No, seriously. For the most part, science tends to skirt around questions of the metaphysical for a plethora of reasons. No small cause of this is the likelihood that people really won't like the answer science would arrive at, no matter what that answer may be. See the science denialism post for more on that. Another large factor in the lack of scientific research on the metaphysical is a guiding principle that science cannot ever definitively prove a negative result. No matter how much money you spend, zoologists and hunters you employ, aerial thermal sweeps your preform, and woodland cameras you set up, you cannot prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist- you can only say that there's an overwhelming lack of evidence in the face of volumes of research to support bigfoot's existence, therefor, it is highly plausible that bigfoot does not, at the time of this research, exist in the regions surveyed. Shorthand: in all likelihood, Bigfoot doesn't exist. There's an inherent trap in the science's negative result principle, in that someone could argue that Bigfoot sensed the hunters and Zoologists coming and evaded them; Bigfoot's fur insulates its heat signature from thermal scans; Bigfoot's keen sense of smell alerted it to the presence of the cameras, which were contaminated with the odor of humans, thus leading Bigfoot to avoid photographic detection. Science, stretched for resources in manpower and money, must then ask which is more likely: that an eight foot tall manbeast with senses far keener than any other North American mammal is continuing to evade scientific detection in the face of thinning woodlands, or given that the only evidence present after years of searching is purely anecdotal, bigfoot doesn't exist? The simplest, and most likely, explanation is that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and as such, science dismisses arguments to the contrary, which plead for valuable resources that could be put to other, more fruitful causes.
So, when I say that little research has been done regarding the human soul, you should have some grasp of the background behind that statement. There is a unique exception, however, that you may have heard of in popular culture- the story of the soul weighing 21 grams. In 1901, one Duncan MacDougall had a hypothesis that the human soul had measurable mass, and that one might measure this mass by detecting its departure when the body died, as conventional wisdom holds that the soul doesn't stick around once the party's over in the body. To preform the measurements, MacDougall obtained an industrial scale allegedly sensitive to 2/10ths of an ounce, or about 5.7 grams, on which to weigh terminally ill patients and their beds before, during, and after the moment of death. His sample size was pretty small- only six patients, only four of whom produced a result. Now, according to the Wikipedia page (so take it for what it's worth), the average weight loss at the time of death was about 15 grams, or roughly three times the scale's sensitivity.
To date, to my knowledge, the experiment has not been repeated, and there is no peer-reviewed data regarding weight loss at time of death in any other literature anywhere, though there were some experiments where sheep tended to increase in mass immediately post-mortem. Some initial reactions to the data include that the patients may have lost fluid due to the relaxation of various sphincters at the time of death, to which one must acknowledge that the scale was weighing the patient and bed in totality, and that the transfer of various fluids from the patient to the bed would not have affected the total weight. The next counter-argument is that the loss of weight is due to the final exhalation at time of death. Assuming complete collapse of the lungs and complete ejection of total lung capacity (very unlikely), that would be, at best, a loss of about 7 liters of air. At 0 degrees Celsius and sea level altitude, one liter of air has a mass of 1.29 grams, so that should only account for about 9 grams- not that the expulsion of air would show up on the scale, but if it did, it wouldn't account for a range up to 21 grams. More scientific attacks on the experiment tend to come from the angle that the experiment wasn't methodologically sound- and they're right. The scale wasn't as sensitive as I would've personally (and as I'm sure others) liked it to be, and the sample size was horribly small, but that doesn't mean that Dougall didn't hit on something, it just means that data could be easily anomalous or skewed. I, personally, would like to see perhaps a meta-analysis a patient weights immediately pre-and-post mortem- that doesn't seem like something that would be too difficult to preform, given that most hospital beds have scales built into them these days.
So what was being lost? Well, it's hard to say for certain, but there's been some studies that suggest that data, in the form of information stored on discs, has weight.[1] When researchers measured data storage devices, like USB drives, CDs, and DVDs loaded with white noise recordings, the devices lost weight during the deletion of the media, and retained that weight loss for a period that generally seems to be about 30 minutes. In one case, the deletion of 2 GB of data from a flash drive, the loss of weight was measured at a milligram. According to the researchers, the weight is greater than expected due to loss of water, thermal excitement, and various other physical phenomena. So, was the weight loss memory loss from a dying brain? According to a Scientific American article I found, the brain is estimated to hold around 2.5 Petabytes of data, or 2,621,440 Gigabytes. Assuming the weight ratio of weight loss of roughly 1 milligram per every two gigabytes is both constant and conserved in the human brain, and that complete memory erasure occurred at the time of death, then the total weight loss should be 1,310,720 mg- that's 1.3 Kg, or just about 3 pounds, which is considerably more than MacDougall measured. Brain cell death is not immediately total, however, and goes on for give or take ten minutes after death- at least, that's the point at which irreversible brain death and damage occurs. So the weight loss may not have manifested immediately, but some part of it may, indeed, have been memory loss due to the death of brain cells post-mortem.
Unfortunately, this is pretty much where I've hit a dead end. I've rode the conjecture train as far as it can take us without leading us over a cliff to the land of make-believe and raw, unadultered speculation. Some will probably say that I've already run too far with this, but I found it too tantalizing not to explore. One has to wonder, supposing MacDougall's results were more than just artifact, what did he actually pick up on? Could science, some day, empirically measure a soul? We'll never know unless science gets more funding! So, support those who support science in the public arena! Donate to science organizations and projects. Grow your own knowledge, do your own research, draw your own conclusions, and share what you've learned here. As always, feel free to leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions.
[1]http://www.ece.tamu.edu/~noise/research_files/Memory_weight_FNL.pdf
[2]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-memory-capacity/
Friday, March 28, 2014
Friday, March 21, 2014
Science Denialism
Often, people contest the ideas put forth by science- and not entirely without historical merit. Once upon a time, we thought bad air caused respiratory sickness (thus, the source for Influenza- Spanish for 'influence'), we thought XMRV (Xenotropic Murine leukemia virus Related Virus) caused chronic fatigue syndrome, and we classified Homosexuality as a psychological disorder. Dissenters and critics claim that their criticism is harmless if they are incorrect, though this is contingent on the notion that mainstream science is already operating on what it believes is right. The motives are different- some people feel that some lines ought not to be crossed, while others whisper of conspiracy and profit gouging. The simple truth of science denialism, though, is that it isn't harmless.
HIV denialism, for example, is the notion that HIV is either not the causal agent for AIDS, or that HIV does not exist outright. From what I can tell, this movement seems to be the mutant husk of an honest scientific debate from the late 1980's to the early 1990's, where some scientists were not wholly convinced by the evidence presented at the time that HIV was the causal agent for AIDS. A similar skepticism- a healthy skepticism that was backed up by peer reviewed studies and not conjecture- successfully disproved XMRV as the causal agent for chronic fatigue syndrome, however, with HIV, the evidence is overwhelming. Not only does HIV fulfill Koch's Postulates to be the causal pathogen[1] (an epidemiological correlation, the ability to isolate the pathogen from a host and propagate said pathogen outside the host, and transmission from an infected organism to an uninfected susceptible organism produces the disease), but we have very strong, well-defined correlations between the use of Highly Active AntiRetroviral Therapy (HAART) and extended life expectancies of HIV infected individuals.[2] Antiviral drugs often target specific sites in specific viruses, and aren't broadly neutralizing in the same manner as antibiotics.
Yet, whispers of conspiracy, profit-gouging, and medical hubris echo across the internet, riding on the waves of an honest skepticism in science from years past. HIV denialists make wild claims, including the notions that vitamins may outright cure HIV where drugs would not[3], that the very antivirals intended to help reduce viral loads (AZT, namely) cause the disease. One may ask what the harm is, and who might believe such claims and act on them. I've heard various anecdotes of lives needlessly cut short because someone took what they read on the internet at face value, but the most egregious case happened in South Africa. In the year 2000, the president of South Africa invited several AIDS denialists to a closed government conference on AIDS. Shortly afterwards, the government and some of its ministers adopted denialist views and policies, causing a campaign of misinformation to the people of South Africa, and a refusal of the government to accept free antivirals. After legal suit and significant outcry from the non-industry scientific community, the South African government eventually reversed its position, but the damage had already been done. The loss of life resulting from the government's denialist policies is presently estimated at 330,000 people- or just under the entire population of Wyoming, or 180 people a day for five years. [4]
Denialism of the safety and efficacy of vaccinations has led to the resurgence of preventable diseases once eradicated from countries- such as Measles in the US and the UK. See my post on Vaccines for more information. Denialism of climate change- and the climate is changing, the only debate is whether we're influencing it or not- continues to bog down efforts to modulate weather trends back towards more favorable conditions. Denialism and fear of the safety of nuclear energy applications keeps electricity prices high, and prevents us from extending the shelf life of ripe fruits and vegetables by the closure of irradiation plants. The thing about science is that it isn't a belief system- it's a collection of observations from which conclusions are drawn. The existence of the sun and its radiation of light is not contingent on your faith in it, but basic science demonstrates that we have regular cycles of day and night thanks to the earth's rotation through observation. Ignoring facts does not cause them to cease to be, and denialism of science without sound evidence or reason to back up that denialism can be, and is harmful.
If you like this post, please share it with your friends. As always, I encourage you to do your own research, draw your own conclusions from the facts presented here. Please, increase your knowledge, and share it with those around you. Feel free to leave questions, comments, and concerns here on the blog. I'd love to hear your feedback. Until next time, stay spooked.
[4]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19186354
[3]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/may/14/southafrica.internationalaidanddevelopment
[2]http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/10/1024.full
[1]http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx
HIV denialism, for example, is the notion that HIV is either not the causal agent for AIDS, or that HIV does not exist outright. From what I can tell, this movement seems to be the mutant husk of an honest scientific debate from the late 1980's to the early 1990's, where some scientists were not wholly convinced by the evidence presented at the time that HIV was the causal agent for AIDS. A similar skepticism- a healthy skepticism that was backed up by peer reviewed studies and not conjecture- successfully disproved XMRV as the causal agent for chronic fatigue syndrome, however, with HIV, the evidence is overwhelming. Not only does HIV fulfill Koch's Postulates to be the causal pathogen[1] (an epidemiological correlation, the ability to isolate the pathogen from a host and propagate said pathogen outside the host, and transmission from an infected organism to an uninfected susceptible organism produces the disease), but we have very strong, well-defined correlations between the use of Highly Active AntiRetroviral Therapy (HAART) and extended life expectancies of HIV infected individuals.[2] Antiviral drugs often target specific sites in specific viruses, and aren't broadly neutralizing in the same manner as antibiotics.
Yet, whispers of conspiracy, profit-gouging, and medical hubris echo across the internet, riding on the waves of an honest skepticism in science from years past. HIV denialists make wild claims, including the notions that vitamins may outright cure HIV where drugs would not[3], that the very antivirals intended to help reduce viral loads (AZT, namely) cause the disease. One may ask what the harm is, and who might believe such claims and act on them. I've heard various anecdotes of lives needlessly cut short because someone took what they read on the internet at face value, but the most egregious case happened in South Africa. In the year 2000, the president of South Africa invited several AIDS denialists to a closed government conference on AIDS. Shortly afterwards, the government and some of its ministers adopted denialist views and policies, causing a campaign of misinformation to the people of South Africa, and a refusal of the government to accept free antivirals. After legal suit and significant outcry from the non-industry scientific community, the South African government eventually reversed its position, but the damage had already been done. The loss of life resulting from the government's denialist policies is presently estimated at 330,000 people- or just under the entire population of Wyoming, or 180 people a day for five years. [4]
Denialism of the safety and efficacy of vaccinations has led to the resurgence of preventable diseases once eradicated from countries- such as Measles in the US and the UK. See my post on Vaccines for more information. Denialism of climate change- and the climate is changing, the only debate is whether we're influencing it or not- continues to bog down efforts to modulate weather trends back towards more favorable conditions. Denialism and fear of the safety of nuclear energy applications keeps electricity prices high, and prevents us from extending the shelf life of ripe fruits and vegetables by the closure of irradiation plants. The thing about science is that it isn't a belief system- it's a collection of observations from which conclusions are drawn. The existence of the sun and its radiation of light is not contingent on your faith in it, but basic science demonstrates that we have regular cycles of day and night thanks to the earth's rotation through observation. Ignoring facts does not cause them to cease to be, and denialism of science without sound evidence or reason to back up that denialism can be, and is harmful.
If you like this post, please share it with your friends. As always, I encourage you to do your own research, draw your own conclusions from the facts presented here. Please, increase your knowledge, and share it with those around you. Feel free to leave questions, comments, and concerns here on the blog. I'd love to hear your feedback. Until next time, stay spooked.
[4]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19186354
[3]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/may/14/southafrica.internationalaidanddevelopment
[2]http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/10/1024.full
[1]http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx
Friday, March 7, 2014
Protein
 |
| Credit to primehealthchannel.com |
How do TSEs cause disease? It all starts with a mutation in a gene that codes for a protein, which creates a slightly altered version of the naturally occurring prion. This one altered prion then goes forward, finds other proteins, and re-folds them into more prions like it through a yet undescribed autocatalytic process. Those proteins then go find more proteins, and on, and on. This isn't a very fast process at first- the incubation period of TSEs is somewhere on the order of years, varying a little for each particular prion- but once initial symptoms manifest, the patient presents with a rapidly deteriorating neurological status, going from a functional human being to dead in a matter of about four months for classic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. The protein eventually chews your brain into what actually looks like swiss cheese (see the photo on top). The body mounts no detectable immune response- if I had to venture a guess, it's a combination of the fact that they're very similar to your cellular proteins, and that prion diseases generally don't demonstrate aggressive pathologies outside of the central nervous system (which is devoid of immune cells for good reason). There is no known therapy for prion diseases, and they are capable of crossing species barriers (feline TSEs are believed to be Mad Cow, for example).[3] The only real good news here is that TSEs aren't very easy to transmit, short of a medically transmitted (nosocomial) infection or consuming infected flesh. According to the WHO, the only tissues that demonstrate infectivity are the brain, spinal cord, and eye (these are the most infectious, with corneal transplants causing up to three recognized cases of CJD); As well as the CSF, kidneys, liver, lung, lymph nodes, spleen, and placenta. It's worth noting there are no documented cases of transmission from mother to fetus. [2]
The horror of prions is multifaceted. On one front, they have a higher mortality rate than any other known human pathogen- even Rabies isn't 100% fatal, we're learning. On another, while TSEs aren't readily transmissible, they are extremely hard to destroy. How difficult is it to kill a prion, exactly? The WHO's resource on Prion infection control measures states that Prions are completely unaffected by ionizing and UV radiation, boiling, dry heat less than 300 degrees Celsius (572 F), Formaldehyde, Alcohol, Ammonia, Hydrogen Peroxide, and Hydrochloric Acid. In fact, allowing infected substances to dry or be exposed to alcohol will increase the infectivity of a Prion-exposed material. Even autoclaving at 121 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes is only partially effective. The chemical of choice for cleaning seems to be Sodium Hydroxide. The WHO also recommends the disposal of non-disposable equipment after it is exposed to high and moderate infectious materials of a patient with Prion disease.[2]
Before you let this information really scare you, it's important to realize that you don't have to catch a TSE to develop one. According to the CDC, CJD arises spontaneously in the world population at a rate of about one case per million. In older people, the rate is about 4.6 cases per million. It's believed that the cause is a mutation in the prion genome.[4] Next time you get a headache, it might be worth wondering about.
As always, if you want to do something about Prions and TSEs, support science, and support those in power who support science. Share what you've learned here, do your own research, and feel free to share any questions, comments, or concerns with me.
[1]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/prions/index.htm
[2]http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/bse/whocdscsraph2003.pdf?ua=1 (section 6)
[3]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/prions/resources/BelayE_Annu_Rev_Microbio.pdf (page 284)
[4]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/cjd/
Mind control
Are you ready for what could possibly be the scariest post to date on the blog? I hope so.
The human brain is widely recognized to be the world's most complex, powerful computer. It is capable of taking in external stimuli in multiple formats, interpreting them, and then making split second decisions to execute complex tasks. Your brain is a big part of who you are, it's what controls your body, and attempts to seize control of that have failed throughout history.
When suddenly, along came University of Washington. Researchers at UW managed to make a fellow researcher's hand move involuntarily over the Internet.[1] While it's more correct to call it body control instead of mind control, the implication is similar- the subject of the experiment did not will his hand to move, and compared the experience to a 'nervous tick'. It's not yet known if the researcher could have stopped the movement from happening, but I believe that it's physiologically possible to bypass his brain's will completely, possibly through the use of surgical implants high in the spinal cord, or pharmacological methods to knock down higher thought.
A more famous article made the rounds a while back about MIT researchers managing to implant false memories. Granted, they managed to implant them in mice, but the researchers felt that the process was similar to how humans are already generating false memories for themselves on a daily basis.[2] The successful implantation of the memory was measured by a fear reaction, in which the mouse brain showed increased activity consistent with fear, while the mouse would freeze in response to a given stimuli that it had never actually experienced before, expecting a painful electric shock that was never coming. The process by which they go about generating these false memories is reminiscent of Pavlov's experiments with dogs, only a lot more high tech. While the research easily qualifies as dual-use research of concern, it isn't very portable, and no similar research has been preformed on humans to my knowledge. Can it be done to people? Maybe.
Humans aren't the only critters hijacking our brains, though. A number of parasitic organisms are also capable of tweaking our brains. Toxoplasmosis Gondii is a parasite that's gaining in fame for good reason. Typically, it's a protozoan (single-celled organism) infection with a cat as the domestic host and a mouse or a rat as an intermediate host. In mice, infection with the parasite is associated with a loss of fear response to the odor of cat urine, as well as increased motor activity. The hypothesis that comes to mind is that the parasite is trying to get the mouse eaten by the cat so that it can get into the cat's intestine, which is where it wants to be. In people, who can very readily be infected through the consumption of undercooked meat and/or fecal-oral transmission by cat feces (not that people are eating cat poop, but poor hand hygiene around kitty isn't advised by me), infection is associated with heightened apprehensiveness; Increased aggression, jealousy, and disregard for rules among men; Increased warmth, outgoing behavior, and persistence in women. Also, the parasite seems to negatively affect reaction time, and is associated with difficulty concentrating. There is also some suggestion that the parasite may be involved in increasing the rates of motor vehicle crashes.[3 for all of that] For further information on Toxoplasmosis, you can go here, to the references section, for information on possible neurocognitive effects, and to the CDC's webpage to learn more about Toxo in general.
The human brain's complexity and sensitivity to change has long been its defense mechanism against our tampering. One day, not too far from now, we may be able to proficiently meddle with its functions. That day, however, is not today. The MIT and WU experiments both involve tens of thousands of dollars of not extremely portable equipment, lots of time, and involved quite specific conditions. The research holds implications both in the healing arts (the WU experiment mainly holds implications for the next generation of robotic prosthetics, for example), that sounds alarming due to the potential military abuses they provide for. In science arenas, projects like these are known as dual-use research of concern, and all that means is that we need to be aware of them, and we need to be involved in how the results of these projects are applied to humanity. For example, nuclear physics research has provided both for significant improvements in our quality of living (cheap, reliable energy from nuclear power plants), as well as for weapons of incredible destructive capacity.
What can you do? Well, demanding that the research be stopped is not the optimal response. Science, being a system of observation as opposed to one of belief, is something everybody does. Elucidations and the conclusions that come of them are an inevitable part of the human condition. This research is coming from someone, somewhere, whether we like it or not. Ignoring the outcomes of these studies won't make the facts go away, so it's better to be involved in the development of their humanitarian applications, than to allow the research to be quietly developed for more subversive purposes. We're talking about the difference between a new artificial limb for a disabled veteran and a torture device. Support those politicians who support research, do your own research and draw your own conclusions when you read something alarming in the news, write to experts in the field when you have questions, and share your knowledge with others. Until next time, stay spooky, kids.
Humans aren't the only critters hijacking our brains, though. A number of parasitic organisms are also capable of tweaking our brains. Toxoplasmosis Gondii is a parasite that's gaining in fame for good reason. Typically, it's a protozoan (single-celled organism) infection with a cat as the domestic host and a mouse or a rat as an intermediate host. In mice, infection with the parasite is associated with a loss of fear response to the odor of cat urine, as well as increased motor activity. The hypothesis that comes to mind is that the parasite is trying to get the mouse eaten by the cat so that it can get into the cat's intestine, which is where it wants to be. In people, who can very readily be infected through the consumption of undercooked meat and/or fecal-oral transmission by cat feces (not that people are eating cat poop, but poor hand hygiene around kitty isn't advised by me), infection is associated with heightened apprehensiveness; Increased aggression, jealousy, and disregard for rules among men; Increased warmth, outgoing behavior, and persistence in women. Also, the parasite seems to negatively affect reaction time, and is associated with difficulty concentrating. There is also some suggestion that the parasite may be involved in increasing the rates of motor vehicle crashes.[3 for all of that] For further information on Toxoplasmosis, you can go here, to the references section, for information on possible neurocognitive effects, and to the CDC's webpage to learn more about Toxo in general.
The human brain's complexity and sensitivity to change has long been its defense mechanism against our tampering. One day, not too far from now, we may be able to proficiently meddle with its functions. That day, however, is not today. The MIT and WU experiments both involve tens of thousands of dollars of not extremely portable equipment, lots of time, and involved quite specific conditions. The research holds implications both in the healing arts (the WU experiment mainly holds implications for the next generation of robotic prosthetics, for example), that sounds alarming due to the potential military abuses they provide for. In science arenas, projects like these are known as dual-use research of concern, and all that means is that we need to be aware of them, and we need to be involved in how the results of these projects are applied to humanity. For example, nuclear physics research has provided both for significant improvements in our quality of living (cheap, reliable energy from nuclear power plants), as well as for weapons of incredible destructive capacity.
What can you do? Well, demanding that the research be stopped is not the optimal response. Science, being a system of observation as opposed to one of belief, is something everybody does. Elucidations and the conclusions that come of them are an inevitable part of the human condition. This research is coming from someone, somewhere, whether we like it or not. Ignoring the outcomes of these studies won't make the facts go away, so it's better to be involved in the development of their humanitarian applications, than to allow the research to be quietly developed for more subversive purposes. We're talking about the difference between a new artificial limb for a disabled veteran and a torture device. Support those politicians who support research, do your own research and draw your own conclusions when you read something alarming in the news, write to experts in the field when you have questions, and share your knowledge with others. Until next time, stay spooky, kids.
[3]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2526142/
[1] http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/08/27/researcher-controls-colleagues-motions-in-1st-human-brain-to-brain-interface/
Friday, February 28, 2014
Polio-like disease
This is a post relevant to something happening now in California. Over a period of eighteen months, we've had an increase in children how are experiencing an acute chronic, focal (isolated or localized, such as to a limb) paralysis. Described as 'Polio-like disease' because of its clinical presentation, we know that this is NOT Polio because all of the afflicted children have been vaccinated, Polio no longer circulates naturally in the US, and no Polio samples have been recovered from any of the kids. The paralysis is, as of yet, of an unknown cause, and has afflicted around twenty children.[2] Two of the children have tested positive for a Picornavirus (same family as Polio) that's been known to be circulating since the 60's- Enterovirus 68. Stanford doctors suggest that they're suspicious for this virus as the causative agent, since three children were known to have respiratory illness before developing paralysis, and EV68 is a respiratory pathogen. Also, two of the children were found to have EV68 in their stool.
Personally, I'm not convinced that EV68 is the culprit here. There've been multiple outbreaks of EV68 as a respiratory pathogen since we've known about it, with no neurological effects reported in any of them.[1] It's true that viruses mutate, but I'm sure that we would've seen neurological effects before now in some of the other outbreaks. We know the EV68 circulates naturally in California, and that the virus must be spreading through a population in order to not go extinct. No epidemiological control measures have been taken to my knowledge. What that means is that the virus should still be circulating. If the virus did mutate to become neurovirulent, we should be seeing a lot more cases of the 'Polio-like disease' very soon. I don't expect that to happen, but we'll see.
What's more is that the sample size is very small- only 20 kids- and the sample size with EV68 is even smaller- only two kids. The evidence is so circumstantial, and I think it would be almost as solid to blame influenza. Not to mention that the CDC is presently investigating, and has not spoken to the EV68 hypothesis at all. I'm not saying that it's not EV68, but I'm saying that we don't need to prematurely jump on a pathogen and end up barking up the wrong tree, especially if this does turn into a pandemic- which the numbers seem to argue against by their slow accumulation.
Personally, I'm not convinced that EV68 is the culprit here. There've been multiple outbreaks of EV68 as a respiratory pathogen since we've known about it, with no neurological effects reported in any of them.[1] It's true that viruses mutate, but I'm sure that we would've seen neurological effects before now in some of the other outbreaks. We know the EV68 circulates naturally in California, and that the virus must be spreading through a population in order to not go extinct. No epidemiological control measures have been taken to my knowledge. What that means is that the virus should still be circulating. If the virus did mutate to become neurovirulent, we should be seeing a lot more cases of the 'Polio-like disease' very soon. I don't expect that to happen, but we'll see.
What's more is that the sample size is very small- only 20 kids- and the sample size with EV68 is even smaller- only two kids. The evidence is so circumstantial, and I think it would be almost as solid to blame influenza. Not to mention that the CDC is presently investigating, and has not spoken to the EV68 hypothesis at all. I'm not saying that it's not EV68, but I'm saying that we don't need to prematurely jump on a pathogen and end up barking up the wrong tree, especially if this does turn into a pandemic- which the numbers seem to argue against by their slow accumulation.
Vincent Racaniello, host of This Week in Virology and Virology professor at Columbia University has had extensive experience working with Polio and Picornaviruses. On his blog at Virology.ws he argued that California normally has about 70 cases of 'polio-like disease' per year, and that the present number of cases mentioned in the alleged outbreak don't exceed the normal background caseload. For a much more informative article, his blog is worth your time, check it out. If you're concerned about this illness, watch your kids for any signs of sudden, enduring, limp limb paralysis or weakness and report to your doctor immediately if you see anything. If your kids need the polio vaccine, continue receiving it, since Polio is still out and about in the world. There are no special precautions or actions that should be taken otherwise.
As always, if you want to make a difference, do your own research, share with others what you've learned here, and support those who support funding research, science, and public health agencies. If you like what you've read here, share this on facebook or among your friends. Feel free to leave questions, comments, and concerns here on the blog, or to address them directly to me.
As always, if you want to make a difference, do your own research, share with others what you've learned here, and support those who support funding research, science, and public health agencies. If you like what you've read here, share this on facebook or among your friends. Feel free to leave questions, comments, and concerns here on the blog, or to address them directly to me.
[3]Virology.ws
[2]http://healthier.stanfordchildrens.org/q-rare-polio-like-disease-emerges-california/
[1]http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751032_1
Friday, February 21, 2014
Labor
They're coming to take your jobs, devaluate your labor, and avoid paying taxes. Since the late 1800's, the number of Americans working in farms has dwindled. In fact, while agriculture was a major employer in the 1940's, it's been far surpassed for American employment by other industries. I'm talking, of course, of robots. That's right, robots. Two MIT professors, for example[1], insist that the automation and computerization of various industries is what's behind the de-coupling of wealth generated compared to labor put in (hint: it's not the labor that's increasing). It's happened in the past, with Detroit replacing numerous, expensive workers with relatively infragile, inexpensive machines on the factory floor. Other examples include the infamous automated phone operator to replace human phone operators, and eBay and Amazon replacing the flea market (to an extent).
It's happening now, with food and retail service companies replacing checkout clerks with self-checkout machines. Even emergency dispatch centers can run with fewer people thanks to the help of computer aided dispatching. The picture seems bleak for the near future, with Google's fleet of self-driving cars.[3] In fact, where most industries have made significant recovery since the 2008 recession, the transportation industry's unemployment rate is still hovering above 9%.[4] Drivers make mistakes, they get tired, they have to take breaks for food and rest, and they require payment, insurance, and workman's comp if they're injured. A fleet of self-driving trucks, busses, and taxis, however, would require neither recompense nor rest, save for maintenance. Ask yourself, with today's technology, is your job really irreplaceable? Is there really a good reason that a machine can't do your work? One must wonder, if a computer can drive a car, how long before we let one make a life or death decision in war-time, and if it would make the right call.
Don't worry, through. Not yet, anyway. Technology's been replacing people in the workforce since the late 1800's, with the invention of the cotton gin, followed by the farm tractor, steam engines and the electric motor. There's simply no way people can compete against machines in brute force labor and computations. Each time machines take over a sector, though, it frees up both money that was being spent on the labor force, and the labor force to move on to more meaningful, productive work. Would life in the developed world be even half as convenient and easy as it is today if a little under half of America still worked on farms[2] just to keep the country fed? I doubt it severely. The growth is a little painful at first, but it generally seems to pay out to society as a whole in the long run.
So, yeah, that's it. Sorry, folks, I ran kind of short on time, here. I'll likely re-visit the subject in the future. Please feel free to share this blog, share what you've learned, and do your own research. You are welcome to share any questions, comments, or concerns both on the blog, and on my facebook page.
[4]http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
It's happening now, with food and retail service companies replacing checkout clerks with self-checkout machines. Even emergency dispatch centers can run with fewer people thanks to the help of computer aided dispatching. The picture seems bleak for the near future, with Google's fleet of self-driving cars.[3] In fact, where most industries have made significant recovery since the 2008 recession, the transportation industry's unemployment rate is still hovering above 9%.[4] Drivers make mistakes, they get tired, they have to take breaks for food and rest, and they require payment, insurance, and workman's comp if they're injured. A fleet of self-driving trucks, busses, and taxis, however, would require neither recompense nor rest, save for maintenance. Ask yourself, with today's technology, is your job really irreplaceable? Is there really a good reason that a machine can't do your work? One must wonder, if a computer can drive a car, how long before we let one make a life or death decision in war-time, and if it would make the right call.
Don't worry, through. Not yet, anyway. Technology's been replacing people in the workforce since the late 1800's, with the invention of the cotton gin, followed by the farm tractor, steam engines and the electric motor. There's simply no way people can compete against machines in brute force labor and computations. Each time machines take over a sector, though, it frees up both money that was being spent on the labor force, and the labor force to move on to more meaningful, productive work. Would life in the developed world be even half as convenient and easy as it is today if a little under half of America still worked on farms[2] just to keep the country fed? I doubt it severely. The growth is a little painful at first, but it generally seems to pay out to society as a whole in the long run.
So, yeah, that's it. Sorry, folks, I ran kind of short on time, here. I'll likely re-visit the subject in the future. Please feel free to share this blog, share what you've learned, and do your own research. You are welcome to share any questions, comments, or concerns both on the blog, and on my facebook page.
[4]http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
[2]http://www.census.gov/1940census/then_and_now/index.html
[1]http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/
Friday, February 14, 2014
Viruses
Ebola, Dengue (hemorrhagic and not), Measles, HIV, Smallpox, Polio, Influenza, Coronaviruses (SARS/MERS), Caliseviruses (Rotavirus), Hanta virus, Rabies, these are all killers. Viruses are, perhaps, the least well understood pathogens by the general public, and handily the most feared. You only need to turn on the TV to see various plots starring novel superviruses that threaten to obliterate the population, dastardly villain optional, to take my point. They're fundamental horror at its finest, an invisible agent that turns those closest to you into death machines that shed millions of patent virus particles during the course of their infection. Only very recently, with vaccines and improvements in hygiene, nutrition, and medical care, have we begun to curb the viral threat to the population.
So, what is a virus? What makes them distinct from those other, dastardly, deadly microbes, bacteria? First off, they're not generally considered to be living organisms. That's right, because living organisms have metabolic processes, they take in nutrients and put out waste, they synthesize proteins, replicate genomes, and respond to their environment. Viruses don't do any of these things- at least, not on their own. Viruses don't have a proper nucleus, nor do they come with organelles, or much more than their genetic data and what's required to get it in a cell and replicating. Outside the cell, a virus is not much more than a static particle, floating about in Brownian motion, waiting to encounter its target cell. Once inside the cell, however, the viral proteins, enzymes, and genetic data get to work hijacking the cell's transcription (sometimes, with DNA and Retroviruses) and protein synthesis machinery to do one thing: make more virus.
The scary bit is that there's evidence to suggest that the diversity of species offers a barrier against pathogen spread into human populations by offering ectoparasites (mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, etc) and other vectors choices besides people. [3] With biodiversity falling, and human populations rising, it may only be a short time before we experience our next major pandemic. There are antiviral therapies available, but acute infections are often too far progressed by the time severe symptoms manifest for the antivirals to make a difference, and some viruses can easily select for escape mutants that aren't at all effected by the pharmaceutical therapy.
How do viruses make you sick? The mechanisms vary, but for the most part, it's not actually the virus making you feel sick, it's you. That's right, your symptoms- aches, chills, fever, feeling crappy- are all the result of your immune system trying to reign in the viral infection. The only problem is that it sometimes goes a bit overboard, and ends up carpet bombing the city to catch the thief, so to speak. For example, there's a hypothesis circulating that type 1 Diabetes Mellitus is actually the product of an autoimmune response secondary to a viral infection. The hypothesis implies that the infection itself is either fairly minor (such as a cold) or completely inapparent. The immune system successfully controls and clears the virus, but, possibly due to a similarity between viral antigens and surface proteins on the insulin secreting cells of the pancreas, the immune system goes on to attack and destroy the body's insulin factory. Take it with a grain of salt, since there's been no peer reviewed research that I'm aware of that positively identifies a viral culprit, but the hypothesis is sound, in my opinion.
All viruses are bad, right? Not quite. There's evidence to suggest that roughly 8% of our genome is viral in origin.[1] That is to say that, at some point, a virus managed to successfully insert its genome into ours, and get its genetic data incorporated and passed from generation to generation. So what, you may ask. Placenta, I will answer. There's evidence that suggests that mammals gained placental function secondary to a retroviral integration event. That's right, you may have a virus to thank for not laying eggs. While it is a very good thing that we've managed to save millions of lives through successful vaccination programs, the eradication of smallpox, and the near-eradication of Polio, one can't help but wonder what they might have become in time. Given another ten thousand years, could we have gained a gene from the virus, or through the natural selection caused by the virus? It's hard to speak to anything on it past the level of conjecture, and it's hardly worth the tragic loss of life that would need to occur.
What's more is that we're moving forward with clinical trials in using genetically modified human viruses as cancer killers- and they're pretty darn good at it. The risk of the virus spontaneously mutating into a pandemic monstrosity is generally pretty low. Conjecturally, I'd reckon that it's about the same odds as Rabies becoming a toenail disease and elephants giving birth to sharks. The point is that biological entities don't easily and rapidly become things that they aren't. Nature has a collection of literature on the matter, available for free here: http://www.nature.com/mt/webfocus/oncolytic/index.html
Viruses also show promise as antimicrobials, since they already naturally parasitize bacteria. For more on phage therapy, please visit my article on evolution.
Just remember, just because you haven't found your match yet, doesn't mean you won't meet the virus that's been waiting for you its whole life with your next handshake. Happy valentines day.
[3]http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s587071.htm
[2]http://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/11827.full
[1]http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/mediarelations/press/2010/01/genome-biologist-reports.php
So, what is a virus? What makes them distinct from those other, dastardly, deadly microbes, bacteria? First off, they're not generally considered to be living organisms. That's right, because living organisms have metabolic processes, they take in nutrients and put out waste, they synthesize proteins, replicate genomes, and respond to their environment. Viruses don't do any of these things- at least, not on their own. Viruses don't have a proper nucleus, nor do they come with organelles, or much more than their genetic data and what's required to get it in a cell and replicating. Outside the cell, a virus is not much more than a static particle, floating about in Brownian motion, waiting to encounter its target cell. Once inside the cell, however, the viral proteins, enzymes, and genetic data get to work hijacking the cell's transcription (sometimes, with DNA and Retroviruses) and protein synthesis machinery to do one thing: make more virus.
The scary bit is that there's evidence to suggest that the diversity of species offers a barrier against pathogen spread into human populations by offering ectoparasites (mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, etc) and other vectors choices besides people. [3] With biodiversity falling, and human populations rising, it may only be a short time before we experience our next major pandemic. There are antiviral therapies available, but acute infections are often too far progressed by the time severe symptoms manifest for the antivirals to make a difference, and some viruses can easily select for escape mutants that aren't at all effected by the pharmaceutical therapy.
How do viruses make you sick? The mechanisms vary, but for the most part, it's not actually the virus making you feel sick, it's you. That's right, your symptoms- aches, chills, fever, feeling crappy- are all the result of your immune system trying to reign in the viral infection. The only problem is that it sometimes goes a bit overboard, and ends up carpet bombing the city to catch the thief, so to speak. For example, there's a hypothesis circulating that type 1 Diabetes Mellitus is actually the product of an autoimmune response secondary to a viral infection. The hypothesis implies that the infection itself is either fairly minor (such as a cold) or completely inapparent. The immune system successfully controls and clears the virus, but, possibly due to a similarity between viral antigens and surface proteins on the insulin secreting cells of the pancreas, the immune system goes on to attack and destroy the body's insulin factory. Take it with a grain of salt, since there's been no peer reviewed research that I'm aware of that positively identifies a viral culprit, but the hypothesis is sound, in my opinion.
All viruses are bad, right? Not quite. There's evidence to suggest that roughly 8% of our genome is viral in origin.[1] That is to say that, at some point, a virus managed to successfully insert its genome into ours, and get its genetic data incorporated and passed from generation to generation. So what, you may ask. Placenta, I will answer. There's evidence that suggests that mammals gained placental function secondary to a retroviral integration event. That's right, you may have a virus to thank for not laying eggs. While it is a very good thing that we've managed to save millions of lives through successful vaccination programs, the eradication of smallpox, and the near-eradication of Polio, one can't help but wonder what they might have become in time. Given another ten thousand years, could we have gained a gene from the virus, or through the natural selection caused by the virus? It's hard to speak to anything on it past the level of conjecture, and it's hardly worth the tragic loss of life that would need to occur.
What's more is that we're moving forward with clinical trials in using genetically modified human viruses as cancer killers- and they're pretty darn good at it. The risk of the virus spontaneously mutating into a pandemic monstrosity is generally pretty low. Conjecturally, I'd reckon that it's about the same odds as Rabies becoming a toenail disease and elephants giving birth to sharks. The point is that biological entities don't easily and rapidly become things that they aren't. Nature has a collection of literature on the matter, available for free here: http://www.nature.com/mt/webfocus/oncolytic/index.html
Viruses also show promise as antimicrobials, since they already naturally parasitize bacteria. For more on phage therapy, please visit my article on evolution.
Just remember, just because you haven't found your match yet, doesn't mean you won't meet the virus that's been waiting for you its whole life with your next handshake. Happy valentines day.
[3]http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s587071.htm
[2]http://www.pnas.org/content/106/29/11827.full
[1]http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/mediarelations/press/2010/01/genome-biologist-reports.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)