In our rural environment almost anything can happen. We have been adopted by a family of Hawks.
Here is what I am reading today:
“Intriguingly, the UW study, published this week in Nature Immunology, also raises the possibility that misdirected killer T cells might at other times act protectively and not add to lesion formation. Instead they might retaliate against the cells that tried to make them mistake the wrappings around nerve endings as dangerous. Scientists Qingyong Ji and Luca Castelli performed the research with Joan Goverman, UW professor and chair of immunology. Goverman is noted for her work on the cells involved in autoimmune disorders of the central nervous system and on laboratory models of multiple sclerosis.”
“Stunned Qantas Airways passengers watched out their windows as a large python clung to a plane’s wing during a two-hour flight from Australia’s northeastern city of Cairns to Papua New Guinea. The 3-meter (10-foot) python fought to stay on the wing, pulling itself forward only to be pushed back by the frigid wind.
Passenger Robert Weber videotaped the struggle and told Australia’s Fairfax Media that the wind whipping the snake against the side of the plane left a bloody smear.”
presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s annual meeting
“The bystander effect is well-known in behavioural psychology and suggests that the more people who witnessing a violent emergency the less likely it is that someone will intervene. It was first identified in the 1960s, but conducting research on the phenomenon has been difficult”
The first live pictures of the giant squids!
5 Comments
mlauth · January 15, 2013 at 12:20 am
Reading about this article, “Model for brain signaling flawed, new study finds,” it shows the importance of people verifying result led by other researchers. Not only do thing change in brain as we age, but the physiology through the whole body changes as we get older. I remember reading a study once about the plasticity of the brain and how a patient that loses a limb gets the sensation of the missing limb due to “rewiring” of the brain. The also state others senses in that become enhanced. Our brains continuously change throughout our lives, and chemicals/cells in the brain vary though out as well. One should not make assumption with out verifying with other.
shelbyromuk · January 15, 2013 at 1:49 pm
I found the article titled “Investigating the Bystander Effect Using Virtual Reality” to be very interesting. I believe the bystander effect to be particularly intriguing, and the new technology that has been created sounds very promising. It is awesome that it would be applicable to various situations as well. I wonder, though, the cross-cultural discrepancies that may exist with this phenomenon. It would be interesting to study the actions take or not taken in bystanders from the United States compared to individuals from Europe, or Asia. I look forward to learning about what other discoveries and new knowledge the virtual reality technique produces!
mlauth · January 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Everyday the body responds to pathogen by either the innate or acquire immune response. The acquire immune system is design to attack SPECIFIC pathogen or exiled cells (example: cancer). This is determine by random generation of certain gene on WBC. However, like in the article “Multiple sclerosis study reveals how killer T cells learn to recognize nerve fiber insulators”, the acquire immune system can mess up and actually damage good and healthy cells. This is an example of not just the degeneration of Schwann Cell or Oligodendroctyes, but also Type 1 diabetes. Majority of Type 1 diabetes is, unfortunately, due to an autoimmune response to the pancreas that damage the beta cells which produce insulin for your body. Without these cells, a person become diabetic and requires insulin injection to survive. The reason both the autoimmune response to the beta cell and the Schwann Cell/Oligodendroctye occurs is still unknown. Determining either pathways would be beneficial not only to patients that have had these responses but also preventing MS and type 1 diabetes from occuring in future patients.
shelbyromuk · January 17, 2013 at 11:28 am
It is very interesting to read about the link that diet drinks have on depression. Although artificial sweeteners have been extensively tested in order to ensure their safety, there is something to be said about the link to depression that consumption has developed. Perhaps it is a combination of the ingredients in the beverages, or possibly the other factors that the author mentioned. I think it is very important to consider the point that was made regarding those who may be drinking the beverages – people suffering from obesity or diabetes. Therefore, factors such as weight, BMI, amount of exercise, and even daily caloric intake should be taken into consideration to generate a more knowledgable analysis. Personally, I find the introduction of chemicals to make something that is, in nature, bad for the body healthier concerning. Things that are not beneficial to our bodies, brains, etc. should be things that we want to stray from. I would say this is definitely an issue that is culture-specific to westernized areas such as the US and UK due to those motivations. Like in the article regarding the bystander effect, I see cross-cultural study and analysis as something that would be beneficial for the researchers in targeting specific reasons for the link.
Information like this is important to share with the population, specifically populations that mirror the US or UK, because we are living in an age where individuals seek pharmaceutical help rather than identifying and ceasing behaviors that can be affecting their ailments. No current medicines are perfect, all have negative side effects. And instead of increasing the public’s reliance on medicine that affects our natural chemistry, I believe we should be actively researching behavioral therapies for treatment methods.
Steph S · January 19, 2013 at 4:35 pm
For “Depression and Diet Drinks”:
The original study this article was debating seems questionable. It seemed like the original study that came to questionable conclusions because disobeyed the common well accepted holy grail rule that correlation does not equal causation. I agreed with the article that there could have been many other reasons for the results the study got. Diet drinkers probably are trying to control their weight more because they think it is too high, therefore it could in fact be a marker for obesity, and obese people are often more depressed. After reading this article and thinking about the original study that made the claims I started to wonder if people that drink diet drinks are more depressed or is it the other way around that depressed people drink more diet drinks? How could the original study be sure that A caused B, and B didn’t cause A?