CureCancerNow

Excerpts from: ScienceForums.Net Forum Rules Section 1: Purpose Statement ScienceForums.net is dedicated to providing a forum for the discussion of all things scientific with the highest degree of integrity and respectability. We aim to provide all individuals, regardless of their education level, a forum to express their ideas and love of science. Section 2: Posting 1. Be civil. a. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion. d. Please refer to SFN's etiquette guide before posting. 5. Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument. 10. Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking. I was however unaware of the following rule, and do apologize for not citing a warning of potential dangers (as obvious as those dangers are) 3b. Discussion relating to hazardous or illegal chemicals or procedures is prohibited, unless the discussion: ii. Contains a warning of the potential hazards At this time, please allow me to state: Azoxymethane is carcinogenic and is a neurotoxic chemical compound. It is not a controlled substance. Its carcinogenic action is related to induction O6-methylguanine leading to G→A transitions in DNA. It induces tumorigenesis in the colon of laboratory animals and is used to study the mechanism of cancer progression and chemoprevention. For additional information, please refer to the MSDS link at the following address: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?D7=0&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEY&N4=A2853|SIGMA&N25=0&QS=ON&F=SPEC . Further, be aware that most chemicals including water and oxygen can be dangerous if misused and safety information should be referenced before use. Again, I apologize for the oversight.

Feel free to email me directly at the address given above. I have lost interest in forums, the reasons should be self-evident from the previous postings.

This parade of idiocy is no longer amusing. "4. You claim to be a chemist and yet you don't know what NaOH is for?" Reread the post. Either you never passed the GRE with that reading skill or you've become more stupid since. "...an actual research laboratory." Give me a break student! They are neither rare nor inaccessible. And as a (PHD) boss of mine once said: "very little of any real use comes out of academia" "...only hints as to what this was for... ...The bottom line is that if you act suspicious..." It has only one commonly documented use, which is what I am also using it for. Duh! In the real world, people have jobs, sign non-disclosure agreements, and don't divulge proprietary information to the first child that starts name-calling. You obviously know very little about any of that. Have you received counseling for your paranoia? ARE YOU STILL TALKING?

I sense a great deal of undeserved arrogance on your part. Being a pHD student is the end-all, be-all for you. I'll tell you this: you are barking at the wrong person. I received my doctorate years ago. I haven't been a backyard chemist since high school. But unlike you, a have respect for backyard chemists. Most of them are probably far more resourceful than you. Almost all of the important innovations in last 30 years were done by people that at least started with that mentality. If it weren't for the garage efforts of inventors like apple we wouldn't have the modern computer. We would still be using expensive mainframes. I have been doing research all my life. My first professional research involving chemistry was done under a Dr. Tamura in 1977. So much for your theory that I am not a chemist. Chemistry is not, however, the only thing I do. You have no idea what resources I have at my disposal or what my past accomplishments are. I find it distasteful flaunting my credentials, but you wouldn't take the hint when I told you I am an MD/pHD, you kept at it. And no, I am not doing it in a standard chemical laboratory setup that you would use as a student . The entire processing is done in a gloved, sealed hood with magnehelic monitoring and a washdown. Pre and post process loading is done in airflows greater than 120 feet per minute. The process is electronically monitored and controlled remotely and data is logged via a PC based data acquisition system. I in fact do know what I am doing. I personally spec.ed out the lab I work in, and I was once the lead contractor in the construction of a corporate research lab!(not my first), so I find your assertions that this lab is somehow substandard to be absurd. For most things, this is overkill. And your assertions that I hire into a lab to be supervised to be equally absurd. Now-a-days, I supervise the labs I work in. You go right ahead and "be responsible", running around criticizing people smarter and more experienced than you, informing them that they should cease in work that could save lives because you don't trust them to not get themselves hurt. People do much worse things than play the fool. I in fact don't need your help. Posting to a forum is new for me. I thought I had an interesting topic, and I joined the forum mainly hoping for some inspiration and encouragement and maybe save some time. Boy, that went well. Don't bother replying. I am leaving the forum. I hope in the future, when you or someone you know has a medical issue that they have to live with or die from because there is no effective medical cure, you will remember the medical researchers you have known, what they were willing to sacrifice to find answers, and how you treated them.

As a scientist at any level, I hope one can understand the need to avoid making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. I never said I was still a student, that I was working on a thesis, that I had a "tight" budget, that this was easy, that no one else ever thought it, or that this was to be part of a combinatorial synthesis for anti-cancer. Before we again embark on an exercise of digression into irrelevancies, could you clarify how an organic chemistry forum or organic chemists might be more beneficial to discuss preclinical research protocols than organic synthesis? Please, let's stay focused. What I would really like to see is what other suggestions there are for AOM synthesis which involves reasonable reagents/solvents/catalysts or better yet, a verified procedure.

While I appreciate the interest, this is a chemistry forum, and my posting here relates to that, and that is what I prefer to discuss HERE. For discussions not directly related to chemistry I invite you to email me at: user17625@gmail.com I am almost finished with the retrosynthesis, however I am no expert at predicting yield, relevance of potential side reactions, etc. I am also almost finished construction of my in-process IR spectrometer which I hope to use to track the reactions in real-time. Hypervalent_iodine would you be interested in seeing the proposed reaction pathway, and comment? Files are too big to post.

...Yikes!... I see. OK, now we're on the same page. One thing. I myself am a proud former backyard chemist, and am a DIYer if given the excuse of price as in this case. azoxymethane is a simple molecule and should be relatively easy to synthesize. Seems that azoxy chemistry is relatively new, with much of the current understanding dating back to as recent as the 70's & 80's. I am looking at retrosynthetic analysis software such as synchem to aid. Any information as to which ones are better, or which have aliphatic Azoxys included their rule-set databases?

If you must know, I am an MD/PHD. I have NEVER had a lab accident. Not ONE. Furthermore, I have strict protocols that insure that my life is the only human life I risk. I am appalled at the pace of medical advancement. $4Billion spent on cancer research, and what do we have to show for it? There is something so seriously wrong, that spending $12Billion more won't show any more real progress on curing cancer. After studying this, I understand what this problem is, but the problem is too big for me to fix. I am writing a book. Maybe then someone will listen. Right now the U.S. is in desperate need of innovation. It sounds like you put your faith in the big government infrastructure. I can tell you from first-hand experience that despite all of governments efforts, their contribution to innovation in electronics was insignificant. So much so, that DoD now largely relies on off-the-shelf consumer/industrial components, and similarly what little solid-state electronics industry the USSR itself had was largely a copy from U.S. Cancer is the #2 killer in the U.S. after 50. Curing cancer is not difficult. Nor does it take Gigabucks. But it does take the right approach, a fact I hope to drive home to some people in a few years. My final word is: If you eventually die from cancer, don't blame me. I for one am trying to do something about it. But please, if you are not going to be part of the solution, don't be part of the problem. I wish to thank those who help me in this.

I am trying to synthesize a chemical, but haven't found an appropriate procedure after surfing the web, looked at the online organic chemistry databases, looked in the encyclopedia of chemical technology etc. . Aldrich and a few others apparently know how to do this, but there does not seem to be any public information that I can find. Tried to figure it out for my aliphatic molecule myself by modifying a procedure for a similar aromatic without results. Asked on another forum for specific help with the procedure, but was told medical research is too risky. If you can answer any of these questions to help me make progress on my synthesis, please do: Procedure for synthesis of azoxymethane. Where do the big boys like Aldrich keep their notes on synthesis? Where can I get help from an organic chemistry synthesis expert?