The Fount of Useless Information

MS Treatment That Resets Immune System Shows Promise In Safety Trial
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/261536.php

I mentioned earlier about some work using nanoparticles for work attempting to reset the immune system to stop attacking self. Well this article talks about an approach using the patient’s own white blood cells, but mentions that the nanoparticles might be a better approach and it appears to be successful.

It is nice to see this stuff move out of the lab, too bad it takes so long. Still, there are many cases where rushing has resulted in costly failure, so I fully support the intent of how things are done (the intent is often violated by the highest bidder, though).

As a case in point from my personal experience… Years ago (too many now to count) I worked for a period at a company that tested chemicals on animals (I worked in the area that prepared the compounds, though that was in the building with the dogs; sure all animals stink, but the dogs were the worst (and the non-stop barking!)). Many of the studies were multi-generational and would last 2-3 years. The studies would generally start with an ‘acute’ test which would look at the toxic level so that long-term studies could be done. One company, though, was so sure that their compound was safe they wanted to save on time and run the studies in parallel. Our compounding area was divided into the feed section (mostly) for the long-term studies and the not-feed section for the (mostly) short-term studies and I was in the latter. Because we were working with unknown chemicals we wore full body suites and respirators (quite uncomfortable!), just in case. Well, there are generally four groups in each study. The no-dose, or control group, then low, medium and high dose. So, a week into a 2-3 year long study we got a complaint: why did we keep sending all this food for this study? We investigated and it turns out that, on the first day of the 2-3 year multi-generational study _all_ the animals in the high dose died, the second day all in the medium dose and the third day, every single one in the low dose croaked. Good thing we assumed everything was deadly, since that one turned out to be! So, the moral of this story is: animal testing really does save human lives. Just because _most_ of the chemicals tested are innocuous doesn’t mean that _all_ of them are!

Is Barefoot-Style Running Best? New Studies Cast Doubt
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-running-best-new-studies-cast-doubt/

I talked earlier about my intention to try out ‘barefoot’ running (not really barefoot, more like a foot glove). After switching to jogging on the balls of my feet for about 18 months, last year I got a pair (Vibrams, I think they are called) and tried them out. I was surprised (shocked, really) that the balls of my feet felt like they were on fire after only a half mile or so (typically our walk/jog route is 4 miles). I stuck with it and was eventually able to get to the point I could go about 2.5 miles before the burning sensation would start, but further efforts didn’t seem to change any of that. Because that sensation happened whether jogging or walking I started to use my shoes again when I walked and, with winter setting in, I haven’t used them for at least 6 months. I started to ramp up my jogging a month or so ago and made the conscious decision to go with shoes thinking I might switch later. I am now (even before reading this article) not sure I want to switch back. With the shoes I have the option of heel walking/jogging, something that isn’t the case without them (quite painful to do heel first walking with the Vibrams!) and I find that switching to heel-first even for a few 10′s of feet gives my muscles a nice break and allows me to go further (went 7 miles earlier this week, though paid for it the next day).

If you are thinking about going barefoot, I suggest you take it very slow. Though I feel like I am less prone to injuring myself going on the balls of my feet, I can do that without giving up my shoes!

I feel sure I blogged about high fructose corn syrup at some point, but am not finding it in my searches…

Sweet Confusion
Does high fructose corn syrup deserve such a bad rap?
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/350460/description/Sweet_Confusion

Fructose has got a bad rap lately as a specific nutrient that is bad for you in excess. When I had read on it in the past the evidence that excess fructose was particularly bad for you seemed quite strong, but this article indicates those preliminary reports were premature in condemning it. The problem seems to boil down, though we fat-assed Americans are reluctant to accept it, that excess calorie intact is the problem and ‘high’ fructose (often just 55% of the sugar as opposed to ‘low’ when it is ‘just’ 45% of the sugar) has nothing to do with anything. Of course, the marketers will continue to push their high sugar (but low fructose) products as if they are healthy, yet it is equally as unhealthy to guzzle sugary drinks (or foods, for that matter) in excess no matter what kind of sugar is in it.

Though few people will actually read this article (it is in a magazine called ‘Science’ News after all), I am sure that the marketing people will continue to blitz us with the ‘fructose is bad’ mantra as long as they think it will enable them to pack on excess margins.

Pretty soon Americans will question that the Earth revolves around the sun and begin to fear falling off the edge if they travel outside the country’s boundaries. I think the reason Forrest Gump spoke so well to the American psyche is that is is all too familiar.