From article, "What's an Earth-Like Planet Anyway?"
(Capturing the first image of a planet like ours and seeing it with our eyes will help us begin to characterize its properties and spark a movement to quickly further research. The photograph of Earth 2.0 would be a defining moment in human history and is sure to transform how we see ourselves in the universe.)
Me, "I agree. The positives of finding another Earth would include: more research money for telescopes. More astronomer jobs. More rocket and long distance probe research: to maybe one day actually get a probe out there. All of these things would benefit humanity because it continues our quest to if not find life in our own solar system to find it in another. And maybe colonize it in the far future."
Friday, December 16, 2016
A Political Dilemma? Not Really.
From article, "Jared Kushner: Trump is closer to Chuck Schumer’s vision of the coming infrastructure bill than Mitch McConnell’s"
(...a political dilemma for Schumer and the Democrats. If it’s Trump who’s likely to get most of the political credit for doing things their way, with a trillion dollars in new federal spending, why the hell should they help him pass this bill? They’re potentially signing their own political death warrant. There’ll be thousands upon thousands of families across the country who owe their new jobs to the “Trump stimulus” and are apt to reward Trump for it in 2020 — and maybe the GOP in 2018, even if most Republicans vote against the bill. Imagine if the Senate passes Trump’s plan with 60 votes, 48 from the Democratic caucus plus 12 squishes from the GOP, and most conservatives like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul vote no. Trump will hit the trail in 2018 for his party even though they crossed him on the bill, and if Bannon’s right about the political benefits, Trump’s endorsement could end up helping Republicans win some of those vulnerable Democratic seats in red states like Montana and Missouri. Schumer, in other words, could end up tanking his party by making Trump’s great infrastructure victory possible.)
Me, "The Republicans tried obstructionism during the Obama administration. Doing everything to stime progress. There was a reason why this Congress was voted one of the worst producing Congresses ever. I think the only way Democrats can get anything done is to work with President Trump. The above dilemma makes it seem that Republicans can win more seats by claiming that they went along with the President even though they didn't. I'd like to remind voters that House and Senate Democrat and Republican votes are recorded. So, if the Democrats help out Trump they can go back to their constituents and say I voted for this legislation; I did good by you. So, no matter what President Trump says they have their voting record to fall back on. And really if you want to get things done in Washington you have to cross party lines. Obstruction does not work."
Continuing from article, (That’s the great hope for Schumer on infrastructure. If he and his caucus deliver for Trump, will it also be seen as their victory? Specifically, if Jon Tester votes for the bill and Trump goes into Montana in 2018 and asks red-state voters to defeat Tester anyway, whom do voters there side with? The president who spearheaded the big jobs program or the Democrat whose support was critical to making it law? Same goes for McCaskill in Missouri, Manchin in West Virginia, Bill Nelson in Florida, and on and on for all sorts of Dems who are up for reelection in states Trump won. Can Schumer get a guarantee from Trump in return for supporting the infrastructure bill that Trump won’t personally campaign against any Democrats who end up voting for it? He’d better get something in return. If Dems make Trump’s spending dream happen and Republicans get the credit, the GOP could end up with something close to a filibuster-proof Senate majority in 2019 — with an outside shot at 60 seats or better. Democrats would be completely locked out of government. The left would implode.)
Me, "Hopefully, this Congress can work with Trump and do great things."
(...a political dilemma for Schumer and the Democrats. If it’s Trump who’s likely to get most of the political credit for doing things their way, with a trillion dollars in new federal spending, why the hell should they help him pass this bill? They’re potentially signing their own political death warrant. There’ll be thousands upon thousands of families across the country who owe their new jobs to the “Trump stimulus” and are apt to reward Trump for it in 2020 — and maybe the GOP in 2018, even if most Republicans vote against the bill. Imagine if the Senate passes Trump’s plan with 60 votes, 48 from the Democratic caucus plus 12 squishes from the GOP, and most conservatives like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul vote no. Trump will hit the trail in 2018 for his party even though they crossed him on the bill, and if Bannon’s right about the political benefits, Trump’s endorsement could end up helping Republicans win some of those vulnerable Democratic seats in red states like Montana and Missouri. Schumer, in other words, could end up tanking his party by making Trump’s great infrastructure victory possible.)
Me, "The Republicans tried obstructionism during the Obama administration. Doing everything to stime progress. There was a reason why this Congress was voted one of the worst producing Congresses ever. I think the only way Democrats can get anything done is to work with President Trump. The above dilemma makes it seem that Republicans can win more seats by claiming that they went along with the President even though they didn't. I'd like to remind voters that House and Senate Democrat and Republican votes are recorded. So, if the Democrats help out Trump they can go back to their constituents and say I voted for this legislation; I did good by you. So, no matter what President Trump says they have their voting record to fall back on. And really if you want to get things done in Washington you have to cross party lines. Obstruction does not work."
Continuing from article, (That’s the great hope for Schumer on infrastructure. If he and his caucus deliver for Trump, will it also be seen as their victory? Specifically, if Jon Tester votes for the bill and Trump goes into Montana in 2018 and asks red-state voters to defeat Tester anyway, whom do voters there side with? The president who spearheaded the big jobs program or the Democrat whose support was critical to making it law? Same goes for McCaskill in Missouri, Manchin in West Virginia, Bill Nelson in Florida, and on and on for all sorts of Dems who are up for reelection in states Trump won. Can Schumer get a guarantee from Trump in return for supporting the infrastructure bill that Trump won’t personally campaign against any Democrats who end up voting for it? He’d better get something in return. If Dems make Trump’s spending dream happen and Republicans get the credit, the GOP could end up with something close to a filibuster-proof Senate majority in 2019 — with an outside shot at 60 seats or better. Democrats would be completely locked out of government. The left would implode.)
Me, "Hopefully, this Congress can work with Trump and do great things."
Trump Surrounding Himself With A Lot Of Wise People
From article, "What Elon Musk’s Addition to Trump’s Advisory Team Means"
(Trump Tower, meet Tesla. President-elect Donald Trump invited Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to help advise and shape potential policies. Trump listed Musk as one of three additions to his Presidential Strategic Policy Forum.
The addition of another CEO shouldn’t surprise anyone, as the president-elect seems content with surrounding himself with a cadre of like-minded millionaires. Trump also seems to be meeting with nearly everyone – be it friend or frenemy – who he thinks can help give some level of ‘normalcy’ and stabilize the whirlwind of post-election controversy. Musk’s invitation to the advisory board also makes a lot more sense than Kanye West’s recent discussion at Trump Tower.
As an aggressive businessman and progressive innovator, Musk could sway the president-elect to rethink his strategy on climate change.)
Me, "I think it is a positive thing that Trump thinks highly enough of Elon Musk that he is including him in meetings and on his policy forum. Everybody is like, 'Oh no, Trump will lead us into a war. Or, Oh no, Trump doesn't' know how to lead.
But from what I have seen. He is taking his new job as president seriously, surrounding himself with a lot of wise people. What else can you ask for?"
The UN Needs To Reconsider Its Rules Governing The Ownership And Sovereignty Of Space
From article, Who Owns the Moon? | Space Law & Outer Space Treaties
(The Outer Space Treaty was ratified in 1967, largely based on a set of legal principles the general assembly accepted in 1962.
...It should be emphasized again that the U.N. treaties are nonbinding, but there is a sort of international pressure by other nations when a nation strays from the principles.
The treaty has several major points to it. Some of the principal ones are:
Space is free for all nations to explore, and sovereign claims cannot be made. Space activities must be for the benefit of all nations and humans. (So, nobody owns the moon.)
Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are not allowed in Earth orbit, on celestial bodies or in other outer-space locations. (In other words, peace is the only acceptable use of outer-space locations).
Individual nations (states) are responsible for any damage their space objects cause. Individual nations are also responsible for all governmental and nongovernmental activities conducted by their citizens. These states must also "avoid harmful contamination" due to space activities.
Boundary disputes and property rights. For the moment, the Outer Space Treaty says that space and celestial bodies cannot be claimed by other nations, but it is unclear how these provisions would apply to private companies. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (see above) does not allow for territorial claims. But with nations talking about landing on places such as the moon and Mars, it is unclear how the exploitation rights and the property rights would work in the case of adjacent colonies. Some suggest that Antarctica, a territory owned by no nation and used mainly for scientific purposes, could be a model to follow — but not everyone agrees...
...It should be emphasized again that the U.N. treaties are nonbinding, but there is a sort of international pressure by other nations when a nation strays from the principles.)
(The Outer Space Treaty was ratified in 1967, largely based on a set of legal principles the general assembly accepted in 1962.
...It should be emphasized again that the U.N. treaties are nonbinding, but there is a sort of international pressure by other nations when a nation strays from the principles.
The treaty has several major points to it. Some of the principal ones are:
Space is free for all nations to explore, and sovereign claims cannot be made. Space activities must be for the benefit of all nations and humans. (So, nobody owns the moon.)
Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are not allowed in Earth orbit, on celestial bodies or in other outer-space locations. (In other words, peace is the only acceptable use of outer-space locations).
Individual nations (states) are responsible for any damage their space objects cause. Individual nations are also responsible for all governmental and nongovernmental activities conducted by their citizens. These states must also "avoid harmful contamination" due to space activities.
Boundary disputes and property rights. For the moment, the Outer Space Treaty says that space and celestial bodies cannot be claimed by other nations, but it is unclear how these provisions would apply to private companies. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (see above) does not allow for territorial claims. But with nations talking about landing on places such as the moon and Mars, it is unclear how the exploitation rights and the property rights would work in the case of adjacent colonies. Some suggest that Antarctica, a territory owned by no nation and used mainly for scientific purposes, could be a model to follow — but not everyone agrees...
...It should be emphasized again that the U.N. treaties are nonbinding, but there is a sort of international pressure by other nations when a nation strays from the principles.)
So, where we went from no private or public use of space resources in the early 1960's, now in the 2020's, the whole idea of living permanently in space and can you own something comes up. If you live in some kind of country's or mining's colony, which country's laws do you follow? The UN needs to reconsider its rules governing the ownership and sovereignty of space.
Personally, I think any country, or private company has the right to own a piece of property out in space.
It doesn't make sense not too. In fact it would lead to more peaceful cooperation between countries here on Earth. There are a lot of countries on Earth looking for new resources and butting heads with their neighbors. It's a very tough fact to contemplate.
Space, on the other hand, is a HUGE place.
You mean to tell me if a country can own a piece of land in space, either as a new colony or as a new piece of that country it would lead to more fighting for resources here on Earth? Of course not. It would lead to more countries wanting to develop space travel to bring back to it new resources from space. There would be an end to most wars because there would be less of a need to fight over resources.
The only reason countries have been willing to use Antarctica, only for research, is because no sane person wants to live there!! Space is different. Space, is huge. And the opportunities are endless. Should we live by a 1960's point of view or rearrange our thinking in 2016?
I think we really need to manage space better. We should come up with rules about how much, a year, per say, a country is allowed to claim land on other moons and planets. Outerspace colonies? How many can each country build a year?
Can another nation's astronaut flying on a NASA mission make a territory claim for another country?
There are a lot more questions here. I am for expanison of countries in space because I know a lot of countries here are running low on resources and space is filled with them. Owning space is not something to be feared. It's something we are going to have to deal with at some point.
Better to make the rules now so Earth countries know how to proceed, other wise we could have a wild west in space. (Remember Russia planting it's flag at the arctic? Or a country building islands at sea?) Even, future colonies could decide they'd rather go it alone because the rules on space ownership are convoluted. We could have an independence war in space. It would be a shame.
Renewable Energy Is A Jobs Creator
Picture By Jürgen from Sandesneben, Germany - Flickr, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1372121
(More than 8.1 million people are now working for the global renewable energy industry, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.
A new report, Renewable Energy and Jobs — Annual Review 2016 (PDF), published Wednesday by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), revealed the new jobs figure of 8.1 million, a 5% increase from 2015, which does not include the approximate 1.3 million people currently employed by the large-hydropower sector.
These figures are important, not only as they show the continuing rise of the global renewable energy industry, but also as they contrast significantly with an overall decrease in jobs in the global energy sector at large. IRENA pointed to the US in its press release to highlight this contrast, which saw renewable energy jobs increase by 6% in 2015, while employment in oil and gas decreased by 18%.
“This increase is being driven by declining renewable energy technology costs and enabling policy frameworks,” said Adnan Z. Amin, IRENA Director-General. “We expect this trend to continue as the business case for renewables strengthens and as countries move to achieve their climate targets agreed in Paris.”)
Me, "Very Interesting. It shows that renewable clean power is developing (and other new energy technologies), helping reduce our dependence on Fossil Fuels. There will always be a need for Fossil Fuels in the chemicals industry, but we have to be careful about what we dump into the atmosphere: CO2, Methane, and if renewable energy is catching on, it helps everyone. We only have one Earth, for now. We have to be protective of it. Even if we find a second Earth, terraform another planet, or many many more Earths out in space, (By more Earths, I mean habitable planets) what we learn here, protecting our planet, we can use out there."
How Many People Need New Computers?
Picture By Jeremy Banks - originally posted to Flickr as New Computers, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4174558
Me, "The thing that is not factored into this article is how many people need new computers? A lot of people are holding on to what they have and just upgrading their old computer. At some point a saturation in the PC market was bound to happen. I figure what we are seeing is less demand and less need, not so much a turn towards tablets. Once these older PC computers start being recycled, new computer sales will rebound."
From article, "PC sales stink, but hope for bottom remains"
(Analysts aren't shocked by the PC market declines in the first quarter and expect enterprise upgrades to partially save the day in the second half of 2016.
The first quarter for the PC market was ugly, but analysts still maintain that a bottom may be in place. )
One City. NYC. But Really 5 Cities.
By AEMoreira042281 (all photos) - Own work (all photos), CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3919000
Me, "As the above pictures show, the MTA covers a lot of NYS and City services.
The solution to where to find money for all of the MTA's projects are either some of these proposals will never happen, or some will be kicked to a future time when there is money. The MTA just does not have enough money to do any of these project right now. (Except when Gov Cuomo says they do.) They are struggling to build East Side Access, the Second Avenue Subway and reconstructing stations and infrastructure. Now Toll Booth elimination...
The only way any of these projects will happen is for borough presidents to be granted the ability to raise their own taxes, by both the City Council and Mayor to fund transportation and other improvements in their boroughs. The borough presidents do get some money to invest in their boroughs but it really is not a lot if you think of NYC budget is in the billions of dollars and borough presidents only get a few million in discretionary money. I know tax is a bad word. I know no one wants to pay more than they do right now. But, think of all the improvements that could be made if borough presidents had more funding then they are allowed right now. A small tax, 1% or something, sales, residential, or income tax, etc I believe would be acceptable if people in the boroughs saw vast improvements that right now the city and the MTA can't afford. We are one city, NYC. But, we are really five cities and we should act like it."
From article, "How will NYC fund mass transportation needs? (commentary)"
(When it comes to public transportation, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's recent speech on his proposed $82.1 billion 2016-2017 fiscal year budget sounded great but provided little substance. He failed to give any specifics of how he will come up with $2.5 billion promised to meet the shortfall in the proposed $28 billion 2015-2019 MTA Five Year Capital Plan.
The Mayor is kicking the can down the road. He hasn't given any specific information on how the MTA and NYC will come up with funding to implement transportation projects advocated by many other NYC elected officials, constituents and transit advocates.)
Microprocessors With More Brains Per Chip.
By Wgsimon - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15193542
Me, "This article is a little dated. Going back to Nov 2015 but its definitely interesting due to the fact that Intel keeps increasing the number of processors on a chip. First it was then dual, quad, now it will be 6, 8 and even 10 processors on a chip. This means faster processing chips as more of the computer processing of programs is spread out and processed at the same time in each core.
This is reminiscent of the 90's when intel was trying to speed up the single core processor but it eventually got to hot to cool down successful, which lead to multicore chips.
It makes a lot of people wonder if there is an upper limit to putting more processors together on a chip. With the size of chips still getting smaller. I don't believe that is a problem.
Even if minaturization slowed, there is plenty of space on a motherboard to put multi-core chips. Remember, that when talking about microprocessor, chip transistors, that are made smaller then the width of a human hair, microprocessors are still much smaller compared to the size of a whole computer.
So, get ready for even faster computers."
From Article, "Intel's 10-core monster planned for Q2 2016 debut, according to new leak Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/broadwell-e-roadmap-leak/#ixzz4T1lIZ1mN Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | DigitalTrends on Facebook"
(It wasn’t long ago that we reported on a leaked invoice sheet that was believed to detail some of the specifications of the new Broadwell-E CPUs, and now a roadmap is purported to point to a Q2 2016 release for the 6, 8, and 10-core monsters, according to a leak from Chinese tech site Benchlife.
While the Broadwell-E line is rumored to include as many as seven different chips, the star of the show is definitely the i7-6950X. This 10-core chip supports Hyper-Threading for a total of 20 threads, and sports 25M of total cache. The other CPUs in the lineup boast six or eight cores, all of them with Hyper-Threading, and total cache ranges from 15 to 25M.)
Neurotransmitter GABA And Autism Symptoms
Me, "Alright science!! So, basically, Autism does not have to be a debilitating untreatable illness. And, of course, now all drug companies will race to be the first ones with a medicine to treat this illness. You're talking a very profitable Med. I'd try and find out who will, and invest in those companies. Just some friendly advice."
From Article, "Stunning autism discovery could result in huge treatment breakthroughs"
(A stunning new breakthrough on autism could have huge implications for treating this disorder.
As we recently reported, scientists at Harvard and MIT have made a huge discovery on autism by discovering a link between the neurotransmitter GABA and autism symptoms, which could result in new treatments and diagnosis methods — but what exactly does this mean for autism sufferers?
Autism is essentially a neurodevelopmental disorder that manifests itself in difficulties with social interaction and communication, both verbanl and non-verbal. It can also result in restricted and repetitive behavior. The signs usually start showing up in the child’s first two years of life, with symptoms coming on gradually. Environmental and genetic factors appear to cause it, although sometimes it can be caused by birth defects in rare cases. There are an estimated 21.7 million people in the world who have autism.
Caroline Robertson of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research said in a statement that this discovery is the first time a connection has been shown between a neurotransmitter in the brain and an autistic behavioral symptom.
GABA neurotransmitters essentially inhibit brain cells from responding to the external environment. If researchers can shut it down, it could lead to tremendous breakthroughs in treating the disorder. Apparently, the lack of GABA inhibition may be the cause of the hypersensitivity that autistic people often exhibit.
New drugs would likely target GABA pathways, limiting them in a way that would allow doctors to control the disorder. It would also help in diagnosing the condition earlier.)
It's All About Safety.
By Peter van der Sluijs - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33133626
Me, "It's all about safety, and getting used to drones doing things we are just starting to imagine. Its just a matter of time before they become a normal part of society. Imagine, the car was considered a dangerous technology compared to the horse when it debuted. But, it has since supplanted the horse and been seen by society as a necessary technology. The same start out fear with cars is now happening with drones. 10-20 years from now, we will wonder why we didn't have them, sooner, doing things for us."
From article, "2016 will be the dawn of the drone age"
(For those unfamiliar with the drone debate, a set of stringent rules governing their use might seem like overkill. But as a number of reports (more on that later) throughout the year indicated, left unchecked, many drone users risk endangering public safety and invading the privacy of unsuspecting neighbors.
Of course, the new rules won't necessarily solve all of these issues in the coming year and beyond, but by making every drone user directly accountable, the chances of someone operating a drone recklessly will probably decrease.)
Help is on the way...
Me, "One of the first major meds to universally help with Schizophrenia. More meds are on the way."
By Raining (talk) - I (Raining (talk)) created this work entirely by myself.Transferred from en.wikipedia, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15209326
From article, "20+ New Schizophrenia Medications In Development (2015)
(While the neurogenic correlates of schizophrenia aren’t fully understood, researchers are making progress. A majority of individuals with schizophrenia have a difficult time functioning in society (holding down a job, socializing, etc.) without proper treatment. Modern day treatments for schizophrenia include medications called atypical antipsychotics, which aim to primarily normalize dopamine dysfunction within the brain.
The major drawback associated with most modern day antipsychotics is their side effect profiles. Many antipsychotics provoke extreme weight gain, metabolic changes, alter hormones, and trigger extrapyramidal effects. To make matters worse, evidence indicates that antipsychotics cause brain volume loss over time, literally accelerating brain atrophy.
Adverse reactions to antipsychotics can include: diabetes, tardive dyskinesia, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome – all of which are serious medical conditions. For this reason, most educated individuals are aware that antipsychotics should be regarded as dangerous psychiatric drugs – only to be taken at the minimal effective dose for approved conditions like schizophrenia. Despite the relatively unappealing antipsychotics on the market, pharmaceutical companies are working to create better options.)
A list of new meds on the way:
1. ABT-126,
2. ADX-1149 (JNJ-40411813),
3. ALKS 3831,
4. AQW051,
5. Aripiprazole Lauroxil (ALKS 9072),
6. AVL-3288,
7. AVN-211,
8. Cariprazine,
9. CEP-26401 (Irdabisant),
10. Encenicline,
11. ITI-007,
12. MIN-101,
13. NW-3509,
14. OMS-824,
15.Pimavanserin (Nuplazid),
16. RBP-7000,
17.RP5063,
18.Syntocinon (Nasal Spray),
19.TAK-063,
20. Lu AF35700,
Me, "For more information about these and newer experimental drugs go to: 20+ New Schizophrenia Medications In Development (2015)"
The End of Cash?
From Smart Card paying:
By محمد الفيلالي - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39506246
to Smart Phone paying:
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33988
Me, "You can relax. I am pretty sure cash isn't going to go away. There are many uses that cash just won't be replaced by. And of course there are the people who got buried by huge credit card bills and want nothing to do with credit card companies and their cell phone apps. Cash will always be necessary because what happens if your cell phone runs out of power and you're at a restaurant with your date. Or, someone hacks your phone? and steals your monetary info? When was the last time your cash got hacked? Stolen? Maybe, but hacked? No. So, don't worry. This new way of paying will be like credit cards another form of payment but cash will still be around."
From article, "The $200 Billion Technology That Will Replace Your Wallet
(Smart-chip credit cards are so 2015.
In 2016 and beyond, mobile phones will become the hot new way to pay for goods at retailers, and the number of people who use such technology is set to explode.
U.S. consumers are projected to spend nearly $9 billion buying goods in-store via their smartphones this year, but that number will jump to more than $27 billion the following year, and pass $200 billion by 2019, according to a new report from eMarketer.
The average user will spend about $375 this year via in-store mobile payments, but by 2019, he’ll spend more than $3,000 that way.)
Eating 300 Oranges Stops Cancer?
Picture By Evan-Amos - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=36735411
Me, "People should not get too excited because only certain types of cancer can be treated and you would need doses that are as high as eating 300 oranges a day, so it would probably have to be given to you as an injection, or pill but, its great to know that something as common as Vitamin C can be very beneficial to humans. This has only been shown to work on mice. But could it work in humans? The research continues. These studies are very important because it shows that everyday fruits and vegetables in a well rounded food diet (you gotta get some kind of protein either from meat, or fish, or protein in Tofu) is the right way to eat. It all comes down to: what we put in our bodies is how our bodies will respond."
From article, "Extreme dose of vitamin C destroys mutated cancer cells
(In a stunning breakthrough, scientists have destroyed mutated cancer cells in mice with high doses of vitamin C.
A shocking new study reveals that there may be a new tool in the battle against cancer, and it’s surprisingly common. According to a report from Science Magazine, researchers have found that vitamin C can in fact kill tumor cells in mice that carry a deadly mutation, confirming decades of speculation about the benefits of vitamin C.
It wasn’t until Jihye Yun, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University, discovered that colon cancer cells carrying a mutation in the genes KRAS or BRAF produced large amounts of a certain protein that transports glucose through the cell membrane, that vitamin C treatment seemed viable once again. The glucose transporter in the cells, GLUT1, was found to also carry the oxidized form of vitamin C, or dehydroascorbic acid into the cell. This was extremely effective at stopping the cancer cell from producing a chemical that consumes free radicals. By flooding the cancer cells with DHA, they became vulnerable and easier to kill.
According to Lewis Cantley, a researcher at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, large doses of vitamin C were found to kill cultured cancer cells with the BRAF and KRAS mutations. The vitamin C raised the overall level of free radicals inside the cell, shutting down an enzyme that was needed to metabolize glucose. This deprived the mutated colon cancer cells of energy, leading to their demise. The doses of vitamin C were extremely high – roughly the same as eating 300 oranges.
The researchers are looking to begin clinical trials that will target cancer patients with KRAS or BRAF mutations. High doses of vitamin C are safe, but doubters fear that the results will not be replicable in humans. Treatment would need to occur every few days over the course of a few months, but Cantley hopes that one day a pill form capable of delivering a high enough dose will be available.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)