“P2X receptors are expressed on neurons containing luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone in the mouse hypothalamus
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304394009004790”.
(THIS WENT ONLINE APRIL 2009!) Hello? That would be LHRH.
And I have before me “Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, ninth edition 1996”
On page 1363, Chapter 55, it begins a discussion of LUTEINIZING HORMONE and among other others, “(GnRH or LHRH)”
Can you read?
You couldn't find Tomkin's credentials and publications, you can't find the latest nomenclature used.....And you ask if I can read!!!!
Insulted? Like this? “....Pitman dishonestly extracted...”
Your arguments are like a reclaimed landfill, looks good until the surface is scratched and then a load of garbage is discovered, I don't think I want to dig through it to find a few bits of valuable material.
Your arguments are like a reclaimed landfill, looks good until the surface is scratched and then a load of garbage is discovered
It's not insulting if it's factually accurate. The load of garbage REMAINS that Pitman -- whether strictly dishonestly, or as I also considered, through incompetence -- DID cite outdated, superseded information, because it said what he wanted it to say.
Heck, YOU YOURSELF, count-your-change, introduced an additional paper by the same researchers which UNDERMINED, only two years later, their earlier claim, seized upon twenty four years later by Pitman to claim that this hormone is more similar in humans (actually pigs, since that was the synthesized isolate the researchers had available to them) and amphibians.
Oh, wait, except that Pitman did lie outright also, saying they were "identical," when the researchers only said "similar," and the method they used couldn't possibly have determined they were identical.
In any case, we now know that there is MORE THAN ONE of the GnRH hormones produced in these tissues, and we don't have any way of knowing which were being compared in these comparatively primitive studies. So they mean nothing.
Nothing against Judy A. King and Robert P. Millar, btw. They were working at a time when these hormones were poorly understood. And just because they apparently didn't have the time, inclination or equipment to fully isolate and sequence these substances, doesn't mean it was necessarily wrong to use the synthetic pig hormone to do a bit of probing using various indirect means. But Pitman's misuse of this outdated research, and CottShop's citation thereof, remains a load of crap. Absolutely.
Nice try at avoiding the issue, but no dice.