Fashionable, pregnant teenager leaning on a grungy brick wall. Shot with room for text on right.

When I was in fifth grade back home in the Dominican Republic, I had "the talk" with my mom. It might seem a little young, but our school was teaching us about human reproduction, and they had told the parents that they would address the biological part of it, but the parents had to sit down with us and go over the fact that people didn't necessarily do it for human reproduction purposes.

For me, the talk was very positive. My mom has always been very straightforward and has made sure that I trust her enough to reach out to her with any questions or concerns. But I knew that wasn't the case with everyone. And as I grew older and actually hit puberty, the chat around sex became all about abstinence rather than "this is how you can protect yourself."

Let's be honest: if you tell any teenager that they're not allowed to do something, they will want to do it even more. But then, in a country like the Dominican Republic, you also had the church's influence dictating how people - particularly women - should live their lives.

The church and the state are pretty much one entity - there's no real separation. So, when it comes to issues such as allowing women to choose what to do with their bodies, or even teaching sex ed in schools, there's an automatic push against it because "that's not how God wanted it."

They vilify sex, making it seem like the ultimate sin when done outside of the "sacred bond of marriage." They limit access to information to vulnerable people, the ones who only have access to a church in their community, and as a result, we have a teenage pregnancy crisis.

Human Rights Watch reported in a study that the Dominican Republic has the highest adolescent fertility rate of all of the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).

"While some adolescent pregnancies are planned and wanted at the time they occur, many are not. The total ban on abortion in the Dominican Republic means adolescent girls facing unwanted pregnancies must choose between clandestine and often risky abortions or the lifelong consequences of having a child against their wishes."

The study goes on to list the consequences of this crisis, starting with serious health risks not only for the mother but also the baby, difficulty for the expecting mother to continue her education - despite a law that prohibits expulsion of pregnant girls from school - which then cuts back even more on her chances for a better life for her and her child. In most cases, the girls end up trapped in a never-ending poverty cycle, which then traps their babies when they're born. And it doesn't help that in many parts of the DR, there's no place girls can gain access to confidential, nonstigmatizing, adolescent-friendly sexual and reproductive health services.

"The Dominican Republic is one of few countries in Latin America and the Caribbean where abortion is criminalized and prohibited in all circumstances, even for women and girls who become pregnant from rape or incest, whose lives are endangered by pregnancy, or who are carrying pregnancies that are not viable, meaning the fetus will not survive outside the womb," The Human Rights Watch study continued.

Girls, particularly those from poor and rural communities, suffer the consequences of these policy failures most profoundly, and that's why it's so important to provide information, talk about sexual and reproductive health, foment sexual education in schools, expand health services and providers who aren't judgmental, decriminalize abortion, and give girls and women the option to safely end their pregnancies.

See original here:
In My Country, Sex Is Still Taboo, and Not Talking About It Has Made Things Worse - Yahoo Lifestyle

Dr Patricia MacCormack, author of The Ahuman Manifesto, is professor of continental philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University

An Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) author believes she has solved the problem of over-population by allowing humanity to become extinct through ending procreation.

Dr Patricia MacCormack, professor of continental philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU), has even invented a new term for a post-human world: the ahuman will avoid ecological collapse by going beyond binaries of human and not human, according to The Ahuman Manifesto which is launched in Cambridge this week.

Far from advocating mass death, genocide or eugenics, my manifesto is antinatalist, says Dr MacCormack. It boycotts human reproduction due to the damage humans have perpetrated on the Earth and its other inhabitants.

The manifesto simply asks that humans no longer reproduce no life is lost, no being is mourned. If we no longer reproduce, we can care for all inhabitants already here, human and non-human, as well as care for the Earth itself by mitigating the damage already caused. Its an activism of care.

It questions the value of human exceptionalism, asking are humans really the best forms of life, or should we dismantle our understanding of life as a hierarchy for a more ecological, interconnected scheme of living things?

The fundamental realignment of our future residence on planet Earth means, eventually, self-extinction, but its also intended to be joyful.

My manifesto sees a joy in living the lives we have and developing strategies of care for the Earths next chapter, she says. This is an Earth thats allowed to thrive not in spite of but because of the reduction and eventual absence of humans.

Dr MacCormack suggests that there is an ideological commitment to understanding having children as familial eugenics, ie my DNA is more important than anyone elses is the premise of having children. It is this superiority complex, unchallenged, which is leading us to our demise.

Ahuman is a term I invented which acknowledges we have human residue and accountability but shows we want to refuse human privilege and human-made hierarchies of life, she told the Cambridge Independent. It is a space between human and animal, human and post-human, human and earth. It may be the traitor to the species or the apocalypse of anthropocentrism.

As we wind the clock down, suggests Dr MacCormack, society should allow adoption to be easier, and end the concept of legal and illegal children.

The sensational new term actively embraces issues like human extinction, vegan abolition, atheist occultism, death studies, a refusal of identity politics, deep ecology, and the apocalypse as an optimistic beginning (albeit for other forms of life than humanity).

So how long did it take the book to write?

It took a lifetime, says Dr MacCormack, but the current political global climate quickened its necessity.

The Ahuman Manifesto is published by Bloomsbury at 21.99.

Read this article:
End procreation to save Earth, says ARU author in The Ahuman Manifesto - Cambridge Independent

Clinical uses of cellular communication

Exosomes are a type of extracellular vesicle that contain constituents (protein, DNA, and RNA) of the cells that secrete them. They are taken up by distant cells, where they can affect cell function and behavior. Intercellular communication through exosomes seems to be involved in the pathogenesis of various disorders, including cancer, neurodegeneration, and inflammatory diseases. In a Review, Kalluri and LeBleu discuss the biogenesis and function of exosomes in disease, highlighting areas where more research is needed. They also discuss the potential clinical applications of exosome profiling for diagnostics and exosome-mediated delivery of therapeutics to target disease cells.

Science, this issue p. eaau6977

All cells, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, release extracellular vesicles (EVs) as part of their normal physiology and during acquired abnormalities. EVs can be broadly divided into two categories, ectosomes and exosomes. Ectosomes are vesicles that pinch off the surface of the plasma membrane via outward budding, and include microvesicles, microparticles, and large vesicles in the size range of ~50 nm to 1 m in diameter. Exosomes are EVs with a size range of ~40 to 160 nm (average ~100 nm) in diameter with an endosomal origin. Sequential invagination of the plasma membrane ultimately results in the formation of multivesicular bodies, which can intersect with other intracellular vesicles and organelles, contributing to diversity in the constituents of exosomes. Depending on the cell of origin, EVs, including exosomes, can contain many constituents of a cell, including DNA, RNA, lipids, metabolites, and cytosolic and cell-surface proteins. The physiological purpose of generating exosomes remains largely unknown and needs investigation. One speculated role is that exosomes likely remove excess and/or unnecessary constituents from cells to maintain cellular homeostasis. Recent studies reviewed here also indicate a functional, targeted, mechanism-driven accumulation of specific cellular components in exosomes, suggesting that they have a role in regulating intercellular communication.

Exosomes are associated with immune responses, viral pathogenicity, pregnancy, cardiovascular diseases, central nervous systemrelated diseases, and cancer progression. Proteins, metabolites, and nucleic acids delivered by exosomes into recipient cells effectively alter their biological response. Such exosome-mediated responses can be disease promoting or restraining. The intrinsic properties of exosomes in regulating complex intracellular pathways has advanced their potential utility in the therapeutic control of many diseases, including neurodegenerative conditions and cancer. Exosomes can be engineered to deliver diverse therapeutic payloads, including short interfering RNAs, antisense oligonucleotides, chemotherapeutic agents, and immune modulators, with an ability to direct their delivery to a desired target. The lipid and protein composition of exosomes can affect their pharmacokinetic properties, and their natural constituents may play a role in enhanced bioavailability and in minimizing adverse reactions. In addition to their therapeutic potential, exosomes also have the potential to aid in disease diagnosis. They have been reported in all biological fluids, and the composition of the complex cargo of exosomes is readily accessible via sampling of biological fluids (liquid biopsies). Exosome-based liquid biopsy highlights their potential utility in diagnosis and determining the prognosis of patients with cancer and other diseases. Disease progression and response to therapy may also be ascertained by a multicomponent analysis of exosomes.

The study of exosomes is an active area of research. Ongoing technological and experimental advances are likely to yield valuable information regarding their heterogeneity and biological function(s), as well as enhance our ability to harness their therapeutic and diagnostic potential. As we develop more standardized purification and analytical procedures for the study of exosomes, this will likely reveal their functional heterogeneity. Nonetheless, functional readouts using EVs enriched for exosomes have already provided new insights into their contribution to various diseases. New genetic mouse models with the ability for de novo or induced generation of cell-specific exosomes in health and disease will likely show the causal role of exosomes in cell-to-cell communication locally and between organs. Whether exosome generation and content change with age needs investigation, and such information could offer new insights into tissue senescence, organ deterioration, and programmed or premature aging. Whether EVs and/or exosomes preceded the first emergence of the single-cell organism on the planet is tempting to speculate, and focused bioelectric and biochemical experiments in the future could reveal their cell-independent biological functions. Single-exosome identification and isolation and cryoelectron microscopy analyses have the potential to substantially improve our understanding of the basic biology of exosomes and their use in applied science and technology. Such knowledge will inform the therapeutic potential of exosomes for various diseases, including cancer and neurodegenerative diseases.

Exosomes are extracellular vesicles generated by all cells and they carry nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, and metabolites. They are mediators of near and long-distance intercellular communication in health and disease and affect various aspects of cell biology.

The study of extracellular vesicles (EVs) has the potential to identify unknown cellular and molecular mechanisms in intercellular communication and in organ homeostasis and disease. Exosomes, with an average diameter of ~100 nanometers, are a subset of EVs. The biogenesis of exosomes involves their origin in endosomes, and subsequent interactions with other intracellular vesicles and organelles generate the final content of the exosomes. Their diverse constituents include nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, amino acids, and metabolites, which can reflect their cell of origin. In various diseases, exosomes offer a window into altered cellular or tissue states, and their detection in biological fluids potentially offers a multicomponent diagnostic readout. The efficient exchange of cellular components through exosomes can inform their applied use in designing exosome-based therapeutics.

Continued here:
The biology, function, and biomedical applications of exosomes - Science Magazine

If you saw the 2011 movie Contagion, about a worldwide pandemic of a new virus, then youve heard the term R0.

Pronounced R naught, this isnt just jargon made up in Hollywood. It represents an important concept in epidemiology and is a crucial part of public health planning during an outbreak, like the current coronavirus epidemic spreading outward from China.

Scientists use R0 the reproduction number to describe the intensity of an infectious disease outbreak. R0 estimates have been an important part of characterizing pandemics or large publicized outbreaks, including the 2003 SARS pandemic, the 2009 H1N1 Influenza pandemic and the 2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa.

The formal definition of a diseases R0 is the number of cases, on average, an infected person will cause during their infectious period.

The term is used in two different ways.

The basic reproduction number represents the maximum epidemic potential of a pathogen. It describes what would happen if an infectious person were to enter a fully susceptible community, and therefore is an estimate based on an idealized scenario.

The effective reproduction number depends on the populations current susceptibility. This measure of transmission potential is likely lower than the basic reproduction number, based on factors like whether some of the people are vaccinated against the disease, or whether some people have immunity due to prior exposure with the pathogen. Therefore, the effective R0 changes over time and is an estimate based on a more realistic situation within the population.

Its important to realize that both the basic and effective R0 are situation-dependent. Its affected by the properties of the pathogen, such as how infectious it is. Its affected by the host population for instance, how susceptible people are due to nutritional status or other illnesses that may compromise ones immune system. And its affected by the environment, including things like demographics, socioeconomic and climatic factors.

For example, R0 for measles ranges from 12 to 18, depending on factors like population density and life expectancy. This is a large R0, mainly because the measles virus is highly infectious.

On the other hand, the influenza virus is less infectious, with its R0 ranging from 2 to 3. Influenza, therefore, does not cause the same explosive outbreaks as measles, but it persists due to its ability to mutate and evade the human immune system.

Demographer Alfred Lotka proposed the reproduction number in the 1920s, as a measure of the rate of reproduction in a given population.

In the 1950s, epidemiologist George MacDonald suggested using it to describe the transmission potential of malaria. He proposed that, if R0 is less than 1, the disease will die out in a population, because on average an infectious person will transmit to fewer than one other susceptible person. On the other hand, if R0 is greater than 1, the disease will spread.

When public health agencies are figuring out how to deal with an outbreak, they are trying to bring R0 down to less than 1. This is tough for diseases like measles that have a high R0. It is especially challenging for measles in densely populated regions like India and China, where R0 is higher, compared to places where people are more spread out.

For the SARS pandemic in 2003, scientists estimated the original R0 to be around 2.75. A month or two later, the effective R0 dropped below 1, thanks to the tremendous effort that went into intervention strategies, including isolation and quarantine activities.

However, the pandemic continued. While on average, an infectious person transmitted to fewer than one susceptible individual, occasionally one person transmitted to tens or even hundreds of other cases. This phenomenon is called super spreading. Officials documented super spreader events a number of times during the SARS epidemic in Singapore, Hong Kong and Beijing.

A number of groups have estimated R0 for this new coronavirus. The Imperial College group has estimated R0 to be somewhere between 1.5 and 3.5. Scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Automation and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences have estimated R0 to be much higher, at 4.08.

These differences are not surprising; theres uncertainty about many of the factors go into estimating R0, such as in estimating the number of cases, especially early on in an outbreak.

Based on these current estimates, projections of the future number of cases of coronavirus are fraught with high levels of uncertainty and will likely be somewhat inaccurate.

The difficulties arise for a number of reasons.

First, the basic properties of this viral pathogen like the infectious period are as yet unknown.

Second, researchers dont know how many mild cases or infections that dont result in symptoms have been missed by surveillance but nevertheless are spreading the disease.

Third, the majority of people who come down with this new coronavirus do recover, and are likely then immune to coming down with it again. Its unclear how the changing susceptibility of the population will affect the future spread of infection. This is especially important in Wuhan, the origin of the epidemic.

Finally, and likely the most important reason, no one knows the future impacts of current disease control measures. Epidemiologists current estimates of R0 say nothing about how measures such as isolation or quarantine efforts will influence the virus future spread.

[ Youre smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversations authors and editors. You can get our highlights each weekend. ]

View post:
R0: How scientists quantify the intensity of an outbreak like coronavirus and its pandemic potential - The Conversation US

When reports of a new coronavirus emerged last month, I speculated with fellow epidemiologists about what the media might end up naming the infection. None of us would have guessed that within a week or so a theory would be circulating that coronavirus was a new kind of snake flu mostly because its unlikely the virus originated in snakes, and its not flu.

So where did the snakes come from? The culprit was a widely shared scientific paper, which speculated that the new virus had genetic characteristics and implicated snakes as the source. Leading geneticists were quick to point out that the results werent convincing, and that bats were still the likely suspects. However, that didnt stop snake flu from going viral. Other misinformation about coronavirus has rippled across the internet in recent weeks. From claims the virus is part-HIV to conspiracy theories about bioweapons and reports suggesting the virus was linked to people eating bat soup, stories sparking fear seem to have overtaken the outbreak in real life. Is misinformation really more contagious than the virus itself?

What is the virus causing illness in Wuhan?

It is a member of the coronavirus family that has never been encountered before. Like other coronaviruses, it has come from animals. Many of those initially infected either worked or frequently shopped in the Huanan seafood wholesale market in the centre of the Chinese city.

What other coronaviruses have there been?

New and troubling viruses usually originate in animal hosts. Ebola and flu are other examples severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (Mers) are both caused by coronaviruses that came from animals.

What are the symptoms of the Wuhan coronavirus?

The virus causespneumonia. Those who have fallen ill are reported to suffer coughs, fever and breathing difficulties. In severe cases there can be organ failure. As this is viral pneumonia, antibiotics are of no use. The antiviral drugs we have against flu will not work. If people are admitted to hospital, they may get support for their lungs and other organs as well as fluids. Recovery will depend on the strength of their immune system. Many of those who have died were already in poor health.

Is the virus being transmitted from one person to another?

Human to human transmission has been confirmed by Chinas national health commission, and there have been human-to-human transmissions in the US and in Germany. As of 8 February, the death toll stands at 722 inside China, one in Hong Kong and one in the Philippines. Infections inside China stand at 31,161 and global infections have passed 280 in 28 countries. The mortality rate is 2%.

Two members of one family have been confirmed to have the virus in the UK, and a third person was diagnosed with it in Brighton, after more than 400 were tested and found negative. The Foreign Office has urged UK citizens to leave China if they can. Five new cases in France are British nationals, and British nationals are also among the 64 cases on a cruise liner off Japan.

The number of people to have contracted the virus could be far higher, as people with mild symptoms may not have been detected. Modelling byWorld Health Organization(WHO) experts at Imperial College London suggests there could be as many as 100,000 cases, with uncertainty putting the margins between 30,000 and 200,000.

Why is this worse than normal influenza, and how worried are the experts?

We dont yet know how dangerous the new coronavirus is, and we wont know until more data comes in. The mortality rate is around 2%. However, this is likely to be an overestimate since many more people are likely to have been infected by the virus but not suffered severe enough symptoms to attend hospital, and so have not been counted. For comparison, seasonal flu typically has a mortality rate below 1% and is thought to cause about400,000 deathseach year globally. Sars had a death rate of more than 10%.

Should I go to the doctor if I have a cough?

Unless you have recently travelled to China or been in contact with someone infected with the virus, then you should treat any cough or cold symptoms as normal. TheNHS advisesthat people should call 111 instead of visiting the GPs surgery as there is a risk they may infect others.

Is this a pandemic and should we panic?

Health experts are starting to say it could become a pandemic, but right now it falls short of what the WHO would consider to be one. A pandemic, in WHO terms, is the worldwide spread of a disease. Coronavirus cases have been confirmed in about 25 countries outside China, but by no means in all 195 on the WHOs list.

There is no need to panic. The spread of the virus outside China is worrying but not an unexpected development. The WHO has declared the outbreak to be a public health emergency of international concern, and says there is a window of opportunity to halt the spread of the disease. The key issues are how transmissible this new coronavirus is between people and what proportion become severely ill and end up in hospital. Often viruses that spread easily tend to have a milder impact.

Sarah BoseleyHealth editor andHannah Devlin

We typically think of viral content as a chain reaction: you share something with friends, they share it with their friends, and so on. In disease outbreak analysis, we can measure the transmission of an infection by looking at how many additional cases each infected person creates on average during each of these steps. We call this the reproduction number, and for coronavirus, we estimate its about 2 for a typical infected case in China. What about the reproduction number for online content? A couple of years ago, Facebook researchers looked at the most shared content on the platform from 2014 to 2016, including viral trends such as the ice-bucket challenge and putting an equals sign over your profile picture to support marriage equality.

Remarkably, there wasnt much difference in the transmission. Researchers found the reproduction number was about 2 for all of them. Remember, these were the most shared ideas on Facebook; the vast majority of online content is lucky to get even a single repost.

The scientific community is making huge progress in understanding the infection, but weve had to start at the bottom

To fully explain how viral content and viruses spread, we need to move away from the idea that outbreaks involve simple clockwork infections, passing along a chain from person to person to person until large numbers have been exposed. During the 2015 outbreak of the Mers coronavirus in South Korea, 82 out of 186 infections came from a single superspreading event in a hospital where an infected person was being treated. Its not yet clear how common such superspreading is in the current outbreak, but we do know that these kinds of events are how information goes viral online; most outbreaks on Twitter are dominated by a handful of individuals or media outlets, which are responsible for a large proportion of transmission. If you heard about snake flu, you might have told a couple of friends; meanwhile, newspaper headlines were telling millions.

When tackling disease outbreaks, health agencies often work to identify potential superspreading events, isolating infected individuals to prevent further transmission. However, this isnt the only way to stop an outbreak. As well as tracking down people who are infectious, its possible to target broader social interactions that might amplify transmission. For example, many cities in China have recently closed schools, which can be hotspots for respiratory infections.

Tech companies are now adopting similar approaches to tackle health misinformation. Last year, Pinterest announced it had rewired its search results to make it harder to find vaccine misinformation. It had struggled to remove the content completely the equivalent of finding all the cases during a disease outbreak so instead focused on reducing how many people might be exposed to harmful content. During the current outbreak, Google is attempting to reduce peoples susceptibility to misinformation by displaying links to reputable health sources when users search for information about the virus.

These combined approaches, which target different aspects of transmission, have long been used in disease control. By introducing analogous strategies online, we should have a better chance of effectively curbing harmful viral content.

Ensuring the public has the best possible health information is crucial during an outbreak. At best, misinformation can distract from important messages. At worst, it can lead to behaviour that amplifies disease transmission. The novelty of coronavirus makes the challenge even greater, because viral speculation can easily overwhelm the limited information we do have. The scientific community is already making huge progress in understanding the infection, but weve had to start at the bottom, without stacks of earlier research to stand on. When it comes to stopping the outbreak, well need ladders, not snakes.

Adam Kucharski an epidemiologist and the author of The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread and Why They Stop, published on 13 February

Read more:
Misinformation on the coronavirus might be the most contagious thing about it - The Guardian

The mechanism that controls the switch to meiosis has been a topic of scientific investigation for some time, and this breakthrough offers a unique look at a gene trigger that only sometimes becomes active. An important issue for reproductive medicine, researchers are excited for what this discovery could mean.

Knowledge of this process and the gene will be useful in providing a potential answer, but more answers could also mean more treatment options for people struggling with infertility.

"If it eventually becomes possible to control meiosis," said Ishiguro, "the benefits would be far-reaching for reproductive medicine, agricultural production, and even assisting rare species reproduction."

This research is still in early stages, with the announcement of the genetic discovery only being published this week. But it does provide a starting point for a whole new area of research in reproductive medicine going forward, that could result in even more new breakthroughs. Further studies will need to investigate the process of Meiosin in human subjects.

While we may not see this breakthrough being used in medicine anytime soon, it's exciting to know that it may help people in the future. If you're hoping to start a family and are worried about fertility, there's plenty of expert advice for boosting fertility that can be easily adopted.

Visit link:
Researchers May Have Found A Genetic Cause Of Infertility - mindbodygreen.com

"And the band played on..."

That well-known phrase is forever linked to the 1912 sinking of the Titanic as the band aboard the ill-fated ship played as passengers boarded the lifeboats.

Believe it or not a million-dollar artifact from that band that's survived for over a century will be on display at the Titanic Museum in Branson from February 8-June 15.

The museum is a reproduction of both the inside and outside of the legendary British passenger liner that sank in the early morning hours of April 15, 1912 after striking an iceberg on its maiden voyage in the North Atlantic Ocean. Of the estimated 2,224 passengers and crew aboard more than 1,500 died, making it one of the deadliest peacetime commercial marine disasters.

The Titanic museum in Branson and its sister-facility in Pigeon Forge, Tenn. have more than 400 artifacts from the actual ship but this one about to go on display in Branson is the most valuable and iconic.

"The most important piece of Titanic memorabilia in existence," said Andrew Aldridge of the Aldridge Auction Home in Great Britain, the firm that represents the anonymous owner of the piece.

"For us to have it now is incredible," added Paul Burns, the curator at the Branson Titanic Museum. "We're extremely lucky."

So what is it?

It's the actual violin played by bandleader Wallace Henry Hartley as his eight-piece band stood on the deck of the Titanic serenading passengers with hymns to try and calm them during the chaotic moments as they jumped on the lifeboats.

The band has become as much a part of the Titanic lore as the iceberg itself, recognized for their heroic gesture in the face of certain death. They've been an important part of any story of the Titanic's sad recounting, from books to movies, and the violin is an amazing survivor of that horrible night.

"If this violin could talk what incredible stories it could tell," Burns said.

Hartley, the bandleader who owned the violin, did not survive the sinking. His body was recovered two weeks after the disaster with a music case strapped to his body.

That case, which is also still around, is credited with why the violin was able to endure the cold, wet conditions and remain intact.

"When Wallace went into the water he had a valise, a big leather bag, and the violin was held within that valise," Aldridge explained. "That kept most of the water off it."

"Also the life preserver (Hartley was wearing) would have allowed the person's body to be two-thirds out of the water," Burns said of the Titanic's flotation devices. "So the violin really set out of the water inside the leather case."

Over the next century the violin went from Wallace's fiance to the Salvation Army to a music teacher to her student before the current anonymous owner bought it for the $1.7 million price tag.

The violin's authentication came from forensic testing that proved it had been in the waters of the North Atlantic and the presence of a metal plate on the front of the violin.

"On the fishplate (a flat piece of metal) it says, 'To Wallace on the occasion of our engagement. From Maria,'" Aldridge said. "And Maria Robinson was Wallace's fiance."

As you would expect the violin is handled like a baby, kept in a climate-controlled environment on a specially-made acrillic stand.

"When we place it on the stand we will take the weight completely off the violin so it will not rest on its own weight," Burns said in explaining that the wood portion of the violin is the most critical part to keep from aging.

Mary Kellogg, the co-owner and COO of the Titanic Museum, estimates that the violin is worth even more now since it is a one-of-a-kind item, and it's strange when you consider that this small musical instrument is worth much more than the million-dollar Grand Staircase that the museum recreated from the original Titanic that includes gold railings and an ornate ceiling and chandelier.

But the real reason the violin is the most valuable of all the Titanic artifacts is not what it is, but what it represents.

It's all that's left of a tragic sacrifice by eight men.

"The most selfless act you can imagine," Aldridge said of their heroics. "They're giving their life to comfort and soothe those around them."

"This represents all that," Burns said, pointing to the violin. "It's the most precious. What it represents, the icon, the human interest side of this, is the key to Titanic living on."

The violin will be on display in Branson from February 8-June 15. The museum is open daily at 9 a.m. and reservations are strongly suggested, especially during spring break times.

Original post:
Violin played by band on sinking Titanic on display in Branson, Mo. - KY3

Whats the most dangerous global health threat, jeopardizing the welfare of possibly millions of people? Forgive yourself if you answered coronavirus. A trip through cyberspace has identified the real menace: glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayers weed killer Roundup.

The herbicide is widely regarded by scientists as a highly effective, low-toxicity pesticide used by farmers and consumers worldwide to clear farms and home gardens of pesky weeds. But using a tsunami of TV commercials designed to entice anyone with cancer to sign up for the lets sue Bayer lottery, a handful of law firms has launched a legal crusade alleging the chemical giant and its corrupt enablersread the 15 most influential regulatory agencies in the world, including the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada and the EPA that say glyphosate is relatively harmlesshave been in cahoots to cover up the dangers of Roundup.

What are these alleged dangers? According to the law offices of Wallace & Graham, one of the dozens of ambulance-chasing firms angling for new plaintiffs, glyphosate can cause, among other things, skin irritation, nausea, liver damage, diabetes, kidney disease, Parkinsons disease, breathing problems, Lou Gehrigs disease, sterility in men, and, worst of all, cancer.

Killer surfactants!

Now the killer-glyphosate narrative has taken a new twist. Although the EPA on January 30 reaffirmed its long-time finding that glyphosate isnt carcinogenic, some anti-pesticide activists have seized on a recent study to argue that other ingredients in Roundup may have cancer-causing properties as well. Their allegation highlights a decades-long controversy surrounding chemicals called surfactants, the non-toxic soapy substances that enhance glyphosates ability to spread through plants. Surfactants are also found in products ranging from laundry detergents to organic pesticides.

Promotion of the study by a key publicist working on behalf of the glyphosate tort teamformer journalist Carey Gillam, director of research at the anti-GMO outfit US Right to Know (USRTK)adds a new wrinkle to the plaintiffs strategy to push Bayer to settle 75,000 or more claims for as much as $10 billion, which could happen any day now. While Gillam and other critics of glyphosate may see the study as a boon to the legal action, their coverage inadvertently exposes the limitations of this and similar studies, and highlights crippling flaws in the allegation that Roundup causes cancer.

Writing in UK newspaper The Guardian on January 23, Gillam outlined the latest study and its significance to the debate over the supposed health risks of Roundup exposure:

Tests by a US government agency on common weedkilling products made with the chemical glyphosate have found some formulations sold to the public . are damaging to human DNA. But the government scientists at the National Toxicology Program (NTP) say the danger probably lies with added ingredients in the products not glyphosate.

. The results, which are preliminary, showed . genotoxic effects with glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) that include chemicals called surfactants . plus the weedkilling chemicals diquat dibromide, mesotrione and metolachlor . Monsantos German owner Bayer AG is currently mired in litigation brought by tens of thousands of cancer patients who claim exposure to Monsantos Roundup and other similar glyphosate-based formulated products made by Monsanto caused their cancers .

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) backs the safety of glyphosate but has not required in-depth carcinogenicity testing of the full glyphosate-based formulated product, focusing research requirements on glyphosate alone.

Dissecting incomplete cell-culture research

The study, conducted by scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), is an example of an in-vitro or cell-culture study, in which isolated cells are exposed to a chemical, often at abnormally high doses, to see what happens. Its not clear which study Gillam was referring to since she didnt link to it, though its probably a series of preliminary September 2019 experiments from the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

The study has yet to appear in a scientific journal, and therein lies the first problem, according to two experts GLP contacted. I think it is dangerous to base any conclusions on data that have not been peer reviewed. There is not enough info in that [NTP study], wroteTrevor Charles, a microbiologist at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, in an email. Biologist Mary Mangan offered an additional word of caution:

Typically, Carey Gillam has omitted key details of the work that would be needed to understand the science. We dont know what kinds of test were done, on what cell systems, or if dosages reflect real-world exposures. Further, we cannot know if any of the other compounds that are handwaved about here are unique to glyphosate based formulations.

Its also likely that users have access to many other formulations from other world-wide suppliers. Theres no reason to suspect that surfactants are limited to one product line. The only thing that seems clear from Gillams item is that glyphosate itself [is] not genotoxic or harmful to cells in this testing. Of course, as this work is not peer-reviewed and published, its impossible to draw conclusions from this apparently preliminary disclosure.

Cell-culture studies shouldnt be dismissed out of hand. The data they generate can be useful. But we need to remember these experiments give . us little idea about the relevance [of Roundup exposure] when it comes to food residues, cell biologist Iida Ruishalme explained in 2016. This is because cells in a laboratory dont react to surfactants the way humans do.

They arent protected by your skin or your digestive tract or whatever [organ they come from], Mangan added. So exposing them to soap screws up their membranes and kills them. Its not necessarily that the test compound is genotoxic or mutagenic. In fact, this sort of research is so nebulous, scientists can and have argued that glyphosate and other ingredients in Roundup not only cause cancer but can be used to treat cancer, as Ive noted in previous GLP articles.

The science of surfactants

The concern that other Roundup ingredient besides glyphosate could be toxic goes back to at least 1997, when USDA researchers noted that . there does not appear to be adequate data to develop quantitative risk assessments of the surfactants. Several cell-culture and animal experiments since then have suggested that these chemicals may pose dangers, but none of these conclusions has gained much traction in the broader scientific community, for the reasons discussed above and because high-quality epidemiological studies show that farmers (those with the highest exposure to Roundup) do not face a higher cancer risk compared to the rest of the population.

Setting aside the epidemiology for a moment, the research specifically on surfactants tells a much different story than the tale Gillam spun in her Guardian piece. A review published in 2000, for instance, examined all the research related to the potential health effects of glyphosate, its breakdown product aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). After surveying the literature, the authors concluded:

[T]he use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. For purposes of risk assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA . [U]nder present and expected conditions of use, Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.

This conclusion was confirmed by a 2009 EPA risk assessment of alkyl amine polyalkoxylates, the class of surfactants POEA belongs to:

There is no evidence that alkyl amine polyalkoxylates are neurotoxic, mutagenic, or clastogenic [able to damage chromosomes] . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population .

In April 2017, Health Canada similarly concluded that [n]o risk of concerns to human health or the environment were identified provided that products contained no more than 20% POEA by weight and proposed label directions . are followed. Finally, a team of Bayer researchers published a study in October 2019 examining the health effects of exposure to polyethoxylated tallow amine (abbreviated as POE-T).

Repeated dosing of rats with POE-T produced gastrointestinal effects but no systemic effect on organ systems. POE-T was not genotoxic and had no effect on embryo-fetal development or reproduction, they wrote. After calculating the occupational exposure of farmers and exposure through food (how most people are exposed to the surfactant), the authors concluded:

Based on the results of the occupational and food risk assessments, it is concluded that there are no significant human health issues associated with the use of POE-T as a surfactant in glyphosate products.

Some skeptical readers may balk at this conclusion since it came from Bayer, which obviously has an interest in vindicating its flagship weed killer. Thats a reasonable objection, but the data and methodology for the company-conducted research came from previously published studies, as well as the World Health Organization, European Food Safety Authority and the EPA. More importantly, Bayers conclusion matches that of dozens of other studies that have examined surfactants used in Roundup, most notably the assessments from the EPA and Health Canada.

Angling for favorable settlement terms?

Science be damned, anti-pesticide activists have attempted to muddy the waters, pushing the surfactants-might-cause-cancer allegation to demonize what is otherwise considered a safe, effective herbicide. Organic industry-funded agricultural economist Charles Benbook, for instance, recently warned that concerns about surfactants could influence the litigation, without acknowledging the science that contradicts his case.

Its the surfactants that are carrying the glyphosate first through the skin and inside the body, and then inside of cells where damage can be done to DNA, Benbrook told Business Insider in 2019:

In Europe, Benbrook noted, surfactant chemicals have been made less toxic for consumers. In the US, however, Monsanto has not changed Roundup formulas in the same way. When juries learn that Monsanto is making a product thats at least 10 times, maybe 100 times safer all across Europe? he said.

Thats not acceptable. Thats one of the reasons that I think we can expect a continuation of these mammoth punitive damage awards .

Gillam took this same approach in her Guardian piece, focusing on a series of quotes from the early 2000s, in which several Monsanto researchers, reflecting the caution inherent in all research, seemed to acknowledge they couldnt confirm the safety of the added ingredients in Roundup. You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen, one scientist wrote in an email in 2003. We have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.

As is her wont to manipulate quotes to serve her ideological interests, Gillam left out the second part of the statement, which provides critical context: We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer, the scientist wrote.

Another company scientist, according to Gillam, issued a similar warning in 2010: With regards to the carcinogenicity of our formulations we dont have such testing on them directly. Again, the second part of the quote, which Gilliam tellingly left out, contextualizes the situation: . but we do have such testing on the glyphosate component and some extensive [toxicology] testing on the surfactant. Since the glyphosate formulations are simply a blend of these components, I think we can address these questions in a confident manner. Both statements reflect the conclusions of the research on surfactants discussed above.

Erin Brockovich 2.0

The plaintiffs in the estimated 75,000+ lawsuits alleging that Roundup is carcinogenic have anchored their claim to a heavily criticized 2015 hazard assessment issued by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which concluded that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. That put glyphosate in the same toxicity category as red meat, drinking hot beverages, and going to the hairdresser or barber, but not in the far more dangerous category which includes red wine or coffee. Although scientifically suspect to say the least, Benbrook and Gillams claim that surfactants are potential killers has helped the plaintiffs sell the conspiracy narrative to juries and judges that Bayer and sympathetic EPA regulators are suppressing inconvenient science to protect industry profit.

The surfactant argument was especially favored by Tim Litzenburg, one of the attorneys in the Bayer litigation who was recently fired by his firm and charged by the US government for allegedly trying to extort a chemical company that manufacturers surfactants for Roundup. Gillam had worked with Litzenburg to promote the surfactant-cancer link before he was charged.

The messy history of this scientifically dubious claim has not deterred the other lawyers in the glyphosate class action. Attorneys in the second trial (only three cases, all in California, have reached a courtroom so far) likewise told the judge, Plaintiff intends to introduce even more evidence . that Roundup is more dangerous than glyphosate because surfactants increase the danger of glyphosate exponentially. The jury in that trial awarded the plaintiff $80 million, though it was reduced to $25 million. Baum Hedlund, one of the primary law firms involved in the litigation, previously cited the statements from Monsanto scientists as evidence that once again demonstrates suspicions by Monsanto that it is biologically plausible for the formulated product to promote tumors.

This is compelling storytelling, reminiscent of films like Erin Brockovich and Conspiracy, but the science behind the lawyers claims is thin at best. Yet, the scary rhetoric could very well push Bayer towards a settlement for fear that other juries will be even more outraged when they hear that a callous corporation allegedly ignored warnings from its own scientists.

There are several important takeaways from the recent controversy surrounding the still unreleased NTP surfactant research. First, the data and conclusions have not been reviewed by other experts and published in a journal, making it reckless for Gillam or anyone else to draw a conclusion from the results. But even after the results are published, they will only add to a collection of contradictory and inconclusive cell-culture experiments on Roundup, which even anti-GMO news outlet GM watch has acknowledged are problematic.

[T]he NTP seems to have simply added to a large body of data characterized by conflicting results. And crucially, the NTPs results do not disprove those of the numerous other studies that reached opposite conclusions.

If anything, the willingness of activists and tort lawyers to trumpet the results of what appears to be relatively weak research illustrates the flaws in their case against Bayer, especially since there are hundreds of higher-quality studies and regulatory reviews of Roundup available.

Theres no way to know how the legal battle will play out, although one thing can be said for certain about this whole affair: The narrative of underdog cancer victims and their lawyers unmasking corporate villains isnt backed up by the evidence. Until more conclusive data come along, theres no reason to think Roundup or any of its individual ingredients cause cancer.

Cameron J. English is the GLPs senior agricultural genetics and special projects editor. He is a science writer and podcast host. BIO. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish

More:
With Roundup-cancer settlement looming, activists revive conspiracy claim that glyphosate surfactants threaten human health - Genetic Literacy Project