 |
Reply
| |
One thing I've learned in my studies and research, both scientific and non-scientific, is how important it is to understand what the boudaries are. Most people are totally ignorant of these boundaries, and not knowing this makes it very difficult to assimilate information. Thus, one of the things I try to determine when I learn something new is what the current knowledge boundaries are. Here are some of the most recent examples:
"Very little is known about how the lung repairs this lining layer, called the endothelium, said You-Yang Zhao, research assistant professor of pharmacology."
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914180203.htm
QUOTE: "I happened to hear one of the only talks he gave in like 10 years because he never traveled much," Bassler says. "He was sort of a gentleman scientist." She says she barely understood the talk, since Silverman was a geneticist and she was a chemist. UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6061852
|
|
|
Reply
| |
QUOTE: ...A widely-held view is that biofilms serve as reservoirs of bacteria that do relatively little harm; they just sit there. The main danger is thought to be from 'blooms' of free living cells which occasionally break away from the biofilm and cause periods of poor lung function in the cystic fibrosis patients. "In this scenario, it follows that bacteria in a biofilm will produce fewer disease-causing chemicals than free-living cells of the same type of bacteria, which is a prediction that we can test," says Dr Welch. "We found that, in contrast to expectation, biofilms do indeed produce harmful chemicals. However, the type of tissue-degrading enzymes and toxins made by the biofilm bacteria differ from those produced by free-floating bugs, which may help them to survive attacks by our immune systems."
In addition, the scientists discovered that the biofilm bacteria can produce a protein which their analysis suggests is similar to one of the active ingredients in rattlesnake venom. In the case of rattlesnake venom the protein causes the host cells to commit suicide and die, which is one reason why rattlesnake bites are so dangerous. The research team is currently studying the protein to see if it functions in the same way... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080907211945.htm |
|
Reply
| |
I'll file this under the heading of "what took you so long to realize this?"
QUOTE: ...Gorbunova believes that cells of long-lived, small-bodied rodents are hypersensitive to cues from the surrounding tissue. If the cells sense that conditions are inappropriate for growth, they slow down cell division. Such a mechanism would arrest tumor growth and prevent metastases... UNQUOTE.
This is not just true for such animals, but probably for all animals. However, why doesn't this scientist appear to know about studies from decades ago that demonstrated this same point. For instance, how about the studies that showed a threshold amount of linoleic acid in the diet which resulted in a lot more cancers? Interestingly, the title of this report is "Novel Anti-cancer Mechanism Found In Long-lived Rodents," yet the "mechanism" is only assumed, so I don't know how any journalist can say that it's been "found."
For example, the author writes: "Gorbunova thinks that squirrels and similar rodents have evolved a strict monitoring function within their cells that may be able to sense appropriate and inappropriate cell division—i.e., healthy reproduction and runaway cancerous reproduction—and slow or inhibit the division if necessary.
Gorbunova is now looking to isolate and understand this mechanism with the hope that it may be applicable to help human cells thwart the onset of tumor growth..."
I'd call this really poor science journalism, but from my experience, it's not uncommon to read such things on a daily basis.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080918081158.htm
|
|
Reply
| |
QUOTE: "...We found that curcumin significantly decreases the size of a blood clot, but we're not sure why it happens..." UNQUOTE.
This "expert scientist" may not know, but if you've been reading my site, you know that there's only one explanation, in light of the available evidence, that makes sense. When you have arachidonic acid in your cells, clotting is much more dangerous. When I got AA out of my cells, and replaced it with the natural Mead acid, I noticed that when I got a cut, the scabs were softer, sort of like rubber, whereas before that, the scabs were like a hard plastic. What may be more important is that my cuts and nose bleeds seem to stop bleeding quicker. In any case, this obvious explanation will not be explored any time soon because our great "experts" don't even know about this possibility, which is consistent with everything that is known, and not contradicted by anything. They simply don't have the knowledge base required to "put the pieces together," other than what they've accomplished so far working with existing notions and paradigms.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080922135229.htm |
|
Reply
| |
How many times have you heard someone tell you that you need to "boost your immune system" to fight cancer?
QUOTE: Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have found that some proteins of the immune system can promote tumor growth. Investigators found that instead of fighting tumors, the protein C5a, which is produced during an immune response to a developing tumor, helps tumors build molecular shields against T-cell attack...
“Until now, everyone thought that the complement system was there to eliminate tumor cells. We found that in some conditions, the complement system can promote tumor growth, depending on the specific tumor and the specific environment in which the tumors are developing,�?says John Lambris, PhD, the Dr. Ralph and Sallie Weaver Professor of Research Medicine... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080929153458.htm |
|
Reply
| |
QUOTE: ...Many insects, such as aphids, ants, and tse-tse flies are dependent on special minibacteria for their survival. These bacteria live isolated in special organs in the insects? bodies and are packed into their eggs to be spread to the next generation of insects. In this closed environment a great deal of genetic damage takes place, and the minibacteria?s genes are successively degraded.
Genetic damage arises during copying of the DNA string in the mother cell to the new DNA strings in the daughter cells. DNA is made up of four letters-?A, C, G, T. During copying of the same letter in a row, errors easily occur: for example, 10A can be erroneously copied as 9A or 11A or 12A. If such an error occurs in a gene, the reading frame is destroyed, and the gene loses its function. It is extremely uncommon for bacteria to have long series of the same letter in their genes. The minibacteria that live in insects, on the other hand, can surprisingly have hundreds of such regions in their genes. In several cases these regions have accumulated genetic mutations and the genes have popped out of their reading frame.
"Theoretically speaking, these damaged genes should no longer be able to function", says Siv Andersson.
In the new study, the scientists have shown that despite their damage these genes become protein. The secret lies in the fact that new errors occur during copying of DNA to RNA, so a mixture of RNA molecules with 9A, 10A, 11A, and 12A is formed. Owing to the new errors, in some cases the original damage is repaired, and the gene pops back into its proper reading frame so that protein can be created.
"The result is a robust but extremely inefficient system. The major share of the copied material is useless and will be degraded. But thanks to the small proportion that turn out right as a result of the repeated copying errors, the bacteria can survive, thereby making it possible for the aphids and ants to survive", says Siv Andersson... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926100932.htm |
|
Reply
| |
A new report has found that:
QUOTE: Some bacteria may help protect against the development of a type of esophageal cancer, known as adenocarcinoma, according to a new review of the medical literature. These bacteria, which are called Helicobacter pylori, live in the stomachs of humans... UNQUOTE.
So, after a Nobel Prize was recently given to a scientist who supposedly discovered that H. pylori "caused" ulcers, we find that it's actually protective. It was known for quite a while that many (if not most) "primitive" people had H. pylori in their bodies, but did not get ulcers. After all I've written on this site about medical nonsense, it just keeps coming. Fortunately, what the "experts" do, other than make silly claims, is generate experimental data, which is now so voluminous that we no longer need their "expertise" to understand the causes of health and "disease."
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006092511.htm |
|
Reply
| |
You may also read these essays about how high fiber diet causes H. pylori to become pathogenic:
http://tinyurl.com/4z3g2a
http://tinyurl.com/5ymj24 |
|
Reply
| |
| Too much speculation on his part, in my opinion obviously. Even if he is correct, it's likely true only in a context of oxidative stress from lipid peroxidation (too much dietary PUFAs, because most "high carb" food is also rich in PUFAs and low in natural antioxidants). |
|
Reply
| |
Yep, all the people observing benefits from carb restriction (including Kwasniewski) also restrict PUFAs with them at the same time.
Here is another paper demonstrating the expert's "derailed" thinking - their reversed causality suggests that it's H. pyroli which causes lipid peroxidation:
Levels of Malondialdehyde-Deoxyguanosine in the Gastric Mucosa
Relationship with Lipid Peroxidation, Ascorbic Acid, and Helicobacter pylori
Simon M. Everett1, Raj Singh, Chiara Leuratti, Kay L. M. White, Peter Neville, Darren Greenwood, Lawrence J. Marnett, Christopher J. Schorah, David Forman, David Shuker and Anthony T. R. Axon
Helicobacter pylori infection is associated with elevated gastric mucosal concentrations of the lipid peroxidation product malondialdehyde and reduced gastric juice vitamin C concentrations. Malondialdehyde can react with DNA bases to form the mutagenic adduct malondialdehyde-deoxyguanosine (M1-dG). We aimed to determine gastric mucosal levels of M1-dG in relation to H. pylori infection and malondialdehyde and vitamin C concentrations. Patients (n = 124) attending for endoscopy were studied. Levels of antral mucosal M1-dG were determined using a sensitive immunoslot-blot technique; antral mucosal malondialdehyde was determined by thiobarbituric acid extraction, and gastric juice and antral mucosal ascorbic acid and total vitamin C were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. Sixty-four H. pylori-positive patients received eradication therapy, and endoscopy was repeated at 6 and 12 months. Levels of M1-dG did not differ between subjects with H. pylori gastritis (n = 85) and those with normal mucosa without H. pylori infection (n = 39; 56.6 versus 60.1 adducts/108 bases) and were unaffected by age or smoking habits. Malondialdehyde levels were higher (123.7 versus 82.5 pmol/g; P < 0.001), gastric juice ascorbic acid was lower (5.7 versus 15.0 µmol/ml; P < 0.001), and antral mucosal ascorbic acid was unchanged (48.0 versus 42.7 µmol/g) in H. pylori gastritis compared with normal mucosa. Multiple regression analysis revealed that M1-dG increased significantly with increasing levels of malondialdehyde, antral ascorbic acid, and total antral vitamin C. M1-dG levels were unchanged 6 months (63.3 versus 87.0 adducts/108 bases; P = 0.24; n = 38) and 12 months (66.7 versus 77.5 adducts/108 bases; P = 0.8; n = 13) after successful eradication of H. pylori. M1-dG thus is detectable in gastric mucosa, but is not affected directly by H. pylori.
SOURCE:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/4/369?hits=10&FIRSTINDEX=0&TITLEABSTRACT=gastric+mucosa&AUTHOR1=shuker&SEARCHID=1&gca=cebp%253B10%252F4%252F369&sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%2528s%2529& |
|
Reply
| |
Here the Irish scientists in their hunt after the good (PGI2) and the bad (TXA2) AA metabolites are finding that cholesterol may actually positively affect cardiovascular disease. But none of them cares about validating the most important EFAD experiments from 1940s first. They might be then spending their time more productively working on the Mead rather than Arachidonic acid ...
http://www.irishscientist.ie/p176a.htm
|
|
Reply
| |
In a new report, entitled, "Chronic Inflammation Can Help Nurture Skin Cancer, Study Shows" we are told the following:
QUOTE: "...Inflammation should really help prevent a tumor," says Dr. Andrew Mellor, director of the MCG Immunotherapy Center and Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar in Molecular Immunogenetics. In fact, there is strong evidence that inflammation triggers the immune response. "You want a good immune response; this is what protects you from pathogens," he says. "In this case, it's an unfortunate exploitation by malignant cells..." QUOTE.
This "expert" appears to be unaware of the large body of evidence (plenty of which is not recent) connecting "chronic inflammation" (another way of saying arachidonic acid overload) to cancer (especially when LTB4 is involved). But there's something else here that is disturbing, particularly because it is so common. When these kinds of "experts" fail, or if something doesn't fit into their preconceived notions, they ascribe human motivations or abilities to entities that are clearly not able to act in this way. How many "HIV/AIDS experts" have claimed that "HIV" is "wily," and can do all kinds of "mysterious" things to "thwart" the immune system and the "great medical minds" of our age, for example? The big "mystery," if there is one, may involve how the "experts" are able to fail over and over again, and yet are never held responsible and dismissed from their venerable positions, so that others with different ideas can get the opportunity to do different experiments and try alternative approaches.
Such individuals seem to possess a very simplistic "cause and effect" view of biological phenomena, which seems to dispose them to view complex phenomena as a typical Hollywood movie, which a simple plot involving a "hero" and a "villain" (who may be a "monster"). So, as in many such film, the "solution" is "maximum firepower," which in the case of medicine, often leads to the "cure" being more dangerous than the "disease," though the general public is generally unaware of the dangers of the "miracle drugs" and "therapies" that are so commonly used these days by our "doctors."
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021120916.htm |
|
Reply
| |
Well said Hans, but the problem is perhaps that the ordinary people prefer the Hollywood movie way rather than the more complex explanation and approaches. It's easier for them to swallow a pill or have an expensive surgery and blaim the failure on genetics rather than give up their present lifestyle addicted to fast food, stress and different stimulants from the real Hollywood movies to hard drugs. The environment created by the civilization further encourages this. The "experts" are then presented by the massmedia as heroes with extraordinary intellectual powers...
Hopefully, thanks to your explanations such as "putting the gasoline with sugar or rocket fuel in the car tank", "hitting the nail with a hammer while smashing your hand" or this "Hollywood movie style maximum firepower solving all problems" at least some normal people can understand what this is all about. I wish you found the time to put all this in a book ... |
|
Reply
| |
It still amazes me how readily most physicists seem willing to admit that they are wrong when it appears that they are, and yet biomedical people, generally-speaking, seem so unwilling to admit that they are wrong ("HIV/AIDS," "essential fatty acids," "saturated fat causes heart disease," etc.). Most people probably don't realize how much more "solid" physics is as a science compared to biology, but this makes the situation all the more laughable, and unfortunate, because the biomedical "experts" can kill people by refusing to acknowledge their mistakes. Here's a good example of the attitude a scientist should have when confronted with evidence demonstrating that he or she is wrong:
QUOTE: During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.
"It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,'" says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible..."
"We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active," says Sibeck. "We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic." UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081101093713.htm |
|
Reply
| | From:  gos2u | Sent: 11/3/2008 1:59 PM |
If there's anything I've learned from my studies of science and scientific history, it's that real scientists and egomaniacal idiots with lab coats are separated by three little words: "I was wrong." A real scientist, particularly a great one, will utter these three words many times throughout his career, while an idiot with a lab coat will not only never utter them, but will defend his failed hypotheses to his grave. Peter Duesberg is an excellent example of this, if you know anything of his "discovery" of the retroviral oncogene. The guy was in line for the Nobel Prize, when he spoiled the whole thing by insisting on choosing scientific integrity over personal ambition, and uttered those three little words. I also have noticed what you have pointed out: That great physicists are generally willing to admit when they are wrong, while those in the biomedical field act like Catholic church officials in defending their dogmas. When confronted with contrary facts, in fact, they often hide behind the same argument that religious officials use: "Not only are our detractors wrong, but their views are dangerous and if allowed to speak publicly about this, they will lead our ignorant lay parishioners to their doom." For those who have never read Stephen Hawking's The Theory of Everything, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy. It's an excellent read, but for the purpose of this discussion, it should be entered into evidence as Exhibit A. It's basically an accounting of all of the times that Hawking proved himself wrong in his failed attempt to concoct a unified field theory. For anyone who labors under the illusion that scientists are anything but fallible mortals, Hawking would set you straight about how science really works. --- Gos "Nobody here but us heretics..." |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First
Return to General