I don't know how many people in the world do as much research as I've done (on nutritional/health/medical topics) in the last few years, but what amazes me is how I keep reading the same things in reports of scientfic studies. One thing is how some group of researchers think they've uncovered something new, when in fact it is "old news." I've come to realize that unlike historians, most scientists don't know where "they are at" - they have little knowledge of the literature to which they are supposed to be contributing.

Another thing is how those who have detected a protein doing something in a "disease" think that the protein is the underlying cause or show no interest in the cause. Of course, telling people just to avoid a stressor that renders the protein dysfunctional would not pay any bills, now would it? Think of a broken hinge on a door, which makes the door difficult to open and close. One can try to design a much more elaborate hinge or one can replace the hinge, but why not observe the people who use the door to see if they are doing something that is beyond the threshold of what the hinge can bear?

And finally, for now, I often read about how research scientists are so suprised about something that should not be at all surprising to them. The latest example dovetails with a point I've made in my essays here about how the body mostly damages itself. Really, what would be a tremendous aid to most of us would be an "owner's manual" of sorts, rather than a bunch of narrow-minded scientists attempting to "reinvent the wheel," and almost always failing.

QUOTE: The gene makes a protein called STAT1, and its production is triggered whenever the immune system senses a foreign bacterium, virus or other pathogen. STAT1 activation is a critical step in the immune system response, as this protein activates other key immune substances.

So it didn't make sense to the researchers that mice that couldn't produce STAT1 would remain healthy.

“It took us completely by surprise,�?Satoskar said. “We knew from previous work that mice that lack the substances produced in response to STAT1 develop serious infections. We thought we'd see that in this study, too...�

The researchers infected groups of mice with L. donovani. Mice in one group lacked the gene that makes STAT1. Mice in another group lacked the gene that makes an immune system protein called T-bet. In a normal immune response to infection, STAT1 triggers the production of T-bet. Together, these proteins are responsible for the production of interferon gamma, an important protein that helps launch a full-blown immune system attack against foreign pathogens.

A group of mice with both STAT1 and T-bet genes intact served as a control.

About two weeks after infection, the researchers began measuring the number of L. donovani parasites in the animals' livers.

The pathogen went wild in the mice that lacked T-bet �?the researchers found thousands upon thousands of the parasites in the livers of these animals.

Yet there were next to no parasites in the mice without STAT1.

“Two weeks after infection, the mice without STAT1 had 25-fold fewer parasites in their liver tissue than the normal mice, and about 100-fold fewer parasites than the mice without T-bet,�?Satoskar said. “Visceral leishmaniasis never developed in the animals without STAT1 �?the parasites weren't able to establish an infection in the animals' livers and spleens.�

The researchers also measured parasite levels in the livers two months after infection. Again, levels were quite high in the mice without T-bet, while normal mice and mice without STAT1 showed no sign of the disease.

While the normal mice weren't sick �?they showed no physical signs of having leishmaniasis, such as inflammation of the liver and spleen �?Satoskar said the parasite was still in their systems.

“Once infected, the parasite never goes away completely,�?Satoskar said. “It's always hiding somewhere.�

Ironically, L. donovani thrives in the liver and spleen by infecting the very cells that the immune system uses to rid the parasite from the body. These cells are called macrophages �?a kind of garbage collector for the immune system, as they clean out everything from red blood cells that have died to infectious pathogens. But enough L. donovani parasites can overtake a macrophage's ability to clean up.

“L. donovani infection failed to launch in mice without STAT1 because there weren't enough macrophages in the liver for the parasite to infect, and these are the very immune cells that are essential for successful survival and replication of Leishmania parasites in the host,�?Satoskar said.

The researchers aren't suggesting that STAT1 activation should be stopped in order to prevent visceral leishmaniasis. However, they want to figure out how this protein's absence keeps macrophages from flooding into the liver during the early stages of infection. UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060625124244.htm

Note that they say that the animals "showed no physical signs of having leishmaniasis, such as inflammation of the liver and spleen." The "disease" is the inflammatory response run amuck, and not a "bug gone wild" for some inexplicable reason. So what are we to make of this? We know (citations in essays above) that the inflammatory response can be ehanced or inhibited by the fatty acid content of one's diet, but they don't appear to know this. We know that stress is what causes "bugs" to become problematic/"pathogenic," but they don't seem to be aware of this either. Where, exactly, are they? Why are taxpayers asked to pay for studies that are so unrelated to medical reality? If this was one study, it wouldn't make much difference, but most medical studies are like this, that is, little interest is shown in trying to understand a "big picture," Instead, we get all kinds of minutiae that never seems to add up to anything (unless someone like myself comes along and tries to make sense of it all). And yet the promises keep coming - soon all "disease" will be curable, they tell us. But when you read the reports, you see what appear to be the "lost souls" of the academic world.

In order to adhere to the scientific method, one must know what factors might be relevant, and then of course controls must be used for them. But if one is unfamiliar with the professional literature on the topic, it is likely that proper controls will not be utilized in the experiments. Here, they could have subjected a group of rats to a diet rich in oxidizing agents and low in antioxidants, while feeding another group a diet rich in antioxidants and low in oxidizing agents. This would tell us whether these genes can be "turned on" or "off" by dietary/environmental factors. The literature suggests this is likely to be the case.

However, they don't seem to know the literature, nor do they seem to think in a comprehensive way. And they appear to be uninterested in underlying causes. It's almost like they are just trying to "put on a show" to justify the money they are being paid - obviously, it is not about results. If it were, those who pledged to win the "war on cancer," develop a vaccine against "HIV," etc., would have been ousted long ago, and replaced by those with new ideas and approaches. Because there is a political/bureaucratic structure in place and because the public doesn't understand enough about the issues, however, the "show" will continue to play on, at the doctor's office or hosptial near you. But at least now you know about it, and may decide not to attend when you are sent an invitation.

A couple of days after writing the above, two articles appeared in a local paper, Newsday (New York metro area). One was titled "Circadian key to cancer?" and the other was "Study IDs gene triggers to liver cancer" (both on page A50 on 6/28/06). In the former, there is no mention of vitamin D and breast cancer (which is what the article addressed), even though there is an extensive literature on this connection to breast cancer and sunlight issues, demonstrating my point about how ignorant so many research scientists seem to be these days on the subject about which they are supposed to have expertise.

The latter article is another thing you see all the time in mainstream biomedical science reports, that is, a discovery of a gene said to be the "key" to one or another "disease." Yet, of course, there never seems to be a cure after such a momentous "breakthrough," does there? Here, however, the author admits that: "...toxins can increase the risk for liver cancer." At the end of the article, there is the usual: "'You can use these mouse-model systems to test compounds that stop of slow these genetic alterations,'" stated by one of the researchers. Thus, as usual, the experiment appears to be about designing very profitable drugs that slow down "disease" progression enough to make people afflicted with the disease demand that they get their medicine, even though there are usually nasty side-effects and life will only be extended a few weeks or months. Most people, don't realize that this is the kind of game being played, and that they are the field upon which these athletes trod.

And the show continues, in yesterday's Newsday newspaper for example, on page A40 (6/29/06). First, we learn that in "Lyme Disease," "The initial symptom is... a red, circular inflammation of the skin." Again, it's about the body's response, not necessarily a "bug" doing direct damage. Below this article is one titled, "Research advance in colon cancer," but the author (it's an AP report) notes that "...doing $3000 genetic tests on every colon cancer patient to find the 4 percent who have such mutations is expensive..." They then talk about a less expensive test that is about 67% accurate. They do not talk about prevention at all, and considering how much is known about the causes of colon cancer, one is compelled to ask why studies such as the following are not mentioned:

Cancer Res. 2005 Sep 1;65(17):8034-41.

Meat, meat cooking methods and preservation, and risk for colorectal adenoma.

Sinha R, Peters U, Cross AJ, Kulldorff M, Weissfeld JL, Pinsky PF, Rothman N, Hayes RB.

Cooking meat at high temperatures produces heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Processed meats contain N-nitroso compounds... Greater intake of bacon and sausage was associated with increased colorectal adenoma risk... Our study of screening-detected colorectal adenomas shows that red meat and meat cooked at high temperatures are associated with an increased risk of colorectal adenoma.

An obvious point I have never heard anyone make is, how much can we afford to spend on attempting to make drugs or design "therapies" that either help very few people (and almost always in a very limited way) or only extend lives for a few weeks or months (often with nasty side-effects)? When a society reaches a certain technological boundary, attempting to go beyond it will mean devoting huge resources to it while achieving little in the way of results. Why not just spend a reasonable amount of money on educating the public about what to avoid in the first place? Then, fortuitous accidents, like the discovery of antibiotics (which are now being abused terribly) will occur at times when knowledge and technology are working in tandem.