Ce6 "Night Vision" Eye Drops May Damage Vision — Interview with UCSF Ophthalmologist and Retinal Disease Expert Dr. Jacque Duncan
- April 1, 2015 at 6:58 pm #27402PeterMember
Ce6 eye drops may cause eye damage including central retinal vein occlusion and retinal hemorrhages in an animal model.April 1, 2015 at 9:07 pm #27404
Two scare articles in one week. You must be very bored, sir. We really appreciate your concern, but we’re fine here, really.April 2, 2015 at 12:25 am #27406
Also, I find it funny that you contacted the person who wrote a peer reviewed paper that we referenced, and when you didn’t like his reply, you hunted for a source that backed up your article and wrote a whole new article about it. Not very balanced. In fact, that’s the type of reporting that people do when they’re science deniers, cherry picking their sources.
Isn’t that a little embarrassing?April 2, 2015 at 1:54 am #27407DirectorParticipant
They didn’t use NPe6. That is a different molecule entirely. Big R group off the side.April 2, 2015 at 4:01 am #27408
Exactly. That’s a paper that, while interesting, is not talking about the chemical we used. In the Washington paper, The murine subjects were injected with 2mg/kg. That’s a little different, isn’t it. Why would you reference the Washington paper initially and then switch over to a different paper, with a different chemical? It doesn’t make sense. It’s like you are purposely complicating the concept to make it sound worse than it is.April 2, 2015 at 1:08 pm #27410PeterMember
Actually what happened was when I read the original report that mentioned the use in cancer treatment, I tried to contact several different local medical centers including the UCSF ophthalmology department that might have used this chemical for treating cancers of the eye. I felt this was the best way to get a real idea of the possible risk if any. Everyone I talked to said do not use this formulation in your eyes. However, it took a few days to find someone that had relevant experience, but I was eventually referred to Dr. Duncan who shared with me the information about this paper on toxicity in rabbits.
As far as the differences in molecules, I’ll ask her about that. I’ve reported the information exactly as she presented it to me, and she is an expert in the field. I understand the NPe6 is used because it is thought to be less toxic than Ce6, see “The potential application of chlorin e6–polyvinylpyrrolidone formulation in photodynamic therapy”, William Wei Lim Chin et al, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2006,5, 1031-1037. DOI: 10.1039/B605772A
If you have a reference to the contrary, I’ll forward it to her.April 3, 2015 at 12:28 am #27427
Again, stop comparing different molecules. Ce6-PVP is not Ce6.
Here, let me help you science. We wrote down the CAS number for Ce6 in our writeup. The CAS number is like, the unique identifier of a molecule substance.
The Ce6 CAS is 19660-77-6
The CAS for NPe6 is 110230-98-3
I can’t find the CAS for Ce6-PVP but I can assure you that the hyphen there, it means two molecules stuck together.
I really can’t… I mean I can’t really have a reasonable discussion with you about this because you are so completely clueless on things like basic chemistry, that I can’t properly respond. If I say I made green beans for dinner and you say that you are allergic to peanuts and they are both legumes so you think I may make you sick, we just… can’t communicate.
Given the state of your writing, I can’t even trust that you properly expressed the situation to Dr. Duncan. I find it unlikely that a professional would mistake one chemical for another in such a simple way, as well as not mentioning the doses used in the Washington paper.
Just stop. And please stop writing about science. Stick to, like, software or AI fiction or something.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.