Revisiting Hot spots in Regenerative Medicine

Engineered tissues are used to replace skin and cartilage
photo by European Medical Alliance

My last post was on three of the major places for innovations happening in the field of tissue engineering.

This week lets explore the connections to history and communication.

Hotspots in Equality Revisited

"Leninade" by Jamison Wieser is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 

On my previous blog post, I discussed economic equality and laissez-faire economics and the successes and failures of those principles. I will discuss these further here.

1. The Failure of Forced Equality (How and why forcing aspects of absolute equality has failed.)

Hot Spots in Computer Science and Animation

1) Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence (AI) has captivated the minds of authors and readers for years. With the day of super-intelligent AI fast approaching, concerns are quickly rising to the surface of research. AI offers the promise of a raised global standard of living, and also the threat of autonomous weapons and killing machines. More information about the future of AI can be found here : Benefits and Risks of Artificial Intelligence- Future of Life Institute

2) The Internet of Things
Smart homes, cars, fridges, and washing machines have proven their value to the world in significant ways in the past few years. Unfortunately, such items can also be hacked into by outsiders, endangering us and all that we own. As programmers and engineers push towards the future, they run the risk of going to far. At what point does progress become dangerous, and is it worth the risk? For more information follow this link to read about two security officials that took complete control of Chrysler vehicles. AFTER JEEP HACK, CHRYSLER RECALLS 1.4M VEHICLES FOR BUG FIX

3) Animating Genders
Animation is known for depicting characters emotions through proportion changes and facial distortion. While silly and unappealing, it has made characters seem real and very human. However, female leads often are not depicted this way however, because it risks sacrificing their aesthetic appeal. This gender-bias stems from long held rhetorical tradition. For years, people have associated exaggerated expressions with female villains and side characters, and not with heroines. It's been this way for so long that it's almost a rule of rhetorical decorum for animators. Follow this link to read about the controversy with the female leads of Disney's Frozen. “Frozen” Head of Animation Says Animating Women is “Really, Really Difficult”

As computer science and animation student, I'm concerned with depictions of women in animation. These persisting issues have deprived millions of people from relating to strong female leads. Don't these long standing traditions and expectations deserve to be challenged? It seems that everyone, both animator and viewer, would benefit from Immanuel Kant's advice to break free of tutelage and tradition and to "Sapere aude,"  "Dare to know", or in this case dare to try something that hasn't been done before.

Hot Spots in Psychology

Psychology and Neuroscience: Allies or Antagonists?

The relationship between psychology and neuroscience is a complicated one. An esteemed psychology professor once told me, “I think eventually the field of neuroscience will eat away at psychology until psychology becomes obsolete.” I disagree. These points of view raise some interesting questions: How are the mind and the brain different? How are they related? Can we really measure intangible things, like the mind? Should we stick to studying things we can see with our own eyes? How do these fields work together? Can they peacefully coexist?

(See: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201702/is-neuroscience-the-future-or-the-end-psychology)


Ethics in Psychology Research

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is responsible for approving all of the potential studies that will be done in the field of psychology. Their purpose is to make sure that all of the research is ethical. The IRB has established several rules and guidelines that must be met in order to approve a study as ethical. However, this still leaves lots of gray areas in which subjective decisions are made, making it a critical issue of psychology today.

(See: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20151212/MAGAZINE/312129979/policing-the-ethics-police-research-review-boards-face-scrutiny-as-feds-propose-new-rules)


Perceptions of Psychology

A lot of “flashy” and well known psychology topics, like Freud’s theories of the id, ego and superego; Rorschach tests; and Briggs-Meyers Personality Tests are not actually accepted as credible elements of modern psychology. Some claim that these theories or tests explain everything about people and their behaviors, while psychologists would be very skeptical. It is important to educate the public about the shortcomings of these theories and tests so they can understand psychology on a deeper level, and so they don’t believe in things that are unreliable or majorly flawed.

A video about Rorschach tests-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRMOTjBPjI
An article about Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Test-https://www.medicaldaily.com/personality-tests-are-not-accurate-myers-briggs-personality-test-not-reliable-416652


I think the most interesting of these three issues is the public’s perception of psychology (but the relationship between psychology and neuroscience is a close second!) I think the way we present psychological research can sometimes be overcomplicated, resulting in a lack of interests from those who are not specialists in the field. I think if we can communicate modern research in an effective and interesting way (while still maintaining the core truths of the research), the public will be better educated about their mental health and the world around them.

Hot Spots in the Medical Field

·      State Regulation of Fast Food Chains

Policies that counter fast food consumption might offer governments a way to tackle the growing obesity epidemic. In a study I recently just read, nations with stronger government regulations—such as producer protection, price controls, intervention on competition, and taxes—experienced slower increases in fast food purchases and average BMIs. The lack of regulation of fast food could be fueling our country’s obesity epidemic. (See https://www.futurity.org/fast-food-need-government-regulation/)

·      Mandatory Child Vaccinations

No US federal laws mandate vaccination, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Most states offer medical and religious exemptions; and some states allow philosophical exemptions.Each year, about 2.1 million people die from vaccine-preventable diseases. Many children may not receive their necessary first year vaccinations because of lack of availability, religious beliefs, and safety concerns. Vaccinations have significantly reduced the disease rate throughout the world. (See https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/global-immunization/diseases-and-vaccines-world-view)

·      The Right to Free Health Care

Proponents of the right to health care say that no one in one of the richest nations on earth should go without health care. They argue that a right to health care would stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health, reduce overall health care spending, help small businesses, and that health care should be an essential government service. Opponents argue that a right to health care amounts to socialism and that it should be an individual 's responsibility, not the government 's role, to secure health care. They say that government provision of health care would decrease the quality and availability of health care and would lead to larger government debt and deficits. (See https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/health-care-as-a-human-right/)

Out of these three topics I feel like I am most passionate about the last. I personally believe that health care should be a basic human right. Because progress towards Universal Health Coverage involves a range of complex technical challenges, it is easy to forget that moving toward it is a political processthat involves negotiation between different interest groups in society over the allocation of health benefits and who should pay for these benefits. Although these are valid concerns, there are much more benefits to the U.S. adopting a dorm of national health care system than to keep its current system. This current health care debate hits close to home for every American.

Hot Spots in English Education

Validating Vernaculars

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

Traditionally, English instruction has focused on the "correctness" of students' use of language and grammar, which has marginalized every child who has mastered one of the many English dialects, such as African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) or "Spanglish," for lack of a more official term. Educators and researchers are now learning that spending precious classroom time to rid students of their native vernaculars is harming their school and standardized test performance. In classrooms that teach towards comprehension rather than correctness, students enjoy their studies more, their grades pick up, and their standardized test scores rise. (See Moving Students Towards Acceptance of "Other" Englishes, NCTE 2016)

Hot Spots in Mental Health Psychology

Detecting Anxiety and Depression in Children

Researchers at the University of Vermont discovered that using artificial intelligence (AI), we can detect anxiety and depression in children at a high accuracy rate. Children often have trouble expressing how they are feeling which maked their anxiety and depression difficult to treat, but AI could make it so that the symptoms are detected earlier, meaning the children would be treated earlier instead of having to struggle through life with their symptoms. More Info

Hot Spots in Regenerative Medicine: Grow Your New Liver!

For those of us not familiar with regenerative medicine, it is the latest and greatest thing that has been happening in the world of medicine for the last 30 years. Regenerative medicine seeks to use biochemistry, molecular biology and engineering to heal the body. While regrowing organs can be a wonderful promise for many, advancements in gene therapy and stem cell research have met their fair share of controversy today. Let’s take a brief look at some hot spots in the field today.

• Stem Cells

Hot Spots in Immunology

• Vaccination
  Due to a falsified study published by an unscrupulous doctor, vaccination has become the public scapegoat for Autism. A huge amount of research has been done to verify this connection. Each new study has found the original claim of vaccines causing Autism to be false, but the public belief still exists. Many parents have gone to great lengths to prevent the vaccination of their children. The nation has recently been suffering from outbreaks of Measles, a virus that can be easily be kept out of the population when the majority of citizens are vaccinated. The reported cases and death toll of this outbreak are climbing fast. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/health/measles-update-cdc-800-cases/index.html

• Balancing Potency and Side Effects in Cancer

Hot Spots in Psychology

• Mind-Body Debate

Is the mind a separate part of the body, or is the body an extension of the mind? Which is in control? Does the mind control the body via thought, or does the body control the mind via hormones? (More Info)

• Nature or Nurture

Are the behaviors of people based on genetic influences (nature) or environmental learning (nurture)? Is it a combination of the two? What is the proportion of natural and nurturing influences on people's behavior? (More Info)

• Reductionism or Holism 

Can human behavior be understood by breaking it down into smaller parts, or is it better understood as a whole? Is the best way to understand behavior looking at the smallest measurable activity and working up to the large scale? (More Info)

Hot Spots in Business

Hot Spots in Business

• Give-back programs

Especially within the past ten years, businesses have seen significant demand for their business model to include a “give-back” program. Also known as corporate social responsibility (CSR) or social impact work, these programs are expected to address a social problem using business products, manpower, or revenues. For example, a company might use its resources to address unsafe parks in Salt Lake to poor access to water in rural Kenya. There is little disagreement on whether solving social issues is a good thing or not; the controversy is raised, however, in if business should be the means to do so. Milton Friedman, a highly recognized economist, argues that give-back programs go beyond the scope of what businesses should be. He states that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business to use its resources… [and that is] to increase its profits… without deception or fraud.” Anything beyond that, Friedman argues, is the wrong way to do a good thing. (See https://lucidmanager.org/milton-friedman-corporate-social-responsibility/.)

Hot Spots in Equality: Is Inequality Among Us Good or Bad?

The Failure of Forced Equality

One of the dominant features of history over the last century has been the repeated attempt by mankind to achieve a utopia of equality. The idea of forcing equality in income was advanced and popularized by Karl Marx, and this idea has been tried time and time again.

However, we have seen that this idea of forcing income equality has failed time and time again. It failed for the Soviet Union when collectivization resulted in a massive famine which killed millions. It failed for Maoist China, when collectivization also resulted in the starvation of tens of millions of people. More recently, the country of Venezuela has implemented wealth redistribution policies, but this has resulted in mass violence, chaos, and shortages of food and basic items of hygiene.

Laissez-Faire Economics and the Origin of Inequality

The other side of the ideological coin is laissez-faire economics. The French phrase “laissez-faire” translates to “let do” in English, which suggests that laissez-faire economics is let-do economics, or hands-off economics. However, laissez-faire economics results in income inequality. Why?

The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his writing On the Origin of Inequality among Men , puts forth the idea that inequality derives from the ownership of property and the difference of abilities and talents. He also said that man was the most equal and innocent when they roamed by themselves and hunted. It seemed to me that when we gain equality we lose progress, and when we gain progress we lose equality.

Laissez-faire economics has also been practiced in many instances throughout time. For example, US President Ronald Reagan cut taxes during the beginning of his administration, in an effort to grow corporations and increase the net wealth of the nation. However, critics of laissez-faire economics point to the Reagan administration as the time when the wealth disparity in the United States widened tremendously, and when the inflation-adjusted wages of the middle class stagnated.

Specialization over Inequality

Inequality hurts, let’s face it. For me, it was always a hard pill to swallow when I saw rich 18-year-old students driving their cars around Heritage Halls, while I was without a car at 22 years old. Also, it was always disheartening to see extroverted individuals get loads of success while my relatively introverted lack of enthusiasm was a large factor in my paltry level of success. The proper response to a perceived inequality is being grateful for the talents that we have been given, instead of envying the perceived gifts, talents, and/or possessions of others.

The economist Adam Smith discussed specialization in his work The Wealth of Nations, where he wrote: “This advantage, however … will give a superiority to the country which enjoys it, rather by depressing the industry and produce of other countries, than by raising those of that particular country above what they would naturally rise to in the case of a free trade.” By applying this principle of specialization to our differing talents and abilities, we each can contribute something unique to the world, better than many others can.

Happy Birthday to a New World

About a week ago, He Jiankui announced to the world, the birth of identical twin baby girls. This, however, was not your average birthday. In many ways, it was the birth of an entirely new era. These baby girls are the first genetically modified humans ever born, and the implications to humankind are massive.

The technology Jiankui used has been around for about 40 years. Basically it is a genetic copy and paste tool. Using the system allows scientist to insert and delete portions of DNA, altering structures and functions of cells.

This technique was utilized in 1982 to make bacteria produce insulin, which dropped the price of the drug for Diabetes patients. Even before that, scientists were already seeing the possible direction of this science, towards the editing of the human genome. Conferences were called and the consensus was that if that were to be attempted, it should wait.

Soon after, in 1996, the first genetically modified produce hit the markets. The applications soon expanded beyond foods and led to the first cancer gene therapy drugs to be approved in 2017.

Now, we have on our little Earth two genetically modified little girls. Their genome has been altered to offer them immunity from HIV. The effectiveness of this is still being debated. It could put them more at risk for other diseases.

Regardless, a door has been opened, or rather a wall demolished. Whether for health, or beauty, or strength, or intelligence, the possibility for GMO humans is now very real and at our doorstep.

It is as if we have stepped off our world of random genetic phenomena and into a world of predictability and perfection. The voyages of discovery in the Renaissance revealed more of what was already around us but out of sight. These scientific voyages are truly venturing into the unknown.

What drives this science? Desire for human greatness? Mastery over Mother Nature? Ever since man realized who he was and what he was capable of, he has been striving to become more. Genetic engineering of humans is the perfect way to do this.

And when creating the essence of ones being becomes an art, we will truly be able to say "What a piece of work is man".

The Threats to Minority Public Broadcasting

Portrait of Sioux Indian in 1908

The current issue with the Trump Administration budget cuts of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the National Endowment for the Arts will affect culturally diverse broadcasting. Such public broadcasting stations include Native American radio and television channels that are used for cultural events like tribal meetings.

The argument regarding this hot spot is split two ways: the budget given to CPB helps spread cultural and other diverse media that otherwise would not receive substantial funding. It is also a preservation method for important Native American traditions and history. However, others argue that the government should not be involved in public broadcasting to the extent that it now is.

Ideologies in Tension

In a historical perspective, these opposing viewpoints mirror the ideologies in tension of the 18^th and 19^th centuries, specifically the implications of liberalism vs. conservatism.

Liberalism

From an 18^th century liberalism view, funding for Native American media is part of universal human rights, that the Native Americans have a right to receive funding for reasons of cultural media sharing. 

Utilitarianism 

However, in the 19^th century viewpoint of liberalism, a utilitarian society would deem that funding for Native American broadcasting does not benefit the majority, solely the minority group of Native Americans, and therefore funding should be pulled.

Conservatism 

Conservatism of the same time period would argue that if the Native Americans were part of the lower social hierarchy as Social Darwinism advocates, then they would be “naturally selected” out of the funding for their broadcasting; this would be their failure of social survival and therefore it would be unnecessary to provide them funding.

Digital Culture Sharing

In a digital civilization, the importance of connectivity in ethnic cultures is incredibly important. Where imperialism essentially separated the Native Americans from their home lands, the digital age allows for the connection of Native American culture and increases their sphere of influence. Almost all political, ethic, or religious groups thrive on the media that they produce and the Native American groups who receive federal funding for public broadcasting are no different.

Image Credit: Portrait of Red Bird (Public Domain Image via Wikimedia Commons)

Hot Spots in Medicine

Hot Spots in Medicine:

• Use of CRISPR gene editing on embryos

                Recently a Chinese scientist was the first to use CRISPR gene editing on a human embryo that went on to be born. He altered the genome of twin girls and replanted them in the mother and they were just born. The change he made caused the girls to be resistant to HIV. The change also may have increased their intelligence as well as their susceptibility to other diseases. The ethics of this are deep and very human. Should we use the technologies we have to alter creation itself? I think to a certain extent this is ok, but it could very easily get out of hand. That makes drawing any kind of line very difficult which is why I would lean towards not genetically altering human embryos at all.

• Ethics of euthanasia 

                The debate about whether doctor-facilitated suicide should be allowed has gone on for quite some time, but there is still heat there. Questions surround whether the patient is healthy otherwise, wishes of family members, costs of alternative treatments, and more. To me, I think people have the right to refuse treatment, especially if the closest family members are ok with it. Prolonging life against someone's will sounds like torture. I am more on the fence about whether doctors should actually administer euthanasia or just allow the disease to progress. Being between taking a life and prolonging pain is like being between a rock and a hard place.

• Child vaccination 

              This is a topic that I definitely have a strong opinion on. All hard evidence shows the benefits of vaccination. Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are putting their children and others around them at high risk of serious, even deadly, diseases. Should that be enforced? What about those who refuse for religious reasons? These are questions that test me further.

Gene editing is the most worrying to me. This new technology has the potential to completely rewrite the face of science and of humanity. Even the "happy" ending to this is unappealing to me. Genetically perfect individuals walking around among those too poor to afford edits sounds like something out of a nightmarish movie. In addition, we have found viruses and bacteria resistant to every antibiotic we throw at them, so I am sure there will be bugs that adapt to even the perfected individuals. This science is dangerous and unnecessary.

Hot Spots in Ecology

• Biodiversity
  Some ecologists claim that biodiversity has decreased in most of the Earth's land area past "safe limits." This "safe limit" supposedly marks the point at which ecosystems could no longer support human civilization. Critics say the limit—set by the Planetary Boundaries framework—is based on many assumptions, does not take into account the influence of invasive species, and could not easily take into account the complex interactions between species. (See "Earth's Biodiversity Has Fallen Below 'Safe' Levels? Ecologists Disagree.")

• Saving Endangered Species
  The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling, and species evolve and go extinct along with it. Most ecologists agree that we are currently going through an extreme, human-caused version of those historical extinction periods and should do what we can to save species from extinction. A few, even if they believe this mass extinction is human-caused, claim that it's pointless to go out our way to save endangered species; we should only worry about the extinction of our own species, and only save other species if it's convenient. (See "What is the point of saving endangered species?" and "We don't need to save endangered species. Extinction is part of evolution.")
• Journal Impact Factor
  Researchers often choose which scientific journal to submit their work to based on Journal Impact Factor (JIF), a value given to a journal based on its perceived quality. Libraries have also used it to choose which journals to subscribe to. JIF is probably the most prevalent rating system for journals, but many ecologists and other scientists criticize it for misrepresenting the quality of journals and articles. (See "The Journal Impact Factor and alternatives.")

Of these three controversies, I am most intrigued and emotionally affected by the second. I am a proponent for saving animal species; I love animals, and for as long as I can remember I've been taught that we need to save endangered species. All species contribute in some way to their ecosystem, and the loss of one can cause a drastic change. Additionally, myriad species are endangered because of habitat loss inflicted by humans. However, it is interesting to read anti-conservationist arguments from biologists. I can see where some of their claims make sense, which is surprising for me. Maybe what it comes down to is focusing on efforts that will best conserve the human species?

Hot Spots in Literature

That's a lot of dead trees there.

• The Banning of Books
• Literature by it's nature has always caused controversy regardless of the era. From the usage of deragatory language, to uncomfortable social critique, authors throughout history have a knack for creating things that challenge the social status quo. (See Controversial and Banned Books)
• Stretching the Definition
• What we define as "Literature" used to be something as simple as a book, and only that. However, with the advent of other media, that definition is now being stretched to include potential examples such as comic books, manga and even recursive or "fan" fiction! As such, there are now conflicts in Academia about an official ironclad definition for Literature. (See What Counts as Literature?)
• Regarding the "Word of God"
• One of the more recent developments in Literary history is the ability for the Author to make statements about their work after the book is already published and sold. Possibly the most famous example is J.K. Rowling, who often makes claims as to what is canon in her book series that often contradict what is written in the actual books. This has lead to the creation of "New Criticism", which seeks to judge books by what is only in the text and not by any outside circumstances. (See J.K. Rowling retconning Harry Potter on Twitter has consequences and New Criticism)

Whereas Authorial statements can be ignored in favor of what is already written, and banned books can easily be found online in some form or manner, I feel that the biggest issue is the definition of what we consider Literature. There are so many different forms of New Media developed in the last few decades that could technically fit under the same umbrella as books, but due to their "newness" are considered to be lesser by many, despite the fact that there are quite literally hundreds of thousands of books which are hardly worthy of the title of "literature". Instead of pushing back so hard against admitting these new arrivals, we as a community of readers should be welcoming them with open arms.

Image Credit: "Books" obtained via Wikimedia Commons

Hot Spots in Public Broadcasting

• The End of Culturally Diverse Public Broadcasting- With the Trump Administration’s federal budget cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the National Endowment for the Arts, several public broadcasting stations like radio stations could lose their major source of funding. One of the groups affected by these budget cuts are Native American communities; if these communities no longer receive the funding necessary to operate their public broadcasting systems, they would be unable to provide diverse cultural programming, including broadcast tribal meetings. (“Native American Public Broadcasting Will Not Survivewithout Federal Funding” )

• A New Beginning for Politically Diverse Broadcasting- Public broadcasting systems are no longer federally required to air contrasting political views since the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which stated that all federally funded broadcasting stations must balance their viewpoints. The blame for the demise of this law is focused on “anti-regulation republicans” who dominate the airwaves. Others argue that dominant viewpoints in broadcast media depend on the current dominant political party in the United States. (“Broadcasters Should Be Required to Air a Variety of Opposing Views”)

• Parental Regulation vs. Federal Regulation- Unlike the previous two viewpoints, this shifts the power of broadcasting to those who receive it. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a report on violent television programs and its effects on children. It was concluded that children should limit the amount of violent programming they receive. Partisans of the FCC suggested that government mandates should be in place to regulate violent media, but others strongly encouraged that regulation shouldn’t come from the government but was the responsibility of the parents with small children and their access to violent media. (“Parents Should Regulate Their Children’s Exposure to Violence on Television” )

The BYU Broadcasting Building in Provo, Utah

I have worked at BYU Broadcasting as a Broadcast Technician in the Network Operations Center (known among other BYUB people as "Master Control" or "The TV People") for a year and half. It has given me a greater appreciation for the intricacies of broadcasting. However, BYU Broadcasting is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is funded by private donors; it receives no federal funding and therefore is not "public" broadcasting. So when the government cuts federal funding for public broadcasting, i.e. media that only exists through government financial aid, several important outlets are affected negatively, such as minority groups like Native Americans who use their public broadcasting systems for much more than entertainment. I can't imagine being at the will of the government to handle such important cultural aspects of public broadcasting and I would like to explore this issue further. 

Image Credit:  BYUTV.org 

Hot Spots in Food Science

Hot Spots in Food Science

• Unfamiliar Terminology - unhealthy ingredients

         We have all heard of trans fat and it's very negative effect on health. There was a big public scare about it and people didn't want it in their foods anymore. Well sadly it hasn't gone anywhere. Food industries who use trans fat still label it on their products as hydrogenated oil. This only takes a quick wikipedia search to find that the two are the same, but the average consumer will not bother. They will see there is no trans fat in their product and happily enjoy it, not knowing they are consuming something they would never if they were more educated.                                                  (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Health_risks)

• GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) in food

           GMO's in food are a hotly contested topic in the food world. Many consumers and the media                  have blamed GMO's for a vast array of diseases and problems in nutrition today. Others claim that GMO's are harmless and often help the world, especially in low income areas. GMO's help crops to resist pests, have added nutritional benefits, and a handful of other benefits. GMO foods are widely used in the food industry and almost everyone consumes them daily.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Derivative_products)

• Keto Diet

          Every few months there is a new hot diet to try. A very popular diet right now is the Keto diet which consists of limiting or eliminating all carbohydrates and eating a very high fat and protein diet. Doing this makes your body run a process called ketosis which burns fat for energy and produces ketones. Many hail it as a fat burning and weight loss wonder. However there are significant health risks that can occur from this diet, especially as the ketones grow in number in your body. 

(See https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/type-1-diabetes-guide/what-is-ketosis#1 and https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/ketones-and-their-tests#1)

        

           I have been very interested in food science for many years and have always been very frustrated with fad diets. Most of them are used to just make money and they hype up the diet so that people will buy into it. Some of these diets to have some legitimacy to them. The Keto diet does really burn fat, but people need to be aware of the possible side affects and health problems associated with it. Diets can be very dangerous if the dieter is ignorant of the science of the diet.