Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

This is actually quite an old discovery. A few decades in fact (1984 by Dr. John Kabara). I'm just wondering why it has not been used widely. It seems quite an astounding discovery, and quite useful too.

 

Monolaurin is a monoglyceride formed from lauric acid and glycerol. It has anti-viral properties against lipid coated viruses, such as HSV and HIV.

 

Just search for monolaurin, and you'll find a number of articles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While a medical cure for AIDs is extremely important, the bigger question is what is stopping the effort to reduce it's rapid spread? Boy am I gonna catch it for once more bring the discussion around to....

 

The number one method that would dramtically reduce the spread of aids is use of condoms. Instead BILLIONS are being spent on efforts that continue to fail.

 

"the United States, under the Bush administration, has promised the largest amount of any country: $15 billion over five years to African and Caribbean countries. President George W. Bush has attached strings to that money, in effect neutering AIDS education programs."

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12781246&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=484045&rfi=6

 

Religious ideology continues to kill millions. Pretending that Abstenence only promotion is going to solve this problem has been proven to increase the speard of AIDs. But religious leaders have actually stated that AIDs is their god's way of justifyably killing those that don't toe the line. So they don't care how many PEOPLE they kill, just how many SOULS they save along the way.

 

CURING AIDs after it is caught is not the larger issue. STOPPING the spread IS. RELIGION is the biggest blockaid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: TINNY

"Science without religion is lame."

-Einstein-

Nice tag. Often used by beleivers to pretend someone of unquestionable intellect actually suckered for the same thing they do. But they never want to let you know what the context of the quote is. I t comes from A Symposium, the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. Here is more of it for contextual reasons.

 

"a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation... Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts... a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible... science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.... To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history...To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress... And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life. <u>The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge</u>."

 

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Einstein2b.html

">http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Einst

Link to post
Share on other sites

you really cannot resist the temptation to hit people when there's an opportunity, FT.

anyway, what about this from the same website:

 

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: TINNY

you really cannot resist the temptation to hit people when there's an opportunity, FT.

 

anyway, what about this from the same website:

 

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

Oh there is lots of interesting things at that site. That yes he did consider natural to be greater than man. But he abhored a personal god concept and spoke out against it regularly.

 

And we have discussed this alsewhere before and it can be continued there. But I think it would be good to have a discussion about things like AIDs, it's impact and it's spread. Both medically and socio-politically.

 

For instance, if we could allocate ONE ONEHUNDRETH of the funds diverted to Bush's Iraq war, we could proabaly wipe out the whole problem in a year.

 

And that does NOT mean more Abstenence only programs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
The real problems are in places where there is little or no education on the subject, the most notable being africa.

And interestingly the geography most under attack by Christian Missionaries. Where there is specific effort to stop the very things that could most benefit these people, EDUCATION. Where the religious authorities are doing everythng they can to stop the people most in need from getting an accurate education of and acccess to birth control and safe sex.

 

One more example of the extreme immorality of religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And interestingly the geography most under attack by Christian Missionaries. Where there is specific effort to stop the very things that could most benefit these people, EDUCATION. Where the religious authorities are doing everythng they can to stop the people most in need from getting an accurate education of and acccess to birth control and safe sex.

 

One more example of the extreme immorality of religion.

you are so quick to accuse those christians whereas on other subjects, you apply such intellect to analyze and think of the myriad possibilities.

 

One more example of the extreme biasedness of atheism

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found an article here:

 

http://www.aids.org/atn/a-033-03.html

 

"However, no human or animal scientific tests have studied its effectiveness when used orally as an antiviral."

 

Similar conclusion here:

 

http://www.catie.ca/supple-e.nsf/0/9d416a2009131fd88525689e006c3f81?OpenDocument

 

"The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognizes monolaurin as safe enough to use as a food additive. Some people taking monolaurin have experienced drowsiness so users may prefer to take the capsules at bedtime. Finally, since we are unable to find reports of controlled studies using monolaurin, we can't be certain that monolaurin provides any clinical benefit."

 

A study was promissed here:

 

http://www.netasia.net/users/UCAP/news-feb-18-1999.htm

 

" Dr. Eric Tayag of SLH will be the primary investigator of the clinical trials on monolaurin.* Subjects will consist of fifteen HIV positive patients.* They will be divided into three groups consisting of five patients per group.* The first group will be given a "high dose" of monolaurin three times a day; the second group will be given a "low dose"; and the third group will be given coconut oil three times a day for a total of 45 mL per day.* Monolaurin will be administered in capsule form.* In addition, all groups will receive multivitamins."

 

The study is not adequate with too small a sample, and no mention of a control group, let alone use of "double blind" to eliminate the placebo effect! I can't find the results if it was ever carried out.

 

There is a report of the rather mixed results here:

 

http://www.emergingworlds.com/ch_article.cfm?link=Coconut_oil_could_check_the_aids_virus.htm

 

You must wonder at the impartiality of this article which includes the following quote: "No evidence has ever been presented to prove that coconut oil causes coronary heart disease in humans."

 

My conclusion is that all evidence I have found comes from people selling the pure drug, or coconut oil. It more advertising than scientific proof.

 

All told It is believable that Monolaurin has some effect, but it is no wonder drug. It will not cure HIV, but it just might help a little in reducing the viral load.

 

There is still no cure for HIV. All that can be done is offer a cocktail of treatments that prolong the patients life. The patient remains infectious, and (as Monolaurin is clearly not sufficient in itself) the treatments used leave the immune system weakened. Health, and life expectancy are still severely affected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame, thanks for the response. That was the kind of response I was hoping for. :-)

 

One thing I find confusing is that monolaurin is a lipid and lipids get broken up into fatty acids and glycerol in the digestion system. The fatty acid (lauric acid) is not an antiviral substance. Therefore, how can it be effective when taken orally? It should instead be injected into the arteries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you mean to imply that religion is only immoral, or simply that there are instances of immorallity within religion? Do you really need me to provide examples of "extreme immorality" of science?

What I was showing was that religion, especially those montheistic revelation based ones, have an extensive history of promoting highly immoral and unethical tenets. This can be solidily established by taking any number of the well documented attrocities and the like establish the religion of the instigators and find written tenets in their source of revekation which promoted their efforts. e.g. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" ties directly in with the witch burnings. No one could possibly even try to disassociate the two. There is a 100% correlation between the bible and the direct act of killing "witches".

 

Now try to do the same for science. First show us the written estbiashed list of moral and ethical tenets accepted by the Scientific community and then specific attrocities or "extreme immoralit(ies)" which can be directly tied to it.

 

Did the Christian directed efforts of genocide promoted by Hitler result in "extreme immorality" by some of the Dr's at the extermination camps? Yes. Did the Dr's claim they were doing science? Yes. But show us where written established sientific tenets were the mitigating factor. Give us the specific scientific tenets and where they exist in an agreed written source.

 

While it is very easy to show the specific passages in the bible which would allow a Christian to justify their actions. Along with the correlation Hitler himself established between his "Final Solution" to rid the world of Christ Killers Jews and the bible and its god.

 

When someone does something, there are usually many factors that are the motivational forces. Some have established written tenets. Some are arbitrary at best. Using the Holocust again, science and religion could both be shown to be involved. Science developed much of the process, the deadly gasses. Religion developed the specific reasons for the effort in the first place.

 

So while you may wish to promote that science was the "extreme immorality" because it provided a very efficient method, there is nothing in science which can be shown to be the motivating factor. But religion can. Yes we couold go into the scio-political issues also. But the specific delineation was based on religious identification and written tenets for the religion.

 

So yes, I accept your offer. "provide examples of "extreme immorality" of science". But in each case also provide the agreed written scientific tenets that were being followed by it's adherants that are the direct cause of the immorality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did the Christian directed efforts of genocide promoted by Hitler result in "extreme immorality" by some of the Dr's at the extermination camps? Yes. Did the Dr's claim they were doing science? Yes. But show us where written established sientific tenets were the mitigating factor. Give us the specific scientific tenets and where they exist in an agreed written source.
So while you may wish to promote that science was the "extreme immorality" because it provided a very efficient method, there is nothing in science which can be shown to be the motivating factor.
i thought fascism had something to do with eugenics and social darwinism. The issue is discussed in this book by Paul Crook, one of the associate editors of the Australian Journal of Politics & History.

 

Link to Amazon book http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521466458/ref=sib_fs_top/104-9374817-8750301?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00J&checkSum=0iqqRkqBpFDWJS39MexgZIVXoA8mLLMvQls7r%2BsG3%2Bs%3D#reader-link

 

The concept of maintaining racial supremacy through breeding, known as eugenics, which the Spartans had implemented, and which Plato defended by the words, "Our warrior-athletes must be vigilant like watch-dogs," re-emerged in the Western world with Darwinism. Darwin devoted whole chapters in The Origin of Species to discussing the "improvement of animal races," and maintained, in The Descent of Man, that human beings were a species of animal. Some time later, Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was to take his uncle's claims a step further, and put forward the modern theory of eugenics. (Nazi Germany would be the first state to implement eugenics as official policy).

 

As we have seen, Darwin's theory seems to be a concept that concerns only the science of biology, but it actually formed the basis for a totally new political outlook. Within a very short time, this new attitude was redefined as "Social Darwinism." And as many historians have come to accept, Social Darwinism became the ideological basis of fascism and Nazism.

 

The effect of Darwinism's portrayal of war and conflict as necessary has been analyzed in great detail in Paul Crook's Cambridge University publication Darwinism, War and History: The Debate over the Biology of War from 'The Origin of Species' to the First World War. Crook has made it clear that by presenting war as a "biological necessity," Darwinism formed both the formal justification for the First World War, as well as for various other warlike tendencies in fascism. Crook writes:

 

Darwinist discourse conferred approval on a range of doctrines glorifying power, status, elitism, conquest and repression. Differences between cultures, genders, classes and races were reduced to fixed biological differences, imprinted in humans during eons of selective struggle. Darwin's conflict model generated militarist and racist extrapolations that conferred approval on war and imperial struggle as 'biological necessities'.9

 

From such [Darwinist] assumptions, a variety of unpleasant consequences could be derived... War is rationalised... As Frederick Wertham has argued, if violence 'is all in human nature, and if we are all guilty, then nobody is guilty. And if we are all responsible, no man is responsible' ...The First World War was portrayed as the final vindication of the mythology of bestiality, encoded anew in terms of neo-Darwinian genetics and instinct theory.

 

Darwin thought of using Hobbes's phrase 'war of nature' as a heading to his chapter on struggle in his projected 'big book' Natural Selection ...He spoke of creatures 'overmastering' one another: 'through his continual use of highly dramatic language representing the life of organisms in nature as some heroic war, with attendant battles, victories, famine, dearth, and destruction, Darwin creates the image of a great literal struggle for existence - an image which pervades the Origin.'

 

Darwin not only proposed that human beings were a "species" descended from animals, but portrayed war and conflict as "the origin of species." This fallacy would be the justification for the promotion of war and the ideology of conflict, in fact, for the growth of fascism itself.

 

I don't know Paul Crook well, but what he wrote seems true to me.

OK. End of story.

 

We were discussing whether monolaurin offers the possibility of inhibiting HIV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

http://www.detnews.com/2005/technology/0502/06/B06-80530.htm

 

Firm stumbles upon virus killer

 

Besides nail fungus and cold sores, Ann Arbor's NanoBio is on way to find remedies for flu and HIV.

 

NanoBio Corp. didn't set out to develop a substance so powerful it can kill viruses and bacteria -- some potentially lethal -- on contact

 

read the rest from that link

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...