(x)
This badly-written article on the 2012 wiki (which is a thing that EXISTS, apparently.) is about Nostradamus' predictions of 2012. From what I could pick out from the wall of text, there was a book discovered at the National Library in Rome and there is "evidence" that it was the last work of Nostradamus, and this article is advertising a special on it that will be airing on the History channel. The depressing downfall of the History channel aside, the article states that "The predictions of Nostradamus were in agreement with the scientist of
today that the solar system will pass through the galactic plane of the
Milky Way galaxy, as the earth enters its 25,800 year precession. When
this happens, the gravitational wave, which exist as a flat plane along
the equatorial region of the milky way sends this across any passing
solar system, including Earth and the Sun, causing earthquakes in both
Sun and all the planets. In this region there are broken planets and
asteroids that may cause near massive object collision with earth, but
also as the solar system passes the equatorial region will the planets,
including earth shifts its rotation. According to Nostradamus, when this
passes, whole continents will be under water in a matter of 6-10 hours,
where most of Asia will be underwater, but also other coastal regions.
The land will sink fast and responsible for most of the destruction, but
during this passing the earth will lose its orbit around the sun,
massive earthquakes starts from the polar shifts and gravitational waves
bringing on earthquake and sinking of continents. The spokes of wheel
disappears in one of Nostradamus drawings which signifies that earth
will no longer be in orbit or following cycles, and hence the
disappearance of spokes. The sinking of land will also experience land
underwater coming out at the same time, and will take matter of hours
for a land to sink 2000 feet under the ocean much like Atlantis, which
was about 2200 feet, located off the coast of Cuba."
I really hope you were able to understand what the author was trying to say, because to me I just could not understand a word.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Vaccines and Autism Timeline
This is a timeline of how this whole debacle began, and has been continuing since. It starts with Wake field publishing his study, and on the left gives examples of pro vaccines-causing-autism things that have happened, mostly public thing like Jenny McCarthy's campaign; on the right it tells of some of the numerous studies showing no link between autism and vaccines.
Mercury proved not to cause autism (again).
Article
This article, from Fox news of all places, discusses a study that shows that mercury in vaccinations, an uncommonly used and commonly quoted additive to vaccines, does not cause autism. Though not the first study disproving a link, the rumor never seems to die, so people continue doing new studies. The kind of mercury that has specifically been called a concern is called ethylmercury. From the article, "The researchers collected urine samples from 54 children with autism spectrum disorders, and compared these with three other groups: 115 children from the general population, 28 children who attended special schools (mainly because of learning disabilities), and 42 children who didn't have autism, but had a sibling with the condition."
This article, from Fox news of all places, discusses a study that shows that mercury in vaccinations, an uncommonly used and commonly quoted additive to vaccines, does not cause autism. Though not the first study disproving a link, the rumor never seems to die, so people continue doing new studies. The kind of mercury that has specifically been called a concern is called ethylmercury. From the article, "The researchers collected urine samples from 54 children with autism spectrum disorders, and compared these with three other groups: 115 children from the general population, 28 children who attended special schools (mainly because of learning disabilities), and 42 children who didn't have autism, but had a sibling with the condition."
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Stem cells beat kidney rejection
Article
This article discusses a new use of stem cells being tested in Islamabad. I'm pretty sure all of you know what an organ transplant is, but some of you might not know that if the organ doesn't come from a close family member (and sometimes even if it is), it can cause serious complications, most notably the recipient of an organ's immune system recognizing the organ as an "attacker" and attacking the transplanted organ. There are special drugs that recipients of those transplants must take that repress their immune systems, but they have serious complications and would have to be taken every day for the rest of their lives. A new strategy to combat that without medication that is being tested is a few days after the transplant, injecting a small amount of stem cells into the area, in hopes to generate a modified immune system that won't reject the organs. So far, the results have been phenomenal. From the article, "Although the patients started off with the same anti-rejection drugs, the aim was to reduce these slowly, hopefully withdrawing them completely over time. Five out of the eight patients involved in the trial managed to do this within a year." 47-year-old Lindsay Porter, from Chicago, a recipient of the treatment said: "I hear about the challenges recipients have to face with their medications and it is significant. It’s almost surreal when I think about it because I feel so healthy and normal." If this proves to have long-term effectiveness, it could be a huge breakthrough in medical science.
This article discusses a new use of stem cells being tested in Islamabad. I'm pretty sure all of you know what an organ transplant is, but some of you might not know that if the organ doesn't come from a close family member (and sometimes even if it is), it can cause serious complications, most notably the recipient of an organ's immune system recognizing the organ as an "attacker" and attacking the transplanted organ. There are special drugs that recipients of those transplants must take that repress their immune systems, but they have serious complications and would have to be taken every day for the rest of their lives. A new strategy to combat that without medication that is being tested is a few days after the transplant, injecting a small amount of stem cells into the area, in hopes to generate a modified immune system that won't reject the organs. So far, the results have been phenomenal. From the article, "Although the patients started off with the same anti-rejection drugs, the aim was to reduce these slowly, hopefully withdrawing them completely over time. Five out of the eight patients involved in the trial managed to do this within a year." 47-year-old Lindsay Porter, from Chicago, a recipient of the treatment said: "I hear about the challenges recipients have to face with their medications and it is significant. It’s almost surreal when I think about it because I feel so healthy and normal." If this proves to have long-term effectiveness, it could be a huge breakthrough in medical science.
"An Elaborate Fraud?"
Article
This article, varying from the basic format of articles severing the connection between autism and vaccines, is more about the backlash from the original infamous study, and why that study has been discredited, that why exactly autism and vaccines aren't linked. I'd like to address both of those points in their own sections.
Why the study has been discredited:
The number on reason the study has been discredited, and the reason most of his (Wakefield's), co-authors withdrew their names was that Wakefield had been paid 435,000 pounds ($674,000) by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers using the results of the study. That is in incredibly large conflict of interest that he, unsurprisingly, failed to mention. The second, equally important but less-cited reason the study has been officially discredited is that there is strong evidence that Wakefield fabricated a large portion of the test subjects medical history, editing, excluding, and just plain making-up data that would have rendered his study inconclusive, false, or even just less convincing. Form the article, "Godlee, [BMJ]'s editor-in-chief, said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism." Essentially, though some of the data may possibly be useful, though personally I highly doubt it, the study itself needs to be thrown out. To the scientific community, it has been, but to most of the population "discredited" means nothing. Wakefield himself "was found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010, and was struck off the Medical Register, meaning he could no longer practice as a doctor in the United Kingdom." (Wikipedia)
The backlash:
Across the U.S. and the United Kingdom, as a direct result of this study, MMR vaccination rates have dropped, falling as low as 80% by 2004 in Britain, and measles and mumps outbreaks have happened at a frightening increase. According to the article, "In the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than in any other year since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
Though the study has repeatedly failed to stand up to scrutiny, and has never been able to be replicated, for some reason it continues to be cited and defended.
This article, varying from the basic format of articles severing the connection between autism and vaccines, is more about the backlash from the original infamous study, and why that study has been discredited, that why exactly autism and vaccines aren't linked. I'd like to address both of those points in their own sections.
Why the study has been discredited:
The number on reason the study has been discredited, and the reason most of his (Wakefield's), co-authors withdrew their names was that Wakefield had been paid 435,000 pounds ($674,000) by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers using the results of the study. That is in incredibly large conflict of interest that he, unsurprisingly, failed to mention. The second, equally important but less-cited reason the study has been officially discredited is that there is strong evidence that Wakefield fabricated a large portion of the test subjects medical history, editing, excluding, and just plain making-up data that would have rendered his study inconclusive, false, or even just less convincing. Form the article, "Godlee, [BMJ]'s editor-in-chief, said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism." Essentially, though some of the data may possibly be useful, though personally I highly doubt it, the study itself needs to be thrown out. To the scientific community, it has been, but to most of the population "discredited" means nothing. Wakefield himself "was found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010, and was struck off the Medical Register, meaning he could no longer practice as a doctor in the United Kingdom." (Wikipedia)
The backlash:
Across the U.S. and the United Kingdom, as a direct result of this study, MMR vaccination rates have dropped, falling as low as 80% by 2004 in Britain, and measles and mumps outbreaks have happened at a frightening increase. According to the article, "In the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than in any other year since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
Though the study has repeatedly failed to stand up to scrutiny, and has never been able to be replicated, for some reason it continues to be cited and defended.
A Bittersweet Ending
It was hard for me, actually, to decide what my last blog post for this class should cover. I thought I could possibly relate some uplifting story about stem-cell research, or perhaps elaborate upon the origins of the inexplicable need for people to believe conspiracy theories like HAARP, or perhaps I could even discuss the immense beauty suggested by the multiverse - all the intricate ways in which we will never understand the world in which we live.
But, instead, I decided to ask why we, specifically, decided to take this class. It's easy to deconstruct the motives of terrified parents of autistic children blaming vaccines, seeking an outside answer - an institution on which they can project their fears. But it's harder, I think, to ask ourselves why we wish to shoot these people down, snort at their misplaced concern.
Conspiracy theorists believe in conspiracies so that they may feel they have some control in their lives. In an increasingly volatile world, comfort may be found in feeling correct. So, are we just a backwards version of the people who believe that the world will end in 2012? It's possible that we are looking in the opposite direction, but for the same thing - to feel secure in our rightness.
But, you know, we are right. Right?
But, instead, I decided to ask why we, specifically, decided to take this class. It's easy to deconstruct the motives of terrified parents of autistic children blaming vaccines, seeking an outside answer - an institution on which they can project their fears. But it's harder, I think, to ask ourselves why we wish to shoot these people down, snort at their misplaced concern.
Conspiracy theorists believe in conspiracies so that they may feel they have some control in their lives. In an increasingly volatile world, comfort may be found in feeling correct. So, are we just a backwards version of the people who believe that the world will end in 2012? It's possible that we are looking in the opposite direction, but for the same thing - to feel secure in our rightness.
But, you know, we are right. Right?
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Lets All Work Together, Ehh?
Scientist believe that cancer depends on a small group of stem cell to propagate their existance and continue their spread to the rest of the body. Leukaemia is no exception. The isolation and destruction of Leukaemia stem cells is likely to be the most effective way to cure the disease. However, as you can imagine, this is rather dificult to do if stem cell research is banned.
Every tissue, vessel and cell in your body begins as an embryonic stem cell. After you are born, your body maintains hematopoietic stemcells that mature into specific tissues. These cells, here after refured to as HCS, are the olny cells that allow regeneration. It is important to remember that HCS are very diffrent from embryonic stem cells, as HCS are found in your body well after birth.
The argument that stem cell research is murder is complete rubbish. Most research is preformed with HCS rather than embryonic stem cells.
I think it is important for the people who argue against stem cell research to do some reseach of their own. Perhaps if they were more informed, they'd stop impeeding the progress made regarding stem cells and cancer patients. We could be saving lives rather than wasting time.
Every tissue, vessel and cell in your body begins as an embryonic stem cell. After you are born, your body maintains hematopoietic stemcells that mature into specific tissues. These cells, here after refured to as HCS, are the olny cells that allow regeneration. It is important to remember that HCS are very diffrent from embryonic stem cells, as HCS are found in your body well after birth.
The argument that stem cell research is murder is complete rubbish. Most research is preformed with HCS rather than embryonic stem cells.
I think it is important for the people who argue against stem cell research to do some reseach of their own. Perhaps if they were more informed, they'd stop impeeding the progress made regarding stem cells and cancer patients. We could be saving lives rather than wasting time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)