Posts
Comments
These two byproducts are formaldehyde and formic acid; it sounds like formic acid is the really bad one.
Formaldehyde is much worse for you than formic acid (formate). Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are both aldehydes. Aldehydes are a very reactive functional group that can covalently adduct DNA and proteins. This can cause all sorts of bad things. Formaldehyde is worse because a) it's more reactive (one less electron donating methyl group) and b) it can cross-link proteins/DNA because its basically able to react twice rather than just once like acetaldehyde and most other aldehydes. Covalently attaching two macromolecules that weren't attached before is extra bad.
In contrast, the more oxidized forms of these aldehydes, formic acid/formate and acetic acid/acetate, are likely fairly safe and are basically unreactive. They are both fairly strong acids but your body is great at buffering itself.
+1000
It’s certainly possible that a small subset of cancers are caused/initiated by a fungal infection, but it’s extremely unlikely that our basic understanding of what causes most cancer is wrong at this point.
Also an interesting recent paper showing the potential for cancer to be driven by epigenetically (rather than through direct DNA mutations).
Loyal gave their IGF-1 inhibitor to healthy laboratory dogs (and possibly diabetic dogs, although it's hard to tell). Lo and behold, it lowered IGF-1. It probably also reduced insulin. They then looked at healthy pet dogs, and found that big dogs had higher levels of IGF-1, which is one of the reasons they're big. Small dogs had lower levels of IGF-1. Small dogs, as we all know, live longer than big dogs. Therefore, Loyal said, our IGF-1 inhibitor will extend the life of dogs.
Needless to say, this is bad science. Really bad science.
FYI there is a long history of the study of IGF in aging. EG see here or here.
I don’t have anything substantive to say, but I just wanted to comment that I thought this was a wonderful read.