My immediate supervisor (Ph.D. Chemistry) and the director of our Mass Spectrometry Lab (Ph.D. Chemistry) asked me (M.S. Biochemistry) to write a grant investigating holistic remedies. During a discussion one day about herbal remedies, they wondered how to come to scientific conclusions about those claims and then came to me, seeing as how I studied plant secondary metabolites in graduate school.
The horrible little secret is that by and large the human body bears responsibility for abrogating itself any perturbation to the natural order. Despite our advances, man remains incapable of creating anything that directly countermands the effects of viral, fungal, and parasite attack. By the same measure, nothing we provide directly fights abiotic attack (temperature, pressure, gravitational forces, etc.) either. Over time, our bodies acclimate to the new conditions using the materials we provide them. Some bodies do better than others, due in part I think to the availability of certain accessory cofactors provided by consumption.
One of the most potent secondary metabolites of interest I studied is resveratrol. Resveratrol is claimed to be among the most potent antioxidants, but when chemically synthesized in a laboratory proves to be bio-inactive. Our lab hypothesized that under abiotic stress, resveratrol production would increase, so as to mitigate the adverse effects of the stress. The wine industry paid particular interest to this research, as primary resveratrol production and consumption is part of the grape industry.
Despite their hopes and our expectations, but logical and reasonable, abiotic stress increased 50-fold resveratrol in leaves and shoots but only 2-fold in the berries. When you’re measuring in ppb, a 2-fold increase is not necessarily statistically significant. However, it is useful, if you plan to eat leaves.
In addition to those compounds, we identified about 100 other compounds, many of which remain unidentified as to their exact nature and function, that changed in concentration significantly under the same conditions. Chances are, some of them serve a role either passively as antioxidants like resveratrol or as cofactors in other reactions. I suspect they either lower activation energy or increase efficiency for processes already possible in the body.
Nobody seems interested in testing plants to find out what it is exactly that makes them useful to the body. Most of the herbal supplements are not supported by the FDA, meaning there are no scientific studies linking any components to human health. That doesn’t mean they’re not there. It means everyone’s too lazy to do anything useful.
The other possibility is that they fear what they might find. When we presented our resveratrol findings at the ASEV conference in 2003, we also presented a report on ethyl-carbamate. In the presence of alcohol, and under sufficient heat, unfiltered amino acids and proteins floating in wine perform a nucleophilic reaction that creates the ethyl-carbamate carcinogen. Since wine is typically made in summer, transported by truckers and sold by winebibbers, in the chain of custody, the marginal propensity indicates that at some point during the chain from vine to table the wine has breached the 70ºF threshold to initiate this substitution reaction.
We took our wine and some random samples from a liquor store and tested them for ethyl-carbamate. Almost without exception, of our ten varieties and of the four store varieties, every vintage contained 80%+ of the legal limit for ethyl-carbamate content of 100ng/ml. By contrast, beer usually has 10ng/ml and cognac 500ng/ml. This is why sherry and cognac (which are heated during processing) are not made in the U.S.
So, they sell you on wine for its ability to fight atherosclerosis and as an antioxidant, but our studies show that ethyl-carbamate content mitigates any protective effect found in the average glass. They are right to fear what they might find. What we don’t know is killing us.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Bare Truth About Bear Markets
I saw an article on Yahoo Finance that intimated a recession has come. Whether or not that is the case, there are a few lessons to be learned based on my own experiences I feel disposed to share. Fearmongers in the media have been drooling in anticipation of this moment, and by so doing I believe they hastened its advent or tipped the scales in its favor. How many people do you know who are now hoarding money because they heard on the news that now is a bad time to invest?
Despite his wishes, the President will not stimulate the economy by giving us a tax "prebate" (term patent pending). In essence, he's fronting us a refund on our 2008 taxes hoping we'll spend it and spur the economy. Being the frugal miser I am, I plan to put it into some sort of investment (probably a CD at this point) to generate a return on the money. Most people will pay bills they already owe, and so nothing in terms of new spending will result.
The economy will, as a result of this disappointing return, recede. I don't know how far or for how long, but the market seethes with a reactionary few who respond to every wind of rhetoric. That phenomenon accounts at least in part for rising oil and gas prices. Those prices are ironically earmarks of recession, occassioned primarily by the decline in value of the dollar, or INFLATION. Just four weeks ago (I watch this regularly), the dollar hovered near 0.69 Euros, hitting a new low today at 0.63 Euros, or a loss of 10%. In the same time, oil jumped from $100 to $110 and gold from $900 to $1000. Please note that these commodities rose proportionate to the dollar's fall.
Gold and oil are poor earmarks of the market because they respond to fearmongering. These commodities are referred to as futures, which means they trade for what people think they WILL cost at some future point. The traders in this market react to every speech, every threat, every disaster, with abject fear, and they buy more futures, further exacerbating the problem.
Some might argue that stock prices represent a future value as well, and rightly so, since a company stock price reflects what investors think $1 invested with the company will be worth in the future. However, most companies have assets besides the products they make, unlike gold and oil companies, and they have some degree of products in production, whereas a gold or oil venture may just know where to go.
Avoiding the fear mongering is tough, but that strategy is best during a bear market. I have preferred, by and large for the last 17 years I've been in the market, to largely ignore what the market does. My investments, with rare exception, are largley diversified to the point where I can absorb short-term oscillations or sector specific crises.
At the tender age of 12, I inherited $2000 on the advent of a very very very distant relative's death. At the behest of my parents and since I didn't know what I'd spend it on, I put it into the now defunct Berger 101 Index Fund. It remained there through the Gulf War and the volatile and horrible Clinton administration until I drew it out as a down payment on my first home in 2003 (which I eventually sold for 100% profit). I withdrew the money just after the 2000-2001 recession at the same value it held just prior to that bear market. During the time I held the fund, it generated an annual 15% ROI.
Thanks to unforseen circumstances, I stayed out of the market until 2007, when I bought into an aggressive fund through USAA. My strategy so far has paid off in that fund. I follow the principle as I always have of dollar-cost averaging.
Take the beginning of this year for example. USCGX is currently trading at 7.87, which is the lowest level in two years. Since 1 January, it has traded as high as 8.43, but my monthly distributions to the fund on the 12th of every month have resulted in the following:
January 8.03
February 8.10
March 8.06
Between the February and March purchases, the value of the fund surged to its highest point this year, but my purchases have all been near the lows of the year. If the market goes up, I win. If it goes down, I lose less than if I’d bought at the peak.
Despite his wishes, the President will not stimulate the economy by giving us a tax "prebate" (term patent pending). In essence, he's fronting us a refund on our 2008 taxes hoping we'll spend it and spur the economy. Being the frugal miser I am, I plan to put it into some sort of investment (probably a CD at this point) to generate a return on the money. Most people will pay bills they already owe, and so nothing in terms of new spending will result.
The economy will, as a result of this disappointing return, recede. I don't know how far or for how long, but the market seethes with a reactionary few who respond to every wind of rhetoric. That phenomenon accounts at least in part for rising oil and gas prices. Those prices are ironically earmarks of recession, occassioned primarily by the decline in value of the dollar, or INFLATION. Just four weeks ago (I watch this regularly), the dollar hovered near 0.69 Euros, hitting a new low today at 0.63 Euros, or a loss of 10%. In the same time, oil jumped from $100 to $110 and gold from $900 to $1000. Please note that these commodities rose proportionate to the dollar's fall.
Gold and oil are poor earmarks of the market because they respond to fearmongering. These commodities are referred to as futures, which means they trade for what people think they WILL cost at some future point. The traders in this market react to every speech, every threat, every disaster, with abject fear, and they buy more futures, further exacerbating the problem.
Some might argue that stock prices represent a future value as well, and rightly so, since a company stock price reflects what investors think $1 invested with the company will be worth in the future. However, most companies have assets besides the products they make, unlike gold and oil companies, and they have some degree of products in production, whereas a gold or oil venture may just know where to go.
Avoiding the fear mongering is tough, but that strategy is best during a bear market. I have preferred, by and large for the last 17 years I've been in the market, to largely ignore what the market does. My investments, with rare exception, are largley diversified to the point where I can absorb short-term oscillations or sector specific crises.
At the tender age of 12, I inherited $2000 on the advent of a very very very distant relative's death. At the behest of my parents and since I didn't know what I'd spend it on, I put it into the now defunct Berger 101 Index Fund. It remained there through the Gulf War and the volatile and horrible Clinton administration until I drew it out as a down payment on my first home in 2003 (which I eventually sold for 100% profit). I withdrew the money just after the 2000-2001 recession at the same value it held just prior to that bear market. During the time I held the fund, it generated an annual 15% ROI.
Thanks to unforseen circumstances, I stayed out of the market until 2007, when I bought into an aggressive fund through USAA. My strategy so far has paid off in that fund. I follow the principle as I always have of dollar-cost averaging.
Take the beginning of this year for example. USCGX is currently trading at 7.87, which is the lowest level in two years. Since 1 January, it has traded as high as 8.43, but my monthly distributions to the fund on the 12th of every month have resulted in the following:
January 8.03
February 8.10
March 8.06
Between the February and March purchases, the value of the fund surged to its highest point this year, but my purchases have all been near the lows of the year. If the market goes up, I win. If it goes down, I lose less than if I’d bought at the peak.
I believe the stock market is much like the ocean. Each wave is followed by a trough, but overall, the sea remains steadily increasing in volume thanks in part to glacial melt in the Antarctic. Sometimes you see tidal waves, and if you’re lucky enough to catch a wave and sell at the crest, kudos. If not, remember that the sea carried wave after wave of ships safely to destinations without too much trouble.
Trying to catch the market requires far too much time and risk than most people can tolerate. With dollar cost averaging, you end up with a series of periodic investments that sometimes catch the market up and sometimes catch the market down. Over the long haul (7-10 years), properly diversified stocks rise in value. You've seen graphs and charts about how much money things are worth over time. When I worked for Wal-Mart, they told us about one of the longest serving associates who at her retirement held almost $1.2 million in stock alone, from a single investment of circa $5000 back in 1972 when WMT first went public.
I started a jogging regimen last fall to build my body up to join the military. I learned firsthand the biochemical effects that impinge one's ability to continue past the breaking point. When you first start running, you initially hit a wall occassioned by the depletion of glucose/glycogen stores in muscle tissue. Since muscles burn sugar exclusively for fuel and since fat cannot be mobilized into sugar for metabolism until your body reaches an aerobic state, the anaerobic conditions necessitate lactic acid fermentation. Lactic acid buildup causes muscles to burn and ache, and you may feel you cannot go on. As you press on past 10 or 15 minutes, you find that "second wind" that allows you to run almost until (at least for me) you decide to quit. The last 25 minutes of my 40 minute run are easier than the first 15, despite my being "tired".
When the market throws you things that seem hard to tolerate, remember that there is more going on than meets the eye. Many people, burdened by the initial fatigue, quit the race before they catch that spurt that allows them to continue going. Success in a market requires endurance and a sticktoitiveness similar to that of jogging or any similar sport that requires a man to go the distance. It may not seem like you're making it closer to your goal, but if you quit, you will not be better off tomorrow than you are today. Any challenge that presents itself offers you a chance to grow through risk and effort. If you opt out, you remain the same, but if you stay in, you're most likely to grow as a result.
I am not worried about the current downtrend. I am more worried about increases in capital gains taxes proposed by the House, which will cost me more than the current recession will. Recessions are temporary; tax hikes are forever.
Self-Reliance
Crude oil prices recently hit new highs (mostly because the dollar hit new lows), and so once again we find ourselves thinking about American energy policy. Despite their expressions of concern, none of the leading presidential candidates offer any solutions meant to either alleviate short term stress or abrogate long term problems. They prefer to mire themselves in the Disneyland of thought about what "might be" and tout solutions for which we lack both means and technology to bring to bear.
I have, for some time, researched the concept of solar panels for my own 100-acre ranch in Wyoming. When I was in graduate school, I roomed with a family which kept itself completely off the grid. True, solar and wind generated insufficient energy to meet all their needs, but Adrian simply fired up the generator when the batteries ran dry and all was well. It is conceivably possible to, at relatively little upkeep expense, provide all of one's own power needs, but not everywhere people live. Adrian lived on a sloping escarpment about 10 miles north of town with a permanent southern exposure. His proximity to a lake ensured constant winds. His lack of neighbors gave his panels and turbines unobstructed access, and the distal proximity of neighbors vouchsafed against complaints of eyesore. For him, it was a panacea.
For most people, generating our own power is neither possible nor practical. For the United States, however, it is not only possible and practical, it is imperative. The United States possesses energy resources that might render it independent of all exigent sources for power. We get plenty of sun, wind, and water for renewable energy, but we also possess a plethora of coal, oil, natural gas, and most importantly, Uranium.
Don't misunderstand me. I live in Nevada, but I endorse nuclear power. I am not sure Nevada has much nuclear material, but I know Clinton prevented access to a great deal thereof under Grand Escalante National Monument in Utah- a vast expanse of nothingness that nobody would care to visit let alone pay visitation fees to support the Park Service facilities established there.
We westerners perhaps think differently of self-reliance. Our ancestors, more proximal in time than our coastie neighbors, eeked out a subsistence living on the prairies. My own progenitors played an integral role in vegetating the vast salt marshes of the Wasatch and Uinta flood basins. I'm glad I didn't see it before they got to work.
I believe, like my ancestors, that we ought produce as much of our own as we can. Domestic supply suffers less from the vicissitudes of war and terror that shake the nations abroad than might be occasioned from trading partners, no matter how benign our association. Additionally, the more proximal the source, the less subject it is to aberrations of nature that impede shipments, either wrecking ships or waylaying cargo when forces beyond our control inhibit transport. Plus, Americans are less likely to cheat each other than foreign potentates are to cheat us, envious they be of our prosperity.
One final reference to the pioneer builders of this nation. They did not follow a singular vector in their settlement and all get behind the same cart. They spread out far and wide through many settlements and attacked the wilderness everywhere in concurrent fashion. It makes little sense to me for our leaders to endorse and pursue exclusively one method for solving energy concerns at the exclusion of all others. There is no energy El Dorado that will solve all of our problems. If we want constant, consistent, and safe energy sources for today and tomorrow, we ought to be doing everything in our power everywhere we can to attack the wilderness. For those who want to follow the impractical and often prohibitively expensive course of renewable resources, let them. Meanwhile, what about coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power? Let's mine what we have, build refineries, and power ourselves long enough to develop and perfect alternative means.
Said a great American patriot, Patrick Henry: "We are not weak if we make proper use of the means which the God of Nature hath provided us." Nature gave us these things to use. Until we find something better, it makes cowards and fools of men to ignore what they have and opine what they have not.
I have, for some time, researched the concept of solar panels for my own 100-acre ranch in Wyoming. When I was in graduate school, I roomed with a family which kept itself completely off the grid. True, solar and wind generated insufficient energy to meet all their needs, but Adrian simply fired up the generator when the batteries ran dry and all was well. It is conceivably possible to, at relatively little upkeep expense, provide all of one's own power needs, but not everywhere people live. Adrian lived on a sloping escarpment about 10 miles north of town with a permanent southern exposure. His proximity to a lake ensured constant winds. His lack of neighbors gave his panels and turbines unobstructed access, and the distal proximity of neighbors vouchsafed against complaints of eyesore. For him, it was a panacea.
For most people, generating our own power is neither possible nor practical. For the United States, however, it is not only possible and practical, it is imperative. The United States possesses energy resources that might render it independent of all exigent sources for power. We get plenty of sun, wind, and water for renewable energy, but we also possess a plethora of coal, oil, natural gas, and most importantly, Uranium.
Don't misunderstand me. I live in Nevada, but I endorse nuclear power. I am not sure Nevada has much nuclear material, but I know Clinton prevented access to a great deal thereof under Grand Escalante National Monument in Utah- a vast expanse of nothingness that nobody would care to visit let alone pay visitation fees to support the Park Service facilities established there.
We westerners perhaps think differently of self-reliance. Our ancestors, more proximal in time than our coastie neighbors, eeked out a subsistence living on the prairies. My own progenitors played an integral role in vegetating the vast salt marshes of the Wasatch and Uinta flood basins. I'm glad I didn't see it before they got to work.
I believe, like my ancestors, that we ought produce as much of our own as we can. Domestic supply suffers less from the vicissitudes of war and terror that shake the nations abroad than might be occasioned from trading partners, no matter how benign our association. Additionally, the more proximal the source, the less subject it is to aberrations of nature that impede shipments, either wrecking ships or waylaying cargo when forces beyond our control inhibit transport. Plus, Americans are less likely to cheat each other than foreign potentates are to cheat us, envious they be of our prosperity.
One final reference to the pioneer builders of this nation. They did not follow a singular vector in their settlement and all get behind the same cart. They spread out far and wide through many settlements and attacked the wilderness everywhere in concurrent fashion. It makes little sense to me for our leaders to endorse and pursue exclusively one method for solving energy concerns at the exclusion of all others. There is no energy El Dorado that will solve all of our problems. If we want constant, consistent, and safe energy sources for today and tomorrow, we ought to be doing everything in our power everywhere we can to attack the wilderness. For those who want to follow the impractical and often prohibitively expensive course of renewable resources, let them. Meanwhile, what about coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power? Let's mine what we have, build refineries, and power ourselves long enough to develop and perfect alternative means.
Said a great American patriot, Patrick Henry: "We are not weak if we make proper use of the means which the God of Nature hath provided us." Nature gave us these things to use. Until we find something better, it makes cowards and fools of men to ignore what they have and opine what they have not.
Airborne Shows Flaws of Science
This morning, I read an article about how AirborneHealth is offering refunds to users of its products given the fact that it may or may not affect whatsoever the health of those who take it. According to the article all of the scientific evidence establishing Airborne as profilactic in fighting infections constitutes simply the word of a man who under questioning cited no studies whatsoever, let alone scientific, and lacks credentials of a degree to back up his assertions.
Airborne constitutes simply the latest in a long line of non-scientific products that explain why so many products contain the disclaimer "Products [and information] have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not meant to diagnose, cure, mitigate or prevent any disease. If you have a health condition see your physician." For many of these products, the makers simply lack expertise or desire to embark on the long and arduous process of verifying the validity of their claims when bringing a product to market.
What of the people who claim that Airborne works for them? I believe Airborne, like so many other things we take, acts in bipartate fashion. First, consumption of a profilactic serves a psychosematic role in abbrogating disease. A recent article mentioned on talk radio (I forget where unfortunately), referenced how in terms of erectile disfunction medication placebo seemed in many instances to run close heel to the actual drug, bringing into question why anyone "needed" an ED drug.
Psychosematic drug effects are not a new concept. In the OLD movie "Captain Blood", the Governor of Jamaica, suffering from gout, suggests that Dr. Peter Blood bleed him again. Bleeding does absolutely nothing to help gout, but for the governor, the doctor was doing something, so it tends to have a psychological effect on the patient. If you get something, it tends to help, even if that something is a sweet-tart.
Airborne, secondly, may contain ingredients which, if consumed as part of a healthy diet, act in concert with the body's innate immune response and magnify its effects. For many years, I have hemmed and hawed over echinacea, despite having seen it work. I do not think echinacea, or Airborne for that matter, in and of themselves work. After all, a doctor once told me he was proscribing an antibiotic to "prevent viral infection". When I reminded him that they are not at all efficacious against viruses, he admitted it was a "preventative measure in general". Doubtless, the antibiotic may help, particularly if an opportunistic pathogen rears its ugly head. However, its effects I suspect serve an auxiliary role.
We all know about those old wives-tales, things that make you feel better but you don't know why. I've been given chicken soup, chamomille tea, and some Phillipino leaves I couldn't pronounce, all of which seem to help. I think they work, we just don't know why.
The big problem is that scientists don't really seem to care. I particularly love titles like these:
New Study Proves Viagra Effective For Male Impotence
Science doesn't PROVE anything. Not particularly leveled against these particular researchers or the fine fabricators of Viagra, et al., but I have seen for purposes of aggrandizing a career, all sorts of scientific malfeasance in the course of my scientific career, orchestrated to advance a name without regard whatsoever for truly advancing society as a whole.
I have personally witnessed: falsification of results, omission of results, withholding of results, as well as a lot of other things in science. Scientists don't much seem to care about the scientific method.
Most scientists, despite what they tell you, know little of how the scientific method actually works. Science doesn’t prove anything. Science disproves all other possibilities until only the truth presumably remains. In a hypothesis-driven endeavor, one collects data and tries to refute the null hypothesis, which is the opposite of your hypothesis. Evidence either satisfies conditions to reject the null hypothesis or proves insufficient to disprove the null hypothesis. In this way, no matter how overwhelming the data, the truth is never really proved, we are merely unable to disprove it. This phenomenon is easily illustrated by physics, which is highly content-specific: all that we know about resistance, gravity and acceleration forces and “constants” applies only in the context of the earth. Although the principles remain the same, all the parameters change when we leave the planet, and some forces change depending on our latitude on this one.As for holistics and home remedies...more on that later.
On the Marrying Age
I may attract a barrage of criticism for my sentiments in this regard, but I feel compelled to say a few things anyway. Well meaning though their efforts may be, I wonder if the encouragement of church leaders for young people to marry quickly revolves less about setting a good foundation and more about keeping young people out of trouble. They may avoid sexual sins by this election, but they sacrifice other things in exchange, things that exert powerful influence on relationships.
One of my wife’s constant tirades focused on my apparent inability to supply her with all of her desires. I earned enough for our needs, but for many people that doesn’t suffice. In marriage, "you" and "I" dissolve in favor of "us" and "our". Many young people never learn a community of property or cooperation. In many cases, this arises because parents elect to provide for the needs of their children instead of expecting them to pay their own way as much as possible.
Young people marry when they’re immature. A friend commented on how his wife isn’t as much fun or free now that they have children. While he departs the home for work each day, she remains at home surrounded by constant responsibility, which forced her to mature quickly. My friend sees forces of less magnitude, and despite his advanced age relatively acts less mature than chronology dictates.
My sister complained recently about disparities between herself and eligible bachelors. Many of the available have several years on her and forget how they were at 19 when they judge her demeanor unfit for marriage. When I was 19, I was abroad, preaching about Christ in a foreign land, so the situation was very different. Most of the boys when I returned home placed excessive emphasis on marrying a younger, attractive woman while simultaneously expecting a level of maturity from them comparable to their own despite the disparity in age. The irony is that at 21, neither my compatriots nor myself were all that mature.
At 21, I had only one year of college under my belt, with no definite future prospects. Although I never changed my major, even upon graduation a BS in Biochemistry doesn’t necessarily lead to a job. I also leaned heavily on promises of people in positions of power, none of whom delivered on their word. Growing up, I never had a pet, and I never had a roommate at college, not since living with my kid brother during high school. Despite the things going for me, I was not fit for marriage at 23 when I tied the knot.
I think a lot of people get married too soon. While unnecessary delay leads to trouble and the onset of bad habits, early plunges often lead to unnecessary pain and anguish. An old movie title, “Fools Rush In” speaks volumes in this regard.
So what do I think? I think people should date each other for at least a year, and by dating I mean classical courtship, NOT living together in sin. If a person puts up a pretense, it becomes difficult to keep up a charade for an entire year, and over a longer duration, one sees more evidence of possible conflicts later on. Once the initial romantic attraction wears off, without rose-colored glasses, we see more clearly the person we idealize.
I believe in abstinence outside of marriage. Sexual indulgence leads to broken homes, disease, and distrust of females towards people possessive of true chivalric ideals. I think men should have a plan, a realistic plan, and be either working toward it or nearly complete with training so they can care for their families. Only then can mates accurately weigh their fiscal compatibility. I think women need an education of their own, so they can care for themselves for as long as it takes for a man to grow in love with them. I think people should know one another as a couple for a while before inviting children into their home, for at least a year, so that they can see how one another respond to input without the emotional unsteadiness of pregnancy to confuse them.
Even after one elects to delay marriage to a later age, one must not overcorrect by withholding the requisite habits and lifestyle changes necessary to a healthy relationship. Delay does not necessitate or warrant a cessation of dating, dallying in education, or indulgence of personal goals. Happy is the man who prepares without knowing so that when the opportunity arises he is prepared to take advantage of it.
People in my religion are probably the worst for encouraging wanton marriage. No sooner had I returned from missionary service than my grandparents began hounding me to produce grandchildren. They pestered me about dating, offered to introduce me to some "very fine young ladies", and hinted at my solemn duty. How do I reconcile my words with my religious beliefs? God is a God of order. He wants us to do good things in the right place at the right time for the right reasons. Blind obedience isn’t healthy. Being blind in anything isn’t good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)