John Cuthber

"For the most part, pharmaceuticals are synthetic"

many of them are based on natural molecules.

"and our bodies are not designed to get rid of these poisons."

Our bodies are designed to get rid of any xenobiotics. Its not as if the liver can know if a molecule is synthetic or not.

"Yes I said poisons because that's what they are."

Paracelsus said this in the 16th century; it's not news, it's not relevant.

"The body treats them this way."

That's also the way that the body treats food- it turns it into something else and, quite commonly excretes it.

"The second you put one into your bloodstream the body goes to work to reject and eradicate these substances."

Again, same as it does with all things, including food.

"That's one reason they make drugs so strong."

It's true that drugs have to be made in such a way that they are not destroyed imediately; to do otherwise would be pointless. Why castigate the pharmaceutical industry for not doing something pointless?

"These pharmaceuticals build up in the tissues of the body"

Make up your mind, does the body eliminate them or do they build up?

Anyway, drugs in the body are generally destroyed or excreted with first order kinetics. The removal is characterised by a half life (it varies a bit between different individuals and there are particular phenotypes who have markedly different elimination rates. This is all well known and well documented).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_half_life

Caffeine, for example, has a biological half life of about 8 hrs.

"and over time brings the body into a toxic state, which can causes disease."

The build up doesn't happen- so it can't lead to a "toxic state" (whatever that might mean).

"This is proven scientific fact."

No it's not; it's bollocks.

Lets get this straight John.

Mercola is widely recognised as a crackpot. You agree with him.

Go figure.

pH is nice and simple- the log of teh reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration (activity to be precise).

However, for really strong acid it doesn't help much. The acidity stops being directly related to the concentration.

Consider triflic acid; here's some data about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifluoromethanesulfonic_acid

It has a density of about 1.7 and a molar mass of 150 so a litre contains a little over 10 moles. It couldn't, even if it were fully dissociated, have a hydrogen ion concentration more than about 12M

But it's a much stronger acid than, for example, sulphuric acid which (by the same sort fo calculation) is about 18M

The strength of the acid isn't related to the "number of H= ions in a litre" for these sort of things- it is a measure of how weak a base can the acid palm off a proton on.

There's all the analytical side too. Many, if not most, medical tests are chemistry

I can't remember the propper name for this particular logical fallacy; "I believe one day we will be able to scientifically prove the existence of ghost. I believe this because so many people have observed this phenomena over the years".

At college we used to refer to it as the "a hundred million lemmings can't be wrong" argument.

Just because a lot of people think they have experieneced "something" it doesn't mean that that "something" exists- ask an atheist.

Is this the high tech equivalent of standing between two mirrors?

" Taking prescription drugs are very bad for the body and in the long term cause toxicity and this leads to greater health problems such as cancers."

This statement is at odds with the observations that;

People live longer than they used to and they take more prescription drugs than they used to.

People in the developing world who do not have access to drugs do not live as long as people in the developed world who do have access to prescription drugs.

Anyone who says that all drugs are bad for you is being unscientific (since all drugs are tested for safety) and may well be thought of as a crackpot.

Mag sulphate will decompose at high temperatures to the oxide. Magnesium oxide is used for things like furnace linings; it has a very high melting point and an even higher boiling point. It's hard to see how enough of it would get into a flame to cause a colour.

Magnesium metal burns with a bright flame. Magnesium sulphate doesn't burn.

I don't think people emit blackbody radiation. I'm not a blackbody absorber- I absorb a lot more energy in the parts of the spectrum where water absorbs well. I therefore emit more energy at those wavelengths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation

If the wall is transparent to a fair part of the em spectrum you might be able to "see" me behind it at some wavelength or other.

As far as I am concerned saying "A" is indistinguishable from "B" is indistingiushable from saying that "A" is the same as "B".

What's the difference?

One important difference is that I can do the "maths" for VB theory in my head.

Don't get too upset about the scientist's odd use of the word obvious. There's a famous observation that mathematicians spend all their time "proving the obvious". The joke being that once something has been proved, then (for those who can follow the proof) it's "obviously" true.

The title of the thread implies that in some sense pshyciatric diseases belong to "MYTH", whoever or whatever that might be.

It may be true in the sense that for example, perhaps, "MYTH" has delusions of grandeur. In that case delusions of grandeur is "MYTH's" (complaint).

I'm not wasting my time looking through a bunch of videos to find out.

If psychiatrymyth wants to put forward a brief explanation here then I might read it.

If (as I rather suspect) it turns out to be total rubbish then I will point that out and I guess others will too.

Sleep?

There are some interesting theories, but as far as I know, it is not explained fully yet.

You can't electroplate magnesium from a solution in water; it's too reactive.

Very few things are as well studied, and therefore as well understood, as the 2 slits experiment.

According the the bizzare definition used in the OP everything is "magic" which makes the term pretty useless

I don't understand where the OP gets this idea "hydrogen is a lot easier to get than fossil fuels. "

it might be possible to build a trailier for £300, but I wonder if it would be "street legal".

"What's wrong with ethylene oxide?"

It's toxic, flammable, explosive and probably carcinogenic. (A bit like diazomethane).

Is there a prize for the first to remind you about cross posting?

When it comes down to it, all healthcare expenditure is rationed simply because, no matter how much you are prepared to spend, you still die.

The difference between an insurance company making that decision and a Govt run health service making it doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

Of course, in either case, if I have the cash I can pay for any services I like including, but not limited to, lots of propofol.

That would sort of work, but are you sure you want to play with ethylene oxide? It isn't very nice stuff. Also methyl chloride is a gas which isn't convenient and the Grignard reaction is rather slow with chlorides- I didn't sugest the bromide by accident.

For the most part, this sequence was only used for the sort of synthesis that proves the structure of something. For that sort of work it doesn't matter that the yield sucks.

Nobody would use it to make propanol (which is, I think) cheaper than ethylene oxide etc.

You could start with an aldehyde or acid, convert to the alcohol, add a carbon and then convert the alcohol back to an aldehyde or acid. It' a bit of a long way round though.

I have a feeling there's another trick with the acid (or acid chloride) and diazomethane.

Anyone else got a better memory than me?

Crassly off topic but...

Acetone eats the polystyrene that is often used to make cheap insulated containers for very cold things like dry ice.

You may also wish to note that methanol is rather more toxic than ethanol. In practical terms this doesn't matter (nobody is drinking it) but someone might ask if you have done your best to replace chemicals with less toxic ones where reasonably practical. (It's a legal requrement to do so in the UK).

And, (back to the topic agian before the Mods get upset)

For flame tests the few % of water won't matter. (and for captain P's benefit, that's a few mole %)

This

"As your "theory" can't be right (Venus completely disproves it), then any conclusions you reach because of it (like free energy must exist) is therfore also wrong." isn't strictly accurate.

I could reach a correct conclusion even if I used the wrong theory.

It would just be an accident.

However, in this case, Adrian B is just talking complete nonsense and, as it happens, he is wrong.