is read on the internet, many believe it to be fact without any question and an otherwise extraordinary compound is dismissed. I just think it is wise to be a bit more careful with regards to such things. No?
I'm sure the author is aware that when researching a known human carcinogen such as ethinylestradiol (mainly seen in birth control pills, and thought to be the cause of a higher than expected rate of endometrial cancers), universities, scientists, or whomever is conducting the research will often use a compound that may exhibit some protection against the suspected culprit; in this case estrogen. For example, the article you post quotes, "Syrian hamsters were treated with ethinylestradiol" and goes on to say "(these hamsters were then) maintained on a diet containing alpha-naphthoflavone (alpha NF)". The net effect in this particular study was that regardless of their feed type, the cancers occurred as was expected. This is very common, for example if Vitamin C was thought to be protective against benzene (a known human carcinogen), the study may say "Syrian hamsters were treated with benzene and maintained on a diet rich in Vitamin C." It may go on to say that after 6 months, undifferentiated carcinomas were present in over 60% of the treated population (hypothetical of course). Would it then be responsible for you to come on here and say that the manufacturer's of orange juice don't care about giving their customers cancer...pointing to the study I created?
I don't mean to be rude, and apologize if coming across that way however when this type of misinformation is read on the internet, many believe it to be fact without any question and an otherwise extraordinary compound is dismissed. I just think it is wise to be a bit more careful with regards to such things. No?