Slashdot Mirror


You Have Taste Receptors In Your Lungs

timothy points out news of a study from the University of Maryland's School of Medicine that found bitter taste receptors on the smooth muscle lining airways in the lungs (abstract in Nature). Quoting: "The taste receptors in the lungs are the same as those on the tongue. The tongue’s receptors are clustered in taste buds, which send signals to the brain. The researchers say that in the lung, the taste receptors are not clustered in buds and do not send signals to the brain, yet they respond to substances that have a bitter taste. ... 'I initially thought the bitter-taste receptors in the lungs would prompt a "fight or flight" response to a noxious inhalant, causing chest tightness and coughing so you would leave the toxic environment, but that’s not what we found,' says Dr. Liggett. ... The researchers tested a few standard bitter substances known to activate these receptors. 'It turns out that the bitter compounds worked the opposite way from what we thought. They all opened the airway more extensively than any known drug that we have for treatment of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).'"

223 comments

  1. That explains my preference by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

    For Dunhill over Pariament and Davidoff over Benson & Hedges!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:That explains my preference by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You can always break out a can of Zyklon, and gas your own arse!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  2. Maybe some help for Asthmatics by meerling · · Score: 1

    Let's see what they come up with from this.

    1. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since it uses a completely different mechanism than current drugs, which relax the bronchial muscles directly, and works better as well, it would not only be safer for children and people in general but vastly cheaper.

      I wonder if this has any bearing on how hot toddy's work?

      _

    2. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Fluffeh · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, throw away that old inhaler! Just inhale this LEMON or this sour bomb and breathe your worries away!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by robbak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sour and Bitter are two different tastes, but that's kind of the idea!

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    4. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it would not only be safer for children and people in general but vastly cheaper.

      Cheaper?

      If it can't be patented and net drug companies billions of $$$; I doubt there will be a company to spend the millions for the research required to get "bitter-taste-based medication" through FDA approval.

      Once they have the patent on the method of operation ("bitter tasting substance used to treat COPD, or bitter tasting substance used to treat asthma by stimulating lung taste receptors"), they will charge the standard markups all proprietary drugs get.

      IOW -- it will probably be more expensive, or we'll probably never see a product based on that come to market that can be legally marketed as such. Just a bunch of studies that show the idea is promising.

    5. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by sempir · · Score: 1

      AM I being a naive old man by seeing the Pharma companies taking this and screwing around with it till the end product costs twice as much as what is presently available?

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    6. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      You are so right. My first draft included some not very polite references to Pharmacorps and their practices. But since those always seem to incite a flame war I opted for less fuel.

      And getting it by the FDA is going to be as much a pain as you indicated, not to mention that there will likely be some "incentives" to the FDA director/testers to ignore, delay, lose the testing protocols for any product based on this discovery that did make it that far.

      Likely it will be other countries that move forward with making this available to their people, and in the US it will get stopped at the boarder as an illegal pharmaceutical.

      _

    7. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this has any bearing on how hot toddy's work?

      Maybe if you make it wrong. If you make it "right," the booze just makes you forget that you feel sick.

    8. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I had childhood asthma and I could trigger a mild attack by eating a pickled onion, I passed on the genetics for this strange reaction to my oldest son who also had childhood asthma.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, a naive man would believe the advertising by the Pharmacorps that they only have the best interests of the public at heart.

      I would call your observation accurate and realistic. If they can they will profit from this as much as possible, if they can not they will do everything they can to bury this or ensure that only they can control the distribution channels, which they will then manipulate to either make it impossible to get or cost so much that no one can afford it. Then they will stop distributing it "because there is no demand".

      _

    10. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bitter powder" costs almost nothing compared to current medications. If you could cut the cost but KEEP price for your product,

      you get increased profit.

    11. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by HungryHobo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm guessing it would be patentable.

      An example:
      Finasteride was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1992 under the brand name Proscar, a treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In 1997, the FDA approved finasteride to treat male pattern baldness

      someone discovered that a 1 mg daily dose of a prostate cancer drug normally taken in 5mg doses for prostate cancer could treat baldness.

      The drug was out of patent for prostate cancer but the trials were done for baldness.

      he who does the trials gets the patent.

      If they did the trials for using a specific bitter substance for asthma then they'd probably get the patent.

    12. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      AM I being a naive old man watching people complain about companies who save millions of people's lives and improves the lives of millions of others evert day, and all they take in return is paper with patterns painted on it.

      Seriously, I spend more on coffee than Singulair, but the later is by any definition, a miracle drug.

      Grow up. If you don't like them making all that money off the hard working backs of all those poor people you pretend to know, BUY SHARES.

    13. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      Sulfoxides plus the brine to make them into a nice vapour.

      Attacks are the normal "I'm being poisoned" reflex. Sulfoxides are close enough.

    14. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wake up and smell the coffee!

    15. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, anyone with an SVN (small volume nebulizer) could test this at home... two issues would be remembering that sour != bitter and selecting a safe bitter testing substance.

      Tonic water contains a small amount of quinine, which is considered bitter. That might be an interesting development, Schweppes for COPD.

      Of course I'm not suggesting that anyone with a health issue such as COPD should undertake such home tests. If, as you suggest, other countries found effective therapies, it would be hard to stop the many home SVN owners from following up if the substance was common...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    16. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While you are correct, it might also be so simple that you can whip up an herbal extract and put it in an atomizer. I suspect that a water-based extract of some bitter herb is all that is necessary, plus perhaps a tiny smidge of citric acid or alcohol for freshness (don't get carried away, kids!)

      The expensiveness and homicidal dreams of anti-malaria medication don't prevent a tea made from olive leaves from curing malaria. Fucking Pliny knew about this if that helps you understand how old it is, yet today we're using harmful bullshit to treat it instead.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Stile+65 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The abstract says that saccharin was tested. That's a very easy to get substance.

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    18. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Heed00 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Hmm, Singulair side effects include...

      ...other side effects such as agitation, aggression, anxiousness, dream abnormalities and hallucinations, depression, irritability, restlessness and tremor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montelukast#Side_effects

      "...and all they take in return is paper with patterns painted on it."

      And if this little characterization doesn't falls under the "dream abnormalities and hallucinations" heading, then I don't know what would.

      --
      Thought thinks itself.
    19. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that's a very helpful suggestion for the poor and disadvantaged in other countries who are denied basic, life-saving medicine because it's too costly and IP artificially restricts competitors offering the product at a lower price.

    20. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While you are correct, it might also be so simple that you can whip up an herbal extract and put it in an atomizer. I suspect that a water-based extract of some bitter herb is all that is necessary

      Yes... if people self-medicate, at their own risk, some people could try that.

      Their doctor/health care professional, however, would be taking so huge a legal risk to recommend or order use of a product as a medication not FDA approved for that usage, they would probably not do that

      Without someone running clinical trials, there are many unknowns.

    21. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Their doctor/health care professional, however, would be taking so huge a legal risk to recommend or order use of a product as a medication not FDA approved for that usage, they would probably not do that

      That's okay, most of middle america can't afford to go to the doctor any more, so that's a non-issue. (The poorest people, of course, receive the standard sub-standard health care...)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If it can't be patented and net drug companies billions of $$$; I doubt there will be a company to spend the millions for the research required to get "bitter-taste-based medication" through FDA approval.

      The nice thing is, if these "standard bitter substances" have been FDA approved for one application they can be used for any application. You don't have to get FDA approval for each indication, so if these are already known substances it might be pretty easy to get a product made.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    23. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Their doctor/health care professional, however, would be taking so huge a legal risk to recommend or order use of a product as a medication not FDA approved for that usage, they would probably not do that

      That's nonsense, it happens all the time. One example, Propranolol is a beta blocker originally indicated as a heart medication. It's quite effective and very safe. It's never been approved for treating anxiety, but doctors hand it out like candy to musicians and performers to handle stage fright. There's nothing illegal about a doctor prescribing an approved drug for an off-label indication.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    24. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drink Moxie!

    25. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once they have the patent on the method of operation ("bitter tasting substance used to treat COPD, or bitter tasting substance used to treat asthma by stimulating lung taste receptors"), they will charge the standard markups all proprietary drugs get.

      So, at least 20 years down the road we will be able to get generics of this stuff for cheep.

    26. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, Singulair side effects include... ...other side effects such as agitation, aggression, anxiousness, dream abnormalities and hallucinations, depression, irritability, restlessness and tremor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montelukast#Side_effects

      "...and all they take in return is paper with patterns painted on it."

      And if this little characterization doesn't falls under the "dream abnormalities and hallucinations" heading, then I don't know what would.

      Woosh!

    27. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Maybe some herbalist could devise a spray of Gentain ( very bitter ) extractives and experiment inhaling it themselves. If they don't die, maybe they could put it in a spray 'flavor spray' 'food'. Then by word of mouth it might spread through the Asthmatic community that it works better than standard inhalers ( if indeed it did work ), displacing them. Nobody would need to make claims as to inhaled gentain extract's supposed drug qualities.... Maybe it doesn't need to be inhaled. If not, they could maybe add it to a soda..

      --
      ...
    28. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by mysidia · · Score: 1

      One example, Propranolol is a beta blocker originally indicated as a heart medication. It's quite effective and very safe.

      Propranolol has been approved by the FDA for at least one purpose as safe.

      That's entirely different from a doctor recommending a medication or type of treatment regimen whose safety has not been validated.

      There's nothing illegal about a doctor prescribing an approved drug for an off-label indication.

      The risk is not being arrested -- the risk is being sued for civil damages or malpractice, based on advising a treatment that has not been formally tested, should the person claim the treatment didn't work, or should the person claim their condition worsened.

    29. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I spend more on coffee than Singulair, but the later is by any definition, a miracle drug.

      I find it ironic that you could apparently be saving money by simply breathing in your coffee...

    30. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by chris+mazuc · · Score: 1

      Having taken propranolol (for migraines, it didn't work btw) I find it interesting it is also used for performance anxiety. I wonder if it actually reduces the anxiety or simply removes the physical effects. A while back there was an Olympic sport shooter that was stripped of his medals for using propranolol, presumably to assist aiming.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    31. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Yes, it mainly stops the physical effects of anxiety. Shaking hands or an uneven voice are caused by the effects of adrenalin, which propranolol blocks. Psychologically, it only affects anxiety in an indirect way, by reassuring performers that they won't have to deal with their voice wavering or fingers trembling.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    32. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Let's see what they come up with from this.

      How about some bitter substance that you can carry in a vial, and breathe in if you ever lack oxygen? For instance, if you're wearing a tight corset, you might feel faint due to your compressed lungs, and use this to help recover.

      I'm gonna call it "Smelling Salts".

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    33. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by JeffSpudrinski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Singulair side effects include...other side effects such as agitation, aggression, anxiousness, dream abnormalities and hallucinations, depression, irritability, restlessness and tremor"

      Sounds like the same side effects of the coffee he referred to.

      -JJS

    34. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      Do you often get soda into your lungs, in which the taste receptors for bitter reside?

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    35. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Maybe whatever the bitter principle in gentain is, it diffuses throughout the body and remains bitter. Then by eating it, it would make YOU ( including your lungs ) 'taste bitter'. For instance aspertame tastes sweet, and is eliminated through urine without being metabolised. I suppose that if you ate human meat of a human who'd consumed lots of diet soda, they might taste sweet. Might there be bitter substances that operate the same way? Is gentain one of them?
      BTW, I don't have asthma.

      --
      ...
    36. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by OFnow · · Score: 1

      Maybe bitter compounds can be made illegal, so only drug companies can sell them?

    37. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by proggoddess · · Score: 1

      I find it ironic that saccharin is an artificial sweetener but reacts with bitter-sensing cells. I always knew saccharin had a weird after-taste.

      --
      --The Programming goddess from Gorflaz
    38. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by muridae · · Score: 1

      If it can't be patented and net drug companies billions of $$$; I doubt there will be a company to spend the millions for the research required to get "bitter-taste-based medication" through FDA approval.

      The nice thing is, if these "standard bitter substances" have been FDA approved for one application they can be used for any application. You don't have to get FDA approval for each indication, so if these are already known substances it might be pretty easy to get a product made.

      My understanding is that this is only true if they have been approved in the same form they will be used. A drug that is IV only does not get automatic approval when made in pill form, though it doesn't go through the same safety studies. Initial safety would need to be confirmed, that the medication doesn't metabolize differently in the gut than when injected. I suspect that something that was approved as a solid medicine would have to be approved as a vapor, as the safe vs effective doses would be much different once you change how they are absorbed.

    39. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by JPC-tx2 · · Score: 1

      Why would I buy shares of a company that I "...don't like making money off the hard working backs of all those poor people..."?

      I'd buy shares of their competitors if they weren't just as bad...

      Do you think that the company who makes Singulair cares about you beyond keeping you alive long enough to extract the maximum amount of money from you that they can?

      All they need, is for you to believe their drug is helping and continue buying it. Wether it actually is helping or not offers different pro's and con's for them either way.

    40. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I suspect that a water-based extract of some bitter herb is all that is necessary,

      Too bad they already tested that obvious possibility. Didn't work. Next idea.

      The expensiveness and homicidal dreams of anti-malaria medication don't prevent a tea made from olive leaves from curing malaria. Fucking Pliny knew about this if that helps you understand how old it is, yet today we're using harmful bullshit to treat it instead.

      Ah yes. Of course, if fucking Pliny's special tea worked, maybe they would actually use it in those many countries with endemic malaria. Guess it doesn't work well enough for Nigerians to import olive leaves...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    41. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      If all it takes is a "bitter" inhalant then I'm pretty sure it won't even be necessary to go through the FDA/prescription drug route. Obviously this one would be fought tooth and nail by the establishment but you could probably go the "Dietary Supplement" route and have it be over the counter.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    42. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their doctor/health care professional, however, would be taking so huge a legal risk to recommend or order use of a product as a medication not FDA approved for that usage, they would probably not do that

      That's nonsense, it happens all the time. One example, Propranolol is a beta blocker originally indicated as a heart medication. It's quite effective and very safe. It's never been approved for treating anxiety, but doctors hand it out like candy to musicians and performers to handle stage fright. There's nothing illegal about a doctor prescribing an approved drug for an off-label indication.

      Unless you are Michael Jackson's family doctor.

    43. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      It's quite effective and very safe

      Well, unless you're an asthmatic, in which case you end up getting intubated in the ER after an unconscious ambulance ride.

      Sorry, just happened to my wife like 3 months ago. She even said to her doctor "I'm an asthmatic" when he prescribed it, and he was like "nah, it should be fine". ARGH!

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    44. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by drcheap · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...I always knew saccharin had a weird after-taste.

      That's because you were doing it wrong...you are supposed to put it in your iced tea, not snort it through the straw.

    45. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by baubo · · Score: 1

      Too bad they already tested that obvious possibility. Didn't work. Next idea.

      Citation please... I read the abstract and it said nothing about aerosolized herbal teas having been tried. It did say that drinking teas of bitter herbs wouldn't work.

    46. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe a stretch, but more cigarettes for kids! Cigarettes - great for asthma!

    47. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by theBuddman · · Score: 1

      I spend more on coffee than Singulair, but the later is by any definition, a miracle drug.

      I can assure you, so is the former...

    48. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      Ingestion of semi-endangered plan spps. would not be my first approach since you'd be saturating more than just the lungs with the active compounds. Since most of the genti- compounds appear to be large, alkaloid, cyclic or aromatic ligands of sugars, (assuming that their many potential active sites remain unmolested in the GI tract) I would be surprised if maintaining sufficient concentration into the bloodstream to have it aerosolize in the lungs wouldn't also generate substantial side effects almost everywhere else in the body where Gentain could be used for treatment.

      I don't see the benefit here of ingestion over inhalation, but there is potentially interesting research with respect to asthma occurrence among drinkers of bitters and the like.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    49. Re:Maybe some help for Asthmatics by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      Well played. I seriously laughed out loud when I read your post. thank you for brightening my day.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  3. Cynical Me by Bob9113 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    'It turns out that the bitter compounds worked the opposite way from what we thought. They all opened the airway more extensively than any known drug that we have for treatment of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).'

    Expect anything bitter and volatile to be classified as a controlled substance that can only be distributed on the condition that a pile of money is given to one of the major campaign contributing drug companies. You see, they need the money so they can continue doing life-saving research into finding new boner drugs and sleeping pills that they can convince us we need.

    1. Re:Cynical Me by Yvan256 · · Score: 0

      Only in the USA, though.

    2. Re:Cynical Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, to be young again!!!

    3. Re:Cynical Me by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Expect anything bitter and volatile to be classified as a controlled substance that can only be distributed on the condition that a pile of money is given to one of the major campaign contributing drug companies.

      What, are they going to control the growing of wormwood (among others)?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:Cynical Me by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They already control growth of cannabis, which would otherwise be a common weed.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    5. Re:Cynical Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but they are going to try. What, you don't think they would try to control growing of harmless plants?

    6. Re:Cynical Me by Khyber · · Score: 1

      If the government 'controlled' the growth of cannabis, how come there hasn't been a reduction in availability?

      Right, because the government is too incompetent to even get rid of fucking kudzu.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Cynical Me by TheEyes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the government 'controlled' the growth of cannabis, how come there hasn't been a reduction in availability?

      Right, because the government is too incompetent to even get rid of fucking kudzu.

      Hey, they've done a great job making it more expensive: as an illegal drug its street value is roughly five times what it would be if it were legalized. Gotta keep those cartels in business; without marijuana their annual profit would be about 20-25% lower than it is.

      Support Mexican Cartel violence! Keep Marijuana Illegal! (Paid for by police chiefs far away from the border)

    8. Re:Cynical Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the EU, too. Pharma-lobbies are some of the most powerful in all "western" civilisations; if not the most powerful. They're a prime source of corruption.

    9. Re:Cynical Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, they've done a great job making it more expensive: as an illegal drug its street value is roughly five times what it would be if it were legalized. Gotta keep those cartels in business; without marijuana their annual profit would be about 20-25% lower than it is.

      Support Mexican Cartel violence! Keep Marijuana Illegal! (Paid for by police chiefs far away from the border)

      Yes, but how would our teenage entrepreneurs learn about business, pay for their cars and clothes if it were legal and cheap.

    10. Re:Cynical Me by peragrin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Says who? If it was legalized it would be taxed, company profits would be attached, the FDA gets involved, legal protection problems for the use of it, like alcohol. In the end it might just be cheaper to get it illegally.

      Have you ever seen someone high on pot drive? they are worse than drunks. A drunk serves because he doesn't have fine control of his body, someone on pot serves cause that's a pretty shade of yellow in the other lane.

      All drugs react differently with different people(angry drunk vs mellow drunk is a great example) How do you know someone won't go homicidal while on pot?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:Cynical Me by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good luck taking away people's coffee or cocoa beans.

    12. Re:Cynical Me by ahankinson · · Score: 1

      How do you know someone won't go homicidal while watching paint dry? Or reading a book? Yes, let's ban everything because it might someday make someone fly into a murderous rage.

    13. Re:Cynical Me by bythescruff · · Score: 1

      "How do you know someone won't go homicidal while on pot?"

      In the immortal words of the great prophet Hicks: "Because it's fucking impossible."

      --
      Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
    14. Re:Cynical Me by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you ever seen someone high on pot drive? they are worse than drunks. [...] How do you know someone won't go homicidal while on pot?

      OK, OK, we get that you've never smoked.

    15. Re:Cynical Me by erevlydeux · · Score: 1

      Says who? If it was legalized it would be taxed, company profits would be attached, the FDA gets involved, legal protection problems for the use of it, like alcohol. In the end it might just be cheaper to get it illegally.

      Have you ever seen someone high on pot drive? they are worse than drunks. A drunk serves because he doesn't have fine control of his body, someone on pot serves cause that's a pretty shade of yellow in the other lane.

      All drugs react differently with different people(angry drunk vs mellow drunk is a great example) How do you know someone won't go homicidal while on pot?

      Might as well make alcohol illegal, along with cough syrups, with that thinking. The benefits of alcohol are few and far between - stuff like flavinoids in red wine, or being an antiseptic in a pinch. Weed, anecdotally, serves to reduce pain without killing your liver. Helps people eat more to put on weight that having eating disorders. It outweighs the benefits of alcohol by a long shot. Also, I have a feeling if you wanted to pull up accidents with heavy machinery related to use of a mind-altering substance, alcohol would be far out in front compared to weed.

    16. Re:Cynical Me by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      Good luck taking away people's coffee or cocoa beans.

      There would be blood in the streets. Male blood. Lots of male blood.

    17. Re:Cynical Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know someone won't go homicidal while on alcohol? And why is driving even an issue? It's not like it would be legal to drive while on it. I think your issue is that you support banning of alcohol, because otherwise your argument makes no sense at all. You're ignorant on the matter.

    18. Re:Cynical Me by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Have you seen someone drive while blindfolded? they are worse than drunks.

      Have you seen someone drive while masturbating? they are even worse than drunks.

      Have you seen someone drive while asleep? they are worse than drunks.

      Have you seen someone drive while playing WoW on their laptop? they are worse than drunks.

      None of that matters in terms of whether blindfolds, masturbating, sleeping, or playing WoW should be illegal. Just as safety while diving is irrelevant to whether alcohol or pot shoiuld be illegal.

      Sure, illegal to drive after taking/while doing but we can already make things have that property without making them illegal to use/possess in general.

    19. Re:Cynical Me by zacronos · · Score: 1
      Odd, you seem strongly against legalizing pot, even when the points you are making aren't in response to GP's. The question is not "are there harmful effects of smoking pot?", but "can we expect things to be better or worse if pot were legal, in contrast to things now?" Noting that I'm not the GP poster, allow me to rebut some of your statements:

      If it was legalized it would be taxed, company profits would be attached, the FDA gets involved, legal protection problems for the use of it, like alcohol. In the end it might just be cheaper to get it illegally. In the end it might just be cheaper to get it illegally.

      True, it might be more expensive, but some (many?) people will still prefer to buy it legally because of the FDA's involvement (quality control, secure knowledge it won't be laced with something else, etc), and of course because getting it legally wouldn't risk landing them in jail. It would also likely be more convenient. If it's more expensive and no one uses that option, what skin is it off your back, assuming you don't smoke pot yourself?

      Have you ever seen someone high on pot drive? they are worse than drunks. A drunk serves because he doesn't have fine control of his body, someone on pot serves cause that's a pretty shade of yellow in the other lane.

      Ok... so make it illegal to drive under the influence of pot. You know, the same way it's illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol, or the same way it's already illegal to drive under the influence of pot. Are you claiming that incidences of driving under the influence of pot would increase if it were made legal? (I ask because you never said that.) If so, please back up your claim.

      All drugs react differently with different people(angry drunk vs mellow drunk is a great example) How do you know someone won't go homicidal while on pot?

      How do you know someone won't go homicidal while smoking tobacco cigarettes, or drinking Red Bull (yes, caffeine is a drug)? Or while drunk? You yourself mention the variability in reaction to alcohol. The fact is, "homicidal" isn't a typical reaction to alcohol, nor to pot, and you know it. More importantly, even if that risk were significant, there are already people smoking pot! We're not talking about whether people should smoke pot or not -- we're talking about whether things would improve or worsen if pot were made legal. Pot use is already flourishing. How much would pot use increase if it were legal? Pot is so easy to get right now that I'd imagine most people who don't smoke pot now have other reasons besides its legality, and thus the increase wouldn't be terribly significant. There is evidence to support this idea.

      So... you seem to be arguing just as much for making alcohol illegal as you are for keeping pot illegal. We've tried that before, and it didn't work out so well. Contrast that with the results of making pot legal, which has also been tried. From those links: one policy (alcohol prohibition in the US) "stimulated the proliferation of rampant underground, organized and widespread criminal activity.[4]", while the other (legalized cannabis in the Netherlands) has led to an average level of soft drug use, but with a level of "problem drug users (0.44%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[22] The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is together with Poland, France, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic the lowest of the EU.[23]".

      With that supporting evidence, I propose that regardless of whether smoking pot is good or bad, harmful or not, etc, the effects of

    20. Re:Cynical Me by peragrin · · Score: 1

      no I have smoked pot, I saw things that weren't really there and then my natural paranoia kicked in I wanted to get rid of the flying things.

      My family are also angry drunks most of the time. Therefore I don't drink as I don't want to lose control and hurt someone(or myself). I don't do drugs not because it is bad but because I will lose control and I will probably hurt someone.

      While I admit it is just me, the majority of people don't have that kind of self discipline, do you really want to take a chance with your life? what's to stop them from smoking pot, and drinking in mass quantities and then driving home. Right now it's illegal, so only a small percentage(though still large number) do so now.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    21. Re:Cynical Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homicidal while on pot?! High drivers worse than drunks? Clearly you have no idea what marijuana does to a person. I suggest you try it, or at least read some research about it.

      “Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:

            1. There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
            2. The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
            3. It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.”

      REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

    22. Re:Cynical Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not worse than drunks. You're so full of shit. Your problem is you don't realize how many people are smokers around you.

    23. Re:Cynical Me by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      People grow the stuff everywhere. Literally everywhere. I doubt that FDA and taxes are going to play a huge role for those who wish to avoid such.

    24. Re:Cynical Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no I have smoked pot, I saw things that weren't really there and then my natural paranoia kicked in I wanted to get rid of the flying things.

      You sure that was pot? I've smoked almost daily for 14 years and have never hallucinated. Not once.

      what's to stop them from smoking pot, and drinking in mass quantities and then driving home.

      I believe there is a crime in most places called Driving Under the Influence. Most of these laws don't make a distinction between alcohol and marijuana, or prescription painkillers for that matter. Driving while impaired is a crime that deserves far greater punishment than is usually dispensed to those that are caught. Personally I think that jail time should be mandatory for anyone convicted of a DUI, even first offenders.

    25. Re:Cynical Me by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Are you sure you were smoking 100% pot? If you're not a regular user and don't know your source, and don't know what natural pot smells like it's very easy for people to sell you low quality laced with things like RAID which will easily produce all the symptoms you listed.

      Get informed before you start to bash.

    26. Re:Cynical Me by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Nothing you say is even remotely true about pot.

      It makes people bad drivers because they have greatly delayed and slowed reactions and makes them more easily distracted by making it harder to process multiple sources of information.

      Homicidal? that is hilarious.

    27. Re:Cynical Me by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Well like he said, different drugs get people high in different ways. I knew one kid that couldn't keep himself from punching stuff when he drank. Meanwhile, a little asian gal I know can't keep from giggling when she drinks. And yet another fella I know can't restrain himself from trying to kiss guys.

      Of the pot smokers I know, some tend to get very contemplative, quiet, and focused. Two others basically just fall asleep when they smoke. And still, a third, starts mumbling to himself and trying to climb things. I wouldn't rule out hallucinations completely, though I do admit that seems like it would be pretty extreme. But the parent's point still stands either way: pot, like alcohol, has different effects on different people. Hell, Golsdchlagger's made me hallucinate and go into a paranoid frenzy before, and normally I am a pretty happy drinker.

    28. Re:Cynical Me by TheEyes · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen someone high on pot drive? they are worse than drunks. A drunk serves because he doesn't have fine control of his body, someone on pot serves cause that's a pretty shade of yellow in the other lane.

      So then you do the smart thing and make driving under the influence illegal... oh wait it already is, and under a separate part of the law that isn't affected by legalizing pot! Next issue please.

    29. Re:Cynical Me by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Wow, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

      Try AC next time, you might gain fewer foes.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    30. Re:Cynical Me by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I think things would go better if they stopped saying "made legal" or "legalized."

      Rather, it should be the lifting of a prohibition. Saying "made legal" or "legalized" implies it's use is advocated, rather than merely allowed.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    31. Re:Cynical Me by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Then explain how a minor contact high made me fly off the handle? The guys smoking it had entirely normal reactions to it, and yet I had a distinct and strong urge to break things and/or people.

      Not everyone reacts the same way to chemicals. I, for instance, cannot take most 'nighttime' medicines, as doing so will put only a part of my mind out, leaving me wide awake and in very weak control of my impulses.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    32. Re:Cynical Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure you know what a contact high is. The Army did experiments and found that the only way to get high without direct inhalation from a smoking device is if you're in a very small space and the smokers are smoking a lot--in other words, hot-boxing a car or closet.

      The contact high you had is like the one in the Wiki link--a psychological state picked up from the tokers. Perhaps you were angry because everyone was more chilled out than you? Had you actually inhaled potent smoke, the closest thing to what you got would likely be paranoia. There *is* the occasional case of marijuana triggering latent psychotic tendencies, so if you *did* inhale, you might want to see a shrink. That's not a standard effect of the drug and it could indicate deeper problems.

    33. Re:Cynical Me by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I would not doubt that. There are a lot of things that are 'off' about me, and even more that I keep to myself.

      I tried seeing a 'shrink' before, but she seemed to fixate on a non-existent daddy issue. Didn't really go anywhere.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    34. Re:Cynical Me by zacronos · · Score: 1

      Saying "made legal" or "legalized" implies it's use is advocated, rather than merely allowed.

      I thoroughly disagree. To me, the word "legal" means "allowed" or "not prohibited". This follows directly from the philosophy that things are allowed/legal by default, and things should not be made illegal unless there is a compelling reason; thus the category of "legal" covers everything from "required" to "encouraged" to "we don't care" to "prohibition is too impractical/costly/problematic to implement".

      The government can, and often does, provide incentives for certain things, and that I would call "advocating" or "promoting" (such as the current tax credits for replacing old windows and doors with energy-efficient ones). Merely making something legal is not the same as encouraging, and to take the mindset that things which are legal are encouraged shifts the default from "legal unless the government chooses to prohibit it" to "illegal unless the government chooses to encourage it". Let's not go there, please.

    35. Re:Cynical Me by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Inform yourself. Extremely high concentrations of THCV (commonly found in extremely potent Asian-based strains,) will blow your endocannabinoid system and make you see shit.

      Hi, I breed cannabis for the Dutch and for medical research.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    36. Re:Cynical Me by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The fact is, "homicidal" isn't a typical reaction to alcohol"

      Oh, if only reality were that way, I'd never have had the fucked up life I had thanks to a completely alcoholic family.

      Ever hear the term 'Raging Drunk?' Homicidal fits right in there.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    37. Re:Cynical Me by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      But really, which do you think is more readily available to your average joe on the streets?

      As for research, any of it involve neuroregeneration, specifically which cbd's would be more usefull for restoring function where there is already somewhat of a pathway.

      I've used low thc indica variants on myself to restore function of the right side of my body, but would like something better than anecdotal evidence as i'm looking to help a dog with reduced mobility after a spinal injury.

    38. Re:Cynical Me by zacronos · · Score: 1

      Angry, even violent, does not necessarily mean homicidal. Also, I said it isn't a typical reaction to alcohol, I didn't say it never happens. If it were typical, why doesn't every popular bar/pub in the world have at least one attempted killing every weekend? There are plenty of people drinking, and there may even be fights (or potential fights) on that sort of regular basis, but I don't typically see homicidal rage result from alcohol consumption. (Maybe you see that, but I'm guessing your "completely alcoholic family" isn't typical.)

    39. Re:Cynical Me by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      btw, i was in drug research myself, though mainly cocaine and opium derivatives. The only thc related studies in our lab were just pure thc, this was back in the 90's.

    40. Re:Cynical Me by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I'm turning green and smelly with envy.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    41. Re:Cynical Me by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Try another shrink. And don't be too convinced about anything. I'm not saying you have daddy issues, just be honest with your shrink, and more importantly, yourself. You'll find a good shrink (for a man, that usually is a woman) is like... a parent you never had, even more. Helps fix some of the damage. I can't blame them... I better stop now.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    42. Re:Cynical Me by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You're looking for higher concentrations of CBD, CBC, CBI, and CBN to handle the neurological issues.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    43. Re:Cynical Me by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Get into my field (photobiology) and you can get yourself a kushy (no pun intended) job.

      have fun dealing with the microeinstein values of each required wavelength, and measuring them! I just bought a FIFTH upgrade to my measurement system, and due to many variables, I still have problems obtaining readings within my tolerance requirements.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    44. Re:Cynical Me by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "If it were typical, why doesn't every popular bar/pub in the world have at least one attempted killing every weekend?"

      I can tell you this one, having worked a couple of bars in my life - all the shit happens OUTSIDE of the bar, for the most part, excepting the morons that just can't wait until they step outside to break loose like a mad man.

      Funny enough, both my bar jobs were gay bars, so the fights were always entertaining, but there was ALWAYS that hint of murder in each participant's voice.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  4. Great... by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Funny

    As if I didn't have enough justification for an aversion to public restrooms. Now I know that when I go into one and it smells like someone slaughtered a cow in there, my lungs will be tasting that. Thanks a lot, University of Maryland!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  5. Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    When I was premed we experimented on fish with several neurotransmitters. Since I was in a frat, I eventually found myself doing shots of them (about 0.1cc each). They all tasted bitter.

    They also gave me some stomach upset and one or two caused a little abdominal cramping. And I have become steadily more weird. Though since I started out weird enough to do neurotransmitter shots, so maybe I was headed here anyway.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Seriously. What exactly were you trying to accomplish?

    2. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by greenmahe · · Score: 1

      this is really good ... Daniel martien, http://www.eroticnosy.com/

    3. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The answer is obvious, the fish neuroeceptors bonded with those in your own brain and you are now part fish. Do you find yourself flopping about when you are removed from water? Do you find yourself capable of eating until your stomach literally explodes because you have no receptors that tell you that you're full? Do you find yourself inexplicably drawn to plastic castles? If so you are a fishman, you best be hanging around the basement of draculas castle attacking anyone with a whip and sen ding him flying back into the water.

    5. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The neurotransmitters were ones like GABA and acetylcholine - both humans and fish produce and use them in our nerves.

      In other words, I was already part fish. Thanks for explaining my longtime attraction to plastic castles.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Did you read the part where I was in a frat? What is "accomplish" supposed to mean? Shots gratia shots.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Or to myself. Neurotransmitters weren't the edgiest substance I soaked up in college, and I've lived to tell the tale.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Castlevania Win! :D

    9. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Hatta · · Score: 1

      When I was premed we experimented on fish with several neurotransmitters. Since I was in a frat, I eventually found myself doing shots of them (about 0.1cc each). They all tasted bitter.

      That's odd, what kind of fish were they?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's not odd at all. An advanced version of these experiments also run on goldfish tests a biochemical basis for memory.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I must be the only person who read his statement to mean that he took shots of fish.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      0.1cc of fish isn't enough to get you off.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:Neurotransmitters Are Bitter by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I dunno if I believe you. Your story sounds fishy.

  6. That's one of the things I love about whisky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just before sipping, I take a (slow!) deep breath and I can "taste" the vapors all the way down in my lungs. With other drinks, it is not as satisfying... Some whiskeys aren't good for this.

  7. You don't see that every day by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not very often that researchers stumble onto something cheap and simple that could potentially save hundreds of millions of lives. I sure hope it pans out in practice.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:You don't see that every day by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not very often that researchers stumble onto something cheap and simple that could potentially save hundreds of millions of lives. I sure hope it pans out in practice.

      No, but it's every other week that some researcher thinks he has.

    2. Re:You don't see that every day by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

      It's not very often that researchers stumble onto something cheap and simple that could potentially save hundreds of millions of lives. I sure hope it pans out in practice.

      No, but it's every other week that some researcher thinks he has.

      And every other day that some researcher submits a grant application claiming one.

      --
      __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    3. Re:You don't see that every day by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not very often that researchers stumble onto something cheap and simple that could potentially save hundreds of millions of lives.

      Big Pharma + patents = perverse incentives
      There's no money to be made in taking something through the expense of clinical trials when the patent can easily be sidestepped.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:You don't see that every day by Interoperable · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it's at least that often that a science journalist misrepresents a researcher's statements to make it sound like he thinks he has.

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    5. Re:You don't see that every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's at least that often that a Slashdot editor writes a misleading summary that misrepresents both the science journalist and the researchers' statements simultaneously.

    6. Re:You don't see that every day by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      Well, boys, this one would be an easy one to test.

      Find yourself (or be) a brave asthmatic.

      Go out and buy some denatonium benzoate. It's readily available in liquid or powder form, and is pretty much non-toxic.

      When you're feeling nice and congested ... snort up! (Or fire up a steamer and inhale some fumes.)

      If it works, throw away those damned 25 dollar inhalers and let us know!

      (Ain't science wunnerful?)

    7. Re:You don't see that every day by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Sure it is... it's just not everyday that they can change it into something ridiculously complicated and expensive with the potential to make billions of profit WHILE saving millions of lives. :)

  8. Coffee by xaoslaad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any chance this is why the coffee for asthma remedy is supposedly effective? Perhaps inhaling the vapors for a bitter fluid are doing just what they described here?

    1. Re:Coffee by flows · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any chance this is why the coffee for asthma remedy is supposedly effective? Perhaps inhaling the vapors for a bitter fluid are doing just what they described here?

      My thoughts exactly! As an asthmatic, I have found myself often alleviated by coffee. My assumption was that either the warmth or maybe even the caffeine was responsible.

      Can it be why just the smell of coffee makes me feel better?

      I'm surely paying more attention in the future. *Goes get more coffee*

    2. Re:Coffee by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The primary effectiveness of coffee comes from the stimulant properties of caffeine (take a couple of shots from an inhaler in close proximity with coffee and you'll notice that the stimulant effects of both compound for an unpleasant jittery effect).

      HOWEVER the bitter vapors may very well increase the effectiveness.

      I'm not surprised by this at all, based on decades of experience with bronchial problems.

      Things I've noticed:
      Cinnamon tends to have a soothing effect; particularly a "tea" of cinnamon with a shot of whiskey for good measure

      hanging my head over a steaming bowl of water seems to help, tossing in fragrant spices seems to help more

      Certain things do create a "content based sensation" in the lungs when inhaled; fragrant steams and inhalers themselves come to mind. (I've always had the weirdest feeling of being able to taste cold air, when it gets down a little below freezing I experience a smoky sensation that doesn't seem to come from anywhere in particular)

    3. Re:Coffee by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (I've always had the weirdest feeling of being able to taste cold air, when it gets down a little below freezing I experience a smoky sensation that doesn't seem to come from anywhere in particular)

      That's the moisture in your airways 'steaming up' due to contact with the cold. Same thing that you'd see if you exhaled into that same air, but on the inside...

    4. Re:Coffee by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      My assumption was that either the warmth or maybe even the caffeine was responsible.

      It's the caffeine.

      See, all modern bronchodilators work as B2-antagonists, which is a chemical pathway normally triggered by adrenaline (after all, during a flight-or-fight response, open lungs and well-oxygenated blood are a rather good thing). And caffeine stimulates adrenaline production. So, indirectly, caffeine triggers bronchial dilation.

    5. Re:Coffee by adolf · · Score: 1

      If your coffee is bitter, you're doing it wrong.

  9. It's not quite Spidey sense, but I'll take it by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    I'll never be trapped in a dark room with Radicchio again!

  10. Hmmm by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Could this be WHY vicks vapor rub works so well?

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:Hmmm by atomicstrawberry · · Score: 1

      Menthol is the active chemical in vapor rub, amongst other things.

    2. Re:Hmmm by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I had a co-worker who when pregnant couldn't stay off the stuff. She had a bottle a day habit.

    3. Re:Hmmm by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      That sounds unhealthy. You can't use the stuff on babies, I'd be surprised if its use is not at least discouraged when pregnant.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    4. Re:Hmmm by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that has to do with their lungs and nasal passages not being fully formed. Babies don't usually breathe in the womb.

  11. Bitrex in Airdusters!? by oRiCN · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, All along the Bitrex they put in airdusters has been helping people reach an extra high?

    1. Re:Bitrex in Airdusters!? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1
  12. Be careful by Yvan256 · · Score: 0

    Towelie got hooked on that stuff and now inhales up to 2000 cans of computer duster a day.

    1. Re:Be careful by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 0

      Yeahhe's "walking on sunshine", apparently...

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
  13. Pepper sniffing kids by yoldapirate · · Score: 0

    On other news, kids have been caught on a new trend sniffing pepper from a prostitutes ass. They claim its to relieve their asthma.

  14. Re:I think there is more to it by jack2000 · · Score: 0

    There's too much dead skin cells between your fingers and the food.

  15. so... by atari2600a · · Score: 0

    when someone farts & I tell them eww gross I can taste it...

    1. Re:so... by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Actually you are tasting it with the taste buds in your mouth. When we inhale we also taste the particles with our tongues.

  16. The last sentence... by bMinear3 · · Score: 1

    ...brings it home.

  17. Known it for years.. by Renraku · · Score: 1

    We've known it for years (decades, even) that there are taste receptors in the lungs. People with no taste/smells can taste things if they inhale deep enough. Also, there are taste receptors in the sinuses, on the roof of the mouth, and under the tongue as well.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Known it for years.. by z0idberg · · Score: 1
      You know this from first-hand experience? From the research it seems that wouldn't be possible.

      in the lung, the taste receptors are not clustered in buds and do not send signals to the brain

    2. Re:Known it for years.. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Given the claim is for taste receptors which don't send anything to the brain, surely you can conclude they just might be different from something that can actually result in "tasting" something.

  18. Beer(Hops)/Coffee & Cigs by Sebilrazen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems this could be why beer and coffee go so well with smokes, they make it easier to breathe while puffing on that chimney stick.

    --
    "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    1. Re:Beer(Hops)/Coffee & Cigs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I suppose this would be even more toxic, though...

    2. Re:Beer(Hops)/Coffee & Cigs by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Actually, this makes sense.

      The other night my son was having breathing problems (asthma) and he'd just run out of his inhaler. He was also putting on a little drama, and making it worse than it was by exaggerating. Short of taking him to the ER, we didn't see many options.

      So on a whim - and to get him to shut up and go to sleep - I poured a couple drops of "cleaning" grade whiskey in a glass and gave it to him. "Here's some medicine. Drink it quickly."

      So he pounded the small amount of liquor. His face scrunched up, as if his ears were going to run towards his nose, and pull his eyes into the depths of his skull. "That tastes horrible!" He put his head on the pillow and tried to go to sleep. I could already hear an improvement (no more wheezing).

      Before I got out of the room, he said, "Daddy, that's really good medicine. It tastes like a butt, but it worked really well."

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:Beer(Hops)/Coffee & Cigs by uzd4ce · · Score: 1

      For the case of beer, it would depend on the type of beer drank -- most crap american beers have very little, almost imperceivable amounts of bitterness, but the same is also true for many import beers. IPAs tend to be fairly bitter, but even then how would the bittering agents be delivered to the lungs? The bitterness comes from the isomerization of alpha acids during the boiling of the wort -- 60 minutes is generally required to isomerize and extract the alpha acids. Hops that are not boiled for very long will contribute more aromatics which come from volatile oils, and are not bittering. So, if you're smoking and enjoying a beer, about the only way I see the bitterness from the beer (or coffee) opening up your lungs would be by choking on it after taking a big nasty puff. But then again, that would be closing up your lungs first with the fluid. That said, if I could get an aerosolized form of hop with both the bitterness and aromatics, I'd buy it in a heartbeat even without having asthma or any kind of CLPD. I'd love to take a "Hop Shot"

    4. Re:Beer(Hops)/Coffee & Cigs by Philomage · · Score: 1

      You could just buy some hops and an aerosoliser (for, um... herbs, yeah).

  19. Evolutionary perspective by scapermoya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder what might be the reasoning behind this system evolving/remaining intact in humans. I can't really think of an exogenous substance that we inhale naturally that would activate such a response and confer an advantage to us. My best guess would be that the natural ligand for these receptors is something that is produced locally in the lungs in scenarios where bronchiodilation is desired (ie sympathetic stimulation). as someone else pointed out, many of the common neuroreceptors are alkaloids, and would probably activate these receptors. From the abstract, it sounds like these receptors are Gq (IP3 and calcium) receptors, which is interesting because the "classic" receptors that dilate the smooth muscle in the lungs are Gs receptors that stimulate increased cAMP. In smooth muscle, more calcium generally leads to stronger, not weaker, contraction. cAMP leads to relaxation, explaining why epinephrine and albuterol have their effects.

    didn't have time to read the whole paper. exam on this stuff tomorrow though, wonder if I can use this on an essay question?

    /med student

    --
    Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
    1. Re:Evolutionary perspective by angus77 · · Score: 1

      I wonder what might be the reasoning behind this system evolving/remaining intact in humans.

      What, you think genes reason?

    2. Re:Evolutionary perspective by scapermoya · · Score: 1

      i use reasoning in an abstract sense to mean "biological driving force." but you already knew that.

      --
      Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
    3. Re:Evolutionary perspective by angus77 · · Score: 1
      No, I didn't, If there's no reason for it to go away (even if it's not useful), why would it?

      You may want to read up on genetic drift:

      In contrast to natural selection, which makes gene variants more common or less common depending on their reproductive success, the changes due to genetic drift are not driven by environmental or adaptive pressures, and may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to reproductive success.

      (emphasis mine)

    4. Re:Evolutionary perspective by sFurbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Genetic drift would tend to remove such features, as there are many more ways for them not to work then there is for them to work. If they aren't useful, the alleles coding for broken variants will not be removed, and in time, there will be more of them then of the alleles coding for the working variants. Unless the alleles coding for the working variants also code for something else which is useful, or something like that (is placed close to important genes, etc.).

    5. Re:Evolutionary perspective by clickety6 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's not to warn us of noxious substances, but to help us expel them once inhaled. If you're in a smoke-filled environment, being able to gulp down larger amounts of smoke-filed air won't help, but if you've just escaped from one, having the passages open to suck ion clean air and expel smoky air might give you an advantage - might keep you ahead of a forest fire by helping you recover faster and run faster...

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    6. Re:Evolutionary perspective by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt there's a reason for it in that sense. Things which don't hurt our capability to reproduce tend to just hang around until such time as they do hurt our chances to reproduce. It could for all we know just be a minor glitch causing the cells to migrate in a way which isn't necessary.

      I mean why do some people have trouble smelling sulfur and others don't. Why do some people retain the ability to wiggle their ears while others don't. Or for that matter have ear lobes. None of those things are particularly make or break it in the current environment, but who knows maybe if things change they'll be more important.

    7. Re:Evolutionary perspective by angus77 · · Score: 1



      Sorry, but unless my reading skills are broken, you seem to be talking about selection rather than genetic drift. My understanding of genetic drift is that it is random, and thus doesn't "tend to remove" (or promote) features of any kind--that would be selection at work, if the feature was beneficial or detrimental.

    8. Re:Evolutionary perspective by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      You are not considering the statistically aspect of it.. Imagine there are 1 billions combinations, but only 10 of them does anything useful. Given random genetic drift most changes to something useful will make it drift to become useless. Only natural selection will keep up the selection pressure to make up for the inherent negative force of genetic drift. Features that are not either useful or a biproduct of something useful will have a general tendency to disappear or be rendered useless.

    9. Re:Evolutionary perspective by angus77 · · Score: 1

      Statistically, but not in all specific cases. If genetic drift always resulted in such features disappearing, genetic drift wouldn't even be a significant area of study. The thing that makes genetic drift interesting at all is that these features (like blue eyes) can spread to a significant portion of the population, and in some cases even became universal in a population.

      Is it impossible that that is the case with taste buds in the lungs? Until there is found a reason for them to be naturally selected for, what argument is there other than genetic drift? Do I need to quote Sherlock Holmes?

    10. Re:Evolutionary perspective by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If there's no reason for it and it takes resources, someone with a smaller/weaker/missing "it" will have an advantage over someone with it. At the very least, it adds weight and complexity to the organism so that someone without "it" will require less food and be stronger/faster.

      Sure, that difference can be very tiny, but over enough generations and such, once you remove the need for something, it should eventually actually go away.

    11. Re:Evolutionary perspective by MasterPatricko · · Score: 1

      who knows maybe if things change they'll be more important.

      I, for one, welcome our new ear-wiggling overlords.

      --
      I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
    12. Re:Evolutionary perspective by angus77 · · Score: 1

      If the feature spreads to the entire population (eg during a population bottleneck, something that happened to humans about 70000 years ago), then where would "it" go? There would be nobody who advantageously was missing this "it" to breed it out.

      Statistically we're not talking about something like all the air in the room suddenly accumulating in one corner (not impossible, but statistically astoundingly unlikely), we're talking about something that actually happens.

      For the record, I've never said that I think that's what's happened here, only that it's not impossible.

      unlikely != impossible

    13. Re:Evolutionary perspective by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      It seems plausible that there is a slight advantage to having blue eyes, if only for sexual selection.

    14. Re:Evolutionary perspective by scapermoya · · Score: 1

      Genetic drift would not explain why it developed in the first place, and would not be sufficient to keep a complicated receptor/effector system intact in a large, heterogeneous population such as ours for very long (in genetic terms). most people misunderstand the term.

      /degree in genetics and genomics

      --
      Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
    15. Re:Evolutionary perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be your preference, but the fact that brown is the dominant eye colour for humans either indicates eye colour has very little to do with sexual selection (otherwise we'd be breeding towards blue as the dominant colour) or that much of the world does not favour blue. What it might have an effect on, culturally, is position in society. It would be interesting to see if there were a higher portion of rich people with blue eyes, for instance - maybe we trust them more or they're more likely to be promoted upwards within society, but I don't think genetically it's enough of a factor to really matter (if you met the love of your life but he/she had the wrong eye colour, you'd be unlikely to choose to die alone).

    16. Re:Evolutionary perspective by bradorsomething · · Score: 1

      Since you can nebulize pretty much any liquid (Note: even though this would include Mountain Dew, please do not nebulize Mountain Dew), it shouldn't be too hard to find something water soluble to try this with.

      I wish the extract discussed whether this was a high dosing or low dosing effect, or if it mattered. Some substances have different effects on the body in different concentrations; if this is the case here, it will make delivery a bit more annoying in emergent cases. /paramedic

    17. Re:Evolutionary perspective by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Don't quote Sherlock Holmes, until you have considered all other possibilities.

    18. Re:Evolutionary perspective by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Things which don't hurt our capability to reproduce tend to just hang around until such time as they do hurt our chances to reproduce.

      Note, though, that with humans being involved the nature of 'reproduce' takes on a slightly different meaning. We may not know how long we humans have had notions of 'love', etc, but these certainly play a role today, and clearly will do so going forward. An individual that was perfectly viable from a biological standpoint may or may not get the opportunity to reproduce if they are not viable from a social standpoint.

    19. Re:Evolutionary perspective by skids · · Score: 1

      Well, first we need to ask whether humans are the only species that have them.

      But if so, I'll put my chips on it being related to campfires. I could imagine how not being able to sit calmly next to a fire in a poorly ventilated cave would have been a disadvantage for much of human history.

      Heck, if smokers didn't cause so many fires falling asleep with cigarettes, there'd probably be statistics about how they are more likely to be able to escape a burning house versus someone with pristine, easily irritated lungs.

    20. Re:Evolutionary perspective by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I wonder what might be the reasoning behind this system evolving/remaining intact in humans. I can't really think of an exogenous substance that we inhale naturally that would activate such a response and confer an advantage to us.

      Who said it had to be exogenous? The body naturally excretes adrenaline - a catecholamine neurotransmitter. Adrenaline, like all neurotransmitters (apparently - I didn't know that until reading this thread), are bitter. We know adrenaline widens breathing passages, so provided this 'bitter response' is independent from the impact adrenaline has on the lungs, I can see how a cooperative response would be beneficial.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    21. Re:Evolutionary perspective by juggledean · · Score: 1

      From the abstract, it's a Calcium-activated Potassium channel (BK) that leads to the smooth muscle relaxation.

      agonist > TAS2R (a GPCR) > Gaq > plB > IP3 > ^Ca++ > open BK > hyperpolarization > close voltage-sensitive CaV channels > relaxation

      Maybe this study explains the action of Vick's Vapor Rub or the eucalyptus oil ingredient.

    22. Re:Evolutionary perspective by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      But asthma and other breathing problems do impact a person's ability to breed, albeit only slightly.

      Asthmatic kids are usually somewhat slight compared to their peers. They tire easily, and don't have much endurance. Every once in a while, one of them dies from an allergic response to something common (eg. walk into a dusty/musty/moldy closet or cave).

      As such, they're weaker, unable to fight off enemies or run down food as easily. They either don't last until breeding ages or are undesirable for such a role once they get there.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    23. Re:Evolutionary perspective by scapermoya · · Score: 1

      if you had read my entire comment, you would have noticed that I said the exact same thing. and not all neurotransmitters are bitter (ie basic), just most. the weird thing is that the neurotransmitters that we know contract the bronchioles (eg acetylcholine) are also predicted to be bitter compounds. strange stuff indeed.

      --
      Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
    24. Re:Evolutionary perspective by scapermoya · · Score: 1

      that's what statistically means. in the long run, in the absence of a selecting force to promote the stability of a beneficial trait, genetic drift will tend to disable neutral traits. this is especially true when 1) the genetic sequences underlying the trait need to be very precise for the trait to function properly (much more important in receptor/effector systems than in gross physical traits) and 2) the sequences are rather long. thus, we can assume that this receptor does not represent a neutral trait, especially because it directly involves a phenotype that is intimately tied to survival (breathing).

      --
      Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
    25. Re:Evolutionary perspective by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the old method of reviving an unconscious person via a strong odor under the nose has been around a lot longer than we realize and does more than simply irritate the nasal cavity.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    26. Re:Evolutionary perspective by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You said, "If there's no reason for it to go away (even if it's not useful), why would it?" I correctly answered the question. Just because I answer your rhetorical question with a correct response that indicates your opinion to be wrong doesn't mean I'm wrong or that I'm taking into account the history of the thread. You asked a question about genetics. I correctly answered the question you didn't want accurately answered. That is all.

    27. Re:Evolutionary perspective by angus77 · · Score: 1

      Meaning you prefer blue eyes?

      Okay then, substitute "blue eyes" for any other neutral feature that genetic drift would work on. Or was it your intention to suggest that genetic drift never actually occurs?

    28. Re:Evolutionary perspective by angus77 · · Score: 1

      Except that you're answering the above question after I have made explicit what I meant by it (my layman's understanding of genetic drift).

      If you were responding to that question, then why did you post the response to that question>, rather than to my post with the link to genetic drift in it?

      Maybe you should look up the word disingenuous as well?

  20. Re:I think there is more to it by TheLink · · Score: 1

    I think you do underestimate how fast the molecules travel. Buman noses only require a small number of molecules to detect some scents.

    Simple test. Do the same thing, but block your nose and hold your breath this time. Can you smell stuff with your hands.

    If you still can perhaps you do have smell receptors in your hands.

    BUT to be sure try it blindfolded with random items (someone else will have to help) to see whether its in your mind. Or even some sort of synaesthesia.

    --
  21. Bitter scents from the natural environemnt by solferino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The idea that occurred to me while reading the summary is maybe this partially explains the sense of well-being gained from being in a forest or some leafy natural environment.

    As we know, most plants taste bitter - perhaps plants are also releasing bitter tasting gasses which help to open up our lungs.

    1. Re:Bitter scents from the natural environemnt by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      If I had the points I would mod you up. I really hope some researcher follows up on your idea.

      Since we taste bitter, not smell it, we wouldn't detect even a trace of "bitter" unless we breathed through our mouths. I doubt it would take much to trigger the receptors in the lungs so the other scent compounds would overpower the bitter signal from the tongue, so the brain gets an "Ooooo, Earthy, loamy goodness" signal while the lungs get "Open wide!".

    2. Re:Bitter scents from the natural environemnt by NoSig · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't we smell it also in that case?

    3. Re:Bitter scents from the natural environemnt by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      I would bet that things are wired like a very tight wheatstone bridge in the lung receptors so that smaller swings will result in larger results.

      The amount you can smell/ notice is most likely orders of magnitude larger than what would be tripped by the lung receptors.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    4. Re:Bitter scents from the natural environemnt by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      That's possible, but I always thought that general feeling of well-being came from a combination of factors:

      * Ozone from the rotting leaves. Supposedly, ozone has a calming sensation. I've noticed this feeling strongest in spring and fall in the Northeast (vs. the Western Mountains, where there isn't nearly as much rotting going on).
      * The trees themselves. They're releasing oxygen. You're essentially getting high.

      Of course, a bitter taste could also help explain why laying in a pile of leaves is so calming. :)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    5. Re:Bitter scents from the natural environemnt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Along this line of of thinking, could this help explain why asthma is on the rise when the number of people in cities (away from 'some leafy natural environment') continues to rise?

  22. heres a writeup with some details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the abstract is a bit bare
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101024144132.htm

  23. it all makes sense now... by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 1

    You know when you smell something so bad that you can taste it in your mouth? Yeah, I think there's a connection there haha!

  24. Is this why coffee helps with asthma? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it's the bitter taste, or the caffeine that is effective. Or is it both?

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  25. not really by batistuta · · Score: 1

    I'm sure someone already patented this, so they will claim money from every person that reacts in this way.

    1. Re:not really by delinear · · Score: 1

      A patent doesn't prevent people at home using their own remedies, it only prevents a company from profiting by selling a patented product. If you had the skills and ability to tool an exact replica of an iPhone in your own home, the company couldn't sue you for breach of their intellectual property.

    2. Re:not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yes it does. "Anyone who makes, uses, sells, or offers to sell" a patented thing without authorization infringes the patent. 'For profit' or any other such phrase does not appear.

    3. Re:not really by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Yes, they could sue you in theory. In practice they won't because there are no statutory damages for patent infringement and so all that they would be able to collect is actual damages.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  26. Let me just point out... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    ...that PharmaCorp, if it is indeed to turn this into a dilation "drug", will have to jump through many very expensive hoops in the form of tests, hearings, and so forth. It will cost them a lot to do that. So, one can expect the price to initially reflect an attempt to recoup those expenses.

    In the meantime, surely there are enough hints here for home remedies:

    • "same" bitter receptors as on the tongue.
    • "same" materials that stimulate the tongue
    • "better dilation than drugs"

    I mean, really... if this doesn't spawn a series of home remedies, of which the public will quickly determine which ones work (and which ones kill or have nasty side effects), then the whole "home remedy" movement should probably go hide under some crystal pyramids.

    It's not like you can't obtain a vaporizer, or any number of other tools you might need for such antics. I suspect most of them would already be in the bathroom, medicine chest, and kitchen of any well equipped home.

    And there are many home remedies that work very well indeed. Cayenne pepper included in various home-made candies will do more for a sore throat than many OTC remedies; A Tums, intended for tummy acid issues, will do wonders for many cramping episodes, as will large amounts of milk or other calcium-rich substances; Etc. If the report is accurate, perhaps we'll have something else to add to the list of "here, try this" home remedies.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  27. Old trick... by geogob · · Score: 1

    Maybe the ol' grandma trick of sniffing fumes from a weird stew of seemingly random herbs wasn't that silly after all.

  28. Supertasters and asthma by jacquems · · Score: 1

    I am a supertaster (highly sensitive to bitter tastes), and I also have asthma. Reading this made me wonder if there might be some connection. Any other asthmatic supertasters out there?

  29. Horse Racing Hockey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is all just BS, as he tucks his horse racing form under his arm, with all the 1X10^6 horses circled, and heads out the door with a hand full of bitter smelling herbs.

  30. Smelling is inhaling? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    So much for the old "did not inhale" defense!

  31. One of my favorite quotes... by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny'" -Isaac Asimov ...lifted from http://www.jsur.org/

  32. Not news by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    This is hardly news to anyone who's ever had the distinctly horrible experience of "Nerds" going down the wrong pipe...

  33. Inhale your food! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    When my local news reported this (via a medical doctor), the talking heads cut him off and suggested that inhaling food might be a good idea. They didn't give the doctor a chance to respond to their idiocy before continuing on to the next story.

  34. What about Ricola? by mrnick · · Score: 1

    That may be true of most traditional drug companies but what about the Natural remedy companies like Ricola? I'm sure they would love an all natural treatment for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease!

    Nick Powers

    --

    Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
    1. Re:What about Ricola? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It would be great, but

      Remember... how in the US the regulators are generally lobbied and controlled by the companies they regulate.

      Remember, how the FDA has threatened General Mills, with Cheerios being classified as a drug, just because the product is marketed as something that lowers cholesterol when eaten as breakfast? Because Cheerios is seen as a threat to drug companies that make drugs for treating high cholesterol, GM may be forced to take their cereal off the market.

      I fear that in reality, the big drug companies that make the inhalers would feel so threatened that they would call in favors and pay off their buddies/pet lobbyists at the FDA to declare those 'natural remedy' products a drug, clearly intended as a medical treatment, and ban the natural remedy company from marketing it.

    2. Re:What about Ricola? by petgiraffe · · Score: 1

      Remember also... that General Mills called the FDA's bluff and kept right on marketing their snake oil as a miracle cure despite their health claims being provably bullshit. "Our cereal lowers your cholesterol if you also do 75 other things everyone already knows lower cholesterol"

      So while you certainly have a point about big companies trying to bully small companies out of "their turf", in the example you cite General Mills was big enough to demonstrate that the FDA doesn't have the power to enforce their own demands (at least against BIG corporations).

      So the solution is clear: Get a big food company like General Mills to market the bitter inhaler.

      --
      -- The reader anything less than completely failing to not misunderstand this sig is cursed.
    3. Re:What about Ricola? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Because Cheerios is seen as a threat to drug companies that make drugs for treating high cholesterol

      [citation needed]

      How about "because they are making medically unsupported claims?

    4. Re:What about Ricola? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1
      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    5. Re:What about Ricola? by baubo · · Score: 1

      EU is already working on banning herbalism and herbal remedies altogether. http://curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=1688090

  35. Of course.. by adonoman · · Score: 1

    That's why Buckley's works so well. There's enough bitter in that to knock a person down. But it works..

  36. As a breat mint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the solution is clear: Get a big food company like General Mills to market the bitter inhaler.

    YES, and they can market it as a breath mint... that has been shown to increase breathing function! lol

  37. salvia by elFisico · · Score: 1

    ok, so that's why inhaling with salvia tea works...

    luckily herbs is something that parma industry will have a hard time getting complete control of... though they might if they manage to get patents on common plants, like monsanto already does...

  38. cue the fart jokes by XCondE · · Score: 1

    I could swear I've been able to taste some of the more nasty flatulences

  39. Lets find something brown like snuff. by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    While brown nasty and gross snuff may be popular for a related reason.

    "Nicotine has a bitter taste and a sharp odour."

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.