Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Monday, April 18, 2011

Is your brain really necessary?

Is your brain really necessary?

Do you really have to have a brain? The reason for my apparently absurd question is the remarkable research conducted at the University of Sheffield by neurology professor the late Dr. John Lorber.
When Sheffield’s campus doctor was treating one of the mathematics students for a minor ailment, he noticed that the student’s head was a little larger than normal. The doctor referred the student to professor Lorber for further examination.
The student in question was academically bright, had a reported IQ of 126 and was expected to graduate. When he was examined by CAT-scan, however, Lorber discovered that he had virtually no brain at all.
Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5 centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column. The student was suffering from hydrocephalus, the condition in which the cerebrospinal fluid, instead of circulating around the brain and entering the bloodstream, becomes dammed up inside.
Normally, the condition is fatal in the first months of childhood. Even where an individual survives he or she is usually seriously handicapped. Somehow, though, the Sheffield student had lived a perfectly normal life and went on to gain an honours degree in mathematics. This case is by no means as rare as it seems. In 1970, a New Yorker died at the age of 35. He had left school with no academic achievements, but had worked at manual jobs such as building janitor, and was a popular figure in his neighbourhood. Tenants of the building where he worked described him as passing the days performing his routine chores, such as tending the boiler, and reading the tabloid newspapers. When an autopsy was performed to determine the cause of his premature death he, too, was found to have practically no brain at all. Professor Lorber has identified several hundred people who have very small cerebral hemispheres but who appear to be normal intelligent individuals. Some of them he describes as having ‘no detectable brain’, yet they have scored up to 120 on IQ tests.
No-one knows how people with ‘no detectable brain’ are able to function at all, let alone to graduate in mathematics, but there are a couple theories. One idea is that there is such a high level of redundancy of function in the normal brain that what little remains is able to learn to deputise for the missing hemispheres.
Another, similar, suggestion is the old idea that we only use a small percentage of our brains anyway—perhaps as little as 10 per cent. The trouble with these ideas is that more recent research seems to contradict them. The functions of the brain have been mapped comprehensively and although there is some redundancy there is also a high degree of specialisation—the motor area and the visual cortex being highly specific for instance. Similarly, the idea that we ‘only use 10 per cent of our brain’ is a misunderstanding dating from research in the 1930s in which the functions of large areas of the cortex could not be determined and were dubbed ‘silent’, when in fact they are linked with important functions like speech and abstract thinking.
The other interesting thing about Lorber’s findings is that they remind us of the mystery of memory. At first it was thought that memory would have some physical substrate in the brain, like the memory chips in a PC. But extensive investigation of the brain has turned up the surprising fact that memory is not located in any one area or in a specific substrate. As one eminent neurologist put it, ‘memory is everywhere in the brain and nowhere.’ But if the brain is not a mechanism for classifying and storing experiences and analysing them to enable us to live our lives then what on earth is the brain for? And where is the seat of human intelligence? Where is the mind?
One of the few biologists to propose a radically novel approach to these questions is Dr Rupert Sheldrake. In his book A New Science of Life Sheldrake rejected the idea that the brain is a warehouse for memories and suggested it is more like a radio receiver for tuning into the past. Memory is not a recording process in which a medium is altered to store records, but a journey that the mind makes into the past via the process of morphic resonance. Such a 'radio' receiver would require far fewer and less complex structures than a warehouse capable of storing and retrieving a lifetime of data.
But, of course, such a crazy idea couldn’t possibly be true, could it?

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Médico americano afirma que a pesquisa com animais atrasa o avanço do desenvolvimento de remédios


 
16/10/2010 - 00:55
 

Especial VEJA

“A pesquisa científica com animais é uma falácia”, diz o médico Ray Greek

Médico americano afirma que a pesquisa com animais atrasa o avanço do desenvolvimento de remédios

Marco Túlio Pires
"As drogas deveriam ser testadas em computadores, depois em tecido humano e daí sim, em seres humanos. Empresas farmacêuticas já admitiram que essa será a forma de testar remédios no futuro."
Arquivo Pessoal
Ray Greek
Ray Greek
Há 20 anos, Ray Greek abandonou o consultório para convencer a comunidade científica de que a pesquisa com animais para fins médicos não faz sentido. Greek é autor de seis livros, nos quais, sem recorrer a argumentos éticos ou morais,  tenta explicar cientificamente como a sua posição se sustenta. Em 2003 escreveu Specious Science: Why Experiments on Animals Harm Humans (Ciência das Espécies: Por que Experimentos com Animais Prejudicam os Humanos, ainda não publicado no Brasil) e o mais recente em 2009: FAQs About the Use of Animals in Science: A Handbook for the Scientifically Perplexed(Perguntas e Respostas Sobre o Uso de Animais na Ciência: Um Manual Para os Cientificamente Perplexos). Ele garante que sua motivação não é salvar os animais, mas analisar dados científicos.  
Além disso, Greek uniu esforços com outros médicos americanos e fundou a Americans for Medical Advancement, uma organização sem fins lucrativos que advoga métodos alternativos ao modelo animal. Em entrevista para VEJA, ele diz porque, na opinião dele, a pesquisa com animais para o desenvolvimento de remédios não é necessária.
O senhor seria cobaia de uma pesquisa que está desenvolvendo algum remédio?
Claro. Se a pesquisa estivesse sendo conduzida eticamente eu seria voluntário. Milhares de pessoas fazem isso todos os dias. Por vezes elas doam tecido para que possamos aprender mais sobre uma doença, em outros momentos ingerem novos remédios para o tratamento de doenças na esperança que a nova droga apresente alguma cura.

E se o medicamento nunca tivesse sido testado em animais?
A falácia nesse caso é de que devemos testar essas drogas primeiro em animais antes de testá-las em humanos. Testar em animais não nos dá informações sobre o que irá acontecer em humanos. Assim, você pode testar uma droga em um macaco, por exemplo, e talvez ele não sofra nenhum efeito colateral. Depois disso, o remédio é dado a seres humanos que podem morrer por causa dessa droga. Em alguns casos, macacos tomam um remédio que resultam em efeitos colaterais horríveis, mas são inofensivos em seres humanos. O meu argumento é que não interessa o que determinado remédio faz em camundongos, cães ou macacos, ele pode causar reações completamente diferentes em humanos. Então, os teste em animais não possuem valor preditivo. E se eles não têm valor preditivo, cientificamente falando, não faz sentido realizá-los.

Mas todos os remédios comercializados legalmente foram testados em animais antes de seres humanos. Este não é um caminho seguro?
Definitivamente não. As estatísticas sobre o assunto são diretas. Inclusive, muitos cientistas que experimentam com animais admitiram que eles não têm nenhum valor preditivo para humanos. Outros disseram que o valor preditivo é igual a uma disputa de cara ou coroa. A ciência médica exige um valor que seja de pelo menos 90%. 

Esses remédios legalmente comercializados e que dependeram de pesquisas científicas com animais já salvaram milhões de vidas...
A indústria farmacêutica já divulgou que os remédios normalmente funcionam em 50% da população. É uma média. Algumas drogas funcionam em 10% da população, outras 80%. Mas isso tem a ver com a diferença entre os seres humanos. Então, nesse momento, não temos milhares de remédios que funcionam em todas as pessoas e são seguros. Na verdade, você tem remédios que não funcionam para algumas pessoas e ao mesmo tempo não são seguros para outras. A grande maioria dos remédios que existe no mercado são cópias de drogas que já existem, por isso já sabemos os efeitos sem precisar testar em animais. Outras drogas que foram descobertas na natureza e já são usadas por muitos anos foram testadas em animais apenas como um adendo. Além disso, muitos remédios que temos hoje foram testados em animais, falharam nos testes, mas as empresas decidiram comercializar assim mesmo e o remédio foi um sucesso. Então, a noção de que os remédios funcionam por causa de testes com animais é uma falácia. 
 
Se isso fosse verdade os cientistas já teriam abandonado o modelo animal. Por que isso não aconteceu ainda? 
Porque o trabalho deles depende disso. Nos Estados Unidos, a maior parte da pesquisa médica é financiada pelo Instituto Nacional de Saúde [NIH, em inglês]. O orçamento do NIH gira em torno de 30 bilhões de dólares por ano. Mais ou menos a metade disso é entregue a pesquisadores que realizam experimentos com animais. Eles têm centenas de comitês e cada comitê decide para onde vai o dinheiro. Nos últimos 40 anos, 50% desse dinheiro vai, anualmente, para pesquisa com animais. Isso acontece porque as próprias pessoas que decidem para onde o dinheiro vai, os cientistas que formam esses comitês, realizam pesquisas com animais. O que temos é um sistema muito corrupto que está preocupado em garantir o dinheiro de pesquisadores versus um sistema que está preocupado em encontrar curas para doenças e novos remédios.

Onde estaria a medicina se não fosse a pesquisa com animais?
No mesmo lugar em que ela está hoje. A maioria das drogas é descoberta utilizando computadores ou por meio da natureza. As drogas não são descobertas utilizando animais. Elas são testadas em animais depois que são descobertas. Essas drogas deveriam ser testadas em computadores, depois em tecido humano e daí sim, em seres humanos. Empresas farmacêuticas já admitiram que essa será a forma de testar remédios no futuro. Algumas empresas já admitiram inúmeras vezes em literatura científica que os animais não são preditivos para humanos. E essas empresas já perderam muito dinheiro porque cancelaram o desenvolvimento de remédios por causa de efeitos adversos em animais e que não necessariamente ocorreriam em seres humanos. Foram bilhões de dólares perdidos ao não desenvolver drogas que poderiam ter dado certo.

Como as pesquisas deveriam ser conduzidas?
Deveríamos estar fazendo pesquisa baseada em humanos. E com isso eu quero dizer pesquisas baseadas em tecidos e genes humanos. É daí que os grandes avanços da medicina estão vindo. Por exemplo, o Projeto Genoma, que foi concluído há 10 anos, possibilitou que muitos pesquisadores descobrissem o que genes específicos no corpo humano fazem. E agora, existem cerca de 10 drogas que não são receitadas antes que se saiba o perfil genético do paciente. É assim que a medicina deveria ser praticada.  Nesse momento, tratamos todos os seres humanos como se fossem idênticos, mas eles não são. Uma droga que poderia me matar pode te ajudar. Desse modo, as diferenças não são grandes apenas entre espécies, mas também entre os humanos. Então, a única maneira de termos um suprimento seguro e eficiente de remédios é testar as drogas e desenvolvê-las baseados na composição genética de indivíduos humanos. Para se ter uma ideia, a modelagem animal corresponde a apenas 1% de todos os testes e métodos que existem. Ou seja, ela é um pedaço insignificante do todo. O estudo dos genes humanos é uma alternativa. Quando fazemos isso, estamos olhando para grandes populações de pessoas. Por exemplo, você analisa 10.000 pessoas e 100 delas sofreram de ataque cardíaco. A partir daí analisamos as diferenças entre os genes dos dois grupos e é assim que você descobre quais genes estão ligados às doenças do coração. E isso está sendo feito, porém, não o bastante. Há também a pesquisa in vitro com tecido humano. Virtualmente tudo que sabemos sobre HIV aprendemos estudando tecido de pessoas que tiveram a doença e por meio de autópsias de pacientes. A modelagem computacional de doenças e drogas é outra saída. Se quisermos saber quais efeitos uma droga terá, podemos desenvolvê-la no computador e simular a interação com a célula.

Mas ainda não temos informações suficientes para simular o corpo humano no computador...
Temos sim. Não temos informações suficientes para criar 100% do corpo humano e isso não vai acontecer nos próximos 100 anos. Mas não precisamos de toda essa informação. O que precisamos é saber como e do que um receptor celular é constituído — isso já sabemos — e a partir daí podemos desenvolver, no computador, remédios baseados nas leis da química que se encaixem nesses receptores. Depois disso, a droga é testada em tecido humano e depois em seres humanos. Antes disso acontecer, contudo, muitos testes são feitos in vitro e em tecidos humanos até chegar em um voluntário humano.

Um computador não é um sistema vivo completo. Como é possível garantir que essa droga, que nunca foi testada em animais, não será nociva aos seres humanos?
A falácia nesse argumento é que os macacos e camundongos, por exemplo, são seres vivos, mas não são seres humanos intactos. E esse argumento seria muito bom, se ele não fosse tão ruim. Drogas são testadas em macacos e camundongos intactos por quase 100 anos e não há valor preditivo no sentido de dizer quais serão os efeitos da droga no ser humano. O que essas pesquisas têm feito, na verdade, é verificar o que essas drogas causam em macacos e em seres humanos separadamente e não há relação. Por isso, o que dizem é meramente retórico, não há nenhuma base científica.

O senhor já fez experimentos com animais. O que o fez mudar de ideia?
Meu posicionamento mudou apenas uma década depois que terminei a faculdade de medicina. Minha esposa é veterinária e comecei a notar como tratávamos nossos pacientes de maneira muito diferente. Comecei a notar também que alguns remédios funcionam muito bem em animais, mas não funcionam em humanos e algumas drogas funcionam em humanos, mas não podem ser usadas em cães, mas podem ser usadas em gatos e assim por diante. Não estou dizendo que os animais e os humanos são exatamente opostos, não é isso. Eles têm muito em comum.

A semelhança genética de 90% entre humanos e camundongos não é suficiente? 
Aparentemente não. Porque os dados científicos dizem que não. Não me interessa se somos suficientemente semelhantes aos animais para fazer testes neles ou não. A minha interpretação é científica. E a ciência diz que não somos. Na minha experiência clínica isso é verdade porque não conseguimos prever nem quais serão os efeitos de um remédio no seu irmão, realizando testes em você. Algumas drogas que você pode tomar, seu irmão não pode, por exemplo. Contudo, eu não sou contra todo tipo de experimento com animais. É possível recorrer aos animais para utilização de algumas partes. Por exemplo, podemos utilizar a válvula cardíaca de um porco para substituir a de seres humanos. Além disso, é possível cultivar vírus, insulina, mas isso não é pesquisa. O fracasso está em utilizar modelos animais para prever o que irá acontecer com um ser humano. Um ótimo exemplo disso é a Aids. Os animais não desenvolvem essa doença, de jeito nenhum. Eles sofrem de doenças parecidas com a Aids, mas por causa de vírus completamente diferentes. E os sintomas são muito diferentes dos manifestados em pacientes aidéticos. Por isso, não há correlação.

O senhor é contra o eventual sacrifício de animais em pesquisas científicas com o objetivo de salvar milhões de vidas humanas? 
Eu não tenho nenhum problema com isso. Meu problema com pesquisa animal não é de cunho ético e sim, científico. É como dizer que estamos em um cruzeiro atravessando o oceano Atlântico e um indivíduo cai na água e está se afogando. Ele precisa é de um salva-vidas mas não temos nenhum, então vamos arremessar 1.000 cães na água. Por que arremessar os cães na água já que eles não vão salvar a vida da pessoa? Você pode construir um argumento ético dizendo que é aceitável afogar esses cães mas o que eu quero dizer é que a pessoa precisa de um salva-vidas e não 1.000 cães afogados. E é exatamente isso que estamos fazendo com a pesquisa animal. Estamos matando cães pelo bem de matar cães. Não porque matá-los irá trazer a cura para doenças como a Aids ou o Alzheimer.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Why doctors give out antibiotics you don't need

medical examiner: Health and medicine explained.

The Pink-Bubble-Gum-Flavored Dilemma

Why doctors give out antibiotics you don't need.


An emergency room

While working a busy night shift in the ER recently, I evaluated a 13-month-old girl. On her chart, the triage nurse had written: "Infant with fever and runny nose. Mother here for antibiotics." The baby was fussy but probably more tired than uncomfortable. Between her squirms, she cooed and smiled at me. Her anxious and upset mother, however, was in far worse shape, repeatedly sticking a rubber bulb syringe up her infant's nostrils in a futile attempt to suck out an endless stream of snot. The mom was also really mad: She had been waiting for more than three hours for a doctor to see her daughter. Now she wanted antibiotics: specifically, a prescription for bubble-gum-flavored amoxicillin.

By my assessment, the child was not acutely ill: She'd had a low-grade fever for two days, her mother said, and a mild cough, but she had clear lungs and appeared well-hydrated. Her eardrum may have had some fluid behind it but wasn't red or bulging. Just as the baby was trying to put my stethoscope in her mouth, paramedics pushed through the ambulance doors with a patient who was having an acute stroke. I had to decide right then if I was going to give this mother the antibiotics she wanted, even though I thought her daughter probably didn't need them.

The profligate prescription of antibiotics—for children and adults with upper respiratory infections, sinus infections, and even middle-ear infections—is a problem because most of these illnesses are caused by viruses, not bacteria, which are what conventional antibiotics attack. Of more concern is the direct connection between antibiotic use and the emergence of drug-resistant "superbugs": As the medicine eliminates germs that are sensitive to it, drug-resistant mutant strains prosper. The result is a major public-health problem. Antibiotic-resistant infections such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus may cause more deaths in the United States than AIDS does.

In the doctor's office or the ER, it's hard to tell the difference between bacterial and viral infections, and so doctors are tempted to prescribe antibiotics whenever they're unsure. That's especially true when doctors think that patients expect to take the medicine home, according to a recent study. Investigators interviewed patients with respiratory infections who went to the ER in 10 hospitals affiliated with medical schools, asking whether the patients expected to receive antibiotics and about whether they were satisfied with the care they received when they were discharged. The researchers also asked physicians why they prescribed antibiotics. The main conclusion was that doctors were significantly more likely to prescribe if they believed that patients expected them to—but did a lousy job predicting which patients those actually were. And the patients most satisfied with their care were the ones who left the ER with a better understanding of their condition, antibiotics or no antibiotics. The take-home message for doctors like me: Spend an extra five minutes talking to your patients about their medical problems, and you can send them away happy and without unnecessary medicine.

So once doctors absorb the result of this study and similar investigations, will they write fewer prescriptions? I bet not. To give out fewer antibiotics, the doctors will have to believe that their patients won't benefit from them. If you look closely at the ER study, 73 percent of the patients who received antibiotics for acute bronchitis had illnesses that were either deemed by their doctors to have likely been caused by a bacteria or to have origins that were in that gray toss-up area between a bacteria and a virus. If the doctors were right, and these were bacterial infections, they would, in fact, warrant antibiotics. Also, in many of these cases, the doctors gave other persuasive reasons for choosing antibiotics, including "ill appearance of the patient" and "concern about follow-up."

In my ER world, these factors, if intangible, are understood to be really important in helping us decide how to treat patients. The real dilemma of antibiotic prescriptions is that the most serious consequence for writing them unnecessarily is not a risk to the individual patient but the emergence of the superbugs that pose a risk to public health in general.

Nowhere is this tension between individual care and public health greater than in the ER. Office-based cultures for bacterial infections, which take days to turn around, are not feasible in what we call "the trenches." And because follow-up can never be assured, it's hard to follow recommendations such as those of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which advocates "watch and wait" for 48 to 72 hours for children with middle-ear infections rather than an immediate dose of antibiotics. If we overprescribe antibiotics in the ER, that's because in the trenches the care of one patient often trumps the care of the public. Maybe that's myopic, but there you have it. And it is why efforts to reduce antibiotic use by giving out more information about resistant infections or teaching doctors how to manage patient expectations may ultimately fall flat.

In the end, I did not prescribe antibiotics for the 13-month-old baby. Instead, I took the time to explain thoroughly why I didn't think she needed them (while my colleague took care of the stroke patient). But no matter what that study says, that mother left in a huff— highly dissatisfied, I can assure you. I'm not sure what I'll do the next time I see a similar case. Perhaps I will refuse to write the prescription again, notching another victory for public health. But, for all I know, something intangible will be different: Perhaps the kid just won't look right, or maybe the mother or father will seem too disorganized to be relied on to return if the kid worsens. And that may persuade me to send them home with a bottle of pink-bubble-gum-flavored amoxicillin. It's likely that the fussy kid and his parents won't sleep any better that night. But I will.

Zachary Meisel is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. His research interests include injury prevention, patient safety, and prehospital care.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

A Medical Mystery Unfolds in Minnesota - Pork Brains

February 5, 2008

A Medical Mystery Unfolds in Minnesota

AUSTIN, Minn. — If you have to come down with a strange disease, this town of 23,000 on the wide-open prairie in southeastern Minnesota is a pretty good place to be. The Mayo Clinic, famous for diagnosing exotic ailments, owns the local medical center and shares some staff with it. Mayo itself is just 40 miles east in Rochester. And when it comes to investigating mysterious outbreaks, Minnesota has one of the strongest health departments and best-equipped laboratories in the country.

And the disease that confronted doctors at the Austin Medical Center here last fall was strange indeed. Three patients had the same highly unusual set of symptoms: fatigue, pain, weakness, numbness and tingling in the legs and feet.

The patients had something else in common, too: all worked at Quality Pork Processors, a local meatpacking plant.

The disorder seemed to involve nerve damage, but doctors had no idea what was causing it.

At the plant, nurses in the medical department had also begun to notice the same ominous pattern. The three workers had complained to them of “heavy legs,” and the nurses had urged them to see doctors. The nurses knew of a fourth case, too, and they feared that more workers would get sick, that a serious disease might be spreading through the plant.

“We put our heads together and said, ‘Something is out of sorts,’ ” said Carole Bower, the department head.

Austin’s biggest employer is Hormel Foods, maker of Spam, bacon and other processed meats (Austin even has a Spam museum). Quality Pork Processors, which backs onto the Hormel property, kills and butchers 19,000 hogs a day and sends most of them to Hormel. The complex, emitting clouds of steam and a distinctive scent, is easy to find from just about anywhere in town.

Quality Pork is the second biggest employer, with 1,300 employees. Most work eight-hour shifts along a conveyor belt — a disassembly line, basically — carving up a specific part of each carcass. Pay for these line jobs starts at about $11 to $12 an hour. The work is grueling, but the plant is exceptionally clean and the benefits are good, said Richard Morgan, president of the union local. Many of the workers are Hispanic immigrants. Quality Pork’s owner does not allow reporters to enter the plant.

A man whom doctors call the “index case” — the first patient they knew about — got sick in December 2006 and was hospitalized at the Mayo Clinic for about two weeks. His job at Quality Pork was to extract the brains from swine heads.

“He was quite ill and severely affected neurologically, with significant weakness in his legs and loss of function in the lower part of his body,” said Dr. Daniel H. Lachance, a neurologist at Mayo.

Tests showed that the man’s spinal cord was markedly inflamed. The cause seemed to be an autoimmune reaction: his immune system was mistakenly attacking his own nerves as if they were a foreign body or a germ. Doctors could not figure out why it had happened, but the standard treatment for inflammation — a steroid drug — seemed to help. (The patient was not available for interviews.)

Neurological illnesses sometimes defy understanding, Dr. Lachance said, and this seemed to be one of them. At the time, it did not occur to anyone that the problem might be related to the patient’s occupation.

By spring, he went back to his job. But within weeks, he became ill again. Once more, he recovered after a few months and returned to work — only to get sick all over again.

By then, November 2007, other cases had begun to turn up. Ultimately, there were 12 — 6 men and 6 women, ranging in age from 21 to 51. Doctors and the plant owner, realizing they had an outbreak on their hands, had already called in the Minnesota Department of Health, which, in turn, sought help from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Though the outbreak seemed small, the investigation took on urgency because the disease was serious, and health officials worried that it might indicate a new risk to other workers in meatpacking.

“It is important to characterize this because it appears to be a new syndrome, and we don’t truly know how many people may be affected throughout the U.S. or even the world,” said Dr. Jennifer McQuiston, a veterinarian from the disease centers.

In early November, Dr. Aaron DeVries, a health department epidemiologist, visited the plant and combed through medical records. The disease bore no resemblance to mad cow disease or to trichinosis, the notorious parasite infection that comes from eating raw or undercooked pork. Nor did it spread person to person — the workers’ relatives were unaffected — or pose any threat to people who ate pork.

A survey of the workers confirmed what the plant’s nurses had suspected: those who got sick were employed at or near the “head table,” where workers cut the meat off severed hog heads.

On Nov. 28, Dr. DeVries’s boss, Dr. Ruth Lynfield, the state epidemiologist, toured the plant. She and the owner, Kelly Wadding, paid special attention to the head table. Dr. Lynfield became transfixed by one procedure in particular, called “blowing brains.”

As each head reached the end of the table, a worker would insert a metal hose into the foramen magnum, the opening that the spinal cord passes through. High-pressure blasts of compressed air then turned the brain into a slurry that squirted out through the same hole in the skull, often spraying brain tissue around and splattering the hose operator in the process.

The brains were pooled, poured into 10-pound containers and shipped to be sold as food — mostly in China and Korea, where cooks stir-fry them, but also in some parts of the American South, where people like them scrambled up with eggs.

The person blowing brains was separated from the other workers by a plexiglass shield that had enough space under it to allow the heads to ride through on a conveyor belt. There was also enough space for brain tissue to splatter nearby employees.

“You could see aerosolization of brain tissue,” Dr. Lynfield said.

The workers wore hard hats, gloves, lab coats and safety glasses, but many had bare arms, and none had masks or face shields to prevent swallowing or inhaling the mist of brain tissue.

Dr. Lynfield asked Mr. Wadding, “Kelly, what do you think is going on?”

The plant owner watched for a while and said, “Let’s stop harvesting brains.”

Quality Pork halted the procedure that day and ordered face shields for workers at the head table.

Epidemiologists contacted 25 swine slaughterhouses in the United States, and found that only two others used compressed air to extract brains. One, a plant in Nebraska owned by Hormel, has reported no cases. But the other, Indiana Packers in Delphi, Ind., has several possible cases that are being investigated. Both of the other plants, like Quality Pork, have stopped using compressed air.

But why should exposure to hog brains cause illness? And why now, when the compressed air system had been in use in Minnesota since 1998?

At first, health officials thought perhaps the pigs had some new infection that was being transmitted to people by the brain tissue. Sometimes, infections can ignite an immune response in humans that flares out of control, like the condition in the workers. But so far, scores of tests for viruses, bacteria and parasites have found no signs of infection.

As a result, Dr. Lynfield said the investigators had begun leaning toward a seemingly bizarre theory: that exposure to the hog brain itself might have touched off an intense reaction by the immune system, something akin to a giant, out-of-control allergic reaction. Some people might be more susceptible than others, perhaps because of their genetic makeup or their past exposures to animal tissue. The aerosolized brain matter might have been inhaled or swallowed, or might have entered through the eyes, the mucous membranes of the nose or mouth, or breaks in the skin.

“It’s something no one would have anticipated or thought about,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who is working as a consultant for Hormel and Quality Pork. Dr. Osterholm, a professor of public health at the University of Minnesota and the former state epidemiologist, said that no standard for this kind of workplace exposure had ever been set by the government.

But that would still not explain why the condition should suddenly develop now. Investigators are trying to find out whether something changed recently — the air pressure level, for instance — and also whether there actually were cases in the past that just went undetected.

“Clearly, all the answers aren’t in yet,” Dr. Osterholm said. “But it makes biologic sense that what you have here is an inhalation of brain material from these pigs that is eliciting an immunologic reaction.” What may be happening, he said, is “immune mimicry,” meaning that the immune system makes antibodies to fight a foreign substance — something in the hog brains — but the antibodies also attack the person’s nerve tissue because it is so similar to some molecule in hog brains.

“That’s the beauty and the beast of the immune system,” Dr. Osterholm said. “It’s so efficient at keeping foreign objects away, but anytime there’s a close match it turns against us, too.”

Anatomically, pigs are a lot like people. But it is not clear how close a biochemical match there is between pig brain and human nerve tissue.

To find out, the Minnesota health department has asked for help from Dr. Ian Lipkin, an expert at Columbia University on the role of the immune system in neurological diseases. Dr. Lipkin has begun testing blood serum from the Minnesota patients to look for signs of an immune reaction to components of pig brain. And he expects also to study the pig gene for myelin, to see how similar it is to the human one.

“It’s an interesting problem,” Dr. Lipkin said. “I think we can solve it.”

Susan Kruse, who lives in Austin, was stunned by news reports about the outbreak in early December. Ms. Kruse, 37, worked at Quality Pork for 15 years. But for the past year, she has been too sick to work. She had no idea that anyone else from the plant was ill. Nor did she know that her illness might be related to her job.

Her most recent job was “backing heads,” scraping meat from between the vertebrae. Three people per shift did that task, and together would process 9,500 heads in eight or nine hours. Ms. Kruse (pronounced KROO-zee) stood next to the person who used compressed air to blow out the brains. She was often splattered, especially when trainees were learning to operate the air hose.

“I always had brains on my arms,” she said.

She never had trouble with her health until November 2006, when she began having pains in her legs. By February 2007, she could not stand up long enough to do her job. She needed a walker to get around and was being treated at the Mayo Clinic.

“I had no strength to do anything I used to do,” she said. “I just felt like I was being drained out.”

Her immune system had gone haywire and attacked her nerves, primarily in two places: at the points where the nerves emerge from the spinal cord, and in the extremities. The same thing, to varying degrees, was happening to the other patients. Ms. Kruse and the index case — the man who extracted brains — probably had the most severe symptoms, Dr. Lachance said.

Steroids did nothing for Ms. Kruse, so doctors began to treat her every two weeks with IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin, a blood product that contains antibodies. “It’s kind of like hitting the condition over the head with a sledgehammer,” Dr. Lachance said. “It overwhelms the immune system and neutralizes whatever it is that’s causing the injury.”

The treatments seem to help, Ms. Kruse said. She feels stronger after each one, but the effects wear off. Her doctors expect she will need the therapy at least until September.

Most of the other workers are recovering and some have returned to their jobs, but others, including the index case, are still unable to work. So far, there have been no new cases.

“I cannot say that anyone is completely back to normal,” Dr. Lachance said. “I expect it will take several more months to get a true sense of the course of this illness.”

Dr. Lynfield hopes to find the cause. But she said: “I don’t know that we will have the definitive answer. I suspect we will be able to rule some things out, and will have a sense of whether it seems like it may be due to an autoimmune response. I think we’ll learn a lot, but it may take us a while. It’s a great detective story.”

Monday, January 7, 2008

Cultural Selection - The evolution of evolution.

Cultural SelectionThe evolution of evolution.


In the beginning, there was creationism, which assumed we had never evolved.

Then came the theory of evolution through random mutation and natural selection.

Then came a new hypothesis: Once our ancestors had developed agriculture and stable societies and no longer lived at nature's mercy, human evolution had ceased.



Now we're in the midst of the next mutation in evolutionary theory: Human evolution didn't slow as we advanced from nature to culture. It accelerated and changed. Culture, born of natural selection, became natural selection's driving force.

This is the message of a new study of the human genome. If true, it radically complicates the debate between nature and nurture. The question is no longer simply whether our genes are the source of civilization, but whether they're also its product.

The study, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and based on DNA samples from around the world, concludes that human evolution has accelerated in the last 40,000 years and particularly in the last 10,000. One reason is that population growth has increased the temporal rate of mutations and selections. But in the case of humans, the authors note, "Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in cultures and ecology … creating new opportunities for adaptation." Such "rapid cultural evolution" has "created vastly more opportunities for further genetic change, not fewer, as new avenues emerged for communication, social interactions, and creativity."

Conceptually, the argument is straightforward. Organisms evolve in response to changing environments. This can lead, paradoxically, to the evolution of traits that change the environment. Once that happens, the process becomes dialectical, and its speed increases, because culture changes more rapidly than nature does.

The authors offer a few simple examples. Dairy cultivation made the ability to drink milk in adulthood advantageous, which in turn led to the genetic spread of lactose tolerance. Settlement elevated the threat of diseases such as malaria and cholera, which in turn caused the dissemination of genes for resisting such diseases.* And the transition from hunting and gathering to growing corn produced new dietary threats such as diabetes, to which our DNA is still adapting.

Many of these genetic trends, while influenced by culture, still fit what we think of as natural selection. In epidemics and dietary diseases, it's nature that does the killing. But the study points out that cultural evolution transforms social systems as well as diets. And new social systems can create reproductive dynamics in which nature plays only a pro forma part.

In particular, the authors cite a previous study, co-authored by two of them, that argued that Jewish IQs rose in medieval Europe due to literacy, inbreeding, and confinement to cognitively demanding jobs. They titled that study "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence." In it, they repeatedly attributed the rise of Jewish intelligence to "natural selection." But the factors they identified—values, religion, and discrimination—were far more cultural than natural. At best, what had happened to Jews was, as the authors put it, "natural selection, stemming from their occupation of an unusual social niche."

You can accept or reject these particular evolutionary explanations as you like. But the underlying message is worth taking home: Much of what now passes for "natural selection" isn't exactly natural. It's social. As such, it deserves no presumptive respect as a validator or promulgator of objective fitness. Nor does the discovery of a genetic basis for this or that trait prove it's more than a social construct. In the era of cultural selection, many genes are a social construct. Which makes them no less real.

All of which poses a problem for anyone who equates genes with human nature, or who expects evolution to take God's place as judge and perfecter of humankind. It may be true that today's God a human creation. But so, in a way, is today's evolution.

Correction, Dec. 14, 2007: The article originally referred to malaria and cholera as viral diseases. They are microbial but not viral. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Saturday, December 29, 2007

DIABETES AND INSULIN

DIABETES AND INSULIN

ARSL PAGES 5, 10, 17

ARSL 2nd Edition Pages 11, 19

It is the vivisectionists' current assertion, which crops up loud and strong evermore frequently now that they are openly coming out in defence of their trade, and therefore in defence of the future of their dubious existence, that without vivisection most of us would be dead. But medical evidence is becoming increasingly abundant proving beyond doubt that exactly the reverse is applicable. That far from saving mankind, vivisection, which cannot even produce a cure for the common cold, is destroying it. Medical evidence supporting this statement is so prolific it will be dealt with in a separate section and even as this article is being written some readers will be viewing 60 Minutes on T.V. 3, September 22 1991 which at this moment is screening the dangers of Valium, Lithium, Halcion and other profitable benzodiazapines which are said to be "destroying the lives of thousands of New Zealanders".

Pages 5, 10 and 17 of ARSL respectively make unreferenced claims that:

  1. without insulin, most insulin-dependent diabetics "would be dead"
  2. "research with dogs and other animals... led to the discovery of insulin", and
  3. without vivisection "a cure for diabetes would be beyond reach".
Lack of space precludes the printing of all the vast arsenal of medical evidence, however readers interested in following up this work can easily locate the recommended material from which it is sourced, and so ascertain that vivisection is a profit-making fraud born of expediency to justify profitable philanderings with animals.

The first thing that strikes the novice when investigating the "discovery" of insulin is that in all the photographs of the tens of thousands of agonised dogs which had their pancreases extirpated towards this end, the animals are crudely propped, tied, or even hanging or slung, upright. This is because every animal on Earth, with the exception of man, is horizontal, making pressure-points, structure and other variables so overwhelming that any attempt to extrapolate conditions is a game of chance. Criticism of this total lack of similarity between the horizontal animal and the vertical human-being crops up repeatedly from many medical doctors and it is essential that the importance of this fundamental is understood.

During the 1920s, the dog experiments performed by scientists Banting and Best were strongly criticised as:

"... a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of experiments."
(Dr F. Roberts, "Insulin", British Medical Journal, 1922.)

Readers are also directed to the clinical work of an American pathologist Dr Moses Barron, who published an article based on the autopsy of a patient who had died of pancreatic lithiasis, in which he says:

"The scientists Banting and Best were incorrectly credited with the discovery of insulin."
(Dr M. Barron, "The Relation of the Islets of Langerhans Diabetes with Special Reference to Cases of Pancreatic Lithiasis", Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, November 5 1920.)


  • "Unfortunately, the condition of a dog with a small but healthy part of his pancreas left is essentially different from that of a person suffering from diabetes... in human diabetes two factors are present:
    1. an essentially progressive lesion absent in experimental animals; and
    2. the detrimental effect of improper diet."
    (Hugh MacLean, M.D., D.Sc., Lancet, May 26 1923, page 1043.)

  • "There is no laboratory method of inducing diabetes... which is exactly comparable to the clinical condition. At best we can get only crude approximations. The dangers of arguing from one species to another, or even from one strain to another of the same species are certainly not to be neglected."
    (Dr F.G. Young, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of London, Lancet, December 18 1948, pages 955-956.)

  • "Arguments based on the insulin requirements of the depancreatised dog and cat applied to human diabetes are quantitatively dangerous."
    (Dr F. G. Young, D.Sc., PhD., F.R.S., British Medical Journal, November 17 1951, pages 1167-1168.)

  • "The causes of diabetes mellitus remains unknown in both man and animals. In spite of certain species similarities, there are a number of important differences - differences in clinical manifestation, in aetological factors and in the liability to certain long-term complications of the disease."
    (Dr Harry Keen, BSc, M.R.C.P., "Spontaneous Diabetes in Man and Animals", Veterinary Record, July 9 1960, page 557.)

Further, in Clinical Medical Discoveries, Medical Historian M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., says that the association of diabetes with degenerative changes in the Beta cells in the pancreas was a well-recognised clinical discovery long before animal experiments in this connection were contemplated. "The means of separating from the pancreas the active principle, which Professor Schafer, a renowned physiologist had already in 1915 designated insulin", was, says Dr Beddow Bayly, "repeated by Banting who demonstrated it on a medical colleague who suffered from the disease. However the numerous experiments made by Banting on thousands of dogs proved nothing of value to human medicine, since, as is scientifically recognised, the dogs were not suffering from diabetes... The discovery, isolation and application of insulin was a clinical one."

The reader is directed to Chapter 10 Heart Surgery, and the evidence given by veterinarian Brandon Reines, Surgeon Dr Moneim Fadali and Hans Ruesch, all of whom emphasise the inability to extrapolate conditions or circumstances between dog and man. Further many doctors say that Banting's dogs suffered, not from diabetes, but from stress, a statement that no-one who has viewed the photographs of his unanaesthetised, depancreatised victims would argue, a condition which is said to be similar to diabetes, which from the vivisectors' point of view was a convenient one since it ensured, with the duplicity of the pro-vivisection alliance, his legitimised and relentless work on their crucifixion.

  • "Dr Banting, Canada's medical hero, who is popular and erroneously credited with the discovery of insulin by extirpating the pancreases of thousands of dogs, did not cause diabetes, but stress."
    (J.A. Pratt, "A Reappraisal of Research Leading to the Discovery of Insulin", Journal of the History of Medicine, Vol. 9, 1954, pages 281-289.)

This uncompromising statement coincides with that of Doctors N. Robinson and J. Fuller in New Scientist, November 15 1984, page 23, who said that families developing diabetes had been exposed to higher levels of stress than those who have not. "It is known", they say, "that obesity, drugs, chemicals, heredity, great grief, anger, fright and extreme emotional states can cause diabetes".


  • "Side effects of insulin treatment include an unusually high incidence of heart attacks, stroke, kidney failure and gangrene. This, some medical men believe is due to the foreign nature of animal insulin."
    (A.L. Notkins, "The Causes of Diabetes", Scientific American, Vol. 241, No. 5, November 1979, pages 62-73.)

Though the highly criticised animal-based insulin is now replaced by new oral preparations of pure chemicals it is no less criticised by many medics, to name a few:

  • "It is well-known by eminent physicians in the field that 90% of all diabetics who are on insulin should not be. Insulin, when given over a number of years, can be responsible for the late complications of diabetes - diabetic blindness and diabetic gangrene. It is quite possible that more people have been killed over the years than have been saved."
    (Dr Robert S. Mendelsohn, Hidden Crimes.)

  • "Medicine cultivates disease. The health situation is worsening. Therapeutics is a purveyor of ills, it creates individuals that will have to take recourse to it. An impressive example is hereditary diabetes. Since the discovery of insulin this disease had markedly increased."
    (Dr Jean Rostant, one of Europe's best-known biologists, Le Droit D'etre Naturaliste, ed. Stock, Paris, 1963.)

  • "The more we study diabetes, the more we discover the contradictory aspects of this malady. Fifty years ago, when insulin was discovered, we thought the mystery of diabetes had been resolved. But now the mystery keeps getting more mysterious."
    (Ulrico de Aichelburg, writing in the authoritative Italian magazine EPOCA, September 21 1974.)

  • "At the CIBA Foundation, London, on 3 July, Prof. Houssay reviewed his group's work on the influence of sex hormones on the incidence and severity of experimental diabetes in the rat: but first warned his audience not to accept the results for other animals or for humans."
    (Lancet, July 14 1951, page 70.)

  • "Diabetes is a symptom, not a disease, and insulin... does no more than palliate this symptom. The drug throws no light upon the cause, it does not act in the manner described, and, had the cause been found and eradicated as it can be, there would have been no need to use it."
    (J.E.R. McDonagh, F.R.C.S., The Nature of Disease Journal, Vol. 1, 1932, page 1.)

  • "Many points of great interest emerge from their studies. Here is an example of how a technique adapted for a particular study may be usefully turned onto another. Here also is a striking example of species difference in tissue metabolism, and yet another warning against uncritically extending the conclusions of animal experiments to man."
    (Leading article on "Insulin and the Heart", British Medical Journal, September 24 1955, page 780.)

  • "No conclusion could therefore be drawn from experiments on animals about the duration of the decrease in blood-sugar in man."
    (B. Brahn, PhD., Tubingen, from the Veterinary Faculty of the State University at Utrecht, Lancet, June 15 1940, page 1079.)

  • "Today, insulin is the main argument used by the vivisectors. As a result of data gathered from clinical experience, I can assert, without having to fear any refutation, that insulin, which was obtained after 30 years of vivisection, is neither a remedy nor a means of prevention against diabetes, but is only an irksome therapeutical surrogate... The more one studies the history of medicine, the more one sees that the real triumphs of medicine are the conclusions of patient observation of natural phenomena in human beings, and not the consequences of the confused activities of the experimenters, who draw their conclusions from the phenomena created artificially in animals..."
    (Dr G.H. Walker, M.R.C.P. Sunderland, Member of the Royal Society of Medicine, in Hans Ruesch's One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.)

  • "One of the non-diabetic conditions for which insulin has been widely used in surgical shock and it is interesting to read, after five years of trial, the pronouncement in a recent number of Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics that in this condition there is no indication for injection of insulin, and that its use is actually attended by danger."
    (Current Topics, "The Dangers of Insulin", Medical Press, November 28 1928, page 444.)

In New Scientist, March 18 1982, doctors say they believe insulin could be responsible for the high levels of blindness in diabetics. Massive available data shows that diabetes is preventable through appropriate diet. That the highest incidence of the disease is in the United States, which consumes an average of 35 percent animal fats and meat, the lowest in Japan which diet contains an average of five percent, and that when the Japanese take to American eating habits they developed diabetic problems. One of the well-worn favourites of the exponents of vivisection when tub-thumping supposed examples of the benefits of their grotesque and obvious fraud, is the discovery of insulin to administer to diabetic patients. Yet more people per capita are dying of diabetes today than in 1900 - twentytwo years before the discovery of insulin. (For more comprehensive statistics refer Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent.)

Even a cursory investigation reveals easily obtainable facts exposing that treatment with insulin merely effaces the symptoms and masks the true cause of the patient's ailment. That insulin has brought more damage than benefits, has killed more people, especially among the old, through insulinic shock, than it has saved, and that it has shortened more lives than it has lengthened. All that is needed is a little patience, a little time, a little determination... to prove ARSL wrong on every count.

Pursuing the important role of diet in the prevention of diabetes in The Health Revolution Ross Horne writes:

"Referring to the Pritikin Longevity Centre's diet and exercise programme, Dr James Anderson of the University of Kentucky Medical Centre, said: 'With this kind of approach, diet only, 80 percent of the diabetics in this Country could be normal in thirty to ninety days.' In a report made public before the American Chemical Society, Dr Michael Somogyi of the Jewish Hospital of St. Lexies, pointed out that a study of 4,000 diabetic cases conducted by him and his associates over a period of fourteen years, revealed that virtually all adult victims of diabetes can be restored to normal health without insulin injections."

As diabetes can be prevented and controlled by diet there is also much evidence that the escalation of the disease can be related to the amount of sugar we consume. In 1972 Dr Banting himself pointed out:

"The incidence of diabetes has increased proportionately with the per capita consumption of sugar."
(F.G. Banting, Strength and Health magazine, 1972.)

This is certainly borne out in the following table showing Danish consumption of sugar in relation to that country's incidence of diabetes:

DATEAMOUNT OF SUGAR P.A.DIABETES DEATHS
188029 lbs1.8 per 100,000
191182 lbs8.0 per 100,000
1934113 lbs18.9 per 100,000

(W. Dufty, Sugar Blues, Warner Books, 1975.)

And in an article "You are all Sanpaku" by Nyoiti Sakurazawa:

"Sugar is the greatest evil that modern industrial civilisation has visited upon the countries of the Far East and Africa."

In the 1960s an eight year study to compare the progress of patients suffering from diabetes was carried out in the U.S.A. by the university group diabetic programme. "The trials used insulin, oral drugs, placebo and diet. The group found that after five years none of the drugs, including insulin, had any effect at all as the body had got used to them... but that the diet treatment worked well." During the survey the following drugs were withdrawn because they were causing heart disease - even killing the patients:

  1. PHENFORMIN

    "Because it was causing four and a half times more cases of heart disease and 60 percent more deaths." (Phenformin was banned from use in the U.S.A. and eventually also in the U.K.)

  2. TOLBUTAMIDE

    "Because doctors found it was causing two and a half times more cases of heart disease, and a higher death rate." (Tolbutamide is still being prescribed today under the brand names of Rastinon, Glyconon and Pramidex - with no mention of the great danger to the heart.)

This survey is the most comprehensive and meticulously controlled study of the use of insulin ever published. It is reported in the following:

  • B.Ingliss, The Diseases of Civilisation, Granada Publishing, 1983.
  • M. Weitz, Health Shock, Hamlyn Ltd, 1990.
  • S.W. Shen, R. Bressler, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 296, 1977, pages 787-793.
  • British Medical Association and Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, British National Formulary, No. 5, 1983.

"Since the introduction of diabetes drugs in the 1950s the international death rate for diabetics in the past twenty years have risen in England, Wales, Germany, Japan, and Israel, probably because of the use of insulin."
(R. Warner, Public Citizens Health Research Group, Washington D.C., U.S.A.)

Significantly Dr Banting, according to a book entitled Deadly Allies by John Bryden (McClelland Stewart) progressed from his merciless extirpations of the pancreases of thousands of man's best friend to even higher things, when in 1940 he graduated to vivisection in the noble field of biological warfare. Among his other legacies to mankind are his infected bullets; the rearing of disease-carrying insects; and the aerial spraying of deadly bacteria.