English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

It began in 1957 when I received via a colleague a batch of sera from kuru patients and some controls from Carleton Gajdusek. I was immensely excited, as was Carleton, when I found a quite remarkable elevation of some α and β globulin components in the kuru sera that seemed to be absent from the controls. However, our excitement cooled in the face of more data that indicated that the sera in question had come from very sick, malnourished people suffering from major intercurrent infections, decubitus ulcers and the like. That is, we were observing a reactive hyperglobulinaemia, an epiphenomenon rather than a finding central to kuru. My overreaction to the initial finding was almost certainly due to the fact that at the time I was very interested in the paraproteinaemias of myeloma and other malignancies of the immune system and was ready to put down our kuru findings to some unique dysproteinaemia. So, the first great lesson that dipping into kuru research taught me was that we see what we are trained to see.

We see what we are trained to see, or must we? Some personal lessons from a brush with kuru research