Experimenting with Pregnant Women

23 09 2014

PregnantWomanImmediately after World War II, researchers at Vanderbilt University gave 829 pregnant mothers in Tennessee what they were told were “vitamin drinks” that would improve the health of their babies. The mixtures contained radioactive iron and the researchers were determining how fast the radioisotope crossed into the placenta. At least three children are known to have died from the experiments, from cancers and leukemia. Four of the women’s babies died from cancers as a result of the experiments, and the women experienced rashes, bruises, anemia, hair/tooth loss, and cancer.

Science and medicine have done a lot of good to mankind and to the world. Yet great dangers lurk if science were to lack respect for human dignity.

Throughout the 1840s, J. Marion Sims, who is often referred to as “the father of gynecology”, performed surgical experiments on enslaved African women, without anaesthesia. The women—one of whom was operated on 30 times—regularly died from infections resulting from the experiments.] In order to test one of his theories about the causes of trismus in infants, Sims performed experiments where he used a shoemaker’s awl to move around the skull bones of the babies of enslaved women.

Men and women are made in the image of God. Any action that treats a person as an object (for experiment) runs counter to his dignity ( and therefore is intrinsically evil). Such actions also include: slavery, murder, rape, and wrongful imprisonment; also including: scorn, prejudice, and coercion. Such treatment values a person for his objective utility, capacity or quality, not on the dignity of being a child of God and a brother or sister to all other human beings. Many scientist even today challenge this very truth, regarding killing human embryos, fetuses, and severely retarded, demented, or debilitated human beings
Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

WMTI ( First week of lectures)

15 04 2014






















Module 1: The principle and technology of air-conditioning & refrigeration

Module 2: How to install split unit air-conditioners in both residential and office settings

Module 3: How to troubleshoot air conditioner and refrigeration faults

Module 4: How to build air-conditions and refrigerators like cold rooms, deep freezers, etc.

Module 5:  How to install and troubleshoot central air-conditioning units

Module 6: The principle and technology of automobile air-conditioners

Module 7: How to install, trouble-shoot and repair automobile air- conditioners

Module 8: The rudiments of gas welding –latest pipe work and brazing, gas

welding techniques, leak-proof  Joints etc.

Participants can choose to take any of above modules separately at a reduced cost.

Our trainers are highly skilled field engineers and professionals who use computer aided tools to make learning easy and take participants into the practical mechanism of the objects of the training.

Our training includes business development sessions and field excursions to bring participants in contact with potential clientele even before they conclude the training programme

At Fees You Can Afford  We offer life-changing skills that will  earn you income for a lifetime.  (Discount for students and special need participants is available, please call)

WHO CAN ATTEND? Anyone who wishes to acquire In-demand, market-ready skills:  Students, Graduates of  Higher institutions, technicians, Engineers, etc.


Admission Officer

Tell: 08057080678 email: wmti.edu@gmail.com


WorkMan Training Institute

(WMTI) is a non-profit, technical, vocational training project that aims to offer hands-on practical skills training especially to youths. It targets school leavers, students and graduates of institutions of higher learning, Youth Corp member, etc., and provides them with relevant technical-vocational education suitable for them to earn income as they continue to build their careers. Participants of our programmes are easily employable; many are self-employed and advance rapidly in their careers, improve their family income, and enhance their socio-economic condition.

WMTI is a project of Center for Academic and Professional

Excellence (CAPE), a non-profit Incorporated Trustee with   Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) registration no. RC22476

The Harmful Effects Of Contraception On Women And Nature By Janet Smith

20 10 2013

Voilent Effects Of Contraception On Women And Nature By Janet Smith

First of all, fertility is a great good. An adult human being who is fertile is a healthy human being. Those who are infertile are unhealthy. A woman protesting hormones in food shouted at a pro-lifer who was arguing against the abortion pill, “What are you, some kind of nut?”

We live in a culture that is beginning to realize that it’s bad to put chemicals in the air and in the water supply and food. But women are putting chemical in their bodies day after day, month after month, year after year, to stop something that’s perfectly healthy. It simply doesn’t make any sense especially since women can control their fertility with the very health methods of natural family planning.

Violation of Physical Health

Women who take chemical contraceptives complain of liver troubles, strokes, migraines, high blood pressure and ovarian cysts. There are all sorts of bad physical side effects of contraceptives.

Since I’m going to talk mostly about the chemical contraceptives, let me pause for a moment to say a few things about the so-called barrier methods. First of all, think of how incompatible barriers are with lovemaking. “I want to make love to you, but I’ve got to get my barrier in place.” “I’ve got to get my spermicide going.” “I want to give myself completely, but I’m going to kill your sperm.” What is loving about that? Barriers are clearly opposed to an act of real self-giving. Moreover, semen has within it certain proteins that are beneficial for women; they have a calming and assuring effect on the woman; thus condoms deny women one of the benefits for them from sexual intercourse.

Common Side Effects

The common side effects of the chemical contraceptives are: increased irritability, increased propensity to depression, weight gain and a reduced sex drive. Most women who use chemical contraceptives complain of these side effects. I’m sure that every woman in this room would like to be taking a pill that makes her more irritable, more prone to depression, helps her gain weight and have a reduced sex drive. I’m sure every man in this room wants the woman he’s dealing with to be more irritable, more prone to depression, to gain weight and have a reduced sex drive. We have something for you: it’s called the chemical contraceptive.

Dismissing Side Effects

When the pill was first discovered in the later 1950’s it was tested on women in Puerto Rico. And these are the reports that came back:

Dr. Edris Rice-Wray, a faculty member of the Puerto Rico Medical School and medical director of the Puerto Rico Family Planning Association, was in charge of the trials. After a year of tests, Dr. Rice-Wray reported good news to Pincus. The Pill was 100% effective when taken properly. She also informed him that 17% of the women in the study complained of nausea, dizziness, headaches, stomach pain and vomiting. So serious and sustained were the reactions that Rice-Wray told Pincus that a 10-milligram dose of Enovid caused “too many side reactions to be generally acceptable.”

Rock and Pincus quickly dismissed Rice-Wray’s conclusions. Their patients in Boston had experienced far fewer negative reactions, and they believed many of the complaints were psychosomatic. The men also felt that problems such as bloating and nausea were minor compared to the contraceptive benefits of the drug. Although three women died while participating in the trials, no investigation was conducted to see if the Pill had caused the young women’s deaths. Confident in the safety of the Pill, Pincus and Rock took no action to assess the root cause of the side effects.

I first heard about this situation in Puerto Rico years ago when I read a book by a woman named Dr. Ellen Grant. The title of the book was “The Bitter Pill.” She was a physician in London in the 1950’s and she started prescribing the pill to her patients. She was dismayed when they returned in with migraines, high blood pressure, ovarian cysts, and other maladies. She was perplexed since she wanted to make her patients lives better, not worse. This led her to review the early studies of the pill.

She discovered that there was an attempt to find a contraceptive for males as well as for females. As you will notice, there is no contraceptive pill for males. There is a reason for that. In the study group of males, one male had some slight shrinkage of his testicles. Thus, all testing on the male contraceptive pill was stopped, since that is intolerable. Among the female study group three women died. They simply adjusted the dosage of the hormone. What does that tell people? It may tell us that women are stupid. Women do things to their bodies that men won’t do to theirs.

“Sexy” Contraceptive Patch Fatality Rate Revealed

We read in a report of September, 2004 that seventeen women between the ages of 17 and 30 had died since the release of the patch in 2002. The contraceptive patch is placed on a woman’s abdomen so she can absorb into her body a chemical contraceptive. The report tells us that “These documents also revealed that 21 additional life-threatening conditions have been found, including heart attacks, blood clots and strokes.”

If a 28 year old woman dies of a stroke, they’re not going to put on the death certificate that she died because she was using a contraceptive. One doctor doubted these reports so he looked at the medical records of these 17 women between the ages of 17 and 30 that died and found out that he thought only 6 of them could really be attributed to the patch, that we had enough evidence to say that these deaths were caused by the patch. But he thought that was an acceptable side effect. The convenience of the patch is so great that it is worth risking death for. What other drug would get this pass from the pharmaceutical industry, from the FDA? Tobacco is treated more harshly.

Doctors have told me that we’ve seen nothing yet in respect to lawsuits. What the pharmaceutical companies will face in respect to contraceptives is going to be huge compared to what we had with the tobacco companies. The pharmaceutical companies know every bit as much how bad contraceptives are for women as the tobacco companies knew about tobacco. And some day there may be massive lawsuits.

An Insult to Women

I think contraception is an insult to women. Instead of women saying fertility is a great gift, fertility is healthy, I’m not going to mess with my fertility, I’m not going to put massive doses of anything in my body to mess up my fertility, women basically apologize for their fertility. “I’m sorry. When I have sex I may get pregnant. Sure, I’ll be glad to mess with my body to correct this humiliating and inconvenient feature of my sex.”

What Do You Know About The House Fly? By JAMES GORMAN

16 10 2013

What Do You Know About The House Fly? By JAMES GORMAN

SEATTLE — To hear Michael Dickinson tell it, there is nothing in the world quite as wonderful as a fruit fly.

And it’s not because the fly is one of the most important laboratory animals in the history of biology, often used as a simple model for human genetics or neuroscience.

“I don’t think they’re a simple model of anything,” he says. “If flies are a great model, they’re a great model for flies.

“These animals, you know, they’re not like us,” he says, warming to his subject. “We don’t fly. We don’t have a compound eye. I don’t think we process sensory information the same way. The muscles that they use are just incredibly much more sophisticated and interesting than the muscles we use.

“They can taste with their wings,” he adds, as his enthusiasm builds. “No one knows any reason why they have taste cells on their wing. Their bodies are just covered with sensors. This is one of the most studied organisms in the history of science, and we’re still fundamentally ignorant about many features of its basic biology. It’s like having an alien in your lab.

“And,” he says, pausing, seeming puzzled that the world has not joined him in open-mouthed wonder for his favorite creature, “they can fly!”

If he had to define his specialty, Dr. Dickinson, 50, who counts a MacArthur “genius” award among his honors, would call himself a neuroethologist. As such, he studies the basis of behavior in the brain at the University of Washington, in Seattle.

In practice he is a polymath of sorts who has targeted the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, and its flying behavior for studies that involve physics, mathematics, neurobiology, computer vision, muscle physiology and other disciplines.

“He’s a highly original scientist,” said Alexander Borst, a department director at the Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology in Germany, who has known Dr. Dickinson for years. Usually neuroscientists work either on the behavior or the physics of flight, but Dr. Dickinson, he said, “is interested in both ends.” And, Dr. Borst added, “he’s a wonderful cook.”

Gwyneth Card, who was a researcher in Dr. Dickinson’s lab at the California Institute of Technology, said, “One of Michael’s many talents is he does have the skills to go across these different systems.” Dr. Card, who is now at Janelia Farm, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute research campus in Virginia, is one of the many neuroscientists whose pedigree includes a stint in Dr. Dickinson’s lab. As Dr. Borst puts it, “Many people in the field are his offspring.”

Early on Dr. Dickinson and a mentor solved a longstanding physics problem of insect flight, and he has continued to investigate every aspect of fly flight, sending a steady stream of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers to universities and research institutions where the fly work continues.

His influence on new research extends from basic neuroscience to robotics, and some of his work has been funded by the Defense Department, because flies do an awful lot of complex behavior without a big brain. And, of course, they fly. Researchers at Harvard whobuilt a fly-sized flying robot earlier this year, for example, built partly on his work.

Drawn to Flies

Michael Dickinson grew up in Baltimore. His family later moved near Philadelphia, where he was, as he puts it, “a faculty brat” at an all-boys prep school where his mother taught. As with many teenagers, adolescence was not the happiest time of his life, so he left high school after his junior year.

He did not take his guitar and head for Greenwich Village, however. He went to Brown University, which he started a year early, with a plan to pursue a career as an artist. But he said, “It was pretty clear that was a disaster after the first semester.”

He turned to science. He had taken a course in neuroscience, and began to do research with Charles Lent, on the neurobiology of the feeding behavior of leeches. Along the way, he honed his culinary skills during summers at French restaurants in Cape May, N.J., and Providence, R.I.

Then, in graduate school at the University of Washington, he discovered flies. His research for his dissertation was on fly development and neurobiology, but, he said, “I was almost instantly much more interested in the function of the whole fly than the more mechanistic but probably more well-posed problems of how the little axons grow to the brain.”

After one postdoctoral position that was a misfire, he began working with Karl Georg Götz at the University of Tübingen on insect flight. “We built this very, very simple model of a wing flapping back and forth in 200 liters of sugar water,” Dr. Dickinson said. What they found was that when the wings flap, “they generate this flow structure called a leading-edge vortex.”

By using slow movements of large wings in a viscous medium, they were able to mathematically analyze the fast movements of tiny wings in air. “The technique is called dynamic scaling,” Dr. Dickinson said, and it is often used in aeronautics.

At the time, the nature of insect flight was still quite a puzzle, the basis of the popular myth that engineers had proved that bumblebees could not fly. “We were able to measure the forces,” he said, and to “make simple calculations that, you know, actually insects can fly.”

He was hooked, not only on flies, but on the idea of bringing a variety of disciplines to bear on one complex behavior.

“Fly flight is just a great phenomenon to study,” he said. “It has everything — from the most sophisticated sensory biology; really, really interesting physics; really interesting muscle physiology; really interesting neural computations. Just the entire process that keeps a fly hovering in space or flying through the air — it links to ecology, it links to energetics.”

So when Dr. Dickinson left Tübingen to move to his first full-fledged faculty position, at the University of Chicago, he said, “I tried from that day on to set up a lab that worked in this very integrative way.”

His graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in that lab, and later in his labs at the University of California, Berkeley, at Caltech and now at the University of Washington, have come from a variety of backgrounds, including engineering, physics and biology.

Dr. Card, at Janelia Farm, said the multidisciplinary Dickinson lab at Caltech was a rich environment for a graduate student. “It was a great space to be in,” she said, and Dr. Dickinson was a savvy guide to productive research.

“He’ll set you a great problem,” she said. “For me he kind of picked out takeoff in flies.” She set up a system for taking infrared video at 7,000 frames per second of flies taking off spontaneously and also when they were frightened by an image of an apparent predator.

What she found, and reported with colleagues in a paper in Current Biology in 2008, was that when a predator loomed, the takeoff was not just a reflex action. The flies made preliminary leg movements to prepare for takeoff away from the predator, so somewhere in the fly’s brain the best response to a threat was being computed and a decision being made.

At Janelia Farm, Dr. Card is continuing the work on fly takeoff, using a variety of methods, like turning different brain circuits on and off, to attempt to understand just how the fly brain makes the decision — what exactly happens in what neurons in the milliseconds between the sight of a predator and takeoff.

Fly Fantasyland

Dr. Dickinson’s lab at the University of Washington is a bit like a mini-Disney World for engineers, particularly since most of the researchers build their own apparatuses. The lab takes advantage of all available technologies, including high-speed video, which Dr. Dickinson says does four times what the electron microscope did for space, and optogenetic stimulation of neurons in fly brains.

There are micro-treadmills for the flies and, in a basement room, macro tanks of viscous fluid for robotic wings. There are tiny enclosures for some experiments and tents for longer flights. For years his lab has worked with flies that are tethered and engaged in a kind of virtual reality theater, where the flies react to video of stimuli, like vertical lines, which they use as targets during flight. Sometimes the flies can control the display, as in a video game.

Gaby Maimon, now at Rockefeller University, worked with Dr. Dickinson at Caltech to develop a way to measure the activity of individual neurons in the fly brain during one of these experiments. Even more recently the lab has moved on to capturing images of the brain in action.

That action is very different during simulated flight from when the brain is at rest, Dr. Dickinson said. In fact, a point he emphasizes is that neuron for neuron, the fly brain has a wider range of behavior than more complex mammalian brains. One reason seems to be that the presence of different chemicals called neuromodulators in the fly brain can change how a given group of neurons acts at different times.

Another recent advance in his lab was in the area of machine vision. Kristin Branson, who is also now at Janelia Farm, developed software to analyze video of many flies together to try to understand the behavioral rules that govern their interactions. It is an extremely difficult problem for computers to cope with, given the huge amount of information in all the interactions of flies even over a period of a few minutes.

Dr. Dickinson’s latest research interest will, however, take him out of the lab. He is interested in fly behavior in the wild.

“The genus Drosophila is one of the great success stories,” he said. “There’s hundreds of species within the genus. They’re on every continent except Antarctica, they’re in tropical rain forests, they’re in deserts, they’ve evolved many exotic mating behaviors, and they’re capable of incredibly long-distance flights. They can fly for over 10 kilometers without eating anything.

“One of our more recent observations is that drosophila can read the sky compass,” he continued, “so they have the same capability that monarch butterflies have of being able to basically look at the sky” and figure out direction based on the polarization of light.

With this ability, there’s no need to see the whole sky or star patterns. “It works even when you have only a tiny patch of blue sky. It’s a solution vertebrates didn’t come upon, humans didn’t come upon, but insects did.”

And yet, he says, the world of the laboratory elicits only a limited range of behavior from flies. He wants to see more.

“Most biologists study them in this incredibly benign environment,” he said. But studying something as marvelous as a fruit fly in the lab is “like having a BMW and driving it around the block.”

Except, of course, BMWs can’t fly.


%d bloggers like this: