Medical technology and discoveries?I apologize if what I'm doing would be considered spamming. http://www.physorg.com/news200046187.html>Pancreatic cancers use fructose, common in the Western diet, to fuel their growth>Pancreatic cancers use the sugar fructose, very common in the Western diet, to activate a key cellular pathway that drives cell division, helping the cancer to grow more quickly, a study by researchers at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center has found.>Although it's widely known that cancers use glucose, a simple sugar, to fuel their growth, this is the first time a link has been shown between fructose and cancer proliferation, said Dr. Anthony Heaney, an associate professor of medicine and neurosurgery, a Jonsson Cancer Center researcher and senior author of the study.>"The bottom line is the modern dietcontains a lot of refined sugar including fructose and it's a hidden danger implicated in a lot of modern diseases, such as obesity, diabetes and fatty liver," said Heaney, who also serves as director of the Pituitary Tumor and Neuroendocrine Program at UCLA. "In this study, we show that cancers can use fructose just as readily as glucose to fuel their growth.">The study appeared in the Aug. 1 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Research.>The source of fructose in the Western diet is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a corn-based sweetener that has been on the market since about 1970. HFCS accounts for more than 40 percent of the caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages, and it is the sole sweetener used in American soft drinks.>Between 1970 and 1990, the consumption of HFCS in the U.S. has increased over 1,000 percent, according to an article in the April 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Food companies use HFCS - a mixture of fructose and glucose - because it's inexpensive, easy to transport and keeps foods moist. And because it is so sweet, it's cost effective for companies to use small quantities of HCFS in place of more expensive sweeteners or flavorings.>In his study, Heaney and his team took pancreatic tumors from patients and cultured and grew the malignant cells in Petri dishes. They then added glucose to one set of cells and fructose to another. Using mass spectrometry, they were able to follow the carbon-labeled sugars in the cells to determine what exactly they were being used for and how. >Heaney found that the pancreatic cancer cells could easily distinguish between glucose and fructose even though they are very similar structurally, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the cancer cells metabolized the sugars in very different ways. In the case of fructose, the pancreatic cancer cells used the sugar in the transketolase-driven non-oxidative pentose phosphate pathway to generate nucleic acids, the building blocks of RNA and DNA, which the cancer cells need to divide and proliferate.>"Traditionally, glucose and fructose have been considered as interchangeable monosaccharide substrates that are similarly metabolized, and little attention has been given to sugars other than glucose," the study states. "However, fructose intake has increased dramatically in recent decades and cellular uptake of glucose and fructose uses distinct transporters … These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation. They have major significance for cancer patients, given dietary refined fructose consumption.">As in anti-smoking campaigns, a federal effort should be launched to reduce refined fructose intake, Heaney said.>"I think this paper has a lot of public health implications," Heaney said. "Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of HFCS in our diets.">Heaney said that while this study was done in pancreatic cancer, these finding may not be unique to that cancer type.>Going forward, Heaney and his team are exploring whether it's possible to block the uptake of fructose in the cancer cells with a small molecule, taking away one of the fuels they need to grow. The work is being done in cell lines and in mice, Heaney said.
>"Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of HFCS in our diets."Get my gun.
>>1821 We tried, but it was full of HFCS.
>>1821You know it doesn't need to be based on increasing regulation, they could just stop paying the companies to use HFCS just because it's based off an American product (corn) and cut back on tariffs for other sweeteners.
>>1825Yeah here's the thing about federal programs with no expiration date: they almost never go away. Because no matter how asinine and wasteful they are, somewhere in the country, they bring jobs and pork to some senator's state.
In today's technologically advanced society of internet blogs and penny loafers, what doesn't cause cancer?
>>1835 True. But there is a threshold for how easily they cause it.And technically, they aren't saying HFCS -cause- cancer. They're saying it exacerbates specific cancers.
>>1847In very, very dramatic ways. From being a root cause on why the western world is so god damned mother fucking FAT, to why cancer rates are what they are, to possible implications that they're at least semi responsible for learning disorders and a bit of malnutrition. In short, this shit is to us what asbestos was to our older family members and ancestors, and we'd be better off without it. The only reason we use this almost literal poison is because the government PAYS Big Corn to produce it, and because of government subsidy, it's one penny cheaper per 8 ounce can of soda than the nearest alternative.I wonder what happens when the medical industry crashes headlong into Big Corn Agriculture.
>>1825the whole corn funding is rediculous anyway. there are superior products to subsidize. like tomatoes, apples and spinach.>>1835continued studies have shown a strong link between life and cancer. they suggest mass murder as solution to the number of cancer patients.
>>1853>the whole corn funding is rediculous anyway.It's a holdover from (I think?) World War II. It made perfect sense at the time, but we're still stuck with it because federal programs never die.
We still don't know why the liver has such a problem with absorbing HFSC, why are we giving everyone major doses of something we don't fully understand?Urrrgh.
>>1861Because the United States's regulations and regulatory agencies have a reactionary mindest, where they operate under the assumption that products are safe until definitively proven otherwise. This rest of the world takes a precautionary stance, where products are banned if there is any reasonable suspicion (and sometimes unreasonable suspicion) that they might be harmful.It's a balancing act; we let chemicals into the market that are strongly suspected to be dangerous, but the precautionary stance may prevent chemicals from being used that may later turn out to have been harmless.If it's any consolation, the US's stance is dying out. The precautionary stance has spread to most of the major global markets. We've already begun to adapt, but the only way to stay in the game is to follow their lead completely.
>>1862Pretty sure if we didn't have a bunch of goons capitalizing on a minority of people dieing because of their shit, that mentality of 'safe until proven dangerous' would've been staked to the ground like the undead monster it is.
>>1867Part of the origin of that protocol was some legislation that was passed back in the 70s. It was pretty revolutionary at the time, as there was no prior major legislation limiting what consumers could be exposed to.Well, I think. My memory's hazy, it's been a while since I looked at this material. Mark Schapiro wrote a great book about the subject called Exposed. I recommend reading it if you're curious.
also i'd never heard the phrase 'Pigovian tax' before:http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/12/the-end-of-antibiotics-health-infectionsMeet gene NDM 1, bacteria's latest weapon in our mutual war.
>>1920if only there was a way to make our immunity system stronger.
>>1920I'm not familiar with the specifics of the technology, but would it be possible to add to antibiotic regimens a delivery system for micro-RNAs specific to that gene?
>>1920Will this make anti-microbial polymer less effective?If antibiotics aren't going to work anymore we may as well try and get better at sterilizing things, particularly surgical equipment.
>>1920What a disgustingly sensationalist article.
>>1926 >disgustingly sensationalist Noooooooooooot really, sadly. It's pretty much a blow-by-blow coverage of this scientific journal:http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(10)70143-2/abstractAnd a personal interview with its lead researchers. This is the next big threat following MRSA, which itself is STILL an issue. The 10 year prediction was a direct professional quote.While nowhere NEAR as bad as the recent Swine Flu, it represents the next stage in bacterial evolution in response to human-designed protections, and will require new and novel changes in our medical practices very quickly.Which might lead us to...>>1921 >>1923 >antibiotic regimens a delivery system for micro-RNAs specific to that geneYes, but theres two problems with that. For one, its a VERY expensive and largely untested method compared to traditional antibiotic production and use. Secondly, theres the issue of delivering said payload.The US military is testing a unique method of solving the second issue with gas-fired injectors, focusing on countering GM bioweapons:http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/armys-vaccine-plan-inject-troops-with-gas-propelled-electro-charged-dna/But as you can read from that article, its got its own issues. Theres another link to a different story in there about using GM tobbaco plants to make them into cheaper bio-generators for vaccines.I wouldn't be surprised at genetically modified organisms being embraced more strongly in response to health threats, when they've been rejected as being developed more frequently AS health threats.
>>1927The bacteria that possess the NDM 1 enzyme are still susceptible to certain antibiotics (not everything is beta lactam-based), and the article is making it seem otherwise. The drugs they are resistant to are the standard treatments? So change the treatments. Yes, antibiotic resistance is occurring at an alarming rate, but I don't see how phrases like "In many ways, this is it. This is potentially the end." followed by calling that view "optimistic" are there for any reason but to scare the public.
>>1928>The drugs they are resistant to are the standard treatments? So change the treatments.The problem is that they are running out of things which can be used for treatment and the less options they have the faster the germs become immune.It's like how getting injured in a battle doesn't just take you closer to death but also makes it harder to continue fighting.
>>1930And we've been "running out" of things to use for years now. That particular trait was even discovered over a decade ago."This is the end" to antibiotics my foot.
>>1931>we've been "running out" of things to use for years nowThat makes the problem worse, not better.
>>1938He's saying that things not getting much worse in the last 10 years means it won't get much worse in the next 10.Which isn't flawless logic itself, but not what he meant.
>>1938>>1939I'm not saying antibiotic resistant bacteria aren't a threat.I'm saying the article is full of gross fear-mongering aimed at a public not very informed about the issue.
I know personally at least three people who've gotten MRSA, the antibiotic-resistant staph infection, and either died (two of them), or been horribly fucked up by it, so I know how serious the threat of resistant bacteria is. But I'm optimistic. http://www.physorg.com/news200144888.htmlhttp://www.physorg.com/news182450282.htmlhttp://www.physorg.com/news189963378.htmlhttp://www.physorg.com/news194186985.htmlThey've developed paints that contain MRSA-inhibiting enzymes, and nano-surfaces based on shark skin which, by their structure, inhibit the growth of bacteria by making it harder for them to grow in mats. And, as ever, there's always nature to look to for inspiration. Vultures and other scavengers have immune systems made of steel, and we're just barely getting an inkling on home our immune system works.