Thought-regulation of genes made possible



RELATED
Scientists have created the first device which allows people to turn genes in mice on and off at will using only their brainwaves. In humans, the ability to regulate the expression of genes through thoughts alone could open up an entirely new avenue for medicine. 

A monitoring system that could pick up early neurological signs of an impending epileptic fit or a migraine, for example, could automatically trigger the manufacture and release of protein-based medication within the body. "Being able to control gene expression via power of thought is a dream that we've been chasing for over a decade," said Dr Martin Fussenegger from ETH Zurich, who led the research. 

The study made use of a human gene implanted in mice. A tiny chamber containing human cells and an LED light was inserted under each mouse's skin. The genes had been genetically modified to be sensitive to light, which made it possible to trigger and manage their protein production through shining the near-infrared light from the LED on them. 

The human test subjects were divided into three groups, and asked to either meditate, play a game of Minecraft, or watch the light coming from the mouse's body. Their brain activity was captured by a headset and analysed to establish their state of mind. The resulting signal was transmitted to the mice in the form of an electromagnetic field, which was able to light up the LED. The quantity of protein created by the guest genes depended on whether the human wearing the headset was relaxing or concentrating on playing Minecraft. Those who were asked to keep their eye on the mouse were able to see the effect their brain activity had on the red-coloured light, and thus on the genes within the implant. After some practice, this group learnt to exert conscious control over the amount of protein produced. They were able to alter their state of mind in order to change the output of the genes; a finding which gives the researchers hope that similar techniques could be used to influence implants within a person's own body.

Kissing bug' disease: Should you be worried about chagas?



'Kissing bug' disease: Should you be worried about chagas?
It might not have the profile of Ebola, but chagas can still be lethal.
Researchers at the annual gathering of tropical medicine experts have warned of a deadly disease from abroad that is threatening world health. They weren't talking about Ebola, but chagas, the "kissing bug" disease. 

Called a silent killer because it's often hard to diagnose in the early stages, chagas is a parasitic infection that can lead to serious cardiac and intestinal complications and even death. It typically spreads through blood-sucking "kissing" bugs that bite on people's faces during the night and is estimated to affect seven to eight million people worldwide. 

The disease can also be spread from blood transfusions, organ transplants and congenital transfer from mother to child, according to the CDC. Until recently it was considered a problem only in Mexico, Central America and South America. Over the past few years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has seen cases across half the United States, but in most cases the victims were believed to have been infected abroad. 

As recently as 2012, scientists expressed worry about the "globalization" of chagas. 

Now a team of researchers from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston is challenging that assumption. During a presentation at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene meeting in New Orleans, epidemiologist Melissa Nolan Garcia said her team had been following 17 Houston-area residents who had been infected. 

At least six of them appeared to have been infected locally as they had had insignificant travel outside the United States. Most of the patients spent a lot of time outdoors or lived in rural areas where the bugs are thought to live. The Baylor group also collected 40 kissing bugs near homes in 11 central-southern Texas counties and found that half had fed on human blood as well as that of a dozen kinds of animals ranging from dogs to raccoons. 

The researchers analyzed blood donors in Texas between 2008 and 2012 and found that one in every 6,500 donors tested positive for exposure to the parasite - a figure that is 50 times higher than the Centers for Disease Control estimate. 

"We were astonished to not only find such a high rate of individuals testing positive for chagas in their blood, but also high rates of heart disease that appear to be chagas-related," Nolan Garcia said in a statement released by the tropical medicine society. 

The researchers said that while the number of cases is growing, physicians' awareness of the disease is lagging. When caught in the early stages, the disease can be treated with two drugs, nifurtimox and benznidazole, but if asymptomatic infections are allowed to progress they can lead to serious complications. Many of those who are now recognized as having the disease were flagged after they donated blood and had never been treated for the disease before that. 

Virginia was identified by the Baylor researchers as one of the states having a higher number of cases but health officials in the state this summer cautioned that news reports of the disease being prevalent in the area are overstated.
    In the news
  1. The Kiss of Love protests seems to miss that key distinction, and therefore undermine the ...
  2. More news for kissing protest

    • Image result for kissing protest
    • Image result for kissing protest
    • Image result for kissing protest
    • Image result for kissing protest
    More images for kissing protest

  3. 2014 Kiss of Love protest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kiss_of_Love_protest
    Kiss of Love protest is a non-violent protest against moral policing started in Kerala and later spread to other parts of India. The movement began when a ...
  4. 'Kiss of Love' protests rattle Modi's conservative India | Reuters

    in.reuters.com/article/2014/11/.../india-kissing-idINKCN0IU1QB201411...
    1 day ago - NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A mass-kissing campaign against moral policing in a city in Kerala has swept the country, advertised via Facebook, ...

The Potential Dangers of Sucralose (Splenda)

December 03, 2000 | 1,239,269 views

By Dr. Mercola
Don't let these large companies fool you. There is no magic alternative to sugar when it comes to sweeteners. There are reports from all over the world from people who report being harmed by sucralose.
For example, there are reports of the following after eating sucralose:
  • Gastrointestinal problems
  • Seizures, dizziness and migraines
  • Blurred vision
  • Allergic reactions
  • Blood sugar increases and weight gain
At the time of my last analysis in 2006, there were only six human trials published on Splenda (sucralose). Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.
36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse, only 23 total were actually given sucralose for testing and here is the real killer: The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.

Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?

Splenda, best known for its marketing ploy "made from sugar so it tastes like sugar," has taken the sweetener industry by storm. Splenda has become the nation's number one selling artificial sweetener in a very short period of time.
Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of US households using Splenda products jumped from 3 to 20 percent. In a one year period, Splenda sales topped $177 million compared with $62 million spent on aspartame-based Equal and $52 million on saccharin-based Sweet 'N Low.
McNeil Nutritionals, in their marketing pitch for Splenda, emphasizes that Splenda has endured some of the most rigorous testing to date for any food additive. Enough so to convince the average consumer that it is in fact safe. They claim that over 100 studies have been conducted on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies are on animals.

Additional Concerns About Splenda Studies

There have been no long-term human toxicity studies published until after the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. Following FDA approval a human toxicity trial was conducted, but lasted only three months, hardly the length of time most Splenda users plan to consume sucralose. No studies have ever been done on children or pregnant women.
Much of the controversy surrounding Splenda does not focus just on its safety, but rather on its false advertising claims. The competition among sweeteners is anything but sweet. The sugar industry is currently suing McNeil Nutritionals for implying that Splenda is a natural form of sugar with no calories.

Is It REALLY Sugar?

There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose is a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose or sugar molecule. A sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars bound together: glucose and fructose.
The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes its claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, making it have zero calories.
It is not that Splenda is naturally zero calories. If your body had the capacity to metabolize it then it would no longer have zero calories.

How Much Splenda is Left In Your Body After You Eat It?

If you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated from animal studies) you will see that in fact 15% of sucralose is absorbed into your digestive system and ultimately is stored in your body. To reach a number such as 15% means some people absorb more and some people absorb less. In one human study, one of the eight participants did not excrete any sucralose even after 3 days. Clearly his body was absorbing and metabolizing this chemical. That is what our bodies are supposed to do.
The bottom line is that we all have our own unique biochemical make-up. Some of you will absorb and metabolize more than others. If you are healthy and your digestive system works well, you may be at higher risk for breaking down this product in your stomach and intestines. Please understand that it is impossible for the manufacturers of Splenda to make any guarantees based on their limited animal data.
If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid. Don’t let someone convince you that it is all in your head. You know your body better than anyone else.

How to Determine if Splenda is Harming You

The best way to determine if Splenda or sucralose is affecting you is to perform an elimination/challenge with it. First eliminate it and other artificial sweeteners from your diet completely for a period of one to two weeks. After this period reintroduce it in sufficient quantity.
For example, use it in your beverage in the morning, and eat at least two sucralose containing products the remainder of the day. On this day, avoid other artificial sweeteners so that you are able to differentiate which one may be causing a problem for you. Do this for a period of one to three days. Take notice of how your body is feeling, particularly if it feels different from when you were artificial sweetener free.

Splenda May Still Be Harming You

If you complete the elimination/challenge trial described above and do not notice any changes then it appears you are able to tolerate Splenda acutely. However, please understand that you are not out of the woods yet. The entire issue of long-term safety has never been established. Let's look at the facts again:
  • There have only been six human trials to date
  • The longest trial lasted three months
  • At LEAST 15% of Splenda is not excreted from your body in a timely manner
Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data? Remember that fat soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your fat for decades and devastate your health. If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not ever allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.

Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?

Please consider that the only organizations between you and potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).
The FDA has a long-standing history of ineffective screening and rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake cost 55,000 people their lives.
Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive. As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people.
So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda, and the choice is yours.

Read Splenda Horror Stories

We have more people on our site that have reported adverse reaction to Splenda than were formally studied in the research submitted for FDA approval. It would seem this collection of data is in some ways superior to the data submitted to the FDA for Splenda approval.
You can help us continue our Splenda research by supplying us with your own experience. If you or anyone you know has had an adverse reaction to Splenda or sucralose containing products, please tell us your story.
[+] Sources and References