HuckleB
HuckleB's JournalOHSU Scientist Pushes Forward With Stem Cell Research
http://www.opb.org/radio/programs/thinkoutloud/segment/ohsu-scientist-pushes-forward-with-stem-cell-research/This is an amazing interview with an amazing researcher. Please give it your time, and your high fives.
Thank you!
Colony Collapse Disorder: More Dead Bees, More Sloppy Science
http://turbidplaque.com/2014/05/colony-collapse-disorder-more-dead-bees-more-sloppy-science/Don’t overlook other causes in investigating bee deaths
http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion-story/4523007-don-t-overlook-other-causes-in-investigating-bee-deaths/Manmade Or Natural, Tasty Or Toxic, They're All Chemicals … By Dr. Mark Lorch
The terms 'chemical' and 'poison' have become interchangeable in the popular consciousness and as a result the whole subject of chemistry has become tainted with unpleasant connotations
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/may/19/manmade-natural-tasty-toxic-chemicals
"Chemicals are bad, right? Otherwise why would so many purveyors of all things healthy proudly proclaim their products to be "chemical-free" and why would phrases such as "it's chock full of chemicals" be so commonly used to imply something is unnatural and therefore inherently dangerous?
On one level these phrases are meaningless – after all, chemicals are everywhere, in everything. From the air that we breathe to the pills we pop, it's all chemicals. Conversely, many would argue (the Advertising Standards Agency included) that we all know perfectly well what "chemical-free" means and those who rail against the absurdity of the phrase are just being pedantic. Even the Oxford Dictionary defines a chemical as "a distinct compound or substance, especially one which has been artificially prepared or purified."
So "chemical-free" products are adhering to a recognised usage.
But pedantry and definition aren’t really the point. The point is that every time anti-chemical slogans are used people are being misinformed. The implication is always that the terms "chemical" and "poison" are interchangeable. This is a perception that permeates our subconscious to the extent that chemists themselves have been guilty of exactly the same lazy language.
..."
------------------------------
Good stuff!
They may be part of the problem.
To date, the studies showing it are not without serious flaws, and they tend to be very small studies. We need to stay on top of all possible factors.
Here's an interesting overview:
Everyone calm down, there is no “bee-pocalypse”
http://perc.org/articles/everyone-calm-down-there-no-bee-pocalypse
All I Want for Mother’s Day is Non-labeled GMOs
http://groundedparents.com/2014/05/08/all-i-want-for-mothers-day-is-non-labeled-gmos/"...
As I’ve said, if you don’t understand transcription, translation, and protein synthesis and function at a high level at minimum, you don’t have sufficient understanding to justify an inherently anti-GM stance. While I won’t get deep enough to explain the minutiae of molecular biology, here is a briefing to start a layperson on genetic literacy: Essentially, proteins are the most basic functional components of living things. Proteins serve all purposes from structure, immunity, metabolic, nutritive, enzymatic functions, and more. They are macromolecules comprised of amino acid chains (polypeptides.) The sequence of amino acids in any protein determines its 3D structure. This sequence of amino acids is determined by codons, each codon coded for by 3 adjacent nucleotides. The DNA in a gene of any organism can be transcribed (into RNA), and translated (into proteins) in many varied permutations by alternative splicing of introns, allowing the functions of life to be carried out. This is a very abridged explanation, but there are some nice primers here and here.
...
Why shouldn’t GMOs be labeled?
1. Labeling regulations will hinder competition and growth among organizations like research institutions, universities, and private sector small and medium sized businesses, effectively clearing a nice, clean, path for large corporations like Monsanto. Contrary to popular belief, Monsanto is not the only player in the GMO game. Here is an incomplete list of organizations participating in R&D in the field. This list only includes institutions who actively work on GMO crops themselves. Other participants include sequencing laboratories (that help determine organisms’ genetic code or expressed genetic codes), experts in proteomics (study of protein structure and function), companies and individuals specializing in bioinformatics (analysis of large biological data), and more. Red tape is always easier for the rich to cut through and navigate. Anti-Monsanto types would be well-advised to reconsider their labeling stance.
2. Mandatory GMO labeling will hurt the environment. Labeling will increase stigma associated with a technology that people don’t understand, thus arbitrarily increasing demand for non-GMO foods. Non-GMO foods are harder on the environment in terms of water and energy needed for production.
3. Labels simply stating generally that a product contains or is a GMO do not make sense; they don’t actually inform the consumer. What type of labels do anti-GMO proponents want? If a label is to be meaningful, it would have to provide detailed information, including the genetic change, and the ultimate protein change achieved. Would the average consumer understand this? IMO, the answer is a resounding NO.
..."
Research On Gluten Sensitivity Shows That It Probably Doesn't Exist
Researchers Who Provided Key Evidence For Gluten Sensitivity Have Now Thoroughly Shown That It Doesn't Exist
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gluten-sensitivity-and-study-replication-2014-5#ixzz320LToCNu
"For a follow-up paper, 37 self-identified gluten-sensitive patients were tested. According to Real Clear Science's Newton Blog, here's how the experiment went:
Subjects would be provided with every single meal for the duration of the trial. Any and all potential dietary triggers for gastrointestinal symptoms would be removed, including lactose (from milk products), certain preservatives like benzoates, propionate, sulfites, and nitrites, and fermentable, poorly absorbed short-chain carbohydrates, also known as FODMAPs. And last, but not least, nine days worth of urine and fecal matter would be collected. With this new study, Gibson wasn't messing around.
The subjects cycled through high-gluten, low-gluten, and no-gluten (placebo) diets, without knowing which diet plan they were on at any given time. In the end, all of the treatment diets — even the placebo diet — caused pain, bloating, nausea, and gas to a similar degree. It didn't matter if the diet contained gluten. (Read more about the study.)
"In contrast to our first study … we could find absolutely no specific response to gluten," Gibson wrote in the paper. A third, larger study published this month has confirmed the findings.
..."
------------------------
On edit: There is actually a much more thorough piece on the new study here: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitivity_may_not_exist.html
Seems like a little more research would be good, but this is very interesting from a placebo/nocebo context.
Faux Autism Advocates Go Full On Despicable
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2014/05/13/more-embarrassment-from-faux-autism-advocates/"There are groups, some within the autism communities and some external, who are doing the autism communities harm. Ironically they think they are helping, leading, changing the world. Many of these groups and people adhere to the idea that the rise in autism diagnoses is due to vaccines. Yesterday I wrote about how individuals from these groups have stooped so low as to threaten high school student filmmakers (Faux advocates embarrass the autism communities by attacking high school students and their film project). Today I’m sadly writing about another embarrassing incident: making a statement by photoshopping an important statement by Michelle Obama."
...
(The photoshopped sign which can be seen at the link says: "The US has its own "missing children" like the 14,700% increase in autism since 1990 affecting 1,200,000. But the US won't call it an epidemic much less a crisis."
...
"Yes, the faux autism advocates decided to try to get some attention for themselves using Ms. Obama’s picture. In case you are wondering, yes I mean attention for themselves. Consider the statement Ms. Obama publicized: “Bring Back Our Girls”. Simple. Direct. Calls for action. Now consider the statement by the faux autism advocates. Long and doesn’t actually call for real action. Read it again if you missed that. All the action they call for is to call autism an epidemic and a crisis. They are calling for someone to accept their views on autism. They didn’t take the opportunity to say, oh, “We need more support”. “We have 1.2M people with great needs”. No. They called for attention for themselves and their agenda. And they did it in a way that reflects very poorly (to be polite) on the autism communities."
---------------------------------------------
In case it needs to be made more clear, the people who pushed this dehumanizing meme are anti-vaccine, and push plenty of other bizarre conspiracies. On top of this, they repeatedly dismiss the humanity of autistics.
Europe is a mighty big place, with many entities that disagree with one another.
Bottom line: The science is far from settled, but the matter appears to have multiple factors. Ignoring that fact would be wrongheaded.
Bad Science Doesn't Help Bees
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-14/bad-science-doesn-t-help-bees
The Return of the Honey Bees
http://www.ladybud.com/2014/05/08/the-return-of-the-honey-bees/
The Harvard Study on Neonicotinoids and CCD
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-harvard-study-on-neonicotinoids-and-ccd/
U.S. Beekeepers Lost 23% of Colonies Last Winter; Scientists Recommend Treating Bees for Varroa Mite
Source: Entomology Today
According to a national survey of honey bee colony losses conducted by the Bee Informed Partnership, the Apiary Inspectors of America, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. beekeepers lost more than one in five honey bee colonies in the winter of 2013-2014 — significantly fewer than the winter before. But tough times continue for commercial beekeepers, who are reporting substantial honey bee losses in summer as well. Beekeepers who tracked the health of their hives year-round reported year-to-year losses of more than one in three colonies between spring 2013 and spring 2014.
University of Maryland entomologist Dennis vanEngelsdorp, who directs the Bee Informed Partnership, led a team of 11 researchers who conducted the survey. A total of 7,183 beekeepers, who collectively manage about 22 percent of the country’s 2.6 million commercial honey bee colonies, took part.
No single culprit is responsible for all of the honey bee deaths, but their research shows mortality is much lower among beekeepers who carefully treat their hives to control a lethal parasite called the varroa mite.
“If there is one thing beekeepers can do to help with this problem, it is to treat their bees for varroa mites,” said vanEngelsdorp. “If all beekeepers were to aggressively control mites, we would have many fewer losses.”
Read more: http://entomologytoday.org/2014/05/15/u-s-beekeepers-lost-23-of-colonies-last-winter-scientists-recommend-treating-bees-for-varroa-mites/
This puzzle is not an easy one to solve.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 35,773