Scientists make ‘second skin’ to hide wrinkles

Scientists claim to have developed an invisible elastic film that can be applied to the skin to reduce the appearance of wrinkles and eye bags.

Skin that had been coated with the polymer appeared smoother, firmer and less wrinkly Once applied, the formula dries to form a film that “mimics the properties of youthful skin”, Nature Materials reports after a series of small trials. At the moment it is being explored as a commercial cosmetic product.

But the US scientists say their “second skin” might eventually be used to deliver medicines and sun protection. The team from Harvard Medical School and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have tested their prototype product on a handful of volunteers, applying the formula to their under-eye bags, forearms and legs.

The polysiloxane polymer was made in the lab using molecules of silicone and oxygen as the building blocks.

Although it’s synthetic, it’s designed to mimic real skin and provide a breathable, protective layer. According to the researchers, the temporary film locks in moisture and helps boost skin elasticity.

They performed several tests, including a recoil test where the skin was pinched and then released to see how long it takes to ping back into position. As skin ages, it becomes less firm and less elastic and so performs less well in this sort of test. Skin that had been coated with the polymer was more elastic than skin without the film. And, to the naked eye, it appeared smoother, firmer and less wrinkly.

The film is essentially invisible

The researchers, who have a spin-off company that could eventually market their patented formula, say the film is essentially invisible, can be worn all day without causing irritation and can withstand things like sweat and rain. But more studies are needed before then.

The polymer would also need safety approval from regulators. Dr Tamara Griffiths of the British Association of Dermatologists says bags under the eyes are caused by the protrusion of fat pockets associated with ageing. The results appear to be comparable to surgery While entirely natural, some people see it as undesirable and seek ways to reverse it – sometimes resorting to surgery.

Dr Griffiths said: “The results [with the polymer film] appear to be comparable to surgery, without the associated risks. Further research is needed, but this is a novel and very promising approach to a common problem. I will follow its development with interest.” Prof Robert Langer, who led the work at MIT, said: “Developing a second skin that is invisible, comfortable and effective in holding in water and potentially other materials presents many different challenges.”

It has to have the right optical properties, otherwise it won’t look good, and it has to have the right mechanical properties, otherwise it won’t have the right strength and it won’t perform correctly ( via ). “We are extremely excited about the opportunities that are presented as a result of this work and look forward to further developing these materials to better treat patients who suffer from a variety of skin conditions.”

Medical mystery: why are placebos becoming more effective?

There’s a drug that can make you run faster, feel less depressed and experience reduced pain. Don’t believe me? You shouldn’t. That’s because this miracle drug isn’t a drug at all — it’s a placebo.
The “placebo effect,” or an inert substance’s ability to improve a patient’s symptoms, has been documented in everything from pain due to molar extractions to irritable bowel syndrome to Parkinson’s disease to bipolar disorder. And this phenomenon is not static.
Researchers have found a sizable surge in the placebo affect in Americans when studying anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and pain medications. In 1990, for example, patients reported that opiate drugs relieved their pain symptoms 27 percent more than a placebo.
In 2013, this difference dropped to 9 percent, while the drug response remained constant. This noticeable drop, it should be noted, was only demonstrated in Americans — not Europeans or Asians.
This is only one of the many discoveries that makes placebos such a fascinating area of research — and what makes science journalist Jo Marchant’s new book “Cure: A Journey into the Science of Mind Over Body” such a well-researched page-turner.
Marchant devotes several chapters to the burgeoning field of placebo studies. She reveals that though placebos are “fake,” the body’s response to them are anything but. “[Many of the] same biological changes that are happening when you take a drug are also happening when you take a placebo,” Marchant says. “They’re not imaginary. They’re real, biological changes.”
All of this raises questions about the role of culture, environment and neurochemistry in our responses to treatment — and may very well lead to widespread changes in the ways we practice medicine.
Though placebo effects have been around as long as people have been selling snake oil, philosopher Michel de Montaigne is credited as being one of the first to describe the phenomenon when in 1572 he wrote: “There are men on whom the mere sight of medicine is operative.”
It earned its place in the medical literature when T.C. Graves described “the placebo effect” in a paper published in The Lancet in 1920. Forty years later, the effect was embraced officially when placebo-controlled clinical trials became de rigueur.
Even so, placebos had developed a negative reputation. Popular medical opinion held that the effect was primarily illegitimate reactions made by “suggestible and neurotic” patients. The notion of the “natural history effect,” in which many patients recovery over time without intervention, accounted for much of its power, and ethical issues involved in actively deceiving a patient made certain that placebos would not be seriously studied as a curative in mainstream medicine. These notions, though, were upended thanks to emerging neurobiological studies of how the brain responds to placebos. In 1978, scientists at the University of California administered placebo saline injections to patients recovering from oral surgery. The majority of patients reported symptom relief, until researcher Jon Levine injected the patients with naloxone, a drug that blocks the effects of endorphins in the brain. The patients’ pain returned. “This was the first evidence of biochemical pathways behind the placebo effect,” writes Marchant. “It isn’t trickery, wishful thinking or all in the mind. It is a physical mechanism, as concrete as the effects of any drug.”
With the advent of more sophisticated brain imaging, like fMRI and positron emission tomography scans, researchers revealed that some of the brain’s neurotransmitters, endorphins, dopamine and cannabinoids, are involved in the placebo effect. In other words, mere suggestion can set off an elaborate dance of neurochemicals. Other studies followed. In one, a group of Parkinson’s patients who believed they were getting a dopamine agonist drug but instead received saline injections, experienced “dopamine levels [that] tripled, equivalent to a dose of amphetamine in a healthy person,” writes Marchant. These were incredible findings — testaments to the power of the mind to cure the body with mere suggestion. It is important to note the limits of these placebos, however. They show the greatest effect on conscious symptoms — like pain, nausea and fatigue. Believing you are receiving chemotherapy, for example, will not shrink a tumor. Specific areas in our brain appear to be activated by the placebo response, says Ted Kaptchuk, the director of Harvard’s program of placebo studies. These areas include the prefrontal cortex, involved in planning and expectation, and the anterior cingulate gyrus, which (among other things) monitors blood pressure and heart rate.
“We have the beginning of a neurobiology of the placebo,” says Kaptchuk. “The medical world is becoming more comfortable with its legitimacy.” Kaptchuk also points to emerging evidence that there is a dopamine-regulating gene that might make some of us more susceptible to the placebo response. That might mean that our placebo response is written into our DNA. But there’s more to the story than our genes, explains Kaptchuk. “Ultimately placebo is about culture,” he says. “The sugar, the cellulose in that pill does nothing. It’s because of the context that surrounds the pill. That’s cultural, psycho-social.”
Everything from what country we live in to our favorite soccer team to our personality plays a role in how we respond to placebos. Blue pills are often marketed as sleeping pills because of the color’s association with calmness. But this is not so with Italian men, who associate the color with their national soccer team. The form that the placebo takes also makes a difference in response. Sham surgeries fare far better in most countries, except those in Europe, where pills are perceived as more effective. In the US, fake pills work better for sleep, but sham acupuncture is better for pain relief.
A meta-analysis that compared placebo responses around the globe found that Brazilians had the lowest placebo effects — 7 percent healing rate — while the world’s average is 36 percent. Germany ranks the highest with a 59 percent response rate, which is three times its neighboring countries, Denmark and the Netherlands. Placebo responses even vary within countries. Though Germans had the highest responses overall, they reported higher placebo effects in ulcer studies than hypertension ones, which were below the global average.
Your perspective on the world — if you see the cup half empty or half full — plays a role, too. Take, for example, the traditional view that placebo-responders are more gullible and neurotic than non-responders. “In fact, the opposite is true. Engaged, optimistic people are most likely to experience the placebo effect. People who are negative, angry, hostile are least likely to experience [it],” Marchant says. Price is also a factor. A 2008 study out of the University of Cincinnati eyed 12 patients with Parkinson’s. One group was given an “injectable dopamine agonist” (really saline solution) that cost $100 per dose; another group was given the same injection but were told it cost $1,500. Sixty-seven percent showed a marked improvement with the more expensive treatment, while 58 percent showed an improvement with the cheaper placebo. Even giving a person a choice between two fake options improves outcomes, according to a study published this month in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine.
When groups were able to choose between what they thought were two name-brand beta-blockers they reported less side effects (or nocebos, placebos’ evil twin) and greater positive outcomes. So, what are the practical implications for clinical care? Marchant cites the study comparing placebo reactions to pain medications as a clue to what can be done on a larger level in medicine. In this study, Americans — unlike Europeans or Asians — showed a marked increase in the placebo response since 1990. This rise in response, she says, can be partially credited to the studies themselves, which tend to be larger, longer and of a higher quality than typical US patient care, which in turn create higher expectations and larger placebo effects. “It suggests that regardless of what drugs are prescribed, simply improving the quality of care might have significant benefits for patients in chronic pain,” Marchant says. This is supported by placebo research.
Studies suggest that a doctor’s body language and whether or not doctors actually believe that a drug will help a patient can influence the patient’s response to treatment. The amount of time a doctor spends with his patient can also alter placebo responses: In a study of acid-reflux sufferers, the group that had a 42 minute consultation with a doctor did twice as well as one that only had 18 minutes. Another study of people with irritable bowel syndrome used the same placebo but had a cold but efficient doctor administer it to one group and a warm and empathetic one administer it to the other. The response rates jumped nearly 20 percent with the warmer doctor, despite using the same “treatment.”
How you present the drug also making a difference. Using a phrase like “I believe this will help you,” instead of “This might work,” makes a difference in treatment response, studies show. There’s also evidence that you don’t need to be sick to reap the benefits of a placebo response. The University of Glasgow tested this assumption on 15 recreational runners, whose race times increased by 1.5 percent when they believed they were receiving powerful doping drugs but were only getting saline injections. And then there are the studies testing the use of placebo without deception. Though the research is young, Kaptchuk is enthusiastic.
These “open label” placebos have worked on patients with IBS, depression and migraine — even when explicitly presented as “like a sugar pill.” “It’s still very preliminary, and we’re very excited,” he says of his research. “It’s a new frontier in the placebo world.” In the mean time, doctors can harness the strength of the mind and the power of care when treating patients, says Marchant ( via ).

Bombshell: Unvaccinated populations are healthier than the vaccinated

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) recently published a disease map purporting to show that disease outbreaks are the fault of the unvaccinated. While the mainstream media like PBS ran the story, they missed the fact that the CFR map shows the highest disease outbreaks in the most-vaccinated populations.

Those countries where vaccines are given routinely or forced upon children and their parents, often under threat of law, experience the lion’s share of communicable diseases. Why? What’s happened with “herd immunity”?

Right off, and at the very beginning, I say this article will cause rumblings and a stir amongst many, if not all, on both sides of the vaccine safety issue, especially with vaccine apologists. My reason for saying that is because what I discuss is strictly my evaluation of the interactive data map showing communicable infectious diseases globally, as prepared by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which points out some grave problems regarding vaccine statistics, in my opinion. Please study the map before reading on.

The only request I make is that every reader consider the information with an open mind, not one influenced or prejudiced by pseudo-science. One statistic that the data show is this: the most vaccinated population countries have the most outbreaks of those same diseases for which vaccines are pushed on populations supposedly to engender what’s called “herd immunity.”

First, let’s see how many vaccinations were mandated for children in several countries of the western meme according to data available in 2009. Sweden and Japan had 11 vaccines, Finland 12, Norway 13, Switzerland 16, Australia 27, Canada 28, and USA 36. It is safe to say that, if anything, more vaccines have been added to those schedules since 2009, especially the HPV vaccine for both girls and boys. But, for the sake of ‘argument’ and graphics available, I will use the chart below as a reference alongside the CFR’s map.




Graphic Source in Notes

One readily can see that the USA had/has the most number of mandated vaccines, which has increased dramatically in numbers since 2009 for children birth to 18 years of age as confirmed by the CDC’s “Recommended Immunization Schedule for Persons Age 0 Through 18 Years United States, 2014.”

Before I go further in my interpretation of the map and data, let’s consider what the map offers:

  • Disease color-coded dots designating Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Polio, Whooping cough, and Other Countries with an inordinate amount of dots are: the USA, the European Union (EU), Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada to some extent, plus Equatorial Africa and India where GAVI [Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation] has implemented vaccination campaigns.
  • The South American continent is almost void of any communicable disease dots. Interesting? Wait until some vaccination campaign strategy takes off there. It’s only a matter of time, I’d say.
  • Several countries have no dots representing diseases. China, which often is touted as a growing hotbed of communicable diseases, shows Measles and Other, if I’ve interpreted the color code correctly as Polio and Other are too closely related in colors. Is that color scheme a favorable coincidence?
  • The predominant diseases globally, according to dots on the map, are: Measles and Whooping cough, which are the vaccines children everywhere are vaccinated with.

Now, I’d like to discuss my interpretation of what the map represents: Those countries where vaccines are given routinely or forced upon children and their parents, often under threat of law, experience the lion’s share of communicable diseases. Why? What’s happened with “herd immunity”? It just doesn’t add up, especially since in the USA there is over 90% childhood vaccination compliance! According to the U.S. CDC’s MMWR (Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report) 2012—13 School Year for Kindergarten, for example,

This report summarizes vaccination coverage from 48 states and DC and exemption rates from 49 states and DC for children entering kindergarten for the 2012–13 school year. Forty-eight states and DC reported vaccination coverage, with medians of 94.5% for 2 doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine; 95.1% for local requirements for diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, and acellular pertussis (DtaP) vaccination; and 93.8% for 2 doses of varicella vaccine among awardees with a 2-dose requirement. Forty-nine states and DC reported exemption rates, with the median total of 1.8%. Although school entry coverage for most awardees was at or near national Healthy People 2020 targets of maintaining 95% vaccination coverage levels for 2 doses of MMR vaccine, 4 doses of DtaP† vaccine, and 2 doses of varicella vaccine (2), low vaccination and high exemption levels can cluster within communities, increasing the risk for disease. [CJF emphasis added]

Take a look at those vaccination percentage rates: 94.5% for MMR, 95.1% for DtaP and 93.8% for chickenpox (varicella), and still there are outbreaks of measles and pertussis. There IS something dramatically wrong with vaccines and their effectiveness, I contend, if that number of children is an example of vaccination rates in the USA that can be interpolated for comparisons of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated. Furthermore, only a medium total of 1.8% was exempt from vaccinations. Question: Is 1.8% a high exemption level? I don’t think so, as it falls well within the 5% target range of exemptions for non-vaccinated as found in Healthy People 2020.

The CDC/FDA, medicine, pharmacology, and vaccinology, in particular, are dead wrong regarding vaccines, I do believe. The more children receive vaccines and boosters, undoubtedly, the more communicable infectious diseases are surfacing. What does the CFR map tell?

In my opinion, one of several physiological occurrences, or all, may be happening:

  • 1. Vaccines aren’t working and cause immune dysfunction.
  • 2. Vaccines are damaging the immune system so much that it cannot function as Nature intended and designed due to vaccine antigen responses that undoubtedly are reprogramming it.
  • 3. Disease microorganisms are becoming sophisticated – similar to bacteria due to too many antibiotics prescribed for just about every malady plus those in the food chain – so that microorganisms are morphing into new strains for which vaccinology either hasn’t realized what’s going on or can’t keep up with various or newer strains and antigens. See this: “There are currently eight species in the Bordetella genus. Three species in this genus are known to be pathogenic to humans. B. pertussis and B. parapertussis are very similar species. Both species cause pertussis (whooping cough) in humans and are separated merely by the toxins they release during infection. B. parapertussis releases toxins that seem to cause a milder form of pertussis (whooping cough). B. bronchiseptica causes respiratory disease in various mammals and occasionally in humans. The species is further separated from B. pertussis and B. parapertussis by being motile. The human pathology of the remaining five species is relatively unknown. B. avium and B. hinzii, are known to cause respiratory disease in poultry. [2] [CJF emphasis added]”
  • 4. A large percentage of vaccinated children in the USA now experience some form of illness or disease that is NOT a communicable disease, which manifests either as chronic or neurological. Something authorities want to deny is that since numerous vaccines have been mandated for children since the 1980s, so have autism [neurological] rates skyrocketed from one in 10,000 [1970s] to 1 in 50 children in the USA as of March 2013 reporting! [1]

While writing this article I received this information: The new ‘official autism’ numbers were released minutes ago by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 68 among all eight-year olds evaluated in 2010, 1 in 42 boys, and 1 in 189 girls, more than a million children. The last time the CDC released these numbers in 2010 the numbers were 1 in 88, and 1 in 54 boys. Undoubtedly the real numbers today are much higher than this 4-year old data.

Along with that information, a request came to call the White House (202) 456-1111 and ask President Obama what is he going to do about it.

Special Notation should be made of the variances in the CDC report as referenced in the article Notes below (1) [3/20/13] and the information I just received. Isn’t it a hornet’s nest to figure out? In the Reference section of that report (pg.2) it states: “This prevalence estimate (1 in 50) is significantly higher than the estimate.” Somehow to me, their figures don’t seem to be coherent. Don’t they know what they are doing, or is it on purpose to add confusion to the issue?

Autism is not the only health problem since vaccines took off like greased lightning. The USA Today reported this: “More than half of children ages 8 to 14 have had a long-term health problem at some point, such as obesity, asthma, a learning disability or other ailment, a study shows.” [3]

The sad part, though, is that no one is investigating correlation and causation with regard to the inordinate number of vaccines prescribed during the first two years of life starting at birth!

In the USA alone, measles and whooping cough outbreaks occur in 90% or more of those contracting the diseases and fully vaccinated. See my blog “Mumps Breakout in Ohio May Prove Something.”

B. Even if non-vaccinated children were responsible for spreading those diseases, how come fully-vaccinated children and other vaccinees are contracting the very diseases for which they have been vaccinated IF vaccines were efficacious? Current disease-contracting statistics prove just how false the vaccine paradigm truly is! Scare tactics are employed to vaccinate, whereas vaccines fail those vaccinated! How does that make sense?

C. As an example, the charts below indicate the factual reality of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated health status of children in the first five years of life in the Netherlands (2004), one of the countries that make up the European Union. You can see on the CFR map that measles is a dot in that EU geographical location.

In the charts we see dramatic contrasts for ear infections, inflammations of the throat, aggressive behavior, convulsions/collapse, antibiotics administered, sickly, eczema, asthma/chronic lung disease, allergic reactions, and difficulty sleeping. The charts indicate that vaccinated children are twice as likely – or more – as non-vaccinated children to experience the health problems enumerated in the charts.



Graphic Source in Notes

The information offered by the CFR map is rather significant and I think speaks for itself, i.e., the more vaccinated the population, the more likely to contract the very diseases for which they are vaccinated.

How in the name of non-vested-interest-science are they still getting away with such sleight of pseudo-science, together with ruining the human immune system?

Just because they say so dogmatically, doesn’t mean it’s factually and scientifically so! Do your research and learn the real science behind vaccines in order to educate everyone: pediatricians, nurses, schools, health agency personnel at all levels of government, and even Congress, who I contend gave us this vaccine mess by passing The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34).

The NCVIA is in desperate need of being revisited, if not repealed, in my opinion. NCVIA gives vaccine makers what some call a “get out of jail free card” that exonerates them of all liability, something no other industry has. Furthermore, with all the health damages and problems vaccines have been causing for now going on two or three generations – see the VAERS reports in the hundreds of thousands – Congress needs to seriously investigate the autism problem, neurotoxic and other toxic vaccine ingredients, and stop taking those handsome monetary gifts from Big Pharma lobbyists that apparently influence their observable lack of oversight, I contend.

In 2013, pharmaceutical manufacturers paid out $227.5 Million lobbying on behalf of their products and corporate interests. [4] What does that tell you? Lastly, an incredible story about how pseudo-science is pulled off is reported in “Academia hoaxed by fake scientific papers auto-generated by gobbledygook text generators.”

Personally, I’d like to see shakeups at all federal and state health agencies regarding vaccinations, their ‘science’ and, most of all, their toxic ingredients. It’s long overdue. Notes: [1] CDC Report 65. Changes in Prevalence of Parent-reported Autism Spectrum Disorder in School-aged U.S. Children: 2007 to 2011–2012.

Adobe PDF file [PDF – 163 KB] March 2013. [2] [3] [4]

The charts were produced by Raymond Obomsawin, PhD National Aboriginal Health Organization, October 2009 Thank you for sharing this information, Dr. Obomsawin ( via ).

Proof That The Cancer Industry Doesn’t Want a Cure

“A safe and effective cure for cancer has been discovered with a drug that was once used for unusual metabolic problems. Yet, the cancer industry shows no interest with following up on dichloroacetate (DCA) research from University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, reported in 2007. That’s because DCA is no longer patented. (1)

That research also confirmed cancer as a metabolic malfunction, not a weird mutation of cells often explained away as a genetic issue. But the medical mafia doesn’t want you to hear about it. But it confirms what most alternative cancer therapists already know.


Since Nixon declared the “war on cancer” in the 1970s, the cancer industry has succeeded with raising money for researching very expensive chemo substances at $50,000 to $100,000 per round or more for toxic therapies that rarely work. (2)

Chemo drugs usually lead to demanding more business with drugs to ease terrible side effects ( Meanwhile, more are getting cancer and more are dying from it, mostly because of the toxic treatments.

Explaining DCA research results Evangelos Michelakis and the Alberta University research team tested DCA on human cancer cells outside the body and in cancerous mice with profound success. DCA was once used for unusual metabolic disorders. The worst side effects, which rarely occur, include some numbness and an affected gait.

The mice were fed DCA in water, and in weeks they had remarkable tumor shrinkage. This indicates DCA can be taken orally. DCA works by restoring the cells’ mitochondria. Michelakis and his team had discovered that the mitochondria in cancer cells are not permanently damaged and irreparable. This is what mainstream medicine thinks. With mitochondria malfunctioning, cancer cells use glucose fermentation for survival energy. This fermentation occurs when glycolysis (glucose conversion) occurs in an anaerobic cellular environment, which can be created by benign tumor masses, toxins, and low pH levels. DCA restores mitochondria in cells to make them function properly. Another function of normal mitochondria is signaling apoptosis, or cellular self destruction. Normal cells die and become replaced constantly. But with cancer cells, the apoptosis signal is nullified, making cancer cells “immortal.” (3)

The Alberta University researchers also realized that glycolysis fermentation in cancer cells produces lactic acid. The lactic acid breaks down the collagen holding those cells together in a tumor. This allows cancer cells to easily break away from a tumor shrinking with mainstream therapies. The researchers reasoned this is why cancer metastasizes or spreads to different parts of the body or reappears after remission from chemo. Tragic hypocrisy Alternative cancer therapies have little or no problem with metastatic cancer or even cancer reoccurring after remission. Most alternative cancers simply cure cancers completely. DCA offers the cancer industry an opportunity to come up with a pharmaceutical cure that is much cheaper and safer than their current standard of care. Yet the cancer industry is ignoring this opportunity. Instead, DCA is a homeless orphan begging for research funds to avoid legal issues with off label use on cancer. (4)”.

“Alternative cancer practitioners have always simply tried out and when they succeeded shared them with others who cared more about healing than money and power.

The medical mafia has created a matrix that demands big bucks to make big bucks for sick care instead of curing. Everyone in on the scam makes out financially. The cancer industry accuses alternative cancer therapists of quackery and taking advantage of the desperately ill for financial gain. Accusing others of your motives and crimes is called projection.

The medical/pharmaceutical complex is crony capitalism that doesn’t want a cure for cancer from anywhere.

Sources for this article include:






Brazilian Wasp Venom Kills Cancer Cells, But Not Healthy Cells

“Wasps get their fair share of bad press. They have painful stingers, and they’re not as useful (or cute) to us as bees. However, their time to step in the spotlight may be just around the corner: Their venom has been shown to attack cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone.

The cancer-targeting toxin in the wasp is called MP1 (Polybia-MP1) and until now, how it selectively eliminates cancer cells was unknown. According to new research, it exploits the atypical arrangement of fats, or lipids, in cancer cell membranes. Their abnormal distribution creates weak points where the toxin can interact with the lipids, which ultimately pokes gaping holes in the membrane. These are sufficiently large for essential molecules to start leaking out, like proteins, which the cell cannot function without.

The wasp responsible for producing this toxin is the Polybia paulista. The toxin has so far been tested on model membranes and examined using a broad range of imaging techniques. You can see the team’s research results in the Biophysical Journal.

The wasp, Polybia paulista, which produces the venom containing MP1. Professor Mario Palma/Sao Paulo State University.

“Cancer therapies that attack the lipid composition of the cell membrane would be an entirely new class of anticancer drugs,” said Paul Beales from the University of Leeds and co-author of the study. “This could be useful in developing new combination therapies, where multiple drugs are used simultaneously to treat a cancer by attacking different parts of the cancer cells at the same time.”

In healthy cell membranes, the inner layer (facing the inside of the cell) is packed with phospholipids, including PS (phosphatidylserine) and PE (phosphatidylethanolamine). However, in cancer cells, PS and PE are located on the outer layer of the cell membrane, facing the opposite way.

To test the different effects of PS and PE’s presence on a cell, the scientists examined how the MP1 interacted with model membranes infused with PE and/or PS. The presence of each phospholipid had a destructive effect on the cells. PS increased the chance of MP1 binding to the membrane by a factor of seven to eight. The presence of PE inflated the size of the holes created by the MP1 by a factor 20 to 30.

“Formed in only seconds, these large pores are big enough to allow critical molecules such as RNA and proteins to easily escape cells,” said João Ruggiero Neto from São Paulo State University and co-author of the study.

“The dramatic enhancement of the permeabilization induced by the peptide in the presence of PE and the dimensions of the pores in these membranes was surprising.”

The next stage for this research is to adjust the amino acid sequence of MP1 to see what gives it its selective properties, and to try and refine them.

“Understanding the mechanism of action of this peptide will help in translational studies to further assess the potential for this peptide to be used in medicine,” Beales says.

“As it has been shown to be selective to cancer cells and non-toxic to normal cells in the lab, this peptide has the potential to be safe, but further work would be required to prove that.” ( via )” copied.

Bionic Lens Implant Could Improve Vision Beyond 20/20

Article Author: Dave Smith


An optometrist from British Columbia believes he’s invented the holy grail of corrective lenses: A device that lets you see “three times better than 20/20 vision” without wearing any contacts or glasses at all — for an entire lifetime.

Dr. Garth Webb is the founder and CEO of Ocumetics Technology Corp, a company dedicated to eliminating glasses and contact lenses forever. Webb and his team of visual scientists have invented the “Ocumetics Bionic Lens,” which is the product of eight years of research and $US3 million in funding, plus a load of internationally-filed patents, according to the Canadian Press.

The Ocumetics Bionic Lens looks like a small button, but Webb believes it has the power to revolutionise eye care as we know it.

“Perfect eyesight should be a human right,” Webb told CBC News.

Dr. Garth Webb holds a list of international patents for advancing the capabilities of intraocular lenses and cameras.

According to Ocumetics’ website, the Bionic Lens is implanted in your eye during an 8-minute “painless procedure” that’s similar to cataract surgery, where the lens inside your eye is removed and replaced with an artificial lens. It’s an outpatient procedure that doesn’t require any anesthesia or an overnight stay.

The bionic lens is actually folded like a taco and placed in the eye using a syringe filled with a saline solution. Then, in about 10 seconds, the bionic lens unravels over your eye by itself and your sight is “immediately corrected.”

“If you can just barely see the clock at 10 feet, when you get the Bionic Lens, you can see the clock at 30 feet away,” Webb said.

Webb says his bionic lenses give you vision that’s three times better than 20/20 vision, as measured by the Snellen chart for visual acuity. We’ve reached out to Webb to learn more about the visual improvements with regards to accuracy and range.

It’s still unclear how the technology actually works, but Webb says the Bionic Lens is perfectly safe, and it won’t cause any biophysical changes within the eye.

This has other benefits, too. Anyone who gets this bionic lens surgically implanted would never get cataracts, since the eye’s natural lenses, which are prone to decay, would have been replaced with these artificial ones. And this is much safer than laser surgery, which involves burning away healthy corneal tissue and also results in other complications, like problems with glare and trouble driving at night. Webb’s solution has none of these issues; the quality of your vision will always be perfect, and it will not deteriorate over time.

Webb showed off his bionic lens to 14 top ophthalmologists in mid-April during an annual conference dedicated to cataracts and refractive surgery. He said the surgeons were impressed, and some will assist in future clinical trials.

The bionic lens will first be tested on animals and then blind human eyes before Webb seeks regulatory approval in Canada and other various countries.

The first Ocumetics Bionic Lens could be available as soon as 2017, but it will only be an option for people over 25 since eye structures aren’t fully formed until that age. We’ve reached out to Webb for more information.

NOW WATCH: What It’s Like To Be Among The First People In The World To Have A Bionic Eye



Article Source: