previously reported here on RedOrbit, in January, Fouchier and Kawaoka agreed to halt their controversial research for 60 days in order to allow experts to determine whether or not the research could lead to a global pandemic or a possible bioterrorism threat. A letter announcing the decision -- written by Fouchier, Kawaoka, and more than three dozen other top influenza researchers -- appeared late last month in both Science and Nature, according to previous reports by Grady. “The continuous threat of an influenza pandemic represents one of the biggest challenges in public health,” the authors wrote. “Recent research breakthroughs identified specific determinants of transmission of H5N1 influenza viruses in ferrets. Responsible research on influenza virus transmission using different animal models is conducted by multiple laboratories in the world using the highest international standards of biosafety and biosecurity practices that effectively prevent the release of transmissible viruses from the laboratory.” “Despite the positive public-health benefits these studies sought to provide, a perceived fear that the ferret-transmissible H5 HA viruses may escape from the laboratories has generated intense public debate in the media on the benefits and potential harm of this type of research. We would like to assure the public that these experiments have been conducted with appropriate regulatory oversight in secure containment facilities by highly trained and responsible personnel to minimize any risk of accidental release,” they added. --- On the Net:
“Not sleeping enough can damage your immune system and make you ill,” according to the Daily Mail.
This somewhat sweeping statement is based purely on an animal study looking at how mice body clocks affected their immune systems. The study found that levels of an infection-detecting protein called TLR9 fluctuated throughout the day and that the exact level of this protein influenced how effective a vaccine was in mice. It also influenced the mice’s response to a type of serious infection.
Differences between man and mouse mean more research will be needed to determine if these findings apply to humans. If they do, then it may be possible that certain vaccinations could be administered at specific times in the day to make them more effective. However, this approach would need to be tested in humans to be sure that it actually made a meaningful difference to the effectiveness of the vaccines.
The immune system is a complex area, and while this research shed some light on one aspect of the body’s immunity and its ties to the body clock, there’s still much to learn.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from Yale University School of Medicine and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in the US. It was funded by the US National Institutes of Health and published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Immunity.
When reporting this study both BBC News and the Daily Mail stated that this research was in mice, and gave good summaries of the findings. However, the Mail’s headline claimed that “not sleeping enough can damage your immune system and make you ill”, which the current research does not support. The results of this research in mice should not be interpreted as providing proof that amount of sleep affects illness in humans.
What kind of research was this?
This was animal research looking at exactly how the body clock affects the function of the immune system in mice. The researchers say that previous studies have shown that certain immune system functions and chemicals vary naturally in relation to light and daily rhythms in humans and mice. They say that studies have also suggested that disruptions to normal daily rhythms, such as jet lag or sleep deprivation, may also affect the immune system.
This type of early research will usually use animals such as mice to carry out in-depth investigation of the interaction of basic biological functions, which might be difficult to carry out in humans. Generally, it’s only once researchers have built up a picture of these interactions in mice that they can then carry out further studies to test whether these findings also apply to humans.
What did the research involve?
The researchers first looked at a group of mice genetically engineered to have defective body clocks and a group of normal mice to identify any differences between the two groups in how their white blood cells (immune cells responded to invading microorganisms. They found that the differences identified related to a protein called Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9 . This protein recognises DNA from bacteria and viruses, and plays a role in signalling to the immune system to mount an attack on these invading organisms. The researchers then looked at whether the production and function of TLR9 in normal mice varies throughout the day as a result of the body clock cycle (known as the “circadian cycle” .
The researchers then gave mice vaccinations containing molecules that would activate TLR9 and looked at whether mice responded differently to the vaccine according the time of the day it was given. They also looked at whether time of day affected how mice responded to being infected with bacteria in a process known to involve TLR9. The method used involves allowing bacteria from the mouse’s intestines to invade their body cavity. This leads to a condition called sepsis, a strong inflammatory immune system response throughout the body that is harmful to the mice.
What were the basic results?
The researchers found that levels of the protein TLR9 in mice did fluctuate naturally through the day, peaking at set times over a 24-hour cycle.
They found that when they gave mice vaccines containing that would activate TLR9, the vaccination produced a greater immune response if given at a time of day when TLR9 levels were at their highest. The researchers found that if the mice were infected at a time when TLR9 was at its highest, the mice showed worse signs of sepsis and died earlier than mice infected at the time when TLR9 was at its lowest.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers concluded that their findings showed a direct link between the body clock and one aspect of the immune system in mice. They said that this may have important implications for how vaccination and immune-system-related therapies are administered in humans.
They also noted that some studies have found that people with sepsis are more likely to die between 2am and 6am. They say that further studies are needed to determine if this may be related to levels of TLR9, and if so whether giving certain therapies during this period could reduce this risk.
Conclusion
This study identifies one way in which the body clock and immune system interact in mice, via a protein called TLR9. The researchers found that fluctuations in this protein throughout the day influenced how effective a certain form of vaccination was in mice, and also influenced the mice’s response to one type of serious infection.
Differences between the species mean more research is needed to determine if these findings also apply to humans. If they do, then it may be possible that vaccinations could be given at specific times of day when they would be most effective. However, this theory needs testing in humans to be sure that it makes a meaningful difference to the effectiveness of the vaccine.
There has also been media speculation that researchers could develop infection-fighting drugs based on these findings. However, this suggestion is premature as researchers first need to confirm that the mechanism identified in this study also applies in humans. Even if it is confirmed, it would still take a great deal of research to develop and test a drug that could capitalise on it.
It’s also worth remembering just how complex the immune system is, and although this research improves our understanding of one aspect (how it is affected by the body clock there is still much to learn.
Analysis by Bazian
Links To The Headlines
Body clock 'alters' immune system. BBC News, Februaury 20 2012
Not sleeping enough CAN damage your immune system and make you ill, says study. Daily Mail,
Links To Science
Silver AC, Arjona A, Walker WE, Fikrig E. The Circadian Clock Controls Toll-like Receptor 9-Mediated Innate and Adaptive Immunity. Immunity, February 17 2011
I blame John Gorton and Malcolm Fraser. I was a young schoolboy in 1971 when their brawling inside the decaying coalition government awakened me to politics.
Their struggle culminated in a leadership challenge. William McMahon fought Gorton to a draw, so Gorton plucked a casting ballot out of thin air to vote himself out of the prime ministership. The ridiculous and treacherous McMahon became prime minister, and the Liberals compensated Gorton by making him deputy leader. I was hooked. Who wouldn't be?
Since then, one of life's little pleasures has been the surprisingly regular parade of state and federal leadership challenges.
These contests are politics in the open, raw, visceral and unadorned. Electorate, party, factional and personal factors come together. Interests compete. The noble and brave collide with the base and cowardly. Policy meets electoral reality. Conviction and ambition take a good look at each other. Purity withers and survival usually wins.
It is the individual us writ large.
The challenges have patterns. Most begin with denials all-round that anything is afoot. Speculation and underground manoeuvring gather pace. Inevitably, something or someone triggers the formal challenge.
Most challenges take place in opposition parties. Whilst entertaining, they're nowhere near as dramatic as those that take place in government, where the challenge is oiled by power, preferment and patronage.
Since Fraser gutted Gorton, only two contests have come close in terms of impact and importance. The Hawke-Keating match-up is a clear winner. Their successors, Howard and Costello, were in the running for a while but when push came to shove the pretender wasn't up to it.
The other is, of course, the Rudd-Gillard battle that has been raging since June 2010. The combatants are providing great drama. Between them, they have the potential to write a completely new chapter in the handbook of leadership challenges.
The contest reached a
pivotal point on the weekend. Appropriately for our times,
the video of Kevin Rudd declaiming in that uniquely twee style of his was posted on YouTube. One day we may find out who was responsible. It's a nice little mystery for another time but I like to think it was one of those freelancing munchkins so favoured by the parties and who bring to mind the words of Sam Rayburn, the former US house speaker. Confronted and affronted by president Lyndon Johnson's supposedly brilliant young advisors, he said: "Lyndon, I'd feel a whole lot better if just one of them had once run for sheriff."
Before the Rudd video became public knowledge on Saturday night, we knew the contest had ratcheted up a notch because the Gillard camp had been busy bad-mouthing Rudd for days. Simon Crean, in particular, did the media rounds. Attorney General Nicola Roxon was deputised on Saturday to deliver the anti-Rudd message to the weekend media. He did well to get us into office, she said, but he left us with a lot of "challenges".
Challenges? Even when their very existence is on the line, Labor people today will talk like HR managers. Even so, there was no doubt the prime minister's people were worried. The past couple of weeks have seen a steady escalation of apocalyptic talk of mass resignations and instability if Rudd were to be returned. When all else fails, play the fear and turmoil card.
The Rudd camp responded on the weekend with Darren Cheeseman, a backbencher who declared Gillard's leadership was "terminal".
All this came together on Saturday night and exploded into the television ether on Sunday morning. There are only two outstanding questions. Will it be Rudd or Gillard who calls on the ballot? And when will that be? Next week, next month, or when?
Remember that neither of these Lilliputians is Paul Keating. They won't confront each other with the challenge and then sit down with Laurie Oakes to explain why. It's not a quality that appeals to everyone, but Keating's instinctive understanding that power has to be taken, ripped away if necessary, is reassuring in its honesty. There was never any question of his legitimacy as a prime ministerial usurper. Like Whitlam, he chose to crash through or crash.
By contrast, even yesterday, Gillard and Rudd danced around each other, sniping but nevertheless denying what is obvious to the world. In Gillard's case, we know from last time that she will need to phone her backers to get her final riding instructions. Rudd is so risk averse he will wait until he is confident victory is his. With these two, it could take a while, although media reports today suggest a ballot sooner rather than later.
All the same, the contest has been joined, albeit by proxies. And it's been great fun so far, not least because so many people, in addition to the paranoiacs and conspiracists who increasingly occupy the online world, have been denying the reality of this contest for months.
It's de rigueur now to profess disgust at this turn of events. Serious minds decry the brutality, the ambition, the lack of policy debate. They bemoan a political system that has somehow failed. They proclaim a weariness with politics as usual.
But I'm having none of it. These are marvellous times for politics. These are the times when you see how things really work. This IS the system working, not failing. These are the times when character is revealed, when political judgment is on the line, when boldness potentially pays big. As Barack Obama would say, it's a teachable moment. It's time to revel.
This challenge is like no other before it. Even the hallowed Menzies had to form a new party and fight his way back through two elections from opposition to reclaim the prime ministership he lost in 1941. It took him eight years. Yet we're looking at Rudd retaking the prize from the deputy who grabbed it from him a mere 20 months ago. Whether he succeeds or fails, this is a rare moment in our political history, one which will be written and talked about for years to come. It's a great battle and a great human drama.
Think of the potentially satisfying consequences.
If Rudd wins, there will be many public and quite a few private cheers if Shorten, Arbib, Farrell, Feeney and Howes have their high-handed disregard for the electorate thrown back in their faces. Somewhere in Crown Casino, Karl Bitar might even feel the disdain blowing his way.
In a caucus that is more akin to a giant protection racket run by competing political families who resort to the hit as much as they sit at the negotiating table, these men epitomise the ossified political culture that is killing the ALP from within and shredding its membership base.
Remember the comical but pitiful
video of that June night in 2010 when MPs were seen to be ignorant of the decision being made in their name? This is the opportunity for the caucus to upturn that world and restore its lost dignity.
This moment is a chance for the Caucus to take back some of the power stolen from it, an unexplained theft that soured the public's attitude to Gillard from the beginning. It's not Rudd they hanker for, it's what he represents about how the Government has operated, his own idiosyncrasies notwithstanding. It is what underpins and magnifies the hostility to Gillard on a range of issues.
They may not do it. They may not do it yet. Whatever they do, they may bring the whole edifice down around them. This may yet be an election year.
Watching - or even just finding out - what they all do and say over the coming weeks will be compelling. Yes, there is an economy to worry about. There are serious issues that need attention. But this matters too.
Some points can be awarded for the weekend. The hitherto unknown Darren Cheeseman has distinguished himself by becoming the first Labor MP to tell the world what all his colleagues know or won't admit: that Gillard is a walking political corpse, a portent of massive electoral defeat. Perhaps it was a carefully orchestrated appearance in the Sunday newspapers, but let's not be churlish - when the time came, he did it. I'm struggling to think of other occasions during the life of this Government when a backbencher stood up in the public arena and said what was on his or her mind.
With masterly understatement yesterday, Health Minister Tanya Plibersek acknowledged that Cheeseman is "a bit worried". That he is. His was the last electorate to be decided in 2010. He won by 771 votes and now holds the most marginal seat in the nation by 0.41 per cent. His seat stretches from the suburbs of Geelong, snakes through coastal holiday towns, and extends into rural areas such as Colac. In some ways it is a snapshot of suburban, provincial and rural Australia. Cheeseman would know better than most how ineffective and discredited is Gillard. He is, as an online wit observed, "not a happy little Corangamite".
On the other side of the Caucus divide, we can give a cheer to Bendigo's Steve Gibbons. Well-known online for speaking his mind free of the management-speak that characterises his ministerial betters, Gibbons
released a statement yesterday morning castigating Kevin Rudd's "chaotic and deeply offensive style of leadership". Later, he accused Rudd of being "a psychopath with a giant ego".
Like Cheeseman, at least we know where Gibbons stands. Maybe over this coming period we will hear from more of them. They might find the electorate appreciates it, however much the media trivialises it. They might just earn points for standing for something.
Between them all, those who believe they were dudded in 2010 and those who think there's no going back, this is a moment of peril and opportunity. The electorate will judge them on the decision they make and the way they make it.
For the rest of us, this is not a time to turn away. It is a time to pay attention.
And perhaps to be heard.
Malcolm Farnsworth publishes
AustralianPolitics.com. On Twitter, he is
@mfarnsworth. View his full profile
here.
Obama's "phony theology." Having gone there, it wasn't much of a stretch to turn Obama into a
eugenics-supporting monster. Because, in Santorum's world, the fetus is king.
He lambasted the president's health care law requiring insurance policies to include free prenatal testing, "because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society."He went on in this vein in his
"That, too, is part of Obamacare, another hidden message as to what President Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country," Santorum said.
Face the Nation appearance on Sunday.
The— the bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in— in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions and in fact, prenatal testing that— that particularly amniocentesis. I'm not talking about general prenatal care. You said prenatal care. I— I didn't say prenatal care shouldn't be covered. We're talking about specifically prenatal testing and specifically amniocentesis, which is a— which is a procedure that actually creates a risk of having a miscarriage when you have it and is done for the purposes of identifying maladies of a child in the womb. In— in which in many cases and in fact most cases a physicians recommend, particularly if there's a problem, recommend abortion. [...]When asked specifically by Scheiffer if Santorum meant to say that "the President looks down on disabled people," Santorum doubled down, and went on a rant about late term abortion, concluding "The president has a very bad record on the issue of abortion and children who are disabled who are in the womb."
President Obama wants to kill special children, that's the message. While free prenatal testing might sound like a critical tool for women to have the healthiest pregnancies and babies, it's really a trick to get rid of "those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country."
But when that severely disabled child is born, either because affordable prenatal testing wasn't available or the parents decided to keep the fetus, well, that family is on their own. Suck it up,
Santorum has told one parent struggling to afford to keep her child alive.
11:43 AM PT:
Excellent reminder from middleagedhousewife in the
comments: the kind of testing Santorum is talking about is not mandated to be free in the ACA.
Gwyneth Paltrow was all arms at the 2012 Grammy Awards in Los Angeles on Feb. 12. Looking even more defined than we remember her, the 39-year-old's sleeveless Stella McCartney gown showed off her shapely shoulders and strong arms. Paltrow is no stranger to working hard to look good: she and celeb trainer Tracy Anderson put a lot of time toward her fitness regimen. See some of the arm exercises they do together to achieve such award-worthy arms below, then
click here for even more!
PHOTOS: How Sports Illustrated cover girl Kate Upton stays fit
GWYNETH'S SEXY ARM SCULPTOR
A lot of Gwyneth's arm work includes resistance training without weights like this
arm series that Tracy developed for her. The movements are very fluid and generally involve a lot of repetitions. Here's an example that Tracy shared with
Self:
- Stand with legs together, elbows bent and hands touching at fingertips.
- Bend left elbow, reaching toward center of back, and extend right arm overhead, palm forward. Return to start for one rep. Switch sides and repeat.
- Do two sets of 20 reps.
PHOTOS: Gwyneth Paltrow through the years
TRICEPS KICKBACKS
Triceps kickbacks are a classic strength-training exercise focusing on the back of the upper arm.
- Hold a three-pound dumbbell in each hand. Lean your torso forward slightly, keeping your spine straight, and bend both elbows back behind you as high as you can.
- Keeping your elbows in that position, straighten your right arm back with the bottom of your fist pointing up.
- With control, bend your right elbow and bring the weight back in toward your shoulder. Do this 15 times.
- Without taking a break, do 12 to 15 reps on the left side.
- Repeat on both sides for a total of three sets. If you need to take a break between each set and stand up to release your lower back, go for it.
PHOTOS: Workout at home with these celeb trainers
OVERHEAD BEND
- Work on shoulders and triceps with this move from Tracy.
- Stand with feet shoulder-width apart, holding a three-pound dumbbell in each hand.
- Bend your left elbow and bring it to your hip.
- Without twisting your body, bend your torso over to the right and extend the left arm overhead, keeping shoulder down. Lower elbow to hip.
- Do 20-25 reps; switch sides and repeat.
PHOTOS: Winter's hottest bikini bodies
More Stories From FitSugar:
Jennifer Lopez's Secret Moves For Sexy Legs
Gisele & Tom, Fergie & Josh, and More Celeb Couples That Work Out Together
Madonna's Health and Fitness Secrets
The Best Tips From Tracy Anderson and Other Celebrity Trainers!
Get more Us! Follow us on
Twitter,
Friend us on Facebook,
Subscribe to Us Weekly
farmer Pattie Chelseth introduced a
"Local Food and Community Self-Governance" ordinance to the
Board of Supervisors in El Dorado County in the historic Gold Country of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The ordinance, referred to as a "food sovereignty proposal," was met with support from the five-member Board and those in attendance.
Raw Milk and Cow Shares
Chelseth's interest in a local food ordinance began last year after she was issued a cease and desist order from the California Department of Food and Agriculture for operating a cow-share that consisted of two cows and 15 owners. Under a cow share arrangement, people pay to become part owners (the purchase of "shares" of a cow. The shareholders pay the farmer to board and care for the cow, and as part of their ownership, they're entitled to a share of the raw milk.
California law permits sales of unpasteurized milk from farms and in retail stores, provided that the dairy is licensed and inspected. Some, including Chelseth, argue that cow shares fall outside of such regulation because the milk isn't being sold -- the shareholders already own the cow.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture disagrees. The agency considers cow shares to be commercial transactions, and subject to the public health regulations that govern dairy production in California.
Introducing the Local Food Ordinance
Like the Local Food and Community Self-Governance ordinances passed in Maine, the El Dorado County ordinance would exempt from state or federal licensure and safety inspection transactions that occur in the Placerville area directly between a producer and a consumer, when the food is for home consumption.
Unlike the ordinances passed in Maine, the El Dorado County
version includes five subsections that address the right to own livestock, the right to contract for care and production of such livestock, the right to the products of that livestock, the right to contract for specialty food items (such as baked goods and jams , and the right to participate in private food clubs.
Nearly
six months after Chelseth held a meeting on her farm to discuss the creation of a local food ordinance, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors took up the issue.
In Chelseth's remarks to the board, she quickly reviewed recent court holdings and documents that assert consumers do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice or a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or dairy herd, and that a cow-share contract does not fall outside the scope of state regulation (see the
Wisconsin decision for the most recent example .
She then cited the county's history of "noble pioneers and hearty farmers" and asked the board to be a pioneer and beacon for what she called citizens' "right to choose."
Support and Concerns
The board members each expressed support for the ordinance as well as some concerns. While supporting local producers would be beneficial to the area's economic development, and restore authority around local food production to the producers, board members also noted their desire to proceed cautiously and thoughtfully in drafting and passing this kind of ordinance.
Supervisors Ray Nutting and Ron Briggs shared their personal experiences of watching the agriculture and food system change and dealing with the laws as they stand today. Nutting expressed strong support for the ordinance, saying that the board would do whatever it could, within the limits of the California and U.S. Constitutions, to bring the laws and policies in line with the goals of the ordinance.
The board underscored that it was "on the same page" as Chelseth in wanting to enact the ordinance, but also needed to address some of the legal issues raised in this ordinance. Briggs noted that the legal issues were not insurmountable and that the board would work with Chelseth to create a better ordinance.
Supervisor Jack Sweeney suggested first creating a unified resolution asking the state and federal governments from interfering in what they consider an entirely local issue. Sweeney said the board needed to address the potential conflicts with the U.S. and California constitutions in order to prevent the supervisors from violating their oaths of office and from getting the county into significant legal trouble. "We don't want to be anarchists," he said. "We just want to have our home foods."
In the end, the supervisors
passed a motion directing Briggs and Norma Santiago "to prepare a resolution of general support to bring back to the Board of Supervisors for adoption."
Although El Dorado County did not pass the ordinance that night, it appears from the discussion at the meeting and the momentum these types of ordinances are gaining around the country, that it may not be long before El Dorado County declares its "rights" to local food self-governance.
To see video of the ordinance discussion at El Dorado County Board of Supervisor meeting on Jan. 24, 2012, click
here (note: after you click, the link will ask if you want to open the minutes of the meeting before it proceeds to the video page .
For the first time in over a month, no votes in the "race for the White House" were actually cast this week, unless you count the relative handful of early voters in upcoming primaries (and the laggards in Maine who may defy the insistence of the state GOP that Mitt Romney "won" the state .
That having been said, there was still plenty of activity this week, to say nothing of a small mountain of polling data. And, without question, the two trends that have marked the last couple weeks of polling still held true this week: Barack Obama had another solid week (although perhaps a touch less rosy than previous ones , and Mitt Romney had another uber-crappy week.
Romney, if polls are to be believed, can no longer legitimately be called the frontrunner on the GOP side, where former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum led him in the majority of polls released this week. What's more: Romney now trails Barack Obama in virtually all general election polling by at least a half dozen points, with the only bright spot being a very funky Fox News poll claiming he has a healthy lead in Ohio.
However, this week the data is not limited to the presidential campaign. There is simply a ton of data downballot, especially in the Senate, where it seems like most of the high-profile races got at least one poll this week (and one race got two polls that were very contradictory .
So, head past the jump for all the numbers that are fit to print (and some that aren't . It is Pollapalooza, in the Presidents' Day edition of the Weekend Digest.
simpler place.
Back in the day, a girl could just take a
Bayer aspirin and strategically insert it
between her knees to prevent getting pregnant.
But flash forward to 2012—the "
Year of the Bible."
Girls are
growing up much faster nowadays, and they're
increasingly choosing to
reject that
time-honored method of
birth control.
Suddenly, they're
kissing
each other on national TV,
flaunting their naughty bits on the covers of men's magazines, and generally running around like
dogs in
heat.
And you know who's
responsible for this
moral decline?
Could it be...
SATAN?!
No comments:
Post a Comment