We produce cat milk!

And this was our method:

At first we mixed lactase enzymes with sodium alignate solution.

Then we added one drop at a time to alginate solution.The beads, which you can see in the video, contain the lactase inside.

Afterwards we used a tea stainer to collect the beads... then we packed the beads into a column...

And when we pured milk (lactose sugar) into the column, the trapped enzyme in the beads split the disaccharide into galactose and glucose.

Voila cats, bon appetit!

About gene editing

This is the article I looked at:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gene-editing-helps-baby-battle-cancer?tgt=nr

What is this all about?
Gene editing has in the last years become an increasinlgy popular way to find a treatment against cancer. This scientific technique uses a scalpel, which cuts DNA and edits genes, which are disadvantagous in the fight against cancer. Popular scalpels that are used for this treatment are among other things zinc finger nucleases, TALENs, CRISPR and Cas 9. I will specify in this blog on the 'TALENs' method.

What does TALENs do?

• it is a pair of proteins
• it is engineered by scientists to latch onto DNA
• it cuts the DNA at specific sites

How is TALENs used in cancer treatment?

• it engineers immune cells, so that they will kill the cancer without harming body cells
• Immune cells (CART cells) help to recognise foreign cells and destroy them

What happenes in the case study of Layla, which is the first case ever tested with the TALENs method?

• her bone marrow had too many B cells
• these cells are studded with a protein, called DC19
• CART cells were engineered to carry an antibody, which tracks and killes cells with DC19
• How could that be done:
  1. by inserting antibody into T-cells to create CART cells, but this is not possible, because Layla had bone marrow of a donor transplant and not her own one
  2. T-cells of another donor can't be used because they would be recognized as foreign
  3. Universal CART cells can be inserted

Qasim of the University College of London found a solution:

• the team inserted a protein called 'T cell receptor alpha chain' into the T cells
• this makes the T-cells unable to distinguish body cells from foreign ones
• therefore they will just attack cells carrying CD19

How the the foreig cells can be received by the body:

• the scientists used a different pair of TALENs
• this was engineered to remove the protein called CD 52 of the CART cells
• if it is cut out, the cells are invisible to the immune system
• this treatment would therefore kill the patient's own T-cells and let the donor T-cells grow

What is the conclusion of this trial?
After the treatment, Layla's bone marrow contained 90% donated cells, 7% CART cells and 3% of her own cells.
This means, that the T-cells have probably helped to cure her and the study was announced at the 6th of november 2015, so that in one year's time the doctors can conclude if the treatment could have been 'curative'.

About homeopathy, the almost incredible cure...

What is homeopathy?

Homeopathy is a widely discussed theme in science because there is no proof about if this medicine actually can cure diseases. Hemeopathy is therefore known as complementary or alternative medicine (CAN) and it's principle is 'like cures like', that the substance that causes symptomes can in the same way also remove it. Homeopaths say that the treatment is formed by shaking and dilution. As a result there is afterwards nearly nothing of the original substance left and there is said to be an imprint of the original substance in the water left, which helps to cure the disease. Oppositions on this believe come from 'The House of Commons Science', which explains this hypothesis to be 'implausible' and investigations on this topic show that there is no evidence that guarantees any affect of the treatment. The NHS makes use of homeopathic substances and I think that this is a bad attitude, because they can mislead people from buying medicine, which have demonstrated in the past and in invenstigations, that they have a real effect.

Which reasons would there be to prohibit homeopathic medicine?
On the opposition side of homeopathy are good arguments, which tell us that homeopathy should be banned, because it has no effect. One of these arguments is, that homeopathy has no more cure proof than that it is just a placebo and has therefore no real benefit.

Another argument against homeopathy is, that 230 trails about the topic are shown to be negative in their result and don't support the thesis.

Studies with animals confirm the trial on humans again, because they attain the same unreliable results of homeopathic substances.

A good reason to prohibit the sale of homeopathic substances is as well that it can be dangerous, because there can be side effects and consumers can be cheated on, because they think, that the medicine actually helps and therefore can catch diseases that could have been avoided if they would have taken scientifically proved medicine instead.

There is an ethical aspect on this topic as well, because people spend their money on something that is actually worth nothing, because the substance is so diluted that it is nothing less than water and uneducted humans can through the legality of it's sale lose their money.

Benveniste, who is the inventor of homeopathic treatment, was also in his first trials discovered to have unreliable results in the experiments and had inadequately reported the imperfections of his experiments and also uncritically assessed the survey and therefore his findings were imprecise.

In addition to this, he also claimed, that the memory of water could be digitalized and transmitted to another sample of water via the internet, which was also tested with the conclusion, that his claims were again with no observable effect.

My opinion about if the NHS should leave hemeopathy available:
All these points illustrate homeopathy as a noncredible way of healing people. Therfore I conclude from all the negative issues which I have mentioned in this text, that homeopathy should stay illegal and have no permission to be sold in the NHS. Even though the placebo effect might be useful in some cases of patients, these can still be treated with other placebos, which guarantee them that there are no harmful side effects, whereas with homeopathic remedies, nobody can be sure if they will or won't interact with other medicines which the patient already takes.

The sources, which I used:

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/12/no-scientific-case-homeopathy-remedies-pharmacists-placebos
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7505286.stm

About the link of artificial sweeteners to glucose intolerance

This is the article I looked at:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329872-600-artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-glucose-intolerance/

What is the article actually about?
The article describes how there could possibly exist a link between consuming artificial sweeteners and getting glucose intolerant which can lead to diabetes and general obesity. In the text there the summary of an investigation of mice in context of this topic. The article discusses further, how this investigation could relate to humans and there is also a trial with humans in relation to sweeteners. In the following text I will list the effects on mice and humans, which are followed by my conclusion of the text and my opinion of how to progress this scientific case. 

What are the effects of the artificial sweeteners on mice?

• Experiments suggest that artificial sweetener changes gut bacteria in mice
• Eran Elinav and Eran Segal co-supervised the work and found out: artificial might increase risk of diabetes
• the sweeteners taste 20000 times sweeter than sugar and can't be digested (therefore no calories) and hence they are said to help in a healthy diet
• Segal and Elinav are concerned because studies show a link of weight gain with the use of sweetener
• they tested mice, trialed them over 11 weeks with giving half of them sweeteners and half normal glucose and afterwards testing there glucose tolerance by looking at their insulin production
• the result was that mice fed with sweeteners showed glucose intolerance
• sweeneners get undigested into our intestine and changed the bacterial composition
• an experiment by whiping out the gut bacteria showed that the glucose intolerance problems abolished> experiments support this
• Analysis shows that serveral different bacteria can be found in the gut of mice after taking sweeteners
• however many reassessments in the past prove the use of sweeteners to be harmless for humans

What are the effects of artificial sweeteners on humans?

• trial with seven healthy people; four showed after day 5 significant glucose intolerance
• the 3 healthy people showed different gut bacteria base
• link of global increase of sweetener use with obesity (says Segal)
• ASE and ISA argue against this statement
• The EFSA will through this study consider to reassess the relationship of sweetener and diabetes
• Link of sugar rich drinks have a link with weight gain while sweetener products are still unsure (Naveed Sattar), therefore he prefers sweetener products

My conclusions of this article
I think that the trial had a too small sample and is therefore not very reliable. However the article shows great evidence that there is a link between the consumption of sweeteners and glucose intolerance. In my opinion the trial should be enlarged and other links which could cause glucose intolerance should also be considered. When deciding between the consumption of sweeteners and sugar there should also be considered which one has the worst side effects and not just making it dependent of one factor like this glucose intolerance argument.