Science Unplugged

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Twists. This Week in Science, episode number ten
twenty eight, recorded on Wednesday, September third, twenty twenty five,
Science Unplugged. Hey everyone, I'm doctor Keeeki and tonight on
the show we will fill your head with immunity, consciousness
and Adriana. But first, thanks to our amazing Patreon sponsors

(00:25):
for their generous support of Twists. You can become a
part of the Patreon community at patreon dot com. Slash
This Week in.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Science choolamoreds clamor disclaimer. Science is not a brand. It's
a process of discovery, a catalog of knowledge, a way
of understanding the world without human bias. But a brand
it is not. That's why the US Health and Human

(00:53):
Services Department, a historically science based agency that funds health
and welfare programs, conducts medical research, which oversees the food
and rug safety via the Food and Drug Administration, manages
health insurance programs like Medicare Medicaid, responds to public health
emergencies by usually taking advice from national Stuites of health

(01:14):
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ceases to
be a science based agency when it stops using science
as a process of discovery, stops relying on the catalog
of knowledge that science is built and only understands the
world through the lens of human bias. Since becoming the

(01:37):
head of the US Health and Human Services Department, Robert
FK Junior has never been briefed by the CDC or
a CDC expert on anything anything, despite altering research priorities,

(01:58):
shutting down pandemic prepper programs, replacing positions held by experts
with people who are not. Soon the CDC itself will
have a new handpicked leader, and the top science driven
public health organization in the United States will be pointless.

(02:23):
It won't matter what the CDC says, what the NIH researches,
what the FDA sanctions approves, because despite the long histories
of these agencies using science to make decisions, the credibility
of their science based brand is gone. The same is

(02:51):
happening at the Department of Energy. Without science, these are
meaningless organizations putting out unvalidated, untrustworthy, in some cases, dangerous nonsense.
Science is not a brand, but it is what keeps
the brand of health agencies credible, and increasingly the only

(03:14):
place you can find credible agency is right here on
this Week in Science coming up next. I've got the.

Speaker 3 (03:24):
Kind of mind that can't get enough. I want to
learn everything. I want to fill it all up with
new discoveries. It happen every day of this week. There's
only one place to go to find the knowledge to seek.
I want to know this week in Sciences, This Week

(03:51):
in Science.

Speaker 2 (03:54):
Good.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
That's science to you, Kiki, and a good science to
you too, Justin. Oh, and there's no Blair tonight. Unfortunately
she is adventuring. Fun is being had in the world.
I want you all to know this enjoyment is being procured.

(04:16):
It happens, it actually happens. Anyway, we are so glad
that you have joined us for another episode of This
Week in Science. We are back again to talk about
science like we do every week. I'm so happy to
be here. I've got lots of stories about treating pain
with Adriana shocking the immune system, splendid healing, and plants

(04:40):
that glow. What did you bring? Justin?

Speaker 2 (04:44):
I already forgot what my stories are. Is that bad?

Speaker 1 (04:48):
You've got something? I forgot what they are? I don't know?

Speaker 2 (04:52):
Okay, So I have brought I've brought a tool that
can be used in in case I.

Speaker 1 (05:05):
A tool that will be used in case you are
censored by a slow Internet. Ah. Of course at the
beginning of the show, happening broke up for a moment there.

Speaker 2 (05:21):
Okay, so I've got a method of determining whether or
not Justin is still there even if he's state. I've
got it's not you. It's the truth about therapy. A

(05:42):
couple of stories, it turns out where I'm going to
beat up on the study a little bit. One is
a g LP one. This is this is the new
weight loss drug, it drug blockbuster, drug fad that's going on.
There's a bazillion in papers. One came across my desk
and I got a signed to look at it, and

(06:03):
I did. And it's not good what they're putting out
right now in terms of the quality of the science.
And then the last story I wrote tonight is a
study that just spent too much time on the toilet.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
Oh no, all of this sounds I don't know, a
little crappy. No, it's gonna be great, it's gonna be
wonderful science. You know, you really really want to wipe
home about it. Anyway, I I'm gonna keep going with
this show right now because player's not here, so I

(06:40):
can't ask what's in the animal corner. But for all
of you, we're going to jump into the science. But
before we do, I want to remind you that you
can subscribe to This Week in Science all places that
podcasts are found, maybe not all of them, but a
lot of the places the podcasts are found.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
Looking one we can't be I can't even I don't know,
I haven't looked for those are not found on If
you can guess on the platform that has podcasts, you're
on the wrong platform because you're missing all of the
podcasts that are on.

Speaker 1 (07:14):
A different place, all of the other places. But you
can look for This Week in Science wherever you find
podcasts and get your friends to subscribe, because they should
be subscribed as well. We are here on YouTube, Twitch,
and Facebook, streaming live pretty much every Wednesday eight pm
Pacific time. You can subscribe to those channels as well,
And if you want to see our show notes or

(07:37):
check out our Patreon or our Zazzle store, head over
to Twist dot org, where you can find all of
the information related to this show.

Speaker 2 (07:45):
You can also sign up for Blair's newsletter there.

Speaker 1 (07:49):
Yeah, somebody's newsletter.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
It really is.

Speaker 1 (07:52):
But now it's time for the science. Are you ready, Yes, Okay,
let's dive right in. So you jumped in the disclaimer
into the issues of the EPA, the DOE, the CDC,
and that is a perfect platform for me to discuss

(08:13):
our top stories related to what happened in science policy
within the last week. Well, the CDC has been gutted,
for lack of a better word, the director of the
CDC was fired last week as she did not want
to resign and she pushed back against certain restrictions and

(08:35):
regulations related to the COVID nineteen vaccines, and as a result,
she was fired. There were several director level or high
level long term CDC employees, career scientists, people who are
so experienced and experts in the areas that they work

(08:57):
in in immunity and public health, and they quit in protests.
So now the CDC has uh, you know, nine fewer
top level scientists to actually do great work, and.

Speaker 2 (09:14):
Probably uh moral reasons and other reasons for them to quit.
But that's not a great protest. We need somebody behind
the scenes you can at least leak information that might
be useful for the public to know, like why quit
in protest? I don't.

Speaker 1 (09:34):
I've never fully because it is an it's an insufferable
working environment when you're when you're expertise, you.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
Have to double down and be a trooper and stick
it out.

Speaker 1 (09:45):
Well, well, this is where we are, and in this
moment we find ourselves with RFK Junior who has uh
he's put together his own vaccine uh vaccin assessment board
full of people who are vaccine skeptics and people who

(10:06):
are not necessarily experts in the immune system or vaccine science.

Speaker 2 (10:15):
And you say not necessarily expert, do you mean not
an expert?

Speaker 1 (10:23):
They are experts in some things.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
I mean, I mean like the the wiggle words. I
think we should start need to start throwing them out
because sometimes the window included.

Speaker 1 (10:38):
So I don't want I don't want to say everyone,
because it's a seventeen person vaccine Advisory committee and this
has always.

Speaker 2 (10:45):
Been an experts on immune system, right, Like, isn't that
what they should all they should have happen. Then they're
not an expert panel.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
They are no longer an expert panel. So the news
this week is that the West Coast states are going
to band together to create their own independent expert panel
UH to offer public health and vaccine safety information for
the Western States.

Speaker 2 (11:15):
So that's great news because I didn't I didn't hear
about that, and I was thinking, like, my goodness, we're
going to really have to have like some university research
centers or something step up and be doing the This
is what the CDC has put out. Our point of
view is that that that that that so that we

(11:36):
have some source of information from the scientific community that
we can keep, reliably sourced information that we can we
can follow because.

Speaker 1 (11:48):
And that is the concern as as people leave the
CDC who UH and and long term, you know, administration
to admit cross administration expert tease is lost. Where are
we going to find the knowledgeable expertise and advice and
information that we need. And it looks as though according

(12:10):
to this announcement, governors of California, Oregon, and Washington announced
today they're going to try to provide unified recommendations quote
to ensure residents remain protected by science not politics. Of course,
this is a political act in itself, because it's very
hard at this point to separate science and politics in

(12:32):
the sphere of public health, and so however, they're going
to be bringing They're going to be bringing together individuals
to actually use scientific evidence as opposed to bias in
their advising.

Speaker 2 (12:47):
Now, either a little bit like science Island, Like we're
going to have to create a little space over here
where the scientists are free from all this political nonsense
and can just do their work right.

Speaker 1 (13:06):
And so the question is, now, will states begin to
draft and craft their own public health orders? So the
Western states banding together to do this, they can bring
all their resources to bear in the name of public health.
But maybe there are going to be individual states that
make these decisions. For instance, Florida has just announced that

(13:27):
they are going to end vaccine requirements for school students.
The state is moving to end all non statutory mandates
in the state and they are going to be not
requiring any children to be vaccinated before entering kindergarten because

(13:50):
it should be they say, personal choice, public health.

Speaker 2 (13:57):
Right. Well, the only I guess, I guess it's not
even a feel to think it's a The only logical
reason I can I can come up with, the only
scenario that jumps to my into my head is that
the lawmakers of Florida, we're pushing for this all have
wealthy elder relatives that they're looking for a way to

(14:18):
get rid of.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
Oh no, this is yeah, the only thing, right, So
this is speculations, but yeah, because.

Speaker 2 (14:28):
They're gonna want to see the grandkids and if they
don't vaccinate the grandkids, then they're going to have to,
you know, like it's like the only way that it
makes sense why they would be doing this.

Speaker 1 (14:41):
Florida does have among the lowest of the vaccine exemption rates,
at about five percent of the school population. And the
question though, is with removal of mandatory vaccination for school,
how will that number change? Because doctor will still advise

(15:02):
to vaccinate, but if fewer and fewer people have to
and have to provide a vaccination record to actually enroll
their children in school, the question is what will happen
moving forward? There also what will this do? You know?
Is this going to be case studies for the future,

(15:24):
But anyway, this is a this is the first step
there removing for the states' rights and ability to make
their own choices in this. In this regard, we'll see.

Speaker 2 (15:36):
The thing is there's there's a very low risk to children.
This is also something that we discovered in the during
the big pandemic in Sweden that was at one point
trying to do her community is that, Yeah, the school
kids weren't really that affected. So when they were doing

(15:58):
just studying how the school kids are hanging things, it
was like, it's fine, you know, the schools that are
masking or getting the vaccines versus not. It wasn't a
huge difference. The difference is in the surrounding population as
those things can spread, because not everybody's going to have

(16:18):
that same level of immunity.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
Right age. But as this is happening, we are watching
RFK Junior getting rid of people at the CDC, changing
the mandate of the CDC UH. He's writing that the
organization should be focusing more on infectious diseases and chronic
diseases should be moved away from the CDC. That in

(16:44):
itself is not necessarily a terrible decision to make for
no a decision to make for separation, for separation of
of of tasks and focuses.

Speaker 2 (16:58):
But the issue is moving those other things to where.

Speaker 1 (17:03):
Right to where right? Where are they going to go?
Where in the where in the health and human services
are they going to go? Are they going? We don't
I don't know that there's not, But the RFK Junior
has been called to resign. People are saying he should
be he should be pushed out, that he is the

(17:28):
decisions he has been making, specifically with regard to vaccines
the COVID we reported last night last week the COVID
nineteen vaccine had been shifted to only be available for
people over sixty five years of age and those who
have have a need because of their immune system previously

(17:50):
understood diseases or or conditions that might lead them to
need the protection of the vaccine. But kids would not
get that vaccine anymore by the new ruling of the HHS. Additionally,
we can't it's harder and harder to find. So what's

(18:11):
happening right now at the CDC Health and Human Services.
Researchers across the board, Public health officials across the board
are saying that this is going is reckless and it
is protecting serving a political agenda as opposed to protecting
the public.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
It's also as it's also all I don't know if
you can call it perjury. I don't know what the
level of this is.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
Oh, there are lies, researcher not researchers quarters have called
out Junior on his life.

Speaker 2 (18:52):
Yeah, but I mean if you go before a confirmation
committee and they ask you how you will act when
you get into the role, and.

Speaker 1 (19:04):
I'm not geting get rid of any mains, I will.

Speaker 2 (19:06):
Supported, and you do the opposite of what you tell them,
How is that not like an instant stream control to
get somebody out of there.

Speaker 1 (19:16):
Yep, you know, it's a great question.

Speaker 2 (19:19):
I understand, Like confirmation just as make up whatever they
want to hear the once I have the job, it
doesn't matter like that doesn't make sense.

Speaker 1 (19:30):
In other news beyond our public health system being completely reworked,
gutted is a very name word in the area of
the environment, energy and climate change. In June, the Department
of Energy submitted a report that is what they it's

(19:54):
it's their climate change report. And this climate change report
according to a whole bunch of scientists who came together
during the one month August where there were public comments
a period of public comment for this report. They have
now released a four hundred page long report fully referenced

(20:18):
and documenting in the methodology of peer review, every single
issue they found wrong, every error, every misattribution, every lack
of attribution within the DOE report. First among this is

(20:40):
that they brought together more than eighty five experts to
contribute to this climate experts review of the DOE Climate
Working Group Report, which was put together by something like
a very small handpicked group of climate climate skeptics and

(21:03):
uh and and energy professionals. So for years and years
we have we've reported on various individuals who we know
have been fighting against some of the learnings and understandings
from the years of evidence coming from climate change research.

(21:25):
They have been working messaging the the merchants of doubt.
They are behind writing this so called government report which
should have been accurate and based on all of the
available evidence. However, they used cherry picked evidence. They misrepresented

(21:46):
well understood ideas behind forcing climate forcing factors versus versus
natural versus variation and small blitz in climate record. So
this Working Group report has been torn apart. Andrew Dressler

(22:07):
from Texas A and M University organized this effort and
they have gone point by point, like I said, in
the form of peer review and torn apart. They also
included a summary for policy makers, and they looked at
things like how carbon dioxide in the working group's government

(22:30):
report was represented as good for agriculture. While there is
research that suggests the greening effect of carbon dioxide very often,
the conclusions from this working group did not take into
account or didn't didn't include the nuances of things like

(22:51):
multiple factors occurring at the same time. Yes, carbon dioxide's
going up, but there's also going to be changes in
soil pH changes in temperature of the air, so warmer
environments are more stressful to plants. And when you have
all these factors coming together, you have actually you have
you have less to no change in the amount of

(23:13):
plant biomass that can grow. Well, there's they left that out.

Speaker 2 (23:18):
So there's that, But then there's also that's also missing.
Climate which is going to cause droughts, fires, inordinate amounts
of rain, which can also kill crops. If you get
too much rain, you can actually flood out of field

(23:40):
to the point where you're not going to be you're
not going to be getting your harvest.

Speaker 1 (23:44):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 2 (23:45):
Like big level of just looking at carbon is the
net positive and then ignoring all of the other things
is ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (23:57):
I mean, it's it is. It is a long report
that was published, but the climate experts rebuttal and peer
review of that report is four times as long. Instead
of one hundred pages, it's four hundred pages, and they
have so Dresser compared this government report to a badly
written blog post that demanded or that needed a response.

(24:21):
He said, if something is coming out of the federal
government that is conceivably going to be used to make
federal policy, it should be accurate. And hopefully they will
incorporate some of these comments into the final report and
that this will be added to the final report, you know,
because the use of cherry picked data to suggest that

(24:43):
carbon to change EPA standards is what they're after. There
are efforts underway to undermine the regulation for vehicles, power plants,
oil and gas industry, and also that are going to
impact public health.

Speaker 2 (25:02):
Yeah, it feels like why they're even bothering with the
clown show of doing your fake science report, because aren't
they already just doing the deregulation without the without the documentation,
like they're doing this documentation after the fact and a
lot of this anyway.

Speaker 1 (25:23):
So that is the interesting question. You know, there's the
degree to which they are trying to use regular channels
to lead to their policies and regulation, but it is
not science. They are and they say that they are
going to be using what the administry or Trump administration

(25:43):
has been asking for, which is gold standard science. But
if in fact that's what they're trying to do, that
is not represented in the working group's report that was submitted.

Speaker 2 (25:54):
You don't know who's supplying the gold.

Speaker 1 (25:59):
Right, Yeah, So, yeah, this the DOE report. They say
it was reviewed internally by a group of DOE scientific
researchers and policy experts from the Office of Science and
National Labs, and that the Trump administration is committed to
engaging in a more thoughtful and science based conversation about

(26:21):
climate change and energy, according to an NPR article, which,
by the way, NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
have been defunded by the current organization and are in
trying to find new ways to continue the excellent reporting
that they do for all Americans.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
So but in this age, in this age of what
we're we're seeing, when you say, well, the experts in
the Department of Energy have studied this and look at
it doesn't mean anything.

Speaker 1 (26:56):
It doesn't mean anything exactly because it was not it
was not a transparent process. They did not list the
people who were reviewing. They didn't they didn't list the
process to how they came to this report. There's all
sorts of stuff that has been done related to this
report without transparency. And anything that is being done for

(27:19):
the public right in the name of the public should
have full transparency, and that is not the process, which
also is very concerning.

Speaker 2 (27:29):
Well, you know, the lobbyists don't want their names associated
with the document that they're using for their lobbying that
they handed to the government to spit back out as
though it was the government. They accidentally signed things sometimes
or have letterheads that show that they all came from
the same group, the same but gosh, can you blame

(27:52):
them this document?

Speaker 1 (27:56):
Can we blame them? So, if you are interested, these
documents are fully available. The Climate Experts Review of the
DOE Climate Working Group Report is available online to to
to peruse and to see what has been what has

(28:16):
been commented on by each of the eighty five individuals.
They comment on every single aspect of the report in
in much more detail than was included in the original report.

Speaker 2 (28:33):
And so this is this is going to have to
happen for every critique and because.

Speaker 1 (28:41):
This is not paid work, however, this is this is
people working. They had a month to get this massive
report in during the period for public commentary. This is done,
you know, volunteer time. They are experts in their field.
And yes, of course this is potentially part of you know,
the work that they do as researchers to respond to this,

(29:01):
But it takes away from other more important work to
actually change.

Speaker 2 (29:07):
I don't think it does. I don't think it does
at all. I think this is some of the most
important work that they may be done in a while.

Speaker 1 (29:14):
Right, No, but why do they have to do it now?
Like this is the if this, if this report were
accurate and done well, they would not have to be
doing this and spending their time doing it. The Working
Root Group report climate the government that the government group
that they that they pulled together, they completely disregarded the

(29:36):
IPCC reports. They completely disregarded every expert report that is
they It's like they didn't exist, and they're like, oh,
we're going to rewrite what we want. That's not science.
So yeah, right now, this is one of the most
important things that these researchers could do. But it is

(30:01):
It's a crying shame that they have to be spending
their time doing this instead of actual research at this
point in time.

Speaker 2 (30:07):
Well, look, science has required defending for as long as
there's been science.

Speaker 1 (30:15):
Yeah, that's true.

Speaker 2 (30:18):
Just just discovering that the Sun was the center of
our solar system and not the Earth got people sentenced
to death, right, like this is. Science has always needed
defenders and to push back against people who just didn't

(30:41):
want it to be true. So yeah, this is I
think it's more important than the research that they have
done or would be working on right now. I mean,
I think it's more important than the work research they
would be working on right now to set this side.

Speaker 1 (30:59):
That right, But they shouldn't have to be doing this
at all. This should not be happening, but it is.
So that's what this is where they are.

Speaker 4 (31:09):
Yeah, yeah, but anyway, and also one of the comments
that people made related to this is it was as
if the working group, and responding to a comment in
the chat from Kevin Reardon, that we're going back to
America being the.

Speaker 1 (31:27):
Center of the universe. Yes, but not just the center
of the universe, just disconnected from the rest of the universe.
In that the the recommendations that were made in the
Working Group's report to from the DOE. We're not taking
into account the impact, or maybe they are and that's

(31:50):
why they're doing it, but it's not taking into account
the impact on global and foreign policies and regulations that
will occur as a result of changes that happen as
a result if this report is accepted in full.

Speaker 2 (32:05):
Yeah, So I don't I don't. I disagree with that
because I don't think that any of what our current
government is doing is going to be based on any
report anyway. I don't think that that. I don't think
it's like they're gonna be like, hey, did you read that?
Or no. I don't think any of it has to
do with the reading. But I think, to Kevin Ritmen's point,
what what I got out of that is, what if

(32:28):
what if? You know? They they you suddenly had new
leadership at the National Planetarium or whatever, and they're saying, actually, yeah,
it turns out Earth is the center of the universe
after all. After further researchers that we have working on
it have decided it that would make as much sense

(32:48):
as what's happening at the Health and Human Services and
happening at the Department of energy. If you just got
into the announcement tomorrow that the Earth is the center
of the universe, that everything is revolving around there, what
they're putting out makes that much sense, Like, I don't

(33:09):
think so as many people will be shocked by, you know,
the the fake science that they're they're putting.

Speaker 1 (33:17):
Out, but that old standard science.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
Whose gold gold, that'll be the standard? Yeah, who's gold,
who's supplying the gold? That's what you need to know
from the current.

Speaker 1 (33:32):
Yeah, but this is, uh, this is these are the
merchants of doubt and they are they're running the show
right now. They don't even have to be the merchants
of doubt anymore. Are making new rules as you said,
you got anyway, we're not saying that out loud.

Speaker 2 (33:51):
And something several maps and measuring several strains have discovered
that everything's flat.

Speaker 1 (34:00):
Nope, nope, nope, not true. Yeah, but anyway, that's what's
happening this week in science in the United States. So
much great stuff going on here. We are amazing. Let's
talk about some optimistic stuff. What did you find this week?
Justin what do you want to talk about?

Speaker 2 (34:21):
Oh? Okay, so close friends and total strangers on the
internet who listened to the show probably heard me say
I have a standing do not unplug order. Right if
I go comotos, if I'm sitting there in a hospital bed,
not moving around, not doing anything, keep me plugged in,

(34:43):
because if there's a chance that the mind is still
operating on any level, I'm fine. I didn't really need
any of you. It was nice interacting with the humans.
At the end of the day, I've got more productive
things to do just thinking. But how do you know

(35:05):
that there's a flickering going on in there? How do
you know that there's some consciousness taking place. Typically, the
way that they do that in the beginning is just
by observation. It's observation with like can you move, how
are you doing today, and looking to see if there's
any kind of a response you can get further in

(35:31):
you can do brain scans and that sort of thing,
but that's not really available to everybody, especially right becoming
comatosed automatically put you in an fMRI machine or do
an EEG. So they just do this observation thing sometimes
with the headphones, put headphones on and play sounds and

(35:52):
see if they can get a command response sort of
thing going on, like wiggle with your finger or blink
your eye, something of this nature. So this is uh,
Folks at Stonybrook University they created see me, which is
a computer based visual system that can go down to

(36:15):
point two millimeters of resolution and track movements in the face.

Speaker 1 (36:21):
So micro expressions kind of micro express little yeah.

Speaker 2 (36:25):
Interesting and and so when I first heard this, I thought, Okay, well,
is this going to like overgenerate responses other other little
micro movements that you know, maybe people miss when they're
seeing it that aren't really consciousness related, may not be

(36:46):
related to the a response to the question, that sort
of thing. Uh huh. But what I also then realize
is that if you have an unblinking eye staring at
the patient, you're going to be more likely to catch something.
You're more likely to catch a response moment. If you're

(37:08):
in there and you're doing the thing, you look away
or you blink, you might miss it for somebody who's
trying to communicate that can only make the slightest of movements.
So they had a couple of ways of doing this
with some blind testers who would look at videos after
the fact and try to determine whether or not there

(37:28):
was a conscious reaction to questions that were being put
through audio, but the results indicate an earlier and broader
detection of consciousness with see me. Eye opening was detected
on average at around nine point one days after injury

(37:51):
by seeing me, whereas it took thirteen point two days
on average by clinical examination, So it's a good four
days advanced notice. And then this is also partly a
thing that happens when people who aren't going to people
who will recover from a comma taste state. You know,

(38:11):
a coma we kind of think of is is something
somebody goes into a coma and they they're there for
like years and years and years and years, because that's
the Hollywood tale version of it. But a lot of
brain injuries people go into this sort of comatose state
and then they will recover, you know, they'll come out
of the coma within within weeks, you know, for whatever reason,

(38:37):
there's needs to be some rewiring going on anyway. So
then it says this identified open in thirty out of
thirty six patients compared to only twenty five out of
thirty six by clinical examinations. So that's that's a good

(39:00):
fourteen percent ish better. And again I think that's a
lot of that's the unblinking eye, right, that's yeah, I
can't do is versus human attention spans and consciousness. Even
in the clinical exam, you might not be seeing absolutely everything.
The actually and the one that was actually I think

(39:23):
maybe the most kind of convincing that this thing is
becoming a good detective is that patients that had the
indotracheal tube, something obscures the mouth, so you can't see
mouth movements, and there's a lot of you know, iron
mouth are going to be your big movie parts in

(39:45):
the face if you're not familiar with.

Speaker 1 (39:46):
Faces, if you're not familiar with if you're.

Speaker 2 (39:50):
Not familiar with faces. So having this tube sort of
con seeling it screwing much of the mouth, see me
still detective mouth movements four percent end of the time.
So it was it was that it was that dialed
in that it could actually just sort of ignore for
the obscuring parts and still track the motion. So overall

(40:14):
it showed reproducible mouth responses eight point three days earlier
on average. Then the clinical assessments, the observations alone, they
had some additional observations that were lower thirty seven percent
of the tongue movements, forty seven percent for smile. It

(40:36):
was really it was eighty one percent for eyes. So
actually eyes were the windows into the consciousness in this
one that was the most most sensitive.

Speaker 1 (40:48):
Are they But the eyes are usually closed in these situations,
and it's just the muscles. There's so many muscles around
the eyes like little teeny tongue.

Speaker 2 (40:57):
Yeah, yeah, this sort of thing is you're getting an
audio feed mm hmmm. Still here on some Now these
are all they aren't necessarily conscious voluntary reactions that they're getting. Also,
it's not like blink. It's not necessarily like blink your eye.

(41:20):
But here is some music playing, and are the eyes
becoming active while the music is playing. So it can
be much more subtle than a real command and responsor even.

Speaker 1 (41:34):
Though they did the command response, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (41:37):
They did, but they did both right, so yeah, or
they or at least the responses that they were getting
weren't necessarily a subject specific right mm hmmm, because this

(41:58):
is there's still Yeah.

Speaker 1 (42:01):
I just think it's so exciting. But this is one
of the big questions, right of you know, how do
you how do we determine those vegetat veget those right,
in between vegetative state and conscious How do we determine
who's there, who's not where? What are we missing or
what have we been missing? Don't know? I think it.

(42:22):
I think this is also really interesting.

Speaker 2 (42:23):
Point is yeah, what's the point you can't tell? And
so keep me plugged in, because again I didn't I
didn't need any of you. I'm happy where I.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
Am, unless, of course, see me says I don't see you.

Speaker 2 (42:41):
That that's just phase one. Then you gotta go to
the uh EG and the f MRI and then and
then even then, if there's biolog basic biological functions still
being controlled by the brain. If that's what I am,
I'm okay with that. I like being that.

Speaker 1 (43:02):
Yeah, I do love that. Yeah, I do love the
part of it also that you know, the the correlations
also lead to like different outcomes, that they're able to
see different things and be able to determine the states
of different people. And you know this this idea that

(43:24):
you know they're able to actually see this well before,
like well before I mean that gives that can give
people and doctor like loved ones, treatments like all the things,
decisions can be made faster, that might actually lead to
better outcomes, right.

Speaker 2 (43:44):
Yeah, you maybe also can if we track this, we
can also then see maybe in line in parallel with
different therapies to see which ones are actually being effective.

Speaker 1 (43:57):
Mm hm.

Speaker 2 (43:58):
For early therapy, you can you may be able to
track what is getting response versus what isn't at a
higher degree of fidelity, and then you know you know
whether or not this, this, that or the other early
therapy working. It's working, yeah, but anyway, and it's to

(44:21):
each one of these things. That's like, I think should
be everybody's choice, but you gotta make a choice now.
You can't wait till now. And so for some people
they may be like, this is if I get to
this point alone, this is my choice to go no further. Uh,

(44:43):
And that that is that should be respected. But if
it's me, it will be murder. I'm never ready to
leave it, all right, to make that absolutely clear, I'm buying.
I've got it. I'm not locked in in their healthscape, no,

(45:03):
trust me. Inside it's all rainbows and sunshine. It's beautiful.

Speaker 1 (45:09):
I like rainbows and sunshine. But what about if people
are in pain? Not while they are unconscious, but what
about chronic pain? What about issues related to what normally
is treated with opioids. We've had a huge opioid epidemic

(45:30):
here in the United States that has really impacted multiple
segments of the American population, and we are on the
hunt for non opioid pain killers. We want analgesics pain
killer that don't lead to addiction. Right, So, one of

(45:52):
the things people have been trying to see is whether
or not cannabis works, whether or not different form THHC
or CBT, whether these CBT, whether or not these these
components of the CANNABINOIDUH, all these cannabinoid molecules, whether or
not they work as painkillers, and they do to a degree,

(46:16):
but it has been seen that people tend to stop
taking them, especially if people have chronic pain. They tend
to discontinue the use of these cannabinoids after a few months,
and so the pain potentially continues. We don't have a
good replacement for opiates at this point in time. Out

(46:36):
of Kyoto University this week, researchers have published a paper
in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Discovery and
Development of an oral analgesic targeting the alpha to be
a dreno sceptor. So the alpha to adrenergic receptor is

(46:57):
involved in the pain respect opioids do impact the alpha
to a pathway. Also, if we've come up with lots
of analgesics that impact the alpha to a adrena receptor pathway,
and they often lead to issues in the defect cardiac

(47:20):
health that impact other parts of your ability to stay
hemod dynamically stable. Basically, it's like, oh, the body goes Nope,
can't do that anymore. I don't feel pain, but I'm
not gonna pump the blood anymore, or I'm not gonna
have I'm going to just vasodilate all over the place.
And so when these pain relievers are given, they are

(47:44):
given usually not orally, it is injectable, and it is
within a hospital situation because they need to be able
to monitor blood pressure and heart rate to be able
to see what's actually going on here. These researchers have
been trying to find some thing that does something similar
that can make that stops the pain that doesn't lead

(48:06):
to the cardiac impacts or the the the venus impacts.
And so they are reporting on Z one threethyl five
fluoro benzodethiazol two three H yielding propen two to one,
otherwise known as adronertic adronergic inducer of analgesa or adriana.

(48:34):
They are reporting on their new oral oral treatment for
pain called Adriana. Adriana impacts the alpha two adronergic system.
It antagonizes the alpha two B receptors. And so by

(48:55):
antagonizing this subtype, these two b's or not two bs,
by turning them off and basically going you're not going
to send your signal anymore. By not allowing stuff to
connect with them anymore, this Adriana leads to it causes
a loop that leads to an increase in the alpha

(49:18):
to A receptor activity because it's not actually being the
receptor isn't actually being stimulated. It's different than the other
situation that has led to cardiac problems. And so they've
done mice tests, mouse tests, monkey tests, and it has

(49:42):
been really successful that they've orally administered adriana to mice
and non human primates no cardiovascular effects. And they also
showed that when they got rid of the alpha to
B receptor and gave them adriana, that nothing happen happened,
that the pain was still felt. Pain was not treated.

(50:04):
There were no analgesic effects this could lead to, and
there were no addictive effects either, so this could lead
to an oral analyges the one better thanids that gets
rid of yeah, your pain without addiction.

Speaker 2 (50:22):
So the no addiction thing, because most of the story,
most of the story so far has sounded like we've
created a a version of opioids that won't will never
kill our clients, doesn't not a lot of it's made

(50:44):
it sound like they didn't focus on the addiction thing
very much like how is it? It got very specific
about how it won't kill their junkies, I mean, their clients.
They kind of skipped over skipped over the mm hmmm.
And it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (51:05):
It promotes it promotes nor adrenaline release, and it promotes
the analgesic effects, but it doesn't lead to the seeking
behaviors that opioids lead to. So a person so in
the case of say, you know, aspirin or an end

(51:27):
said that you might take for aches and pains, you
don't seek those. You don't have to. Like you, they
help get rid of your pain, but it's not something
that you physically need otherwise, like you do not need
to continue taking it. If you discontinue taking it, your

(51:48):
pain comes back, but you don't suffer cardiovascular impacts. You
don't suffer.

Speaker 2 (51:53):
I've never been like, I got to take another ibup,
Oh my goodness to get my IBREU profis. No, that's true.
That's true. But I thought I thought that had more
to the strength of iron. No, it and doesn't have
the I guess, is it dopamine effects?

Speaker 1 (52:17):
No, so opioid.

Speaker 2 (52:20):
Yeah, yeah, it gets to the pain.

Speaker 1 (52:26):
It's not going to lead tow It won't hit the
rewards system right exactly. It won't be leading to yeah,
that reward seeking behavior. It would not be leading to
actual physical impacts that could lead to uh, you know,
like opiate's have have issues when you stop taking them

(52:48):
that are very dangerous. So these this has passed phase
two clinical trials. They are on their way to human trials,
and so perhaps there will be a non addictive pain
reliever that will challenge the opiates that we currently use.

Speaker 2 (53:11):
And I'm buying much better for people right now, creating
a napkin and creating my own stock that I'm buying
of this. I don't even know what I'll feel in
the name later, like whatever.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
This is Adriana from Kyoto University, and yeah, it is.

Speaker 2 (53:33):
It is what it says it is.

Speaker 1 (53:36):
And that is the question we don't you know tas
to trials.

Speaker 2 (53:40):
Sure, and if a major be does it have to
be major side effect doesn't completely derail it, like if
they don't, if nobody dies in the human trials. Basically
there's going to be the threshold I mean, you know,
in a way related specifically indirectly to the drug. That's

(54:04):
going to be what has been sought for. So that's
going to be a wonder drug, Like it's going to
be the game changer that everybody's been looking for for forever.
It might be the biggest story with all the other
stories that we do, the biggest story of the year
here in September.

Speaker 1 (54:28):
So we've got phase two trials that are under I
guess they're underway now, sorry, in patients with post operative
pain following lung can ship cancer surgery. And they're going
to be collaborating. Kyoto University is collaborating with bTB Therapeutics,
which is a Kyoto University or originated venture company. So

(54:51):
of course this is being you know, the technology transfer
out of the university is going on but it is
an international collaboration to because the opiate crisis is not
just the United States. Opiates are highly regulated in Japan
and in countries around the world, so this is YEP

(55:13):
is a priority.

Speaker 2 (55:14):
For remark, you can't buy more than ten hyperprofen at
the time. They don't even like they really knocked every
over the counter thing away. But I'm highly highly, highly skeptical.

Speaker 1 (55:26):
Well it's it's early still, so because.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
Of how only because of how amazing it would be.
It's not based on having read any there's no disagreement
with anything that they have done, study wise or research
wiser or the basis of this now, but just one
hundred percent skeptical, just on the scale of how important

(55:52):
this is, right, which is fine. I'm I mean, I'm
more than happy to be unskeptic, the coulified how do
you call it convinced?

Speaker 1 (56:03):
Please?

Speaker 2 (56:04):
Yea more than more than happy to be convinced. Wow,
that would be amazing, It.

Speaker 1 (56:08):
Would be amazing. Want to tell me one more.

Speaker 2 (56:11):
Story, Okay, real quickly, I'm going to do this fast.
It's not you, it's us. It turns out spouses tend
to show consistent similarities to cron across nine psychiatric disorders

(56:34):
and that these persist over generations, so.

Speaker 1 (56:41):
Similar tract Wait, wait, similar as attract.

Speaker 2 (56:47):
Wait yeah, this is a this is a sample using
a ninety years in a sample of over fourteen million
million pairs in Denmark was sort of the control group
that they had, but they had another seven hundred and
seven thousand in Sweden and then fourteen point eight million

(57:17):
with six million matched controls. Lots of lots of people,
and this was the bulk of the study. Was then
assessed on Taiwanese couples starting in nineteen ninety five nineteen
ninety six when they were getting diagnosis of personality disorders
and psychiatric disorders as part of their routine healthcare. And

(57:39):
there had been I guess pre you know, small scale
I guess marriage registry type studies or something that had
reported SPOUSALSS similarities in several disorders, and this one finds that, yeah,
actually it works in multiple countries.

Speaker 1 (58:03):
And then there's Nordic countries, so they're all related.

Speaker 2 (58:07):
Anyway, right, right, And so then they took this exactly
why this study took place in Taiwan, Okay, and and
to see that they were basically looking to track and
see if if that was if it still worked, and
there were some slight differences, but for the most part, yeah, family,

(58:31):
of course, risk increases when both parents share a diagnosis
for schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, substance use disorder,
and a lot of these things too. Then you know,
we've had this kind of back and forth about personality disorders,
about how much of it is and how much of

(58:54):
it is your environment. But then if both of your
parents have the you're both more genetically likely to share traits.
But you're also going to be brought up by these
folks who are sharing this whatever this personific so you know,

(59:15):
and this is so much here. Next time, you.

Speaker 1 (59:22):
Know, you've had a genetic aspect but behavioral and you
like you and you know you like hanging out with
people who understand you, right, and if somebody else has issues,
they're very likely are going to be compassionate and understanding
of you know, whatever your issues are.

Speaker 2 (59:39):
Because but it seems like it happens over generations, so
that they they're they're at a non statistical rate of
chance more likely to select somebody with a similar psychiatric disorder.
So next time you're like you're about to tell your

(01:00:01):
spouse that they've got this, this, this and this issue.
Chances are you're projecting as well. That's right, You're right,
and you're projecting. It's probably both probably selected somebody who's
got your same deal. I do not one really big exception.

(01:00:26):
You know what, wasn't o c D. Apparently people with
OCD can't don't select other people with OCD they intended
not to want to.

Speaker 1 (01:00:36):
Be other disorders are.

Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
Yeah, you're organizing different like anybody else doesn't, doesn't organize.
They're fine, I'll do all the organizing. You organize differently
than I do. Know this will never work. I can
see how that would be a problem. All right, as
we go into the break, I gotta go check the
air and my tires real quick, and I'll be right back.

Speaker 1 (01:01:03):
And this is this Week in Science. Thank you so
much for joining us for this Wednesday night episode. We
hope that you are enjoying the show. I hope you're
enjoying the show, and that if you are, that you
will share us with your friends, friends, family, co workers
who needs more science in their lives, who would love
to hang out and talk with us and be part

(01:01:26):
of these discussions, think about that and share twists. Also,
head over to twist dot org. That's where you can
send the people that you are recommending Twist to to
find out more about us the show. Past episodes show
notes links to things like our Zazzle store, where you
can find merchandise, all those wonderful, wonderful products that have

(01:01:48):
been designed by Blair, all the artwork that she's done
through the years to make your homes happy and full
of twists, and Blair's Animal Corner animals. Also at twist
dot org is our Patreon on link. Patreon is where
we coordinate our listener support. So if you click on
that Patreon link and join as a Patreon supporter, you'll

(01:02:12):
be able to choose your level of support whatever works
for you on an annual or monthly basis to be
able to help us keep bringing you twists week after
week as much as we can. We really can't do
this without you. I mean, honestly, I love seeing all
of you in the chat room when we're alive, and
I love imagining and thinking about you out there watching

(01:02:37):
later or listening on your computer or your smartphone. I
love thinking about that and trying to think who you are.
Who are you? Thank you so glad you spend your
time with us. Justin do you have stories for us?

Speaker 2 (01:02:57):
Yes? Yes, so every once in a while, this is
that new segment justin trash is a study.

Speaker 1 (01:03:07):
Thank you?

Speaker 2 (01:03:07):
Yes, while I get one across the desk. So I'm
gonna give the disclaimer that I put at the end
of this one. This is a quick general disclaimer that
should accompany all GLP one receptor antagonists any study on these,
because they could be injecting bias into presenting the benefits

(01:03:32):
of off label implications for taking these trucks. There's a
lot of publication pressure, and I think there's even even
if the research isn't industry funded, doing a positive study
on the blockbuster drug. There's a bazillion names for these

(01:03:58):
right now for weight loss. Even if you're not directly funded,
doing a positive study is a signal that you're somebody
who could do fund it, who could take funding, who
could do another positives to follow up with another positive review.
Right So, going through this study, and there's something that

(01:04:21):
catches my eye early on when they're presenting how the
study is formulated, and it says that p values were
two sided with a point five or above would be
considered statistically insignificant. So anything had to be under a
P value of point zero five for it to be

(01:04:44):
considered relevant. Right, This was their threshold in their study,
and they had a good cohort. They had over eighty
thousand matched adults. Some had Type two diabetes, some had
other comorbidities, and the overall idea of this will was

(01:05:10):
whether or not there would be long term cancer risks,
not risks from the JLP one ras. This is the
association with obesity and cancer. There's thirteen types of cancer
that have been strongly associated with cancer diagnoses. Obesity is

(01:05:33):
also just as far as metabolic diseases. It's the number
one killer of humans. It's the number one cause of
death associated with all sorts of other diseases. Obesity is
that one lynch pin that associates most of these and
thirteen types of cancer strongly account for what is it?

(01:05:54):
Approximately forty percent of all cancer diagnoses each year in
the US. Obesity is a comorbated Okay, So the.

Speaker 5 (01:06:03):
Idea is, hey, if people on these diabetic drugs who
were using them to lose weight, do they have a
lower risk of cancer?

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
And they did actually fourteen cancers. They also threw in
lung cancer to this. Of the fourteen cancers, only ovarian
cancer showed a significant positive correlation to the GLP one
ra users and it had a really low hazard ratio
of zero point five to three, which means a pretty

(01:06:40):
dramatic reduction. But this is also and it had a
P value of point zero four, so it falls into
their classification is statistically relevant now.

Speaker 1 (01:06:54):
Not incredibly significant, but relevant.

Speaker 2 (01:06:56):
Well, not incredibly significant because out of fifty nine thousand
women in this forty nine had events. So it's also
one of the least likely UH diseases. It's like, i
think third out of their list. So it was also
like low prevalence. So those are always a little trickier

(01:07:20):
because this wasn't a study on this one type of cancer.
Had it been, that would have been a very significant number.
But because this was a subgroup, the smallest subgroup sort
of in this it makes it maybe a little relevant.
So when combining all cancers, they found a significance of

(01:07:42):
an HR of zero point eight three, which would be
like a seventeen percent lower risk when they combine them all.
The problem is when you go one by one by one.
All of them have a P value just about all
of them of zero point zero five, which means that.

Speaker 1 (01:08:05):
It's just just making it to the edge of no significance.

Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
No, it's making it just past the edge of significance.
It's insignificant. Yeah, for almost everything that they tested individually.
One thing that they said was this. One thing that
I noticed was associated was an increased risk of kidney cancer.

(01:08:34):
This has This is a very interesting one because it
had an HR of one point three to eight, which
means a thirty eight percent increase in kidney cancers versus control. Interestingly, though,
the confidence index was zero point ninety nine to one

(01:09:00):
point ninety three, pretty big range. But it also does what, Kiki.

Speaker 1 (01:09:09):
What do you mean it does?

Speaker 2 (01:09:10):
What?

Speaker 1 (01:09:11):
It crosses one? Right? It does?

Speaker 2 (01:09:13):
Yes, zero point ninety nine to one point ninety three. Okay,
so that should be make it an insignificant result. The
problem is it has a P value of zero or
point zero four, now.

Speaker 1 (01:09:36):
Which is relevant but not incredibly significant.

Speaker 2 (01:09:40):
Well, here's the thing.

Speaker 1 (01:09:42):
We don't do physics significance in medicine in biology.

Speaker 2 (01:09:48):
Yeah, no, no, the P value should actually be reflecting
that CI. You should not have a P value in
the significant range. With a CI that crosses one, that
should not be possible. It should have at least a
one at minimum to have the P value that was

(01:10:13):
significant there. So trying to figure out what happens is
it could be a rounding issue, right, a signific Now
we're going to talk about significance in terms of significant digits.
If it came out in the data that it was
a CI of zero point nine nine five, they might

(01:10:34):
have thought, oh, well, we're only using two digits. We
don't use that trailing one. What you're supposed to do
is round it. And if the rounding, if that is
what the rounding would tell you, then it would put
the P value at a point zero four, right.

Speaker 1 (01:10:51):
Because if there's no way one, the point nine nine
would be one to one point nine, So it wouldn't
be crossing.

Speaker 2 (01:10:58):
Right. But even like, there's something tricky going on, because
it's just there's there's something that looks like a fudging
of the numbers for it to be so close with
such a range that is, you know, one point ninety
three is the high end, with the average at one

(01:11:19):
point three to eight. There's something fishy about it just
happening to get that zero point one below relevance with
CI because it crosses. And yet somehow in their data
they still showed a P value of point zero four.
It doesn't add up. And because it doesn't add up,

(01:11:41):
and this is a two sided Cox model, this is not,
this is not and a multi variance method where they're
conflating different kinds of things. Nowhere in the study text
does it try to reconcile the discrepancy or say that
even though we have a relevant P value, we we

(01:12:03):
had this crossing the one. So they have these strange
terms where it's you know, moderately they use the word
moderately insignificant. That's not how it works. You can't have
there's no such thing as moderately insignificant. You have you
your established criteria. And what's also interesting is all of

(01:12:27):
the other ones that didn't, that had the P value
that showed it to be insignificant, they didn't cross the one.
So there's also like, how how is it that all
of your significant findings, which they they point out in
the study At the very end, you know, they conclude

(01:12:51):
that the GLPR one ra's were associated with reduced risk
of overall cancer ovari and also claim reductions and endo
meat and men in geoma cancers. These are brain lining
tissue growth. They're not necessarily cancerous. But the primary outcomes

(01:13:12):
of those also stated P values below the below or
the at the point zero point five, So the P
values still didn't back up their side claims. So it's
very confusing how this is possible. They do have a

(01:13:35):
statement that suggests that JLP one ras might be associated
with increased risk or cancer. I think that's what their
study found, and I think they buried it is what
it looks like to me, because I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:13:49):
It sounds like it may in certain certain situations, but
it also the the the conclusion that generally it reduces cancer.
It's kind of like they're making it out to be
more significant than it actually seems to like than the

(01:14:09):
results there.

Speaker 2 (01:14:12):
They're making their positives that are not at the threshold
of significance sound more significant than they are, and they're
taking their one that fell into a significant category and
doing something with the data that makes it look like
it just barely crossed one. So they can kind of
push it out because it doesn't like there isn't I know,

(01:14:35):
I'm not an expert on this, but I went looking
really hard for an example or an explanation of how
you can cross the ci CI can cross one and
still be a significant result, and everything told me, like,
you go check your data, dude, Somebody go check it.

(01:14:58):
How it works. It's supposed to just be a reflection
of the you know, the confidence in the P value
should should kind of roll together, or at least the
P value shouldn't be in direct conflict.

Speaker 1 (01:15:16):
It should be. But I think you're right about the
rounding error and that it wasn't That wasn't I mean,
that would that would make sense. But if they say
point ninety nine, then do you think that that is
what they are, that that's what they used.

Speaker 2 (01:15:32):
Yeah, their own rema moderately insignificant. They tried to push
it down. Yeah, it didn't even bother P hacking. Because
you know, this is also one of these things like
you wonder whether when you have a group of scientists,
and this is this is also when we were talking
about like if nobody's in, if half the people aren't experts,

(01:15:53):
then they don't count as an expert panel. If you
have you may have people that are pushing back against
P hacking, that are preventing p hacking. But then you
have somebody who makes the rounding error on purpose too,
like because that's their role. Something's not right, something really stinks,

(01:16:14):
And it's not the first one of these studies where
something stinks or where for whatever reason, the language study
is trying to downplay. Yeah, remal effects, kidney effects.

Speaker 1 (01:16:31):
Well that's called money. Because of money. They don't want
it to be impacting kidney because that is.

Speaker 2 (01:16:38):
Right, and that's a that's a problem. So just just
beyond notice that any one of these I don't want
to just say we'll go be because that's the only
one that keeps coming to mind.

Speaker 1 (01:16:49):
More than that.

Speaker 2 (01:16:50):
Yeah, don't believe the claims right out that you hear
in the news because it's getting wonder drugged into taking
care of everything and it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (01:17:04):
Invationalism is out of control. It's like the minute you
get it, the minute any kind of drug becomes you know,
the silver bullet that is going to take care of
so many things, it's going to solve all the problems.
That is when you should have already been questioning it.
But when the media is over selling and hyping, that's it.

Speaker 2 (01:17:26):
Yeah, it's and here's the other the other warning because
you're not going to get it from any other source.
So I guess we're other experts on medicine. Now. No,
it's not a good sign. It's not the good sign. Nope.
But it's being talked about as though it is a
weight loss drug without exercise, and the problem with that

(01:17:48):
is about forty of that weight loss, thirty to forty
percent of the weight loss people experience is loss of
muscle tissue. So if you're not exercising, yeah, it's like
getting bedridden right when you have it, when you have
muscle atrophy, like if you have you know it's experiencing

(01:18:14):
something on the level of muscle atrophy. So that if
you're if you're not exercising, you're going to have chances
of things like falls and slips and miscalculations in your body.
Your body's going to feel different, look different, you might
ache like. There's all kinds of downstream effects for losing

(01:18:34):
that much muscle in a very very quick period of time.
So anyway, we'll keep an eye on those stories. I'll
probably find another one, uh sometime in the near future.
Why that have that skepticism in mind whenever you hear
about a claim of one of these uh former uh

(01:19:01):
what do you call former diabetes drugs for weight loss?
But there's there's more to this story than you are
being presented or that.

Speaker 1 (01:19:08):
We that is, it is understood even yet, and they're
hyping it before we know everything. So that yeah, and.

Speaker 2 (01:19:19):
What you get, Uh, this is the toilet study says here,
And this is I I didn't delve into this study.
This is just the press release alone. Is all I
kind of needed to go. Huh, Scrolling while on the
toilet linked to higher risk of hemorrhoids.

Speaker 1 (01:19:40):
Right, yes, because you sit on the toilet and forget
how long you've been there.

Speaker 2 (01:19:47):
Survey participants who reported using a smartphone while on the
toilet had a higher risk of hemorrhoids than non phone users.
And let's see, it is a pretty significant amount to
forty six percent higher risk of hemorrhoids than people don't

(01:20:09):
use phones. Here's the thing.

Speaker 1 (01:20:14):
Yeah, I have so many questions.

Speaker 2 (01:20:18):
And I'm just I don't want to I don't I'm
not gonna talk too much more about this. I'm gonna
talk a little bit more about this. It says here
that this is coot I think starting involved in the
study using using a smartphone while on the toilet was

(01:20:41):
linked to forty six percent increased chance of having hemorrhoids.
We're still uncovering the many ways smartphones in our modern
wild life impact our health. It's possible that how and
where we use them, such as wild in the bathroom,
can have unintended consequences. Ooh oh, they're they're making causational
claims here consequences.

Speaker 1 (01:21:01):
What about these papers? What about books? What about just your.

Speaker 2 (01:21:09):
This is not a study over any period of time.
This is a survey. And here's the problem because it's
not so here's so yes, because the survey is do
you like like you check that box? So it's yes.

(01:21:30):
They had it before they took the survey anyway, so
we don't know when they got it. They were and
here you ever see the right pillow? Do you know
what it is? Wait? What a hemorrhyd pillow? When they
have hemorrhy Do you know what it looks like? What
does it look like? It looks like a toilet.

Speaker 1 (01:21:51):
Seat, the toilet sea mm hmm.

Speaker 2 (01:21:55):
Yeah. What if it's just more comfortable, What if it's
the most comfortable seat in the house. If you have hemorrhoids,
then it's not having anything to do with being on
the smartphone. It's just you know, this is more comfortable
than the wooden chair in the in the kitchen. This
is more comfortable than my desk chair. Whatever. It seems

(01:22:20):
like they just kick that correlate.

Speaker 1 (01:22:25):
But here's another thing. Yeah, it's use on the toilet
correlated to risk of hemorrhoids. Well, if you have hemorrhoids,
or you had them before, potentially you have issues with
with your excretion and so that you know, the process

(01:22:48):
of getting rid of your excrement. Maybe it takes a
long time, so you use a smartphone phone for entertainment
once upon a time, maybe it was magazines, newspapers, actual
physical books. I if you're taking a long time. If
you're taking a long time, the likelihood of hemorrhoids is higher.

Speaker 2 (01:23:11):
Okay, but specifically they ruled out straining. Straining while using
the toilet was not associated with increased hemorrhid risk.

Speaker 1 (01:23:28):
But you have the the all of the stuff is slow,
but you just could take a long time. You could
also just like sitting there, like you said, maybe it's
more comfortable and you're reading.

Speaker 2 (01:23:45):
Training wasn't wasn't why right?

Speaker 1 (01:23:48):
Yeah, So it's not the straining, but it's not necessarily
I'm wondering though, like I just go back to like
old old entertainment. Now it's smartphones. It used to be
newspapers or whatever, you know, and maybe it's yeah, it's

(01:24:09):
the only break that some people get right, And potentially
there is an issue that is self reinforcing, and maybe
the hemorrhoid pillows are also an issue. But maybe there's
an issue of relaxing on a not supported seat that
leads to a prolapsing or relaxing of all those muscles
that does not y'all, I'll keep everything in.

Speaker 2 (01:24:33):
I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:24:33):
I don't know how this works, but there's all sorts of.

Speaker 2 (01:24:39):
The pooping itself is what they've kind of ruled out.

Speaker 1 (01:24:43):
But if you're just sitting there, you're just sitting there.
Do people who use smartphones on the toilet also just
sit longer? In general? Always?

Speaker 2 (01:24:54):
Yes, that's what they were saying. Yes, Uh so here's
the let's see. Time spend on the toilet was definitely
higher for smartphone users than non users. Thirty seven percent
of smartphone users spent more than five minutes at a
time on the toilet, compared to only seven point one
percent of non users, which I gotta tell you, I

(01:25:17):
am actually I thought that I was quick. But if
most people are under five minutes, then I'm just there
in the mainstream. I'm just there with the bulk. I
thought it was I thought that a lot of people,
because people are always talking about like it was like,
you know, they had time to you know, knit a
sweater while they were in there or whatever. I never had.

(01:25:38):
I'm luck. It's not gone. Yeah, Reading news and using
social media were the most commonly reported smartphone activities on
the toilet, but straining while using the toilet was not
associated with increased hemorrhoid risk. Basis on these findings, researchers
suggests that smartphone use may inadvertently prolonged pilate time. That

(01:26:03):
makes sense, potentially increasing pressure in the tissues, which is
the thing that they also kind of rolled out. Maybe
pressure by the just sitting. I don't know, I feel
like it's just from sitting.

Speaker 1 (01:26:17):
That's I think that's what they're saying. And that's what
I was trying to say, is like, because it's not
supported in the center, you're the muscles that support that
entire part of your anatomy. Could the pressure that I
don't know, Like, this is such an interesting and I
just keep coming back to is it really smartphone use?

(01:26:39):
Is it not like that? Is it not what people use?
I mean people used to talk about people spending hours
in the bathroom, like reading magazines just to get a break,
you know, or that was there there. They'd lock the
door and stay in the bathroom for two hours reading
the newspaper or magazines. I mean, I don't even want

(01:27:00):
to know what people do in the bathroom by themselves,
so I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:27:03):
I'm like all business.

Speaker 1 (01:27:05):
But why is it all smart? I mean, smartphones are
the devil apparently God.

Speaker 2 (01:27:12):
Well, smart smartphones are dumb. If you're old enough to
remember there used to the magazines in there, you're gonna
have be like you said, newspaper or magazine. There was
reading material that people would would would leave toilet side.
That's all gone. Nobody's doing that. But the cell phones

(01:27:33):
is the new version of that. Yeah, how do you
think those hand woven sweaters or do you think they're
sitting on that rocking chair by the fire the whole time? No,
the whole all of that is sitting right there toilet side,
waiting for the next session to go work on it.

Speaker 1 (01:27:57):
Anyway, our entertainment has us at our wits end apparently.
And as we get into the tail end of this show,
I would like to talk about some other fun news.
You want to hear some things. Yeah, quick stories for

(01:28:19):
the end of the show. Really cool and research out
of Trinity College, Dublin, researchers have taken macrophages. They took
blood samples and they published this research and Cell Reports
Physical Science this last week. They took blood samples from

(01:28:42):
the Irish Blood Transfusion Board and they took the immune cells,
the macrophages, the white blood cells out of these blood
samples and then shocked them. They electrically stimulated the macrophages.
In stimulating these macrophases, these are healthy individuals. Macrophages. You

(01:29:08):
know what macrophages do justin.

Speaker 2 (01:29:11):
Eat viruses.

Speaker 1 (01:29:13):
No viruses, but yeah, they go around and they patrol,
yeah kind of viruses. They find bacteria, they find weird things,
and they go no, no, no, and they want to
go they want to go chomp them up and eat
them up. Sometimes though their activity can lead to inflammation.
So what they do actually as they destroy cells, as
they eat things up, they release factors that lead to

(01:29:35):
more inflammation. But that's and that's not good because the
information can lead to these self reinforcing cascades that lead
to negative impacts of infections or wounds. So the researchers
they tried electrically stimulating macrophages. They used a custom bioreactor

(01:29:57):
and applied electricity to these cells, and they found that
the cells shifted to an anti inflammatory state. They still
did what they normally do. What they normally do, they
were roving around trying to find or bump into infectious agents,

(01:30:18):
but they stopped releasing inflammatory markers. They promoted the formation
of new blood vessels, and they increased stem cell recruitment
into wounds. One of the reasons that they tried this
is that we have seen that with really bad wounds

(01:30:39):
and also with some wounds that have impacted nerves, they've
seen that electrical stimulation can help with wound healing, and
so they were like, well, why not just the macrophages.
And in this they showed that they could potentially reprogram
as in their words, can reprogram macrophages to encourage faster,

(01:31:03):
more effective healing to limit on wanted side effects. And
this is a new direction of research to be able
to see what happens with different kinds of electrical stimulation.
Now as we're talking about it, I also kind of
makes me wonder about some of the I guess results

(01:31:27):
that people that very often because there hasn't been a
lot of science put by or research put behind it.
There's anecdotal stories of uh, you know, magnetic fields which
induce elect electric current. There is are anecdotal stories of
electric electrical currents that have led to certain immune responses,

(01:31:51):
and so there is a certain level of going, huh,
this is interesting. We are electrochemical organisms, and so this
potentially is in certain individuals. And I'm not going to
say everyone, because genetic variation and you know, all sorts
of disease factors and environmental factors tied into this could

(01:32:13):
you know, make this much more nuanced. But it's just
very interesting to think that electrical stimulation, not genetic modification,
could lead to a substantial change in your immune system
that would be beneficial. I wouldn't think it.

Speaker 2 (01:32:35):
So are you are you saying the five g's.

Speaker 1 (01:32:40):
Nope, am not. I did not say that. What I
am saying I did not. I did not say that
at all.

Speaker 2 (01:32:50):
That's what I heard is that actually good for your
immune system? We should have more of it?

Speaker 1 (01:32:58):
Right, Okay, but I mean that's like the question, right
if they're if they're talking about it. Oh, it made
me sick. This happened. That happen. It's like real, Actually
it should mean you healthier if this study is any indication.
But the the you know, the there they manipulated these
cells in a very specific way using a custom bioreactor.
This is not like random uh you know, the electromagnetic signals

(01:33:23):
in the atmosphere. This isn't you know, your your household current.
This is uh, you know, they were specifically manipulating immune
cells in a way that could be therapeutically applied in
the future. I mean, imagine you go, you take some blood, right,
and then they're able to take your macrophages. Maybe you've

(01:33:44):
got your you've got too much inflammation going on in
your system. They rate it, you know, they get dot
dot dute little shock your system, shock the macrophages, and
then put them back in and suddenly they're able to
go around and reduce inflammation. And it could be an

(01:34:05):
easy self uh self applied treatment and it might you know,
who knows this to me? This sounds very appealing. So
I'm just and that we need to study electricity, the
electromagnetic spectrum and what's going on. We know what doesn't happen,
but we also are seeing things that do and we

(01:34:27):
can't just say we can't. You know, science man, evidence
not speculation. So I'm not saying yes, but this is okay.

Speaker 2 (01:34:39):
So this is a bacteria eating in another bacteria. I
thought the thing that is.

Speaker 1 (01:34:44):
A cell eating a bacteria, yeah, or a or an
apoptotic cell or something. You know, the macrofaders go around,
they eat all sorts of stuff, Okay, But.

Speaker 2 (01:34:58):
I thought the thing that I guess I thought the
thing that made the toxicity was the endotoxins, right, like
the things that were getting released from the cell that
was getting devoured.

Speaker 1 (01:35:12):
No, okay, so sometimes the sometimes there are factors that
are immunomodulatory. So the macrophages are frontline defense, right, they're
roving you know, castle protectors, right, They're going around with

(01:35:33):
their with their shield and their long sword. I don't
know what do you use in a castle, but they're
going around looking for invaders. Hack ha cack or you know,
whatever's going wrong, fix it, fix it, fix it, and
if something's going wrong, they're also going to yell and say, hey,
I need help send more reinforcements. Right, And so there's

(01:35:58):
all sorts of uh, inflammatory modulators, so inter lukens and
other signals that get released from the macrophasis depending on
what they're eating. And you know, in addition to you
know the other stuff that you know, maybe the macrophasis
are like you know, releasing out as they vegasatize everything.

(01:36:24):
But there's a there's a cascade that it can occur
that if these macrophages shout too loudly, if they bring
too many reinforcements, if they ask for the wrong kind
of reinforcements, that that can lead to a poorly adapted response.
And so what's interesting is this electrical stimulation basically goes

(01:36:50):
get back in line, man, go back to this different state.
I don't and why it works. What's happening? There's so
much there?

Speaker 2 (01:37:00):
Yeah, okay, cool.

Speaker 1 (01:37:04):
Anyway, they're they're endorsing electrical stimulation as a viable therapeutic
strategy for the modulation of macrophages across multiple injury and
defense micro environments. I also think this this means that
there is a lot more that we need to learn
about how and why these different cellular subpopulations work the

(01:37:27):
way they do within the complex environments and micro environments
of the human body. You know, it's very complex. I'm
not saying that that five G and other stuff that Newton.
I didn't say that.

Speaker 2 (01:37:43):
That's what I keep hearing is having.

Speaker 1 (01:37:52):
I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that.

Speaker 2 (01:37:55):
So that's not clo to the tower if you if
you're sick, you should get right climb the tower. Hug
the mind might be radiation and electricity.

Speaker 1 (01:38:09):
He needs a hug.

Speaker 2 (01:38:11):
If you hug a tower, you can cure you Today
most diseases known to.

Speaker 1 (01:38:18):
Men, that is not No, what's wrong with.

Speaker 2 (01:38:23):
My ears today?

Speaker 1 (01:38:25):
I don't know. Have you spent too much time on
the toilet with your smartphone? How's your spleen?

Speaker 2 (01:38:33):
Oh do I? I don't even know if I have one.
I don't even know what that is.

Speaker 1 (01:38:38):
Like, I keep going back to, uh, what was there
was a oh the like a superhero movie that was
not like super superheroes. And another one guy is like,
I'm the spleen you know anyway?

Speaker 2 (01:38:55):
So can I be perfectly honest just a moment, because
I normally not m hm I am constantly confused between
my spleen and my pancreas. I don't know which one
is which.

Speaker 1 (01:39:11):
They're very different.

Speaker 2 (01:39:13):
As soon as as soon as I get like an
idea of which one does what, I know what they are,
but the names, I can never tell which one is which.
Just off the top of my head, I don't. I
just won't stay there. Someone's gonna explain it to me.
That would be great. Thank you for.

Speaker 1 (01:39:30):
Playing on all Right, So, the spleen is like it's
part of your immune system. It filters blood like the liver.
It's right near the liver, but it's on the backside
of your stomach.

Speaker 2 (01:39:43):
And are you looking at it? Are you looking at
it at like.

Speaker 6 (01:39:46):
I am looking at it, but I was off the
top of your head, everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:40:00):
And it's responsible for white blood cell production. It's like
part of all your your GLAMs. It's like it's like
one of them. But it's involved in blood cells, so
red blood cell storage, it makes white blood cells. But
it's so it's important for your own your own system
and your body's defense or or repair after damage.

Speaker 2 (01:40:22):
Right, and then the pancreas is the little thing that
the diggestion now.

Speaker 1 (01:40:26):
The pancreas is and it makes enzymes. It's like that
puts stuff in the tummy. That's like, yeah, okay, so
I have it.

Speaker 2 (01:40:35):
I have a I have a I have an enlarged spleen.

Speaker 1 (01:40:39):
Then I don't have Well that means that your body
is that that spleen. It's like it is a glint,
it is large stuff. It's it's working really hard. Actually
it's like inflamed. It's working really hard, and it's making
a lot of white blood cells, which would kind of
make sense, right, And yeah, so the spleen is involved

(01:41:04):
in creating white blood cells, it's involved in repair and
the heart. What does it have to do with the spleen.
You don't really think of the heart and the spleen
being connected in any way because the spleen is like
I'm hanging out on back of tummy the stomach. I'm
gonna be over here. You're doing my thing. And so

(01:41:28):
it's like making the white blood cells. Put that in
the blood. It's all good. We know that the heart
after cardiac arrest, after damage of any kind, what do
we know can it be repaired?

Speaker 2 (01:41:46):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (01:41:47):
No, no, really no, So we talk about cardiac arrest,
we talk about issues with the heart where sections of
the heart muscle are damaged and scar tissue forms. We
have not been able to We have not a scar
tissue which is not flexible, which limits the volume and

(01:42:12):
strength of the heart, so it impinges on the heart's
ability to pump blood. Even though the heart still works
just fine. It's not able to like really love dub
the way that it used to. We've tried stem cells,
we're trying all sorts of things injected into the heart.

(01:42:33):
We're trying so hard to repair damage damaged muscle cells
within the heart after cardiac and friction. Nothing like so far,
everybody's like, no, can't happen. We can't repair. It always
turns into into scar tissue. There's like nothing we do.
But there's a small group of people where when things

(01:42:55):
are caught early enough and it like the cardiac damag
somehow there is an early response from the body. There
is no scar tissue. The cardiac and farnction, the blood
loss to those muscle cells within the heart, it doesn't
lead to scar tissue. There's something that happens there and

(01:43:17):
researchers have been trying to figure out what and why,
and apparently it's because of the spleen. The spleen sends
white blood cells to the heart when there is damage,
So when you have a heart attack, there are immune
cells that are sent from the spleen to the heart.

(01:43:40):
They found in this particular study published in Circulation, looking
at mice, they had very specific immune cells. They're called
marginal metallophilic macrophages. They originate in the spleen, they go
from the spleen to the heart, and they can lead
to healing after a heart attack. And with this study

(01:44:04):
they were able to show that these macrophages from the spleen,
they get rid of the damaging immune cells, they get
rid of inflammation, and they actually in the last study
we were talking about, they activate stem cells and genes
to repair cardiac tissue that's been damaged after a heart attack.

(01:44:26):
So they were looking at also not just mice. They
looked at levels of marginal metallophilic macrophages in blood samples
from people who went to the hospital after a heart attack,
and they compared those with people who had coronary artery
disease but not recently had heart attack, and people who

(01:44:48):
had heart attack had higher levels of those metallophilic macrophages.
So heart attack triggers an immune response or a damage
control response by the body that the spleen responds to.
And potentially this is the question. Now, can we harness
it to repair damage from heart attack? Can we harness

(01:45:12):
this to repair damage from chronic coronary artery disease? How
can we better understand what the spleen is doing and
how these specialized macrophages are involved to be able to
boost and support that repair process. And you could say,

(01:45:35):
thanks spleen, if you surprise, if you if you survived
a heart attack, maybe your spleen was involved.

Speaker 2 (01:45:44):
It seems that it would have to be pretty quick.

Speaker 1 (01:45:48):
Yeah, well there right.

Speaker 2 (01:45:49):
There happens happens uh pretty quickly?

Speaker 1 (01:45:56):
Yeah, yeah, soon after, you know. And so it's like,
of course, you know the extent of the infection, right,
so how much of the cardiac muscle tissue has been damaged?
How much can be repaired? You know? Of course there's
going to be there's probably some limit to the amount
of damage that these macrophages can actually can actually manage.

(01:46:19):
But is this something it can be? So can we
boost these immune cells? Are there drugs that can be
developed to be able to lead to a better response.
I don't know, there's no intervention in trials yet, but

(01:46:40):
this is where this research will definitely be leading. And
I think it is really interesting because to date, you
can't fix broken heart tissue, injured heart tissue. It doesn't
get fixed, that's it. And so to know that there
is and the question is it like we've always been

(01:47:01):
like how do you fix it? Does the body fix it?
Of course the body fix some of it, but like
what is making it happen? This is part of the solution.
My last study is Funny researchers published in Matter. It

(01:47:27):
is a material material science research. They are have published
their work proposing an integration of luminescent microparticles with succulent
plants to create superior luminescence. The researchers have basically created

(01:47:56):
a promising approach that they say material engineered luminescent plant
strategy after glow particles micrometer scale materials that when integrated
specifically into succulent plants as opposed to all the others
that they tested, which were numerous, they have found that

(01:48:19):
they've been able to create the first multicolored luminescent plants.
Excited by sunlight that have quote unprecedented brightness long after glow,
and a low cost, simple and reproducible method that paves
the way for sustainable plant based lighting solutions.

Speaker 2 (01:48:39):
So this was a dream I had many many decades
ago talking to a friend. We were going to try
to create glow in the dark plants is the thing,
and then we got talked out of it because well,

(01:49:02):
you know, it's a good thing. This is This would
be the one where Blair. I'm gonna step into Blair's
role and be like, what does this do to insect life?
With this additional with plants that light up and mess
up the whole darkness? Isn't there right? A blah blah blah.
You know what I'm saying, she'd have some intelligent take
on it. I'm just battling, but what is this? What

(01:49:23):
does this do to the to the eCos How do
plants react or the insect world react to these plants?

Speaker 1 (01:49:30):
Now that they probably not, This is not something that
we need to think about at this point in time
because these plants, the luminescence doesn't luminescence does not last
very long, and it needs to be injected into the succulence.

Speaker 2 (01:49:47):
Oh, well then stop it. Yeah, it doesn't count. I
did make a glow in the dark anything right now
with a little bit of paint. That's not how you
do it.

Speaker 1 (01:49:58):
They have wonder but this is the first plant in
which these sustainable materials luminescent micro side whatever, these compounds,
these phosphors have been taken up by the tissues of
the plants, not broken down and reproduce and create bioluminescence.

(01:50:22):
So yeah, this isn't a new idea. But what they
did they taste it basically took phosphor particles similar to
like lolow in the dark toys luciferin and like the
firefly bioluminescent compound. They absorb light from the sun. They're

(01:50:42):
able to store that and then re emit it over
a long time period. In this particular time thing, they
found seven micrometers seven microns, about the width of a
red blood cell. According to this article from Science Daily.
They're able to move around the plant, they don't get
stuck in particular areas, They get nicely distributed to be

(01:51:07):
able to have an all over glow as opposed to
just at the sight of injection. Uh, they injected them
into the plants and they're able to glow for a
couple of hours after only a couple of minutes of
sunlight or led light exposure, and this is kind of cool.
But eventually they do break down and you have to

(01:51:30):
reinject the the compound into the plants fund the right
guised particle that works in succulence. And it's great and
we should all be doing this. No, I'm kidding.

Speaker 2 (01:51:48):
High your five detower and then inject all your friends
with bioluminescence. It feels like somebody who really some cell
illuminate you can die. I was about to go bad
in the lab and they're like, what do we do?
We have to throw it out. Hey, I got an idea.

(01:52:08):
Let's take it and inject it into all these succulents
on one of our coworkers desk and see what happens.
Mo haha.

Speaker 1 (01:52:16):
All I'm going to say is, if Josiah Zeyner and
the Odin are putting stuff together, get me a kit.
I'm going to inject my succulents. This will be great.
And seriously, you're not going to have these succulents outside,
or maybe you will, but they're not. This is not
the kind of glow that's going to do more damage

(01:52:37):
to the insect population than our artificial lights that are
replacing the night sky.

Speaker 2 (01:52:44):
If it's Josiah Zayner, then then maybe I can get
my hands.

Speaker 1 (01:52:50):
You should take this technology and make a kid.

Speaker 2 (01:52:53):
Yeah, inside of my hands glow and then like I'm like, oh,
where did I put something that's dark? And I just
go like this and then I'd be able to find it.

Speaker 1 (01:53:03):
Yeah, and I did. I did misspeak. Josiah has is
now Josie and and they hopefully will I hope this
is on their on their radar. I think it would
be pretty amazing. Yes, So the researchers said this light
fades over the time. They don't know about the long

(01:53:26):
term safety of the materials for the plants. That's I
don't know about other things. So your question about insects
and other ecological interactions is not being not being considered yet.
But I think this sounds super fun. And it sounds

(01:53:47):
like they've figured out a size and parameters that might
make this the kind of thing that is perfect for
DIY luminance fun toy, fun toy. Yeah, sounds great. It's
a nice night light, not genetically engineered simple injection. Sounds

(01:54:13):
kind of fun, and they're so pretty. It could be great.

Speaker 2 (01:54:17):
I'm gonna jump back to something real quick before the end.
It's just that the study on the heart repair having
to do with the spleen mm hmmm, because it sounded familiar,
so I want to look it up. And in a
lot of animal regeneration salamanders, zebrafish, it's relying on white

(01:54:39):
blood cells to choreograph the entire repair process. Yeah, okay,
so so missing for heart regeneration, whole body regeneration. Maybe
the recruiting mechanism to get those white blood cells there.
Maybe it's maybe the spleen's in the wrong spot. Maybe spleen.

(01:55:03):
I don't know what it is, but it sounds like
it sounds like that we just.

Speaker 1 (01:55:08):
Need to supercharge it.

Speaker 2 (01:55:10):
It sounds like it's it's doing the thing that is
happening in all of these regenerative species. They do it
a lot with mouse, fingertip, rabbit ear holes that close up. Again,
there's certain body parts and things that have seely maintained
this ability, but they're It might be just that it's

(01:55:34):
the recruitment mechanism that are calling the spleen to come
help that are just missing. Maybe it's the spleen is
the key to all regeneration that we just haven't been
paying enough attention.

Speaker 1 (01:55:46):
I think it's a combination though, because it's also the
local instructions, Right, what is the local tissue, say, should
happen next? So you have damage, you have that defense,
you have the injury pair, You've got your you know, uh,
your body's e MT services going to try and do that,

(01:56:08):
you know, first on the scene repair. But when they're there,
what you know, who who shows up to tell them
what to do? Right? Who is like ends up being
the boss? And and what eventually occurs? So there are
genetic instructions in our body that actually slow down cellular
repair and stop cell division so that you don't end

(01:56:31):
up growing another finger or three, right, So we like
as opposed to salamanders that continue to have those instructions expressed,
we do not.

Speaker 2 (01:56:42):
But there is a there is ah, there is a
a difference in who's doing the recruiting YEP and tissues
and and not. And I'm like, no, it was just
reading about this not too long ago, but I can't
find it any quick enough time.

Speaker 1 (01:57:01):
But I think I think it's the who's recruiting.

Speaker 2 (01:57:04):
We think we have everything we need to do.

Speaker 1 (01:57:07):
What other genetic instructions are there? What's going on? And
it's that conversation that we need to modify. I think
it's interesting, right, but thank your spleen. Everybody. Your spleen
does more than you know. You ready to say good night, justin.

Speaker 2 (01:57:28):
Good night, justin? It's too soon. You have to thank
everybody first.

Speaker 1 (01:57:33):
That's what I want to do. Yes, Thank you everyone
for joining us for another episode of This Week in Science.
It was a lot of fun being here with you.
Thank you everyone in the chat room for paying attention
and being active in the conversation. Thank you to those
of you who will be watching later. Fada, thank you
so much for your help with social media and show notes.

(01:57:54):
Gord Are and more others who make sure that our
chat rooms are nice places to be. Thank you for
doing that because it helps us have them focus on
the conversation as opposed to what's happening in the chat room.
What are you laughing at? Anyway?

Speaker 2 (01:58:10):
I don't know what's wrong with my ears tonight. It
must be the connection because I heard you say thank
you for making the chat room a nice place to pee.
It's just what I heard. No, No, it's right, it's
what my I have, like a bad connection or something
because I'm mishearing.

Speaker 1 (01:58:30):
All right, identity for it. Thank you for recording the show, Rachel,
thank you for editing the show, and of course I
want to say thank you to our Patreon sponsors. Thank
you too. Aaron Anathema, Adam Mishcon, Alan Viola, Ali Coff
and Andrew Swanson, Arthur Kepler, Adam, Bob Calder, Bob Coles,

(01:58:52):
Brendan Minish, Bran Carrington, Chris Wilna, Christopher Dryer, Christopher Rappin,
Craig Land and Craig Pots, Dana Louis, Darryl Meishak, Dave Wilkinson,
David Youngblood, On Mondays, Jonathan Stiles aka Don Stylo, eo
Eden Mandel, Eric Knapp, Flying Out, fret Us one O
four G Briton Lotmore, George Chorus, Greg Briggs, Howard Tan Jack,
Jason Olds, John Outwood, Gregnkey, Rattenaswami, Johnny Gridley, Kenney Is

(01:59:14):
Kent Northcote, Kevin Parachan, Kevin Reard and Curse, Kurt Larson,
Lawn Makes, Lauren Gifford, Mary Gertz, Marjorie Barquassanflow Noodles, Patrick Pecoraro,
Paul pa Paudy Disney, Paul Ronovich, Philip Shane, Pierre Vellazar,
p I g Richard, Richard Badge, Robert Norland, Robert W. Farley,
Rodney and Lewis, Rudy Garcia, rem Mi de Sean, Clarence
lambshoe Brew, Stephen All Barons, Dave Lisman, aka Ziema, su Dasser,

(01:59:38):
Teresa Smith, Tony Steele and Veigard chess Nad. Thank you
so much for supporting us on Patreon. You help keep
the show going, And if anyone wants to contribute to
us and the show and the community on Patreon, please
head over to twist dot org and click on that
Patreon link. On next week's.

Speaker 2 (01:59:58):
Show, we will be back Wednesday, eight pm Pacific time,
broadcasting from all of the channels on the tubes. The
books ever work everywhere.

Speaker 1 (02:00:15):
Yeah. If you want to listen to us as a podcast,
just search for This Week in Science wherever podcasts are found,
where you like to find podcasts. If you enjoyed the show,
gay friends to subscribe as well.

Speaker 2 (02:00:27):
For more information on anything you heard here today. Show
notes and links to The stories will be available on
our website www dot twist dot org, and you can
also sign up for Blair's newsletter.

Speaker 1 (02:00:41):
I love that It's Blairs Now. We love your feedback.
If there's a topic that you would like us to
address or cover, or suggesting for an interview, let us
know on one of our social media accounts. Our send
us an email. Just put Twists in the subject line
so your email doesn't get spam filtered into a luminescent

(02:01:02):
succulent that someone puts in their garden and then forgets
to recharge.

Speaker 2 (02:01:08):
We look forward to discussing science with you again next week,
and remember if you learned anything from the show.

Speaker 1 (02:01:17):
It's all in your head.

Speaker 7 (02:01:20):
This week in science, This week in science, This week
in science. This week in science, it's the end of
the world. So I'm setting up shop. Got my banner unfurled,
it says the scientist is in. I'm gonna sell my advice,

(02:01:41):
show them how to sooth the robots with a simple device.

Speaker 8 (02:01:45):
I'll reverse all the warming with a wave of my hands.

Speaker 3 (02:01:48):
And oh it'll cost you is a couple of grinds.
This week science is coming your way, so everybody listens
to what I say, I use.

Speaker 8 (02:02:01):
The scientific method for all that it's worth, and I'll
broadcast my opinion all over.

Speaker 9 (02:02:07):
They well, it's this week in science, This week in science,
This week in science, Science, science, science, science, science, This week.

Speaker 8 (02:02:18):
In science, this weekend science, This week in science, This
week in science, This week in science, This week in science,
This week in science

Speaker 2 (02:02:29):
This week in science,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Science Unplugged

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Science Unplugged

On Purpose with Jay Shetty