John Karls Remonstrates That Extinctions Pose Human Threats

[johnkarls]

.
.
For our 1/13/2016 meeting last week, Yours Truly raised in both the Short Quiz (Q&A-10 through Q&A-20) and the Suggested Discussion Outline (Items C-2, C-3 and D) whether the loss of a single species doesn’t pose a double-barreled threat to human beings.

After all, the extinct species might have been holding in check a disease that is capable of wiping out the human species.

And the now-extinct species might have represented the only hope of discovering a cure for that disease.


**********
The Reason For The Supposition

All medicines, regardless of whether they exist in nature, comprise nothing but chemicals.

However, we know that the so-called Periodic Chart of Elements discloses that there are only 118 different atoms.

But we also know that those atoms can be combined into a zillion, if not an infinite number, of different molecules.

So Yours Truly’s supposition of how medical research is conducted is that it would NOT make sense to engage in a “needle in the haystack” examination of an infinite number of different molecules to ascertain which, if any, of them comprise a cure for Disease X.

But rather, it would make more sense to research (1) what causes Disease X, (2) what species provide(s) a check to the species causing Disease X, and (3) what is the chemical possessed by the first species (or chemicals possessed by the first category of species if there are more than one such species) that provide(s) the check.

[Once such chemicals that already exist in nature are identified, it may then be possible to manufacture them synthetically rather than cultivating the species that produce(s) them naturally.]

Yours Truly posited that if his supposition is correct, then it provides the best argument for opposing global warming which “The Sixth Extinction” (the focus of our 1/13/2016 meeting) identifies as currently causing the extinction of as many as 50% of the world’s species.


**********
Our Experts At The 1/13/2016 Meeting

Item D of the Suggested Discussion Outline said that although June Taylor (the U/Utah’s Radiology Research Professor who had suggested The Sixth Extinction) would NOT be able to attend the meeting, among the RSVP’s were: (A) two retired U/U Biology Professors; (B) the recently-retired Assistant Utah Attorney General for Environmental Matters; and (C) a recently-retired U.S. Air Force doctor who, inter alia, headed the medical staff at the U.S. Defense Department’s Regional Medical Center at Landstuhl Germany, the first hospital to which wounded American service personnel in the Middle East have been taken since Gulf War I (1990-91).

Overlooked was Jay Hansen, a trained biologist who had spent an entire career as a communications specialist for pharmaceutical companies. In other words, the equivalent of a United Nations translator who facilitated communications between the pharmaceutical’s scientists and the outside world.

Jay stated that the supposition of Yours Truly is untrue.

He cited as a typical example, a cure for Disease Y that had been developed from the saliva of a particular lizard species.

Typical, because there had been no reason (such as the particular lizard species existing in any of the same geographical areas as Disease Y existed) for supposing that the saliva might be a cure for Disease Y.

Jay also went on to say that pharmaceutical companies maintain a list of diseases for which a cure would be commercial. Presumably meaning that it affects a sufficient number of human beings who are capable of affording the cure, that it makes sense to try to find a cure (at least if the expense of doing so multiplied by the supposed chance of success is promising).

Jay’s reason for elaborating???

He said that standard procedure for any pharmaceutical company that finds a cure for a disease, is to then check that cure to ascertain whether it is also happens to be effective against any other disease on its list of diseases for which it would like to find a cure.

I’ve forgotten whether Jay said that the lizard’s saliva was only effective for Disease Y, or whether it was also effective against one or more other diseases.

Our other experts promptly agreed with Jay’s assessment.


**********
The Primary Reason For Remonstrating

It is mind-boggling that medical research would be focused so poorly!!!

Accordingly, I would like June Taylor who will be attending our 2/17/2016 meeting but, as mentioned above, had been unable to attend on 1/13/2016, to opine on whether the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) which makes all medical-research grants for the U.S. government, tolerates proposals that are so poorly focused.

After all, June regularly makes U/Utah proposals to the NIH. And therefore is on the cutting edge of what radiology-research projects make sense, which depends on what other cancer therapies already exist or are being developed.

If June affirms that the NIH tolerates proposals that are poorly focused, then it would appear that we should launch a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign aimed at forcing the NIH to be more prudent with the funds it is disbursing.

And even if what Jay described exists only in private industry, such behavior is still a legitimate target for reform.

After all, the second President Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drug Program effectively means that U.S. citizens are footing the bill for virtually all of the world’s medical research. [Because, inter alia, the Medicare Drug Program legislation (1) prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceuticals (vs. meekly accepting whatever prices the pharmaceuticals dictate), and (2) prohibits Medicare participants from obtaining drugs from outside the U.S. in general, and Canada in particular, where the pharmaceuticals offer for sale the same identical drugs at a fraction of what they charge for them inside the U.S.]

And the fact that the pharmaceuticals are private companies does NOT mean that President Bush’s program does not saddle U.S. citizens with footing the bill for the pharmaceuticals’ wasteful procedures.

[In other words, “there is no free lunch!!!”]


**********
Two Additional Reasons For Remonstrating

I may have misunderstood what Jay said. [In which case, I apologize to Jay and the others who agreed with what he actually did say.]

In addition, global warming and medical-research procedures are just as relevant to our 2/17/2016 topic as our 1/13/2016 topic.


**********
The Ideal

I was NOT clear from Jay’s comments accompanied by the affirmations of our other experts in attendance whether Jay was simply describing current practices.

Or whether he was describing the best approach.

It strikes me that he was probably describing current practices. And that they are very wasteful for the reasons set forth above.

And that we should still preserve as many as possible of the worlds’ species (and counter global warming in order to do so) to preserve what may well be humanity’s future salvation for the day that medical researchers come to their senses about how better to approach their responsibilities.

Respectfully submitted,

John Karls

[johnkarls]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: My Remonstration That Extinctions Pose Human Threats
From: John Karls
Date: Mon, January 25, 2016
To: June Taylor
Attachment: RL-c118-RemonstratingReExtinctions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear June,

You are always so busy that you may not have noticed the attached report which was posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org following our Jan 13 meeting which you were unable to attend and which focused on your “The Sixth Extinction” book proposal.

The attached report explains that Items C-2, C-3 and D of the Discussion Outline (which reflected Q&A-10 thru Q&A-20 of the Short Quiz) were based on the assumption that the National Institute of Health (NIH) would at least give a preference to proposals that are NOT based on a Needle In A Haystack (NIAH) approach.

But rather would at least give a preference to proposals that focus on (1) what causes Disease X, (2) what species provide(s) a check to the species causing Disease X, and (3) what is the chemical possessed by the species providing the check, that actually comprises the check.

For purposes of our discussion, let’s call this the Biologically- or Scientifically-Focused approach (BSF).

The attachment reports that I was shocked and appalled that at the Jan 13 meeting, Jay Hansen reported that medical research in the U.S. focuses solely on existing cures to ascertain whether they will cure any other illnesses. And further shocked and appalled that all of our other experts in attendance agreed with Jay.

For purposes of our discussion, let’s call this the Clorox Quick Check approach (CQC).

[Since, regardless of whether bleach comprises a medicine for anything, everyone can readily grasp the concept that as soon as sodium hypochlorite was discovered to destroy some germs, it would probably be useful as a universal disinfectant against virtually everything. Indeed, when I was young, it was found to remove the pigment in human hair, which is why it became the first widely-used hair dye and blonde females during that era were called “bleach blondes.”]

Questions for you --

1. Do you agree with Jay Hansen et al. that the NIH fails to give preference to proposals based on the BSF approach?

2. If yes, do you agree that we should launch a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign aimed at forcing the NIH to give preference to proposals based on the BSF approach?

3. Do you agree with Jay Hansen et al. that pharmaceutical companies concentrate all of their so-called medical-research spending on the CQC approach?

4. If yes, do you agree that we should launch a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign aimed at eliminating the provisions of the second President Bush’s Medicare Drug Program that (A) prohibit Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceuticals (vs. meekly accepting whatever prices the pharmaceuticals dictate), and (B) prohibit Medicare participants from obtaining drugs from outside the U.S. in general, and Canada in particular, where the pharmaceuticals offer for sale the same identical drugs at a fraction of what they charge for them inside the U.S. -- unless the Congressionally-approved price gouging is dedicated to medical research following the BSF approach? [In other words, the pharmaceutical companies should have sufficient incentive to spend their own funds on CQC research.]

Please let me know what you think.

Your friend,

John K.

[johnkarls]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: My Remonstration That Extinctions Pose Human Threats
From: June Taylor
Date: Mon, January 25, 2016 4:23 pm - MST
To: John Karls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

I think Jay is correct insofar as Big Pharma goes. Remember, their major incentive is to boost their profits short-term….which is why they closed all their research labs in the past 20 years and now look around for Unicorns to buy up.

WRT your approach: As I understand it, you think that for every Disease X there is some species that "causes Disease X" or "chemical possessed by the species providing the check, that actually comprises the check". This is an error. To take one example that you provided before, and where you misunderstood my response:

Naturally-occurring species of viruses or bacteria are known as "wild-type" or WT. Wild-type Herpes does not CAUSE brain tumors, nor can it CURE brain tumors. Biomedical researchers have modified wild-type herpes virus (or some other virus, in other cases) to carry Something That Provides A Check to the growth of tumor cells. In the case you originally cited, the herpes virus had been modified to carry a protein that would cause the virus to "stick" to brain tumor cells specifically, and then "attract" killer immune-system cells. This modified virus exists no where in nature. So I know of no species of any kind, any where, which either causes or can "check" glioblastoma (brain cancer). Nor do I know this for almost all other cancers. Now, there are a very few cancers that are ASSOCIATED with viruses. When the source of the association is known, in most cases it is found that the virus suppresses the host immune system, thereby allowing the cancer to get a foothold or spread (example: Kaposi sarcoma & HIV).

There are a couple of viruses that actually seem to be able to cause cancer -- the one that springs to mind is the HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), which appears to be involved in cervical CA and some head/neck CAs, although I don't know if the mechanism is understood at all.

WRT NIH: The NIH has many institutes, usually disease-focused -- which you can find here: http://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/list- ... rs-offices.

Most of them - Cancer, HeartLung&Blood, NIDA, NIMH - are focused on research that promises to (a) understand the biological basis (cause, mechanism) of the diseases; and then (b) use the info in (a) to develop treatments, diagnostic tests or preventative measures. This is far from a 'needle-in-a-haystack" approach.

Maybe we can get together to discuss this quite complex matter in person? Which might facilitate mutual understanding!


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: My Remonstration That Extinctions Pose Human Threats
From: John Karls
Date: Mon, January 25, 2016 9:19 pm - MST
To: June Taylor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear June,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

I would be delighted to rendezvous for a tête-à-tête.

Since I ski almost every day, could I suggest lunch at either Alf's (Alta) or the Summit (Snowbird) -- my treat.

Just specify a day, a time and a preference for Alf's or the Summit, and I will appear.

Your friend,

John K.

PS - So far, I take it that you would oppose a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign vis-à-vis the NIH, but might support one vis-à-vis the pharmaceutical companies.

[johnkarls]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: My Remonstration That Extinctions Pose Human Threats
From: John Karls
Date: Tue, January 26, 2016
To: June Taylor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear June,

Sorry to bother you one more time before our tête-à-tête.

The important reason???

My cell phone does NOT have an internet capability, so your trying to communicate a day-time-place for our lunch after 8:30 am the same day won’t work.

A less important reason???

You have yet to inkle your views on my basic thesis that avoiding the extinction of species is probably the most important and effective argument that can be made for combatting GHG emissions.

After all, you may agree with NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio who appears to believe from his extended dissertation on TV last evening on why global WARMING causes 27-inch SNOWfalls that preventing 27-inch SNOWfalls is the most important reason to combat GHG emissions.

[And yes, I am aware that the global warming Cassandras have realized that over the years, their alarms have not had much effect on the President Putins of the world [Russian President Putin announced in 2003 he would refuse to sign the Kyoto Treaty (aka the Kyoto Protocol because President Clinton refused for the last 37 months of his administration to submit it to the Senate for ratification) based on the attraction of a longer growing season for fertile Siberia!!!], or even on the average American who believes global warming is someone else’s problem and not a reason to ruin our own economy. So that the Cassandras have morphed their message from “global warming” into “climate change” and blame every climate event that happens on GHG emissions. And that there are some scientists who back up the expanded claims.]

But please come to our tête-à-tête prepared to discuss whether preserving all of the world’s species may be the key to medical research that saves the human race from extinction.

In other words, it’s one thing to argue that still having herpes around was not necessary for finding a cure for melanoma.

But I should think that it is quite another thing to argue that medical research won’t miss the absence of all of the world’s species that will disappear in The Sixth Extinction.

And yet quite another thing to argue that medical research SHOULD NOT miss the absence of those species.

BTW, my Metropolitan Opera Cobra friend had just been diagnosed with a melanoma-stuffed lymph node behind her right ear when I provided the Heads Up about the herpes cure for melanoma that was in the FDA testing phase. I would not have hesitated to provide the Heads Up even if I had not known that she was planning to consult the best melanoma experts in NYC, London and Paris.

Your friend,

John K.