User talk:VRodrig110

VRodrig110 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)== Pathophysiology of Alzheimer's Disease == . I would like to add another mechanism of the Pathophysiology of alzheimer's Disease and other Neurodegenerative diseases.

These mechanisms are discussed in reference http://www. uspto .gov -- U.S. Patent # 7858602--- RODRIGUEZ--Therapeutic and Prophylactic Uses of Cell Specific Carbonic Anhydrase Enzymes in the Treatment of Aging Disorders due to Oxidative Stress and as Growth Factors of Stem Cells.

This is about the use of carbonic anhydrase Enzymes,compounds that increases the level of Carbonic Anhydrase enzymes for the Treatment of Aging, Disorders of Aging. This includes Alzheimer's Disease.

The real functions of Carbonic anhydrase Enzymes were just added by Wikipedia which are: 1. fuel of the ion pump that maintains the integrity of the Cell Wall Membrane. 2. fuel for all metabolic activities of the cell--production of ATP(adenosine triphosphate) 3. Neutralizes all reactive radicals including reactive oxygen(Oxidative Stress) 4. Prevents misfolding of proteins-amyloid diseases

This is a DISCOVERY and an Invention which NOBODY KNEW-hence no reliable references except the U.S. Patent OfficeVRodrig110 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AMD OTHER NEURODEGERATIVRE DISORDERS

A. Primary deficiency of Cell Specific Carbonic Anhydrase Enzymes due to defective Gene link Carbonic Anhydrase Enzymes. B. Secondary deficiency of Cell Specific Carbonic Anhydrase due to: 1.Neurotoxic materials , such iron, aluminum and lead 2.Infections that alter the blood-brain barrier 3.amyloid deposits that alter the blood-brain barrier 4.other conditions or diseases that alter the blood brain barrier that displace the Zinc from Carbonic Anhydrase Enzymes DECREASED LEVELS OF CARBONIC ANHYDRASE ENZYMES resulting from A or B above produces TWO PARALLEL PATHS OF CELL DESTRUCTION  :  : Decreased formation of Hydrogen Ions  : Pre-Caspase is activated  :  :  : 1.Decreased fuel of the Ion Pump that maintains:  : the cell wall membrane  : Caspase is released 2. Decreased formation of ATP(adenosine  :  : Triphosphate)- fuel for cell division and other: Programmed Cell death(apoptosis) metabolic activities of the cell  : occurs 3. Neutralizes all Reactive Radicals including :  : Apoptosis related events ocur,resulting in Reactive Oxygen.  :  :  :  : Dead Cells and Dying Cells Dead Cells and Dying Cells  : DEAD AND DYING CELLS INCLUDE NEURONS(BRAIN CELLS) (Sensory,Motor Neurons and other Neurons)  : Neuro-fibrillary tangles ,Tau Proteins, amyloid deposists

Reference--http://www.uspto.gov--U.S. Patent # 7858602--Rodriguez---Therapeutic and Prophylactic Uses of Cell Specific Carbonic Anhydrase Enzymes in Treating Aging Disorders due to Oxidative Stress and as Growth fFactors of Stem Cells.

Reliable sources

Hi. Thank you for your contribution to the cryptochrome article but I have reverted it since it was only peripherally related to the subject matter of the article and in addition, did not include a reliable source. For scientific subjects, reliable sources are generally restricted to peer reviewed articles in the scientific literature. Unfortunately patents are not generally considered reliable sources for scientific subjects since they are not reviewed by other scientists. US 7858602  in turn does contain citations to the scientific literature. I suggest that you use those as sources in preference to a patent application. Finally it is important to note that self-citation is generally frowned upon. Boghog (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ about U.S. Patent #7858602. This is not a Patent Application. This is a grant by the U.S. Government to exclude people from using it after their scientists has determined that it is a new discovery, a new invention and has been peer reviewed by them.VRodrig110 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a new Pathophysiology of Alzheimer's Disease but was erased by orangemarlin whose reasons are no reliable source. This is a new discovery and an invention. So the only reference-

http://www.uspto.gov.VRodrig110 (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

According to U.S. patentability requirements, a patent is assumed to be "operable" unless it is obvious to the USPTO that it cannot be. USPTO does not have the resources nor the responsibility to prove that a patent application is operable. Hence there is no guarantee that the claims of the patent, even if the patent has been granted, actually work. Therefore a patent cannot be considered a reliable source. Boghog (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

April 30, 2011

Dear Boghog,

U.S Patent #7858602--- DEALS WITH THE NEWLY DISCOVERED FUNCTIONS OF CELL SPECIFIC CARBONIC ANHYDRASE ENZYMES. IF YOU CAN DISPROVE THEIR FUNCTIONS , then U.S. Patent #7858602 IS NOT OPERABLE HENCE THIS PATENT CAN NOT BE RELIABLE.

WIKIPEDIA--Published the FUNCTIONS OF CELL SPECIFIC CARBONIC ANHYDRASE ENZYMES- under CARBONIC ANHYDRASE ENZYMES--REFERENCE U.S. Patent # 7858602VRodrig110 (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi VRodrig110. Unfortunately that is not how WP:RS works. The burden of proof is on you to show that the assertions made by the patent are reliable by providing reliable sources, not on me prove that the invention will not work. Without a reliable source to back up the claims made the patent, these claims amount to WP:OR and therefore cannot be included in Wikipedia articles. Boghog (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

April 30, 2011 Hi Boghog, thanks for your comments. I re read what are to be included in Wikipedia. For New Discoveries, WIKIPEDIA is not the place. ThanksVRodrig110 (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Vrodrig....new discoveries must be published in peer reviewed journal if it's ever going matter in medicine and science. Patents, the internet, Wikipedia, or anything other than a peer reviewed journal will be dismissed quickly. I cannot tell if what you're writing here has any value to treating AD or even understanding AD. It takes 10-15 years before a simple hypothesis can be tested experimentally in cell models, then animal models, the clinical trials. The cost will be in the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. If you are not a researcher, then bring your ideas to a researcher with and MD or Ph.D. who is interested in this area. Getting a patent is of no use, other than if you have a great idea, you'll protect yourself from others who try to commercialize it. But your patent will probably run out before anyone could ever commercialize this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

May 1, 2011 Hi! OrangeMarlin, Thank you too for your input. First of all, I am a Physician. Inorder to really understand my discoveries, One has to read U.S. Patent #7858602 which is a continuation -in-part- of 3 more U.S. Patents dealing the Therapeutic and Prophylactic treatment of Aging and disorders of aging in humans including Alzheimer's Disease.Either the use of the Enzymes themselves or the use of compounds that stimulates the production of cell specific carbonic anhydrase enzymes that are found to be decreased in the tissue of the subjects who are suspected of having disorders of aging including alzheimer's disease. You can find these compounds(Activators) in WIKIPEDIA under the heading of CARBONIC ANHYDRASE INHBITORS--reference is also U.S. Patent 7858602. Example Vitamin D3--produces cell Specific Carbonic Anhydrase Enzyme II- which are found in almost all organs but mostly the brain,the Bones and the Kidneys.

Articles about Vitamin D3--( final active ingredient is 1,25,dihydroxyvitamin D3) are proving to be the magic bullet for almost all diseases of mankind including alzheimer's disease. Clinical trials on its use on Alzheimer's Disease are being done now by the National Institute of Health, but I disagree with their protucol, they do not assay which cell specific carbonic anhydrase enzymes are decreased in patients who are suspected of having alzheimer's disease. Then adminstering one or more cell specific carbonic anhydrase enzymes to increase their level up to normal. Also their dosage of Vitamin D3 is quite low.

I and others have been taking Vitamin D3 at high non-toxic therapeutic doses as an anti-aging, and they work.VRodrig110 (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi. I have take the liberty of creating a sandbox containing the material that you have added above on your talk page in case you wanted to continue to work on this:

User:VRodrig110/Pathophysiology of Alzheimer's Disease

Cheers. Boghog (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

April 21, 2011 VRodrig110

Hi, Boghog,

Thank you. I will continue to work on it.

Carbonic anhydrase enzymes although had been in existence for billion of years their true functions have not been fully understood.

April 23, 2011 Hi, Boghog If there are no objections,kindly publish in Wikipedia--other mechanisms for the Pathophysiology of Alzheimer's Disease.

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

April 23, 2011 As noted Thank you.

April 28, 2011 Hi Orangemarlin, RE: Pathophysiology of Alzheimer's Disease.

Your reason in dileting the above is because you can not accept orignal research,unpublished synthesis of previously published material

You requested RELIABLE SOURCES.

This is a discovery and an invention. So you expect that NOBODY knows about this. The Patent Office reviewed these materials, and references, they agreed that this a new,novel approach for the treatment of aging disorders which includes Alzheimer's Disease. They issued U.S. Patent #7858602VRodrig110 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that Wikipedia exists to promote your product. It does not. To be a usable reliable source on a medical subject there must first be independent authors that write about the product in a refereed journal, then a subsequent review article must consider it worthy of discussion. When that happens, Wikipedia will still be here. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You asked me how to publish reliable sources. That is so beyond the level of project. Patents are not reliable sources because the patent office doesn't perform clinical trials, or test hypotheses through experimental methods. A real reliable source is a peer-reviewed journal. Ideas in science and medicine aren't advertised on Wikipedia to become important. They become important through research, and then we figure out if it is notable and write about it here. You are years away from that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

April 29, 2011.

First of all thank you for your comments.

This is for LeadSongDog. My intention here is NOT TO PROMOTE MY PRODUCT.

The fact that the NEWLY DISCOVERED FUNCTIONS OF CARBONIC ANHYDRASE ENZYMES which you published in wikipedia, almost explains the aging proces,the diseases associated with it, including cancer is so important that I have to share this knowldege to you and the Public.

I thought that sharing this discovery with you,the public and with everybody's colloborations we will hasten the treatment of almost all aging disorders including alzheimer's disease.VRodrig110 (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an addendum to the above. Cell specific carbonic anhydrase enzymes are already in the market. So I do not have to promote them. The manufacturers just don't know tneir functions and how to use them.VRodrig110 (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Alzheimer's disease

Very little is ever truly erased from Wikipedia, as most "deleted" content lives on in edit histories and can be reconstructed if it has value. But you should not assume editors were wrong to delete something you inserted just because you believe or know that it is the Truth. We are serious about requiring reliable sources for medical content, especially so in Featured Articles on major medical topics such as this one. We start from the sources, verify they are reliable, relevant, and neutral, then develop content based on what they say, in rough proportion to the weight given to their ideas in the current literature. Not until you presented that review did your edits meet even the first step of identifying a reliable source, and they still have not addressed the later steps. Worse, you arrived here and attempted to advertise your patent in a blatant conflict of interest. Several editors have used their valuable time to explain this to you on your user talkpage, but you refuse to listen. It is past time that you did so. You tell us you are a physician, so we may presume that you are capable of learning. How about showing us that you have read and understood what you've been told? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

May 26, 2011

Thanks for your comments. First of all, you are right, me being a newcomer to wikipedia. You are wrong in assuming that my purpose of joining Wikipedia is to advertise my patent. If you google my name,my patents are all over the internet, also my Website is http://www.cerebril.com and has all the informations about my inventions and discoveries. I do not need Wikipedia to advertise my patents. One of my Patents is on http://www.PeertoPatent.org. My only motive is to share with you this newly found discovery of utmost importance. But if editors do not research on subject matters that they review, then make comments, that I strongly disagree. If you are part of administration and that I am no longer welcome in wikipedia, just let me know. VRodrig110 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)VRodrig110 (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The central problem here is that the claims of US 7858602  are highly speculative and no proof is provided that they will work. Hence the claims in this patent constitute a hypothesis, not a discovery. Furthermore the hypothesis is highly dubious to begin with. Decreasing pH stabilizes hydrogen peroxide, hence if anything, increases in carbonic anhydrase would slow the rate of hydrogen peroxide decomposition, the exact opposite of what you are proposing. Furthermore catalases are orders of magnitude more efficient in decomposing hydrogen peroxide compared to the uncatalyzed decomposition, and the pH dependence of catalases near physiological pH is shallow (see doi:10.1016/S0076-6879(84)05016-3). Therefore the total rate of decomposition of hydrogen peroxide in vivo should relatively insensitive to changes in pH. Also while there is evidence that vitamin D can upregulate the expression of carbonic anhydrase II (see PMID 9553126), there is no evidence that carbonic anhydrase II deficiency contributes to oxidative stress (see PMID 15300855). Finally the cause of Alzheimer's Disease is hotly debated and no one to my knowledge has demonstrated that reducing oxidative stress will be effective in the treatment or prevention of Alzheimer's Disease. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and you have provided none. Boghog (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

May 27, 2011 Thanks for your comments Boghog. The only thing that you did not do, is read the whole patent so that you will really appreciate it. Because of Restriction Requirements by the Patent Examiner,because the patent covers almost all disease of mankind, I have to elect Alzhierme's Disease which is included in the treament and Prophylaxis of AGING, Disorders of AGING including oxidative stress and cancer,and electing as treatment, Vitamin D3 plus Zinc, Indocin,phorbol myristate acetate,cysteamine in the claims of the patent. Kindly google them about their uses.

This is a DISCOVERY AND A PATENT because NO ONE HAS UNEARTHED THE MOST IMPORTAMT FUNCTIONS OF CELL SPECIFIC CARBONIC ANHYDRASE ENZYME the production of Hydrogen ions from the reaction of water plus carbon dioxide---H2O + CO2----H+(hydrogen ion) + HCO3-1(bicarbonate ion)

                                                  ----(reversible reaction-by carbonic anhydrase)

The hydrogen ions produced are then acted upon by the cytochrome system(mitochondria) and are utilized as: 1. fuel of the ion pump that maintains the integrity of the cell wall membrane. 2. Fuel of all cellular activities including cell division-- H+ plus ADP(adenosine diphosphate)

  --------ATP(adenosine triphosphate)

3. Neutralizes all Reactive Radicals--including Reactive Oxygen --final product is water(H2O)

Also Hydrogen ions are needed to prevent misfolding of proteins(amyloid)as seen in Alzheimer's Disease by formation hydrogen bonds.

I beg to differ from your opinion that this is NOT A DISCOVERY but an unproven patent.

According to http://www.merriam-webster.com Definition of Discovery(Noun): 1.(a) The act or process of Discovering

 (b) Archaic--Disclosure
 (c) Display(obsolete)
 (d) Exploration(obsolete)

2. Something Discovered Examples of DISCOVERY 1. Her Research led to a number of important discoveries about the disease. 2. It is one of the most important discoveries in the history of medicine. 3. The Discovery of pollution in the river 4. Scientist announced the Discovery of a New Specie of plant.

VERB- Discover--1.To make known,visible or expose

               2. To obtain knowldege or sight for the FIRST TIME.

Examples to Discover: 1.It took several years or weeks to discover the solution. 2.Christopher Columbus discovered the New World in 1492

Synonym- Unearthed,bringing to light something forgotten or hidden

Me, aside from the other known functions of Carbonic Anhydrase enzymes I discovered the MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS OF CELL SPECIFIC CARBONIC ENZMES.VRodrig110 (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)VRodrig110 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Would you please stop SHOUTING at people? It is offensive.

2. Nobody here is interested in what a patent or patent application says, because they are not reliable sources for use on Wikipedia. Let it drop, it won't help your case. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We have been over this with this editor many times. Boghog made the best analysis so far. In medicine the only thing that matters is publication in reliable sources. Nothing else. Opinion is irrelevant. Rhetorical flourishes comparing your patent to Christopher Columbus is amusing at best. Several editors have said to drop this. You have used all of the patience of the community. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As LeadSongDog and Orangemarlin have repeatedly stated, a patent is not a reliable source and cannot be used to support your theories about carbonic anhydrase. Please listen to them. In addition, I have read the patent and I found much of the reasoning to be seriously flawed. A central proposal in the patent is that carbonic anhydrases increase the electrochemical potential across the inner mitochondrial membrane by generating protons. This cannot possibly work since the carbon dioxide substrate is freely permeable across the mitochondrial membrane and both mitochondrial and cytosolic carbonic anhydrases are present so that protons are generate on both sides of the membrane. The mitochondrial proton gradient is instead generated by oxidative phosphorylation. There have been proposals to treat cognitive disorders such as Alzheimer's Disease through modulating the activity of carbonic anhydrases (see for example Wostyn P, Audenaert K, De Deyn PP (2011). "Choroidal Proteins Involved in Cerebrospinal Fluid Production may be Potential Drug Targets for Alzheimer's Disease Therapy". Perspect Medicin Chem. 5: 11–7. doi:10.4137/PMC.S6509. PMC 3072647. PMID 21487536.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link); US 6821979, "Synergistic enhancement of cognitive ability" ), but through mechanisms that are completely different than you propose (for example, phenylalanine → carbonic anhydrase activation → increased cerebrospinal fluid production → increased cerebrospinal fluid turnover → increased clearance of β-amyloid). Boghog (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)