Stem cells confirmed as the source of cancer growth

From an article in the current Economist, a report on recent discoveries about the relationship between stem cells and tumour growth:

STEM cells have a controversial reputation, but in truth they are what makes human life possible. Each tissue in the body grows from a particular sort of stem cell. When it divides, one of its daughters remains a stem cell while the other eventually turns into whatever tissue its mother was designed to produce—be it blood, muscle, nerve or whatever. That is how healthy tissues are renewed, and it is now looking likely that it is how unhealthy tissues are renewed, too. Indeed, many researchers think that the underlying cause of cancer is the brakes coming off the regulatory system that stops normal stem cells from reproducing too much. For one of the most important medical discoveries made in recent years is that cancers, too, have stem cells and that these appear to be the source of the rest of the tumour.

This helps to explain why cancers are so hard to deal with. Treatments that kill the bulk of a tumour, but leave the stem cells alive, are only buying time. On the other hand, if all of a tumour's stem cells could be killed then it would torpedo the old wisdom that no patient is ever cured of cancer, but merely goes into remission. True cures for cancer would be possible.

The cancer-stem-cell theory, though plausible, was based on animal experiments and its relevance to humans was untested. But a series of studies reported this week at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, in San Diego, has changed that. They suggest both that cancer stem cells are very relevant indeed to survival, and that going after them is an excellent idea.

Main site down

Back to the backup site again . . . the main site just went down, and the immediate actions haven't brought it back up again. This appears to be another disk space problem, so Jon will let me know when he's been able to clear up enough space to allow normal service to resume.

Still not moved to new site . . .

. . . Jon is having trouble getting my archive of existing posts ported to the new site, and the account will expire some time this month. The text and graphics have been moved, and the import into MovableType appears to work, but when he tries to actually build the site, nothing is generated.

Even when he resolves that issue, it's only part one of three: the resulting site then needs to be migrated to the next version of MovableType, which then needs to be migrated to the current version (there's no direct short-cut between version 2.66 and 4.2).

So, in short, at some point in the next ten days, the main site may go dark.

Main site in quiet mode for the weekend

Jon, my virtual landlord, is doing another maintenance run on the main blog, involving moving the existing posts from MovableType 2.6 to the most recent version (by way of at least one intermediate version). This is necessary because the database schema changed substantially in the 3.x releases, so we can't just export directly from 2.6 and import into 4.x. According to Six Apart's tech support pages, we need to export from 2.6, import that file into 3.x, then re-export from 3.x and import again into 4.2.

As you can probably imagine, it'll be easier on Jon if I don't mess around with the existing files while he's doing this. Hopefully, if all goes smoothly, I'll be working on new posts early next week in MT 4.2.

Move to new site still pending

Jon, my virtual landlord, has the new site set up, but there are issues with importing the existing blog posts to the new version of MovableType. The entries import, very slowly, but when they're compiled, the resulting site is empty. This isn't a super-high priority for him, as the existing site will remain online until sometime in April.

If worst comes to worst, I'll just start creating new blog entries at the new site and keep a static representation of the old site somewhere (it will mean that the older posts will be much less accessible, but they'll still be there).

Just checking

The main blog may be unstable for a bit, as Jon (my virtual landlord) is upgrading the blogging software and there may be some issues with porting the archives over to the new blog. If so, I'll post here until the issues at the main blog are sorted out.

Back in business at the main site

Jon managed to fix the database problem underlying the outage at Quotulatiousness, so I'm switching back there until the next time I need to use the backup here (it has been handy to have an alternate venue, I must admit).

" . . . no defendant has ever won"

Mark Steyn talks to Hugh Hewitt about the travesty that is the Canadian Human Rights process:

HH: Thank you. I’ve got to start, I want to talk politics with you, but I’ve got to start first to alert the audience. I thought it was a joke, these Muslim radicals bringing complaints against you in Canada. But I’m close to boycotting Canada, because their Human Rights Commission hasn’t thrown this stuff out in the back with the trash.

MS: Well, the Human Rights Commission up there is, you know, almost the textbook definition of a kangaroo court, in the sense that of the complaints that have been brought under this section, since it was introduced almost thirty years ago now, no defendant has ever won.

HH: Oh.

MS: So I may buck the odds, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

HH: Well, tell people what the process is, what you’re accused of, and I assume this is a pain in the neck.

MS: Well, it is a pain in the neck. It also has, you know, serious implications, I think, because the Muslim lobby groups have had quite good luck using courts outside the U.S. to block particular books and other ideas that they’re not partial to. And eventually, that does ripple through to New York publishers and so on who don’t want to take a flyer on a book if you won’t be able to sell it in Canada, or get an overseas sale. So it does have implications. But what this is, basically, is a special commission that’s set up, it’s like, think of the most politically correct professors at Berkeley, put them on a commission. The plaintiff, the guys who make the complaints, their legal expenses are paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. The defense has to fund his or her own…essentially, there’s no rules of due process or evidence. And you know, they levy things that would be extraordinary. A woman posted some content on a Christian website in the United States, she’s opposed to homosexuality, she quotes some relevant Biblical passages. The Human Rights Commission banned her from ever publishing in any public forum again those Biblical passages for life, even though they were published on a U.S. website. And if she breaches that order, she’ll go to jail.

I knew the situation was bad, but I had no idea it was as dire as this . . . no defendant has ever won? Yeee-ikes!

QotD: Tancredo outsourced

Tom Tancredo has dropped out of the presidential race. He will be replaced by Montezuma Aztlán Calderón, an undocumented worker from Oaxaca who will denounce the Brown Peril for just $3 an hour plus room and board.

Jesse Walker, "Votes Americans Won't Cast", Hit and Run, 2007-12-20

Is your child becoming a hacker?