Scientists wipe out malaria-carrying mosquitoes in the lab by creating male-only offspring

Scientists have modified mosquitoes to produce sperm that will only create males, pioneering a fresh approach to eradicating malaria.

In a study published in the journal Nature Communications, scientists from Imperial College London have tested a new genetic method that distorts the sex ratio of Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes, the main transmitters of the malaria parasite, so that the female mosquitoes that bite and pass the disease to humans are no longer produced.

In the first laboratory tests, the method created a fully fertile mosquito strain that produced 95 per cent male offspring.

Continue reading “Scientists wipe out malaria-carrying mosquitoes in the lab by creating male-only offspring”

Bill Gates Talks About Vaccines to Reduce World Population

Requested Re-Post

“Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Public release date: 6-May-2011

Logo da fundação Bill & Melinda Gates

Microsoft founder and one of the world’s wealthiest men, Bill Gates, projects an image of a benign philanthropist using his billions via his (tax exempt) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to tackle diseases, solve food shortages in Africa and alleviate poverty. In a recent conference in California, Gates reveals a less public agenda of his philanthropy—population reduction, otherwise known as eugenics.

Gates made his remarks to the invitation-only Long Beach, California TED2010 Conference, in a speech titled, “Innovating to Zero!.” Along with the scientifically absurd proposition of reducing manmade CO2 emissions worldwide to zero by 2050, approximately four and a half minutes into the talk, Gates declares, “First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Continue reading “Bill Gates Talks About Vaccines to Reduce World Population”

‘No poor countries by 2035’: Bill Gates annual letter says extreme poverty and child mortality could be virtually wiped out in next two decades

EEV: This a day after the Oxfam report is released on wealth redistribution reaching globally destabilizing levels. This is almost as curious as the www.givingpledge.org .

* EEV Commentary added above as well as the Oxfam Graphic released 20 JAN 2014

Bill and Melinda Gates use letter to quash ‘three myths’ about world poverty

Adam Withnall

Tuesday, 21 January 2014

Bill Gates has said there will be “almost no poor countries by 2035”, and that child mortality rates in the poorest nations will plummet to the same levels as in the US and UK in 1980.

The world’s richest man made the prediction in the Gates Foundation’s annual letter, in which he and his wife, Melinda, sought to dispel three common “myths” surrounding the issues of world poverty.

EEV: Posted from the Oxfam report, released 20 JAN 2014

Continue reading “‘No poor countries by 2035’: Bill Gates annual letter says extreme poverty and child mortality could be virtually wiped out in next two decades”

NY Schools Plan Called Threat to Privacy / Giving student data to a private company for storage

 

By MARLENE KENNEDY

ShareThis

ALBANY, N.Y. (CN) – New York’s plan to turn over massive amounts of student data to a private company for online storage violates privacy laws and could expose the information to hacking, a dozen parents and guardians claim in court.

The plaintiffs, who have 19 children in public and charter schools in New York City, say they want to halt “the unnecessary and unprecedented mass disclosure of the records and personal information of millions of New York state school children.”

Lead plaintiff Mona Davids claims in Albany County Supreme Court that New York privacy law requires written consent before a government agency can disclose personal information, and that the plaintiffs did not authorize the release of data on their minor children and wards.

Continue reading “NY Schools Plan Called Threat to Privacy / Giving student data to a private company for storage”

Scientists report human dietary supplement cures lab animals infected with human intestinal parasite ( Hookworm )

Contact: Preeti Singh psingh@burnesscommunications.com 301-280-5722

Bridget DeSimone bdesimone@burnesscommunications.com 301-280-5735

Burness Communications

Preliminary success using ‘probiotics’ against hookworms raises hope for treating afflictions that burden 1.5 billion and cause stunting, development delays in children

WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 15, 2013) — Laboratory animals fed a modified version of a common human dietary supplement were completely cured of intestinal worms that belong to a family of parasites that currently infect 1.5 billion people, or almost one quarter of the world’s population, according to new research presented today at the annual meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH).

“We need to replicate the results in other animals and also in humans, but this is an important development in our effort to find a safe, affordable and effective way to confront a major global health problem,” said Raffi Aroian, PhD, principal investigator of a team of scientists at the University of California, San Diego who are seeking new treatments for a variety of parasitic worms known as “soil-transmitted helminths” or STHs.

While rarely fatal, STHs and other intestinal worms are leading contributors to disease in school-age children in low-income countries and are viewed by many experts as among the most burdensome of the world’s “neglected tropical diseases” or NTDs.

The study conducted by Aroian’s team focused on hookworms, common STHs that are found in soil that has been contaminated with human feces. Hookworms can linger in the intestines for years, where they feed on blood and tissue, robbing their hosts of iron and protein and interfering with absorption of critical nutrients. They frequently cause stunting and cognitive delays in infected children. They also can have long-term effects on educational achievement and productivity.

Currently, the only drugs available to treat hookworms in humans were originally developed to combat parasites that infect farm animals. Aroian said they are only partially effective against the range of intestinal parasites that infect humans. There is also evidence of reinfections occurring rapidly after treatment and low levels of efficacy in some places.

At the ASTMH meeting, Aroian’s colleague Yan Hu, PhD reported findings from a study in which hamsters were deliberately infected with hookworms. The hamsters were later divided into two groups. One group received a common strain of the bacteria Bacillus subtilis, which is often marketed as a “probiotic”—a dietary supplement consumed as a pill or added to food that is intended to promote digestive health. It also is the key ingredient in a popular Japanese fermented soybean dish called Natto. The other group received the same probiotic, except the researchers modified it to express a protein derived from a closely related bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt, which is known to be safe in humans but potentially lethal to intestinal worms.

“Five days after we administered the bacteria, we examined the animals’ intestines,” Hu said. “We found no worms in the animals that received the modified probiotic, while those that did not receive the modified probiotic remained infected.”

Hu said the next step will be to conduct tests in different types of animals and against different types of STHs. If the probiotic continues to perform well against multiple intestinal parasites and is shown to be safe, then researchers would consider testing in humans, she said.

The research is supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

“While the research has yet to move beyond tests in animals, the human health burden is so immense and the solutions so few that it’s gratifying to see progress being made toward finding new treatments for intestinal worm diseases,” said ASTMH President David H. Walker, MD. “It shows that new investments in neglected tropical diseases are inspiring creative solutions for the more than a billion people in need.”

Aroian said the overall goal of the work is to produce a treatment for intestinal worms that is safe, effective and affordable in the world’s poorest countries, where hookworms and other STHs do the most damage.  “This probiotic is a food-grade bacterial product that can be easily produced in large quantities in a simple fermenter, and it can be manufactured in a form that has a long shelf-life,” he said. “It could be well-suited to providing the cheap, mass treatment we need to substantially reduce the burden of this disease.”

Aroian said Bt is attractive because it is a well-understood, natural substance for controlling plant pests that is believed to be safe for animals and humans. It is frequently sprayed on organic crops and is mainly lethal to insects in their larva stage. Bt also is a bacteria used in genetically engineered corn and soybean to endow the crops with resistance to plant pests.

Aroian said that while the modified probiotic under development in his lab should be safe to consume, if it proves to be an effective intervention for intestinal worms it would be marketed as a treatment, not as a dietary supplement.

###

About the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene ASTMH, founded in 1903, is a worldwide organization of scientists, clinicians and program professionals whose mission is to promote global health through the prevention and control of infectious and other diseases that disproportionately afflict the global poor.

Bill Gates: Microsoft investors reportedly call for co-founder to depart

Unnamed investors said to be lobbying the board for the departure of Microsoft’s co-founder

 

Bill Gates: hints of pressure for him to step down.
Bill Gates: hints of pressure for him to step down. Photograph: Brendan McDermid/Reuters

Three of the top 20 investors in Microsoft are lobbying the board to press for Bill Gates to step down as chairman of the software company he co-founded 38 years ago, according to people familiar with matter.

The outgoing Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has been under pressure for years to improve the company’s performance and share price, but this appears to be the first time that major shareholders are taking aim at Gates, who remains one of the most respected and influential figures in technology.

A representative for Microsoft declined to comment on Tuesday.

There is no indication that Microsoft’s board would heed the wishes of the three investors, who collectively hold more than 5% of the company’s stock, the sources say. They requested the identity of the investors be kept anonymous because the discussions are private.

Gates owns about 4.5% of the $277bn company and is its largest individual shareholder.

The three investors are concerned that Gates’s presence on the board effectively blocks the adoption of new strategies and would limit the power of a new chief executive to make substantial changes. In particular, they point to Gates’s role on the special committee searching for Ballmer’s successor.

They are also worried that Gates – who spends most of his time on his philanthropic foundation – wields power out of proportion to his declining shareholding.

Gates, who owned 49% of Microsoft before it went public in 1986, sells about 80m Microsoft shares a year under a pre-set plan, which if continued would leave him with no financial stake in the company by 2018.

Gates lowered his profile at Microsoft after he handed the chief executive role to Ballmer in 2000, giving up his day-to-day work there in 2008 to focus on the $38bn Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In August, Ballmer said he would retire within 12 months, amid pressure from activist fund manager ValueAct Capital Management.

Microsoft is now looking for a replacement, though its board has said Ballmer’s strategy will go forward. He has focused on making devices, such as the Surface tablet and Xbox gaming console, and turning key software into services provided over the internet. Some investors say that a new chief should not be bound by that strategy.

News that some investors were pushing for Gates’s departure as chairman provoked mixed reactions from other shareholders.

“This is long overdue,” said Todd Lowenstein, a portfolio manager at HighMark Capital Management, which owns Microsoft shares. “Replacing the old guard with some fresh eyes can provide the oxygen needed to properly evaluate their corporate strategy.”

Kim Caughey Forrest, senior analyst at Fort Pitt Capital Group, suggested now was not the time for Microsoft to ditch Gates, and that he could even play a larger role.

“I’ve thought that the company has been missing a technology visionary,” she said. “Bill [Gates] would fit the bill.”

Microsoft is still one of the world’s most valuable technology companies, making a net profit of $22bn last fiscal year. But its core Windows computing operating system, and to a lesser extent the Office software suite, are under pressure from the decline in personal computers as smartphones and tablets grow more popular.

Shares of Microsoft have been essentially static for a decade, and the company has lost ground to Apple and Google in the move toward mobile computing.

One of the sources said Gates was one of the technology industry’s greatest pioneers, but the investors felt he was more effective as chief executive than as chairman.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/02/microsoft-investors-reportedly-press-for-bill-gates-to-step-down

 

E-tattoo monitors brainwaves and baby bump : “now modifying the tattoo to transmit data wirelessly to a smartphone”

 

 

 

An electronic patch can analyse complex brainwaves and listen in on a fetus’s heart

MIND reading can be as simple as slapping a sticker on your forehead. An “electronic tattoo” containing flexible electronic circuits can now record some complex brain activity as accurately as an EEG. The tattoo could also provide a cheap way to monitor a developing fetus.

The first electronic tattoo appeared in 2011, when Todd Coleman at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues designed a transparent patch containing electronic circuits as thin as a human hairMovie Camera. Applied to skin like a temporary tattoo, these could be used to monitor electrophysiological signals associated with the heart and muscles, as well as rudimentary brain activity.

To improve its usefulness, Coleman’s group has now optimised the placement of the electrodes to pick up more complex brainwaves. They have demonstrated this by monitoring so-called P300 signals in the forebrain. These appear when you pay attention to a stimulus. The team showed volunteers a series of images and asked them to keep track of how many times a certain object appeared. Whenever volunteers noticed the object, the tattoo registered a blip in the P300 signal.

The tattoo was as good as conventional EEG at telling whether a person was looking at the target image or another stimulus, the team told a recent Cognitive Neuroscience Society meeting in San Francisco.

The team is now modifying the tattoo to transmit data wirelessly to a smartphone, Coleman says. Eventually, he hopes the device could identify other complex patterns of brain activity, such as those that might be used to control a prosthetic limb.

For now, the group is focusing on optimising the tattoo for use in conditions such as depression and Alzheimer’s disease, each of which have characteristic patterns of neural activity. People with depression could wear the tattoo for an extended period, allowing it to help gauge whether medication is working. “The number one advantage is the medical ease of application,” says Michael Pitts of Reed College in Portland, Oregon.

Because its electronic components are already mass-produced, the tattoo can also be made very cheaply.

That means it might also lend itself to pregnancy monitoring in developing countries. With help from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Coleman’s group is working on an unobtrusive version of the tattoo that monitors signals such as maternal contractions and fetal heart rate.

This article appeared in print under the headline “‘Tattoo’ reads your brain and bump”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829146.000-etattoo-monitors-brainwaves-and-baby-bump.html

 

Obama taps Walmart Foundation chief to lead budget office : Burwell, a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations

By Stephen C. Webster Sunday, March 3, 2013 20:22 EST

Walmart via AFP

President Barack Obama will nominate on Monday Sylvia Matthews Burwell, current chair of the Walmart Foundation, to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a senior official told CNN on Sunday evening.

The Walmart Foundation is the mega-retailer’s charitable arm. Prior to her work for Walmart, Burwell served as President of the Global Development Program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where she focused on grants for developing nations, with a special focus on agricultural development and water sanitation.

Burwell, a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, also worked for the Clinton administration in several capacities, including deputy chief of staff, chief of staff at the Treasury and finally deputy chief of staff at the Office of Management and Budget.

If confirmed by the Senate, Burwell will replace Deputy Director for Management Jeffrey Zients, who’s served as acting OMB chief since 2009 after a decades-long career in business that started with a job at Bain & Company, the private equity firm founded by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R)

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/03/obama-taps-walmart-foundation-chief-to-lead-budget-office/

Notes from the First Billionaire Club ” Billionaire Club in Bid to Curb Overpopulation ” 2009

Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

  John Harlow
  • The Sunday Times
  • Published: 24 May 2009

SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.

They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.

The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.

Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.

At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.

Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.

Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”

Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/article169829.ece

Little evidence of health benefits from organic foods,…Stanford Institution Fails to List Conflict of Interest (COI) in Meta analysis: Claimed Pesticide Laden Crops are Organic

Contact: Michelle Brandt mbrandt@stanford.edu 650-723-0272 Stanford University Medical Center

STANFORD, Calif. — You’re in the supermarket eyeing a basket of sweet, juicy plums. You reach for the conventionally grown stone fruit, then decide to spring the extra $1/pound for its organic cousin. You figure you’ve just made the healthier decision by choosing the organic product — but new findings from Stanford University cast some doubt on your thinking.

“There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, to be published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

A team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school’s Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.

The popularity of organic products, which are generally grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers or routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones, is skyrocketing in the United States. Between 1997 and 2011, U.S. sales of organic foods increased from $3.6 billion to $24.4 billion, and many consumers are willing to pay a premium for these products. Organic foods are often twice as expensive as their conventionally grown counterparts.

Although there is a common perception — perhaps based on price alone — that organic foods are better for you than non-organic ones, it remains an open question as to the health benefits. In fact, the Stanford study stemmed from Bravata’s patients asking her again and again about the benefits of organic products. She didn’t know how to advise them.

So Bravata, who is also chief medical officer at the health-care transparency company Castlight Health, did a literature search, uncovering what she called a “confusing body of studies, including some that were not very rigorous, appearing in trade publications.” There wasn’t a comprehensive synthesis of the evidence that included both benefits and harms, she said.

“This was a ripe area in which to do a systematic review,” said first author Smith-Spangler, who jumped on board to conduct the meta-analysis with Bravata and other Stanford colleagues.

For their study, the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyze. Those included 17 studies (six of which were randomized clinical trials) of populations consuming organic and conventional diets, and 223 studies that compared either the nutrient levels or the bacterial, fungal or pesticide contamination of various products (fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk, poultry, and eggs) grown organically and conventionally. There were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

The researchers were also unable to identify specific fruits and vegetables for which organic appeared the consistently healthier choice, despite running what Bravata called “tons of analyses.”

“Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious,” said Smith-Spangler, who is also an instructor of medicine at the School of Medicine. “We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that.”

The review yielded scant evidence that conventional foods posed greater health risks than organic products. While researchers found that organic produce is 30 percent less likely to be contaminated with pesticides than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. What’s more, as the researchers noted, the pesticide levels of all foods fell within the allowable safety limits. Two studies of children consuming organic and conventional diets did find lower levels of pesticide residues in the urine of children on organic diets, though the levels of urinary pesticides in both groups of children were below the allowable safety thresholds. Also, organic chicken and pork appeared to reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the clinical significance of this is unclear.

As for what the findings mean for consumers, the researchers said their aim is to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases. “If you look beyond health effects, there are plenty of other reasons to buy organic instead of conventional,” noted Bravata. She listed taste preferences and concerns about the effects of conventional farming practices on the environment and animal welfare as some of the reasons people choose organic products.

“Our goal was to shed light on what the evidence is,” said Smith-Spangler. “This is information that people can use to make their own decisions based on their level of concern about pesticides, their budget and other considerations.”

She also said that people should aim for healthier diets overall. She emphasized the importance of eating of fruits and vegetables, “however they are grown,” noting that most Americans don’t consume the recommended amount.

In discussing limitations of their work, the researchers noted the heterogeneity of the studies they reviewed due to differences in testing methods; physical factors affecting the food, such as weather and soil type; and great variation among organic farming methods. With regard to the latter, there may be specific organic practices (for example, the way that manure fertilizer, a risk for bacterial contamination, is used and handled) that could yield a safer product of higher nutritional quality.

“What I learned is there’s a lot of variation between farming practices,” said Smith-Spangler. “It appears there are a lot of different factors that are important in predicting nutritional quality and harms.”

###

Other Stanford co-authors are Margaret Brandeau, PhD, the Coleman F. Fung Professor in the School of Engineering; medical students Grace Hunter, J. Clay Bavinger and Maren Pearson; research assistant Paul Eschbach; Vandana Sundaram, MPH, assistant director for research at CHP/PCOR; Hau Liu, MD, MBA, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Stanford and senior director at Castlight Health; Patricia Schirmer, MD, infectious disease physician with the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System; medical librarian Christopher Stave, MLS; and Ingram Olkin, PhD, professor emeritus of statistics and of education. The authors received no external funding for this study.

Information about Stanford’s Department of Medicine, which supported the work, is available at http://medicine.stanford.edu. The Center for Health Policy is a unit of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford.

The Stanford University School of Medicine consistently ranks among the nation’s top medical schools, integrating research, medical education, patient care and community service. For more news about the school, please visit http://mednews.stanford.edu. The medical school is part of Stanford Medicine, which includes Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital. For information about all three, please visit http://stanfordmedicine.org/about/news.html.

PRINT MEDIA CONTACTS: Michelle Brandt at (650) 723-0272 (mbrandt@stanford.edu), Margarita Gallardo at (650) 723-7897 (mjgallardo@stanford.edu)

BROADCAST MEDIA CONTACT: M.A. Malone at (650) 723-6912 (mamalone@stanford.edu)

—————- The Following are Concerns of experimenter bias, from the Engineering Evil site.

* First off Oganics that are 30% less likely to be contaminated by Pesticides than Conventional are Not Organic: Any significant Pesticide Crop should of been omitted from the Organic side of the Meta Analysis

* The effect of Food Pesticide Exposure Effects can be found all over this site

Removed All other COI Info? (UPDATED AS 5 SEP 12)

* The paid research by Monsanto. The Venture Capital offered to secure Patents on Research through the Gates Foundation and others, The Job Placement services Bio Tech Companies etc…..

Makes little difference if ” The authors received no external funding for this study ” since the one who  employs the researchers does….

IT APPEARS STANFORD changed their search engines just recently…….You have to do an Advanced Search…Type in Monsanto, or Gates..They do not come up on a regular search…If that does not work, I have copies of the PDF and Screen Shots…I can take the time to post.. 😉

Removed all other COI Information: Just Follow the Link, and Connect the dots…I honestly don’t know how Stanford or Many Universities could avoid any COI’s, even if it wanted to now.

http://med.stanford.edu/careercenter/highlights/files/Bioe_session_3.pdf

Go to Page 6 of this PDF…

It appears that the Gates Foundation May in Cooperation with other firms,Supplies Start up Capital to Stanford Researchers (As well as Others)  in Hopes of Aquiring Patents….It is no seceret, the Gates Foundation is a major source of research dollars to many institutions. Whether the Gates foundation is doing it for charity, or other motivations is up to the reader.

* In any Case Stanford does work with Monsanto a Great Deal.. Go to http://medicine.stanford.edu type in Monsanto on the search… Draw  your own Conclusions

Gates Foundation Grants to Stanford

Gates investments in Monsanto, and cooperation with Cargill

http://foodsecurity.stanford.edu/news/2864

http://naturalsociety.com/bill-gates-foundation-buys-500000-shares-of-monsanto/

The Conflict is not directly by the Researchers, but the Institution

Recent Gates Foundation Grant List to Stanford: Source Gates Foundation

2012 Stanford University College-Ready Education (U.S.) United States $274,999 2012 Stanford University College-Ready Education (U.S.) United States $30,000 2012 Stanford University College-Ready Education (U.S.) United States $30,000 2011 Stanford University Charitable Sector Support Global Policy and Advocacy $150,000 2011 Stanford University Discovery Global Health $100,000 2011 Stanford University Water, Sanitation, & Hygiene Global Development $397,100 2011 Stanford University Water, Sanitation, & Hygiene Global Development $100,000 2011 Stanford University Discovery Global Health $100,000 2011 American Education Finance Association Advocacy & Public Policy United States $84,870 2010 Stanford University Discovery Global Health $100,000 2010 Stanford University Advocacy & Public Policy Global Policy and Advocacy $50,000 2010 Stanford University – John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities College-Ready Education (U.S.) United States $1,541,091 2010 Stanford University Agricultural Development Global Development $995,844 2010 Stanford University Postsecondary Education United States $1,433,143 2010 Stanford University Vaccines Global Health $1,000,000 2010 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Postsecondary Education United States $4,409,433 2010 Stanford University Discovery Global Health $100,000 2010 Stanford University Discovery Global Health $100,000 2009 Stanford University Postsecondary Education United States $1,400,088 2009 Stanford University Postsecondary Education United States $3,000,000

Compound discovered that boosts effect of vaccines against HIV and flu: polyethyleneimine (PEI) 100% Letahl Flu Protection

Contact: University of Oxford press.office@admin.ox.ac.uk 44-018-652-80530 University of Oxford

Novel vaccine additive to enhance the body’s immune response shows promise in mice

Oxford University scientists have discovered a compound that greatly boosts the effect of vaccines against viruses like flu, HIV and herpes in mice.

An ‘adjuvant’ is a substance added to a vaccine to enhance the immune response and offer better protection against infection.

The Oxford University team, along with Swedish and US colleagues, have shown that a type of polymer called polyethyleneimine (PEI) is a potent adjuvant for test vaccines against HIV, flu and herpes when given in mice.

The researchers were part-funded by the UK Medical Research Council and report their findings in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

Mice given a single dose of a flu vaccine including PEI via a nasal droplet were completely protected against a lethal dose of flu. This was a marked improvement over mice given the flu vaccine without an adjuvant or in formulations with other adjuvants.

The Oxford researchers now intend to test the PEI adjuvant in ferrets, a better animal model for studying flu. They also want to understand how long the protection lasts for. It is likely to be a couple of years before a flu vaccine using the adjuvant could be tested in clinical trials in humans, the researchers say.

‘Gaining complete protection against flu from just one immunisation is pretty unheard of, even in a study in mice,’ says Professor Quentin Sattentau of the Dunn School of Pathology at Oxford University, who led the work. ‘This gives us confidence that PEI has the potential to be a potent adjuvant for vaccines against viruses like flu or HIV, though there are many steps ahead if it is ever to be used in humans.’

HIV, flu and herpes are some of the most difficult targets to develop vaccines against. HIV and flu viruses are able to change and evolve to escape immune responses stimulated by vaccines. There aren’t any effective vaccines against HIV and herpes as yet, and the flu vaccine needs reformulating each year and doesn’t offer complete protection to everyone who receives it. Finding better adjuvants could help in developing more effective vaccines against these diseases.

Most vaccines include an adjuvant. The main ingredient of the vaccine – whether it is a dead or disabled pathogen, or just a part of the virus or bacteria causing the disease – primes the body’s immune system so it knows what to attack in case of infection. But the adjuvant is needed as well to stimulate this process.

While the need for adjuvants in vaccines has been recognised for nearly 100 years, the way adjuvants work has only recently been understood. The result has been that only a small set of adjuvants is used in current vaccines, often for historical reasons.

The most common adjuvant by far is alum, an aluminium-containing compound that has been given in many different vaccines worldwide for decades. However, alum is not the most potent adjuvant for many vaccine designs.

‘There is a need to develop new adjuvants to get the most appropriate immune response from vaccines,’ says Professor Sattentau, who is also a James Martin Senior Fellow at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.

The Oxford University team found that PEI, a standard polymer often used in genetic and cell biology, has strong adjuvant activity.

When included in a vaccine with a protein from HIV, flu or herpes virus, mice subsequently mounted a strong immune response against that virus. The immune response was stronger than with other adjuvants that are currently being investigated.

The team also showed that PEI is a potent adjuvant in rabbits, showing the effect is not just specific to mice and could be general.

Another potential advantage of PEI is that it works well as an adjuvant for ‘mucosal vaccines’. These vaccines are taken up the nose or in the mouth and absorbed through the mucus-lined tissues there, getting rid of any pain and anxiety from a needle. Mucosal vaccines may also be better in some ways as mucosal tissues are the sites of infection for these diseases (airways for respiratory diseases, genital mucosa for HIV and herpes).

Professor Sattentau suggests that: ‘In the best of all possible worlds, you could imagine people would have one dose of flu vaccine that they’d just sniff up their nose or put under their tongue. And that would be it: no injections and they’d be protected from flu for a number of years.

‘It’s just a vision for the future at the moment, but this promising adjuvant suggests it is a vision that is at least possible.’

###

Notes to Editors

* The body’s immune system is made up of two arms: the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system. The adaptive immune system consists of the antibodies and immune cells (T and B cells) the body develops specifically to combat a particular foreign agent.

The innate immune system had been thought of as playing a more primitive, non-specific role in protecting against invaders like viruses and parasites. However, it is now realised that the innate immune system is essential in kicking off any immune response. It needs to be activated first to generate an adaptive immune response.

But the innate immune system doesn’t just press the start button. It tailors the body’s adaptive immune response, deciding on what particular mix of antibodies and T cells is needed and teaching them what to attack.

It is the adjuvants in vaccines that stimulate the innate immune system. So having the right adjuvant can help the body produce the most appropriate immune response to protect against future infection.

* The paper ‘Polyethyleneimine is a potent mucosal adjuvant for glycoproteins with innate and adaptive immune activating properties’ is to be published in the journal Nature Biotechnology with an embargo of 18:00 UK time / 13:00 US Eastern time on Sunday 26 August 2012.

* The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, European Commission, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Dormeur Investment Service Ltd.

* Professor Sattentau is an investigator in the Jenner Institute at Oxford University and a James Martin Senior Fellow at the Oxford Martin School, Oxford University.

* For almost 100 years the Medical Research Council has improved the health of people in the UK and around the world by supporting the highest quality science. The MRC invests in world-class scientists. It has produced 29 Nobel Prize winners and sustains a flourishing environment for internationally recognised research. The MRC focuses on making an impact and provides the financial muscle and scientific expertise behind medical breakthroughs, including one of the first antibiotics penicillin, the structure of DNA and the lethal link between smoking and cancer. Today MRC funded scientists tackle research into the major health challenges of the 21st century. www.mrc.ac.uk

* The Oxford Martin School

is a unique interdisciplinary community within the University of Oxford. The School fosters innovative thinking, deep scholarship and collaborative activity to address the most pressing risks and realise new opportunities of the 21st century. It was founded in 2005 through the vision and generosity of James Martin, and currently comprises over 35 interdisciplinary research programmes on global future challenges. The Oxford Martin School’s Director is Ian Goldin, Professor at the University of Oxford. http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk

* Oxford University’s Medical Sciences Division is one of the largest biomedical research centres in Europe, with over 2,500 people involved in research and more than 2,800 students. The University is rated the best in the world for medicine, and it is home to the UK’s top-ranked medical school.

From the genetic and molecular basis of disease to the latest advances in neuroscience, Oxford is at the forefront of medical research. It has one of the largest clinical trial portfolios in the UK and great expertise in taking discoveries from the lab into the clinic. Partnerships with the local NHS Trusts enable patients to benefit from close links between medical research and healthcare delivery.

A great strength of Oxford medicine is its long-standing network of clinical research units in Asia and Africa, enabling world-leading research on the most pressing global health challenges such as malaria, TB, HIV/AIDS and flu. Oxford is also renowned for its large-scale studies which examine the role of factors such as smoking, alcohol and diet on cancer, heart disease and other

Anger after Bill Gates gives £6m to British lab to develop GM crops

Monday 16 July 2012

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given British scientists a multi-million pound grant to develop GM crops in what could be the most significant PR endorsement for the controversial technology.

The John Innes Centre in Norwich has received £6.4m for a five-year project to engineer cereals such as corn and barley to extract nitrogen from the atmosphere, rather than relying on ammonia-based fertilisers.

But the decision by the Gates Foundation to invest substantial funds in technology that has been promising an agricultural revolution for almost two decades provoked anger last night. The money would have been better spent on proven bio-tech techniques and cheap “agro-ecology sustainable practices” (low-input, traditional, organic) that have the potential to meet global food needs and yield long-term food security, said Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist from King’s College London’s medical school.

“There are safer, proven technologies, so I’m afraid the Gateses have been grossly misled. GM has failed to deliver for farmers; it can only deliver commercial returns,” he said.

The Microsoft founder and his wife have established themselves as major players in global health and development over the past 16 years, having donated £26bn. Only last week Melinda Gates was in London to pledge $560m (£360m) to improve family-planning services across the developing world. But the Foundation’s support for GM crops has attracted criticism, as has its investment in Monsanto – one the world’s largest GM seed producers.

Katherine Kahn, senior programme officer of Agricultural Development at the Gates Foundation, said the research had the potential “to transform the lives of small farmers” by “dramatically boosting the crop yields in Africa.”