Are humans bigger mice without tails?

I have been sighing a lot over my laptop lately as a plethora of research these days claims that scientists could soon protect the whole of human kind from this disease or that disease.....on the basis of experimentation on mice.
One example is this reported in ScienceDaily which states: "The immune system of mice is very similar to that of humans".


I'm sorry but I cannot accept this bland statement. So often when I check the research papers, the researchers refer to the adaptive immune system (the one that recognises particular pathogens and then attacks) as if this is the only one there is.


In addition to the skin, the other layer of protection for the body is the innate immune system. This offers a constant and universal defence against dangers presented by microbes in the body. It is permanently on stand-by and can react to anything within seconds, sending a change along hundreds of response pathways.


The innate system consists of a variety of relatively little-researched receptors embedded in to the cells of our body. Some of these are called Toll-like receptors (TLR).


It is now known that humans - but not mice - have TLR10, plus mice have the additional TLRs 11, 12 & 13. Also the working of TLR8 is different in humans, compared with mice. 
I wish scientists would stop publishing papers that raise false hopes when clearly there is a big difference between the two mammals.


We may need increased research on fruit flies, not mammals, in my opinion. Yes! According to NASA scientists "Genetically speaking, people and fruit flies are surprisingly alike. About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues."
And they seem perfect for researching the little-known innate immunity pathways since fruit flies have no adaptive immune system.
Knowing these facts, I wonder if I could evolve a tail in the time that current pharmaceutical-based research can come up with human disease cures based on mouse models. Sorry to sound pessimistic, but I wish research money was directed in to more helpful avenues.

Patience, patience!

Chronic fatigue sufferers have had their hopes raised and then dashed again within just a few months - if you believe the headlines.
The trumpeted news last autumn was that a link had been found to a new retrovirus by a US charitable institute devoted to research for the benefit of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) patients.
This retrovirus XMRV was first discovered in prostate cancer patients, then the Whittemore Peterson Institute found it in CFS patients and published the research in Science magazine on October 23.
Within one month of this research a UK research team carried out what they claim is a copy of the tests and then broadcast the absence of the retrovirus in CFS patients 'at least in the UK' on a pay-to-publish research website.
Their replicated tests didn't find a lower incidence of XMRV, which might have led to this link to CFS being carefully questioned as the primary cause: no, the team dramatically failed to find XMRV at all.
Chronic fatigue sufferers the world over had already been asking their doctors about XMRV; unsurprisingly, as there is currently no established medical cause or cure for the condition.
On the day the UK study was published on January 6 The Independent newspaper (UK) helpfully informed everyone: "Scientists' claim to have found the cause of ME is 'premature': British researchers say US team should have waited for more evidence of viral link before publishing findings."

Claims and counterclaims have been thrown across the Atlantic from research department to research department. A lot of the vitriol has been poured out by bitter CFS patients who feel abused and ignored. That's because one of the co-authors of the UK research is Simon Wessely - renowned (or infamous?) for prescribing and promoting cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as the only treatment for physiological symptoms of CFS.
The fact that this is the only official NHS treatment is undoubtedly an indictment of the British medical approach to difficult-to-diagnose conditions, but then again no one in the world has yet definitively provided a primary cause of CFS and presented sufficient research data to back it up yet.
Is the XMRV link strong enough? Do the US research findings and the first tests developed for the retrovirus necessarily prove that we have found a cause?
The UK research simply produced a negative result - should we conclude any positive possibilities from this? Many patients (and some top microbiologists) are critical of the UK's available laboratory facilities, so should we see this as a flaw in the research?
Or, as angry CFS patients previously pushed in to psychiatric treatment are loudly protesting, is this more about a UK medical establishment fighting back against wide publicity for a condition they would rather sweep under the carpet.
Even the experienced virologist Suzanne Vernon, who worked at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention before joining CFIDS Association of America, said: "It could well be true that XMRV is not present in the UK...but it is also possible that the technique used in the (UK research) was suboptimal due to the different methods employed."
I have to say I am puzzled by the UK team's desperate rush to start their own research project, which was still interviewing for an additional virologist on November 23 and submitted its results for publication on December 1. But at the same time I feel the Whittemore Peterson Institute has also rushed ahead - they have already licensed the first XMRV test.

This retroviral development may turn out to be a crucial piece of the bigger jigsaw puzzle that is autoimmune disease, but only one piece.
So little is known at the moment about the human innate immune function. Researchers and doctors are stabbing in the dark, usually directed by one vested interest or another, whether that be pharmaceutical profits or the feelings of bitter, desperate CFS patients.
For such a little-understood and yet widespread problem as chronic fatigue (which is a feature too of conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia)there needs to be more thorough and properly funded research, with co-operation across medical specialisms and across different countries.
And not just research in to this or that bacterial or viral factor, but also of how effective our modern bodies are at defending against them. Why does our health keep getting knocked down so easily?

Pain and one tiny unscientific conclusion

I just had to respond to Lynne McTaggart's What Doctors Don't Tell you blog on pain: this was the comment I posted.

Was very interested to read this timely posting on an important issue for patients as I agreed with 95 per cent of all you said.....until you made the comment about vitamin D. It is a very fashionable conclusion. But who benefits if everyone (apparently) needs to supplement their vit D intake? The health supplement producers, and particularly a large lobby of vit D producers, that's who.

If vitamins are defined as chemical substances that the body cannot produce itself but which must be ingested for correct functioning of the body, then why is vitamin D produced by the body (in several complex forms) through the action of light on skin and eyes? Maybe because it is not a vitamin and needs detailed investigation?

Many research studies recently have concluded there is a link (or correlation) between low levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (the most commonly and simply measured form of vit D) and pain/underlying disease. But note the word 'correlation'. The cause meanwhile could be one of at least two options: pain/underlying disease causes low levels of vit D; or low levels of vit D cause pain/disease. Too often it is claimed that a proven correlation has the latter cause. I am not just unconvinced but find this repeated mistaken conclusion totally unscientific.

Also, how come this study below (and others) showed that people with long-term avoidance of light still maintain normal vit D levels in their bodies?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9418761

Cancer and bacteria

Have you noticed recently how there is increasing talk of vaccines against cancer?
As lay people, this might seem rather confusing. We know that the medical establishment have urged us for a long time to have all our immunisations for infectious diseases.
We are also made aware that cancer organisations have worked for decades, putting millions of pounds in to cancer research which is increasingly complex and often focused on inherited genetic causes.
Cancer Research UK makes its opinion crystal clear on its website: 'Cancer is not in any sense an infectious disease.'
So how come the major research breakthroughs (setting to one side more effective drugs to slow down, but not cure, cancers) have been in cancers like cervical or liver cancer, where the cause is shown to be a specific virus.
Cancer Research UK, while relaying some helpful virus-specific advice on its website, still plays this down incredibly by saying: 'Cancer...represents a very rare accident of long-term infection with such a virus.'
But now lets hear from Paul Ewald, evolutionary biologist and the first recipient of the George R. Burch Fellowship in Theoretic Medicine and Affiliated Sciences:'Back in 1975, mainstream medicine agreed that about 0.1% of human cancer cases were caused by pathogens. When it came to the rest of cases, their view was that they were probably caused by a combination of inherited predispositions and mutagens.
'Then in 1985, the percentage of cancer cases they tied to pathogens was 3%, and they continued to make the same argument about the remaining cases. In 1995 the percent of pathogen-induced cancer cases was accepted to be around 10%.
'Now, we’re at 20%. Still, mainstream medicine contends that the other 80% of cases do not have an infectious cause, but the question is – do you believe them anymore?'
Another very recent and conclusive addition to this crowd of infectious connections to cancer came in a study published in May by the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine at the University of Edinburgh (Attaching and Effacing Escherichia Coli downregulate DNA Mismatch Repair Protein In Vitro and are associated with colorectal adenocarcinomas in humans: Oliver D.K. Maddocks et al).
In a brilliant paper, worthy of a Crystal Mark from the Plain English Campaign, it persuasively 'demonstrates for the first time' the link between cancer of the colon and bacteria able to attach themselves firmly to cells inside the colon. Up to 100 were found hiding in a single cell.
Not only that, but the research scientists also say their study has uncovered the mechanism the bacteria uses to shut off the colon cells' ability to protect themselves against dangerous genetic mutation. This may be how the bacteria possibly causes colon cancer, but proof will only come from further study.
Interestingly, they note a 'striking similarity' with the bacteria helicobacter pylori, which also interferes with the mechanisms of gastric cells and causes stomach cancer. For a long time H.pylori as the known cause of stomach ulcers was ignored by the medical establishment too, while doctors still hector patients about helping themselves by avoiding stress (for pity's sake!).
With more and more research like University of Edinburgh's study coming to light - but repeatedly ignored by frontline medical staff - how long do we have to wait in pain and ill health before our doctors take a closer look at the infections we have each collected in our bodies? Until it's too late?