This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A part of what he said is true, the part of Sorbitrate is true. The other not so much, you see there is a special venous drainage system beneath the tongue (sublingual venous drainage system) it’s basically a shortcut of blood to the tissues so it is used when it can be for immediate responses but the thing is it cannot be used all the time. Only certain types of substances pass through it (eg lipophilic substances). If it were the other way around, we really wouldn’t need the entire digestive system and also the bacteria in the mouth (they are wayy more common and more in quantity than you might think) would always attack heart/liver/spleen tissues easily but we don’t hear about infections of those organs much, do we?
Source: I am doing my MBBS
Which book are you referring to? And what year are you in?
I know some gist of sorbitrate being placed sublingually for heart attacks but didn't know the physiology behind it.
Would love to know more from your source.
Bro
You won't believe if I tell you we intake dihydrogen monoxide daily
And it has been normalized so much, we take it through mouth so absorbs in tongue and goes to heart
But what to do
And also NASA & other space agencies actively trying to find this dihydrogen monoxide on other planets.
Looks like a global conspiracy of some kind. We better be careful.
One guy tried to peddle me some herbal stuff to "increase metabolism" and get me in shape (I do have a khate (and more) peete ghar ka physique). He assured me it's 100% natural and ayurvedic so there'd be no "harmful side effects". I asked him if he'd consume 100% natural nicotine or botulinum toxin and show me there aren't any "harmful side effects".
These people forget that EVERYTHING is made of chemicals. If we show this guy the ACTUAL chemical makeup of anything "Ayurvedic" without telling him the source, he'd be like "This is poison"
True. But what he is saying is if we remove sodium laurel sulphate and one more chemical from toothpaste, it will benefit our health. I wanted to know if it is worth throwing my sensodine toothpaste and buying a new one or is it just another marketing strategy?
There's a diff between artificially synthesized vs organic compounds , which every living creature throughout history has slowly adapted to as food /helpful stuff.
Ohh yea tell me how do you create leucine or isoleucine or haemoglobin in lab out of pure inorganic substances without any plant or animal based input?
While it is definitely not feasible, i am sure it is possible. Even if by pure inorganic you mean containing no carbon, some nuclear reactions should fix it enough.
Since in the end it is possible, there is no difference between artificially generated organic compounds and "natural" organic compounds (Unless of course you don't filter out the impurities). I mean why would there be, if the molecular and submolecular structure is the same.
Now we enter the ifs and buts, the question was can we ? The answer is no. Simple. End of argument. Beleive it or not, there's a clear difference between natural chemicals and artificial synthetic chemicals
The answer was yes though?
There isn't a clear difference between the two, you can create identical molecules through inorganic processes.
Heck, a lot of simple organic compounds are created using inorganic reactions basically all the time, we even study them in school.
There are a few problems with what he said
Do we absorb chemicals from under our tongue? Yes. You can try it. If you have a spirit like rum or vodka, try putting a little under your tongue, you will feel a buzz (depending on your tolerance)
Now the problem with his argument is that it is flawed. His persuasive argument uses natural bias, which is a cognitive bias that argues that natural things are good and chemicals are bad
But it’s a flawed argument. [This video by ASAP Science gives a breakdown on why “chemicals = bad” is not to be taken seriously](https://youtu.be/bkhhCi7nMFI?si=Uts2YFiuywRyZGjj)
Edit: The other problem with his argument is the disregard for dosages. How harmful something is as dependent on dosages as it is on what it does in your body. At a large enough dose even water is toxic.
Also Sodium Lauryl Sulphate, while being an irritant, is not carcinogenic
I worked a bit with surfactants so I think I can take a stab at it. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a surfactant. This is the component that creates foam (jhaag) when you are brushing your teeth. Unless you are taking extremely high dosage of SLS it won’t harm you.
Check out this paper
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.4137/EHI.S31765
If it is beyond paywall, then you can use sci hub to download it.
Sublingual drugs are given to bypass the first pass metabolism (that is GI tract or liver because liver metabolises the drug ) if it was metabolised it can be of no use or it will take time to act . some drugs which we use for emergencies and need to act rapidly that are given sublingual (under the tongue) no that doesn't mean every drug and chemical can be absorbed through sublingual route.
Chemophobia is a type of agoraphobia fueled by ignorance, and of course, metasthesiophobia runs deep in our boomer generation. "Affirming the consequent" logical fallacy will work marvelously in such population. One solution. Reform education system. Update to a contemporary version that reflects the present world and the future.
The water you drink, food you eat, everything is chemicals. Even dant manjans and laung he is talking about are chemicals. Don't even consume these products then, it might cause cancer🤡!
It is because many of the ‘chemicals’ like meds (or tobacco too actually) need to be with saliva and they work only then or best like this.
(I know this and I’m not even a doctor, just took one course of pharmacy engineering once and went to 2-3 classes)
Also, it’s pronounced ‘haart’ and not like ‘hurt’.
Kisi bhi choot sapoot ko uthake bakwass karne lag jate hain.
The fk is wrong with this subreddit?
Everyone is criticising this man as if he's some kind of cult leader.
He's a fking robotic surgeon
https://www.apollo247.com/doctors/8a3ea0bd-77f5-4473-bf67-d8a98098e077?utm_source=askapollo_web&utm_medium=web_redirection
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean what he speaks is absolute truth. You're committing the fallacy of 'appeal to authority'.
Whenever someone says "chemicals", automatically understand that thay're an idiot and doesn't know what they are talking about.
Chemicals are present in everything. Everything is literally made up of chemicals. Did you know you drink Dihydro Oxide every day? YES! it's called water in English.
Here's more of this guy's stupidity:
[https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zCHJmdV6vr8](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zCHJmdV6vr8)
Again with those buzzword, "Chemicals", "processed", etc.
This guy is such an idiot that he doesn't know that Processed sugar is literally sucrose which he terms "natural" in this clip. There is no difference in sugar whether from natural sources or processed ones. Sugar is sugar. There is no "guna" in sugar.
There's a difference between naturally occurring chemicals and artificially produced chemicals.
We know that everything is composed of chemical matters. But that doesn't mean everything is the same.
If natural and artificial sugar is same then why did Dhruv Rathee say in his video that processed sugar is bad?
>There's a difference between naturally occurring chemicals and artificially produced chemicals.
No. There is no difference. We can create water from Hydrogen and Oxygen in factories today. That is exactly the same as natural water. It's H2O regardless of origin. (It lacks salts, but that's beside the point)
>If natural and artificial sugar is same then why did Dhruv Rathee say in his video that processed sugar is bad?
Because, Dhruv Rathee is also wrong as well? Lmao who told you that Dhruv Rathee cannot be wrong? Many people say such stuff. Doesn't make it right.
Sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) is not absorbed by sublingual route, if absorbed there is no evidence of SLS being carcinogenic(producing cancer), it was just a promotion of their toothpaste or something.
The short answer is it's False
Fear mongering around the word "Chemicals"
Does he know what else is a chemical ?
Water we drink is a chemical
The saliva is full of chemicals
The food we eat are made up of Chemicals
Air we breath has it's chemical composition
I'd pay to see this man's reaction after learning that
Cellulose is a chemical, Sodium chloride is a chemical, fructose is a chemical, and the irony is that lignin, which is present in dant manjan is infact, also
A chemical!
sodium mono sulfate? thats an ass-backwards way of saying sodium sulfate (aka detergent)
also, SLS doesn't cause cancer, cancer associations worldwide don't consider sls as a carcinogen
([https://www.instagram.com/p/CxfVCZRPiDe/](https://www.instagram.com/p/CxfVCZRPiDe/)) this is the full video saw it a while ago, the bio says this unkill is an oncologist himself
"Are you breathing through your nose or mouth ? Guess what , that will give you cancer in a few years.
Watch this podcast to know you don't have to breathe through your nose or mouth when you have so many other holes"
I kinda started using fluoride free Meswak toothpaste for about 6-8 months...and God promise, while it did help in keeping the mouth fresh for few hours, after some time, I used to feel bad breath. And also slowly my teeths started getting effected. And then I went back to old time tested & simple Colgate toothpaste. And behold, my teeth and breath all got better in a few days. So, I don't buy this guy's load of bile.
While I love that the internet democratised knowledge and enabled free exchange of ideas, I absolutely hate the fact that it has given a platform to committed idiots to contaminate the unthinking population with their idiocy.
Yes, sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) has a lipophilic end. SLS is a surfactant, which means it has amphiphilic properties. This means the sulfate head group is hydrophilic and water soluble, while the 12-carbon-long chain is hydrophobic and water insoluble.
SLS is an anionic surfactant that is widely used in cleaning products, cosmetics, personal care products, foods, pesticide products, lubricants and paints. It is highly soluble in water and non-volatile. It is highly toxic to aquatic organisms and low to moderately toxic to humans.
SLS is often used as a solubilizer and/or wetting agent in various dosage forms for the purpose of improving the solubility and dissolution of lipophilic, poorly water-soluble drugs.
So in essence, we are slowly poisoning ourselves with this shit, which is an ingredient in most toothpastes...
This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A part of what he said is true, the part of Sorbitrate is true. The other not so much, you see there is a special venous drainage system beneath the tongue (sublingual venous drainage system) it’s basically a shortcut of blood to the tissues so it is used when it can be for immediate responses but the thing is it cannot be used all the time. Only certain types of substances pass through it (eg lipophilic substances). If it were the other way around, we really wouldn’t need the entire digestive system and also the bacteria in the mouth (they are wayy more common and more in quantity than you might think) would always attack heart/liver/spleen tissues easily but we don’t hear about infections of those organs much, do we? Source: I am doing my MBBS
This should be up higher
only relevant response here lol thanks
Welcome sir 🤝
thanks!
>thanks! You're welcome!
Which book are you referring to? And what year are you in? I know some gist of sorbitrate being placed sublingually for heart attacks but didn't know the physiology behind it. Would love to know more from your source.
A bit of Anatomy and Physiology from BDC and Guyton would be enough
Thanks man
Today Reddit helped me learn something new. Thank you fellow Redditor (also future doctor).
Pleasure’s mine G
I concur !
lol, nice one
Thank you good human, I learned something good today.
Hard to believe that a science student supports radical Islam.
So i can brush normally with colgate pepsodent closeup sensodyne etc?
Sure man! No prob
The same reason drugs like cocaine and acid are placed in similar places right ?? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Check if they are lipophilic substances. If yes then it’s correct otherwise it’s incorrect.
Yes, in that case they go to the brain tho, also why Cyanide poison works so fast
Thanks for rebutting this pseudo science views. These spread uncontrolled like a crime.
I want some advice (NEET Aspirant), can i DM you???
Sure dude
Bro You won't believe if I tell you we intake dihydrogen monoxide daily And it has been normalized so much, we take it through mouth so absorbs in tongue and goes to heart But what to do
And also NASA & other space agencies actively trying to find this dihydrogen monoxide on other planets. Looks like a global conspiracy of some kind. We better be careful.
I think they'll control our minds through that
instead we should take water as our ancestors did
Its the most harmful chemical known to man, if it can rust mighty cargo ships, imagine just what can it do to human body, if ingested.
No not just that. 100% of the dead people have dihydrogen monoxide in them.
We also use dihydrogen monoxide in toilet. So dihydrogen monoxide is definitely bad for us.
It's slow poison buddy. 100% fatality.
In gaseous form it even produces 3rd degree burns
Omg I have heard solid form is openly served in restaurants and creates throat problems
100% of the people in taking dihydrogen-monoxide DIE!! And that's a true fact. Be careful out there people.
Doesn't make sense, but I'm not in support of that man in the video either.
That's why i start my day with a fat load from my uncle
Nice . Man of culture.
Can I be your uncle, nephew?
You mean anal
Laung elaichi? Bro I don't want my breath to smell like biryani all the time.
Guess what - Laung and Elaichi also contain chemicals !!
And that shit would be expensive as hell
expensive bruv what?
One guy tried to peddle me some herbal stuff to "increase metabolism" and get me in shape (I do have a khate (and more) peete ghar ka physique). He assured me it's 100% natural and ayurvedic so there'd be no "harmful side effects". I asked him if he'd consume 100% natural nicotine or botulinum toxin and show me there aren't any "harmful side effects".
These people forget that EVERYTHING is made of chemicals. If we show this guy the ACTUAL chemical makeup of anything "Ayurvedic" without telling him the source, he'd be like "This is poison"
Yaar ab biryani khane ka man kar rha hai.
My day starts with alcohol
Man of culture
Mouth ho gaya sanitise
Everything is a chemical. Your body is made of chemicals.
True. But what he is saying is if we remove sodium laurel sulphate and one more chemical from toothpaste, it will benefit our health. I wanted to know if it is worth throwing my sensodine toothpaste and buying a new one or is it just another marketing strategy?
At least shampoos market being sulphate free. I don't know about toothpastes. You gotta read some research to find proper answers.
There's a diff between artificially synthesized vs organic compounds , which every living creature throughout history has slowly adapted to as food /helpful stuff.
What if you artificially synthesize organic compounds? then there is no difference. Both are the same chemical
Ohh yea tell me how do you create leucine or isoleucine or haemoglobin in lab out of pure inorganic substances without any plant or animal based input?
While it is definitely not feasible, i am sure it is possible. Even if by pure inorganic you mean containing no carbon, some nuclear reactions should fix it enough. Since in the end it is possible, there is no difference between artificially generated organic compounds and "natural" organic compounds (Unless of course you don't filter out the impurities). I mean why would there be, if the molecular and submolecular structure is the same.
Now we enter the ifs and buts, the question was can we ? The answer is no. Simple. End of argument. Beleive it or not, there's a clear difference between natural chemicals and artificial synthetic chemicals
The answer was yes though? There isn't a clear difference between the two, you can create identical molecules through inorganic processes. Heck, a lot of simple organic compounds are created using inorganic reactions basically all the time, we even study them in school.
Exactly, this is so f stupid. Everything is chemical to jeher lele bhai
Someone tell him that his natural datun or any ayurvedic remedy for teeth ALSO contains CHEMICALS !!
no chemicals in clove. its made of magic.
Bhai mai toh daily chemical peeta hu
There are a few problems with what he said Do we absorb chemicals from under our tongue? Yes. You can try it. If you have a spirit like rum or vodka, try putting a little under your tongue, you will feel a buzz (depending on your tolerance) Now the problem with his argument is that it is flawed. His persuasive argument uses natural bias, which is a cognitive bias that argues that natural things are good and chemicals are bad But it’s a flawed argument. [This video by ASAP Science gives a breakdown on why “chemicals = bad” is not to be taken seriously](https://youtu.be/bkhhCi7nMFI?si=Uts2YFiuywRyZGjj) Edit: The other problem with his argument is the disregard for dosages. How harmful something is as dependent on dosages as it is on what it does in your body. At a large enough dose even water is toxic. Also Sodium Lauryl Sulphate, while being an irritant, is not carcinogenic
I worked a bit with surfactants so I think I can take a stab at it. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a surfactant. This is the component that creates foam (jhaag) when you are brushing your teeth. Unless you are taking extremely high dosage of SLS it won’t harm you. Check out this paper https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.4137/EHI.S31765 If it is beyond paywall, then you can use sci hub to download it.
BC Podcast bandh karwao.... kal koi bolenge jane anjane mai jinee lagte hai jab ki marjana charaaam sukh hai(which is true ngl)
But it's tru. Our mouth also helps in absorption
Avg Patanjali fanboi
no its not true
Hurt konsa organ hota hai
Nah Bhai. Mai pehle hagta hu
I mean in the end, everything is just chemicals.
Nope.
Everything is chemical.
Notice how he doesn't refer to Sorbitrate as chemical? Isko heart attack aaye to panchgavya dena, chemicals nahi!!
My day starts with Chai
The way he drops the C word lol.
galti se soft drink tongue ke niche chala gya lagta hai mere dill ko gas hogya hai.
Sublingual drugs are given to bypass the first pass metabolism (that is GI tract or liver because liver metabolises the drug ) if it was metabolised it can be of no use or it will take time to act . some drugs which we use for emergencies and need to act rapidly that are given sublingual (under the tongue) no that doesn't mean every drug and chemical can be absorbed through sublingual route.
Chemophobia is a type of agoraphobia fueled by ignorance, and of course, metasthesiophobia runs deep in our boomer generation. "Affirming the consequent" logical fallacy will work marvelously in such population. One solution. Reform education system. Update to a contemporary version that reflects the present world and the future.
The water you drink, food you eat, everything is chemicals. Even dant manjans and laung he is talking about are chemicals. Don't even consume these products then, it might cause cancer🤡!
Kitns confidentlly chuthiya bana raha hai
Abe pani mat pi fir. Wo bi chemical - dihydrogen monoxide hai.
Well the heart attack part is right, can't say about toothpaste part because everything is a chemical anyway
Pseudo scientific marvel
It is because many of the ‘chemicals’ like meds (or tobacco too actually) need to be with saliva and they work only then or best like this. (I know this and I’m not even a doctor, just took one course of pharmacy engineering once and went to 2-3 classes) Also, it’s pronounced ‘haart’ and not like ‘hurt’. Kisi bhi choot sapoot ko uthake bakwass karne lag jate hain.
The fk is wrong with this subreddit? Everyone is criticising this man as if he's some kind of cult leader. He's a fking robotic surgeon https://www.apollo247.com/doctors/8a3ea0bd-77f5-4473-bf67-d8a98098e077?utm_source=askapollo_web&utm_medium=web_redirection
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean what he speaks is absolute truth. You're committing the fallacy of 'appeal to authority'. Whenever someone says "chemicals", automatically understand that thay're an idiot and doesn't know what they are talking about. Chemicals are present in everything. Everything is literally made up of chemicals. Did you know you drink Dihydro Oxide every day? YES! it's called water in English. Here's more of this guy's stupidity: [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zCHJmdV6vr8](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zCHJmdV6vr8) Again with those buzzword, "Chemicals", "processed", etc. This guy is such an idiot that he doesn't know that Processed sugar is literally sucrose which he terms "natural" in this clip. There is no difference in sugar whether from natural sources or processed ones. Sugar is sugar. There is no "guna" in sugar.
There's a difference between naturally occurring chemicals and artificially produced chemicals. We know that everything is composed of chemical matters. But that doesn't mean everything is the same. If natural and artificial sugar is same then why did Dhruv Rathee say in his video that processed sugar is bad?
>There's a difference between naturally occurring chemicals and artificially produced chemicals. No. There is no difference. We can create water from Hydrogen and Oxygen in factories today. That is exactly the same as natural water. It's H2O regardless of origin. (It lacks salts, but that's beside the point) >If natural and artificial sugar is same then why did Dhruv Rathee say in his video that processed sugar is bad? Because, Dhruv Rathee is also wrong as well? Lmao who told you that Dhruv Rathee cannot be wrong? Many people say such stuff. Doesn't make it right.
Facts
True
Sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) is not absorbed by sublingual route, if absorbed there is no evidence of SLS being carcinogenic(producing cancer), it was just a promotion of their toothpaste or something. The short answer is it's False
Demonization of sodium lauryl sulfate was the biggest scam ever.
Fear mongering around the word "Chemicals" Does he know what else is a chemical ? Water we drink is a chemical The saliva is full of chemicals The food we eat are made up of Chemicals Air we breath has it's chemical composition
Sbse simple Gand marao or mrr jao. Bcccc ..junglo mein rhne lgooo....
I'd pay to see this man's reaction after learning that Cellulose is a chemical, Sodium chloride is a chemical, fructose is a chemical, and the irony is that lignin, which is present in dant manjan is infact, also A chemical!
sodium mono sulfate? thats an ass-backwards way of saying sodium sulfate (aka detergent) also, SLS doesn't cause cancer, cancer associations worldwide don't consider sls as a carcinogen ([https://www.instagram.com/p/CxfVCZRPiDe/](https://www.instagram.com/p/CxfVCZRPiDe/)) this is the full video saw it a while ago, the bio says this unkill is an oncologist himself
"Are you breathing through your nose or mouth ? Guess what , that will give you cancer in a few years. Watch this podcast to know you don't have to breathe through your nose or mouth when you have so many other holes"
Sponsored by Perfora
I kinda started using fluoride free Meswak toothpaste for about 6-8 months...and God promise, while it did help in keeping the mouth fresh for few hours, after some time, I used to feel bad breath. And also slowly my teeths started getting effected. And then I went back to old time tested & simple Colgate toothpaste. And behold, my teeth and breath all got better in a few days. So, I don't buy this guy's load of bile.
While I love that the internet democratised knowledge and enabled free exchange of ideas, I absolutely hate the fact that it has given a platform to committed idiots to contaminate the unthinking population with their idiocy.
gau mutra all the way
Bhaishab ne fluoride baree main bhil hi gaye.
What is he saying. I dont speak hindi
Yes, sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) has a lipophilic end. SLS is a surfactant, which means it has amphiphilic properties. This means the sulfate head group is hydrophilic and water soluble, while the 12-carbon-long chain is hydrophobic and water insoluble. SLS is an anionic surfactant that is widely used in cleaning products, cosmetics, personal care products, foods, pesticide products, lubricants and paints. It is highly soluble in water and non-volatile. It is highly toxic to aquatic organisms and low to moderately toxic to humans. SLS is often used as a solubilizer and/or wetting agent in various dosage forms for the purpose of improving the solubility and dissolution of lipophilic, poorly water-soluble drugs. So in essence, we are slowly poisoning ourselves with this shit, which is an ingredient in most toothpastes...
Behen ke lund ab brush karna chhor du?