Mindfulness can enrich our lives far more than we realize.....
Posted by Health, Wellness and Mindfulness on Monday, June 8, 2015
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Monday, June 8, 2015
The importance of Mindfulness
Thursday, April 16, 2015
What is really in our food products and is FDA keeping an eye on it?
The FDA was established as a regulatory overseer to ensure implementation of the 1906
Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter-century in the making that
prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and
drugs. Its official title 'Food and Drug Administration' was given in 1930.
Since then FDA has been entrusted with the task of " protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation" ( as defined on the FDA website)
But it is starting to become apparent that some food product manufacturers have found ways around the regulations that ensure public safety, most commonly used is a legal loophole, introduced in 1958, that allows use of additives in food products if deemed by them as 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS). The most well known example of GRAS is partially hydrogenated fats.
As defined on the FDA site: "Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive."
Thus these additives may not require FDA approval or oversight if declared as safe by industry experts. It is at the food companies' discretion whether to ask for FDA for approval or declare them harmless using the GRAS loophole. Such an evaluation by the food company is not required to be reviewed by the FDA, yet again the decision lies with the food companies.
What is worrisome is that in recent years several safety of such GRAS ingredients has been disputed by scientists and consumer groups. There have been documented cases where some GRAS additives have led to serious allergic reactions or other health issues.
The fact is that American consumers are ingesting food products with ingredients that have not be scrutinized and approved by the FDA. The long term effects of such ingredients on general health are not known or understood.
As pointed out in the NPR news article "Why The FDA Has Never Looked At Some Of The Additives In Our Food "
This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.
The general assumption that these GRAS ingredients are safe is no longer being accepted by major consumer groups. These are now pushing for higher standards of review and scrutiny by FDA.
Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.
Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.
Unfortunately the steps being taken to control the increasing number of GRAS ingredients being used by food companies are lagging behind, as mentioned in the article;
In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.
Meanwhile, the FDA's food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl — the average review takes two years, but some drag on for decades.
Many industry experts feel these concerns are exaggerated, but as a consumer we need to take time to read food labels and try to make informed decisions of our own. After all the consequence of what we put in our bodies will primarily effects us and our families.
Since then FDA has been entrusted with the task of " protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation" ( as defined on the FDA website)
But it is starting to become apparent that some food product manufacturers have found ways around the regulations that ensure public safety, most commonly used is a legal loophole, introduced in 1958, that allows use of additives in food products if deemed by them as 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS). The most well known example of GRAS is partially hydrogenated fats.
As defined on the FDA site: "Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive."
Thus these additives may not require FDA approval or oversight if declared as safe by industry experts. It is at the food companies' discretion whether to ask for FDA for approval or declare them harmless using the GRAS loophole. Such an evaluation by the food company is not required to be reviewed by the FDA, yet again the decision lies with the food companies.
What is worrisome is that in recent years several safety of such GRAS ingredients has been disputed by scientists and consumer groups. There have been documented cases where some GRAS additives have led to serious allergic reactions or other health issues.
As pointed out in the NPR news article "Why The FDA Has Never Looked At Some Of The Additives In Our Food "
This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.
The general assumption that these GRAS ingredients are safe is no longer being accepted by major consumer groups. These are now pushing for higher standards of review and scrutiny by FDA.
Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.
Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.
Unfortunately the steps being taken to control the increasing number of GRAS ingredients being used by food companies are lagging behind, as mentioned in the article;
In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.
Meanwhile, the FDA's food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl — the average review takes two years, but some drag on for decades.
Many industry experts feel these concerns are exaggerated, but as a consumer we need to take time to read food labels and try to make informed decisions of our own. After all the consequence of what we put in our bodies will primarily effects us and our families.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Could light Pollution be another hazardous consequence of urban living?
Living in cities has always been known to increase most individual's stress level. The busy streets, crazy traffic, high noise level and air pollution are some of the things that might be adding to the toll a fast paced city life can take on one's health. Now scientists are adding the super bright nightlights of cities to the list and calling it 'Light Pollution'.
Lockley calls any light after dusk as unnatural, he says that with any such exposure "our daytime physiology is triggered and our brains become more alert, our heart rates go up, as does our temperature, and production of the hormone melatonin is suppressed".
The article also mentions Ken Wright at the University of Colorado in Boulder who conducted studies on camping. He found that for campers midnight meant middle of the night, whereas in urban areas the constant presence of light prolongs the daytime, thus leading people living in cities to stay awake longer, sleep later and hence sleep less. This could be causing health problems not yet clearly documented.
Lockley raises a thought-provoking question; "As a society we need to think, do we really need some of these amenities that are putting light pollution into the environment?" adding "Do we need 24/7 garages, do we need 24/7 supermarkets, do we need 24/7 TV? It was only in 1997 that the BBC turned off and there was the national anthem and we all went to bed."
Here are some excerpts of Ellie's article;
The International Dark Sky Association is an organisation of astronomers that aims to teach how to preserve the night sky. Member Scott Kardel says he believes in balance: “While we need certain amounts of light at night for safety, commerce and more, we also need to be more careful about how much light we use, where we use it and for how long.”
But at a more abstract level, Kardel also believes that “having bright skies takes something away from us. All of our ancestors had star-filled skies that inspired countless people in art, literature, religion, science and philosophy.”
It might not be plausible to put the metropolis to bed at dusk, but cities can mitigate some of the worst light pollution. “Proper outdoor lighting,” says Kardel, “conserves energy, reduces glare” and cuts back on so-called light trespass, for example when your neighbour’s bedroom light bleeds into your sitting room.
Lockley thinks LEDS are the “problem, but also the solution: they allow much more sophisticated lighting systems.” The blueness can be fixed, he says. “It is possible to create LED light with multiple colours – you can alter the colours for the right time of day and the right application.”
“We might not quite be at the point where cities are putting in those types of tuneable street lamps,” he adds. But many communities in the UK have either adopted or trialled “part night lighting”, switching off the lights where they’re not needed or lowering illumination levels for part of the night. Motion-sensing technologies are being tested in the Netherlands and Ireland.
At the centre of this shift is a change in the attitudes of city residents and their governments. In Hong Kong, until only a few years ago the government avoided even using the term “light pollution”, says Pun. “They wouldn’t even admit such a thing exists. If you call it something else, like ‘light nuisance’, then I guess it will make life a little easier. Even though it seems like a gloomy situation, no pun intended, I do see a change of mindset.”
In the end the article has some wonderful tips on how to reduce light pollution.
It’s an obvious one, but switch off any lights you are not using.
• Ensure indoor and outdoor lighting is directed at what you’re trying to light and that it’s shaded. Table and floor lamps are better for this than overhead lights.
• Use low-watt lightbulbs – you’ll save on bills and reduce glare.
• Install dimmer switches so you can alter brightness to suit ambient light.
• Use motion sensors or timers so outdoor lights are only on when they need to be.
• Install thick curtains or blinds to minimise light escaping your home at night.
• Ask your local councillor to get street lamps fitted with directional, low energy lights – after all, residential areas don’t need to be lit up like football pitches 24 hours a day.
References:
Urban light pollution: why we're all living with permanent 'mini jetlag' (The Guardian- Oct 23rd 2014)
In the article Urban light pollution: why we're all living with permanent 'mini jetlag'(The Guardian) Ellie Violet Bramley writes about studies that have shown that exposure to light after dusk is quite literally
unnatural, and may be detrimental to health. Astronomer Dr Jason Pun of the Hong Kong University department of physics has been studying light pollution and has done several studies on the subject. Recently they set up 18 stations around Hong Kong stretching from commercial urban sector to residential neighborhoods and on to rural areas. When they compared the levels of light to the standard (meaning how bright the sky would be without artificial lights), they found that the lit areas were about a 1000 times brighter.
 |
| Hong Kong Skyline By Barry Chum (Own work) [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons |
According to Dr. Pun, “Similar studies in major capitals like Berlin and Vienna, would find something more of the order of 100 to 200 times brighter.”
Most cities like Hong Kong, New York, Tokyo and Las Vegas may be proud of their super bright nightscapes and get many visitors who come to see these illuminated cities. But these brightly lit skies may also be causing health problems. Steven Lockley, a neuroscientist and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School has been studying the effect of light on alertness, sleep, melatonin levels and its overall impact on human physiology.
Lockley calls any light after dusk as unnatural, he says that with any such exposure "our daytime physiology is triggered and our brains become more alert, our heart rates go up, as does our temperature, and production of the hormone melatonin is suppressed".
The article also mentions Ken Wright at the University of Colorado in Boulder who conducted studies on camping. He found that for campers midnight meant middle of the night, whereas in urban areas the constant presence of light prolongs the daytime, thus leading people living in cities to stay awake longer, sleep later and hence sleep less. This could be causing health problems not yet clearly documented.
Lockley raises a thought-provoking question; "As a society we need to think, do we really need some of these amenities that are putting light pollution into the environment?" adding "Do we need 24/7 garages, do we need 24/7 supermarkets, do we need 24/7 TV? It was only in 1997 that the BBC turned off and there was the national anthem and we all went to bed."
Here are some excerpts of Ellie's article;
The International Dark Sky Association is an organisation of astronomers that aims to teach how to preserve the night sky. Member Scott Kardel says he believes in balance: “While we need certain amounts of light at night for safety, commerce and more, we also need to be more careful about how much light we use, where we use it and for how long.”
But at a more abstract level, Kardel also believes that “having bright skies takes something away from us. All of our ancestors had star-filled skies that inspired countless people in art, literature, religion, science and philosophy.”
It might not be plausible to put the metropolis to bed at dusk, but cities can mitigate some of the worst light pollution. “Proper outdoor lighting,” says Kardel, “conserves energy, reduces glare” and cuts back on so-called light trespass, for example when your neighbour’s bedroom light bleeds into your sitting room.
Lockley thinks LEDS are the “problem, but also the solution: they allow much more sophisticated lighting systems.” The blueness can be fixed, he says. “It is possible to create LED light with multiple colours – you can alter the colours for the right time of day and the right application.”
“We might not quite be at the point where cities are putting in those types of tuneable street lamps,” he adds. But many communities in the UK have either adopted or trialled “part night lighting”, switching off the lights where they’re not needed or lowering illumination levels for part of the night. Motion-sensing technologies are being tested in the Netherlands and Ireland.
At the centre of this shift is a change in the attitudes of city residents and their governments. In Hong Kong, until only a few years ago the government avoided even using the term “light pollution”, says Pun. “They wouldn’t even admit such a thing exists. If you call it something else, like ‘light nuisance’, then I guess it will make life a little easier. Even though it seems like a gloomy situation, no pun intended, I do see a change of mindset.”
In the end the article has some wonderful tips on how to reduce light pollution.
It’s an obvious one, but switch off any lights you are not using.
• Ensure indoor and outdoor lighting is directed at what you’re trying to light and that it’s shaded. Table and floor lamps are better for this than overhead lights.
• Use low-watt lightbulbs – you’ll save on bills and reduce glare.
• Install dimmer switches so you can alter brightness to suit ambient light.
• Use motion sensors or timers so outdoor lights are only on when they need to be.
• Install thick curtains or blinds to minimise light escaping your home at night.
• Ask your local councillor to get street lamps fitted with directional, low energy lights – after all, residential areas don’t need to be lit up like football pitches 24 hours a day.
References:
Urban light pollution: why we're all living with permanent 'mini jetlag' (The Guardian- Oct 23rd 2014)
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Teenagers smoking weed daily far less likely to graduate high school
As the Global Commission on Drug Policy
denounces the so-called “war against drugs” as a failure and suggests
new approaches prioritising human rights and health, new studies on
increased weed use by teenagers show significantly damaging outcomes. Hence the debate about the consequences of adolescent cannabis use is continuing.
The latest research on the subject was published in the British journal The Lancet Psychiatry this month. It was seen that teenagers who smoked weed daily were 60% less likely to graduate high school and far more likely to attempt suicide.
Researchers studied adolescents using marijuana, gathering data on frequency of marijuana use from over 3700 students from Australia and New Zealand and followed their developmental outcomes upto 30 years of age. They found a significant association between frequency of cannabis use during adolescence and most young adult outcomes investigated, even after controlling for potential confounding factors including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, use of other drugs, and mental illness. Teens who smoked weed were seen to have far more negative outcomes then their counterparts who didn't smoke weed, thus supporting the case against marijuana use by adolescents no matter how infrequent.
Here are some excerpts from The Washington Post article Study: Teens who smoke weed daily are 60% less likely to complete high school than those who never use by Christopher Ingraham on the research.
In a conference call, study co-author Edmund Sillins said that the relationship between cannabis use and negative outcomes is significant even at low levels of use (e.g., less than monthly), and that "the results suggest that there may not be a threshold where use can be deemed safe" for teens.
According to the study, there are significant relationships between cannabis use and high school graduation, college graduation, suicide attempts, cannabis dependency (not wholly surprising), and other illicit drug use.
The author points aptly out that;
A person who uses cannabis less than monthly would have slightly lower odds of graduating high school or getting a college degree, compared to a person who doesn't use at all. Increased use further decreases this likelihood. On the other hand, a person who uses cannabis monthly would have roughly 4 times the likelihood of becoming dependent on cannabis as a person who doesn't use at all.
(Continue reading)
P.S:
Study: Teens who smoke weed daily are 60% less likely to complete high school than those who never use
(Washington Post - Sept 9, 2014)
Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis (September 2014)
The latest research on the subject was published in the British journal The Lancet Psychiatry this month. It was seen that teenagers who smoked weed daily were 60% less likely to graduate high school and far more likely to attempt suicide.
Researchers studied adolescents using marijuana, gathering data on frequency of marijuana use from over 3700 students from Australia and New Zealand and followed their developmental outcomes upto 30 years of age. They found a significant association between frequency of cannabis use during adolescence and most young adult outcomes investigated, even after controlling for potential confounding factors including age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, use of other drugs, and mental illness. Teens who smoked weed were seen to have far more negative outcomes then their counterparts who didn't smoke weed, thus supporting the case against marijuana use by adolescents no matter how infrequent.
Here are some excerpts from The Washington Post article Study: Teens who smoke weed daily are 60% less likely to complete high school than those who never use by Christopher Ingraham on the research.
In a conference call, study co-author Edmund Sillins said that the relationship between cannabis use and negative outcomes is significant even at low levels of use (e.g., less than monthly), and that "the results suggest that there may not be a threshold where use can be deemed safe" for teens.
According to the study, there are significant relationships between cannabis use and high school graduation, college graduation, suicide attempts, cannabis dependency (not wholly surprising), and other illicit drug use.
The author points aptly out that;
A person who uses cannabis less than monthly would have slightly lower odds of graduating high school or getting a college degree, compared to a person who doesn't use at all. Increased use further decreases this likelihood. On the other hand, a person who uses cannabis monthly would have roughly 4 times the likelihood of becoming dependent on cannabis as a person who doesn't use at all.
(Continue reading)
P.S:
Study: Teens who smoke weed daily are 60% less likely to complete high school than those who never use
(Washington Post - Sept 9, 2014)
Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis (September 2014)
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Teenage cannabis use and schizophrenia
With the growing wave of legalizing marijuana
use across the US, it is important to fully understand the possible
consequences of expected increase in it's unrestricted use, specially
amongst the youth. A group of scientist at the Feinberg School of
Medicine and Northwestern Memorial Hospital have conducted a study which
has found a link between teenage Marijuana (Cannabis) use and
schizophrenia. This study was published by Schizophrenia Bulletin
The brains of teenagers smoking cannabis daily for about three years showed significant structural changes affecting memory. Some of those changes appear very similar to those seen in the brains of schizophrenics.These youngsters also performed badly when tested on memory tasks, indicating poor memory functioning.
As reported by Marla Paul for Northwestern University on Futurity;
This is the first study to target key brain regions in the deep sub-cortical gray matter of chronic marijuana users with structural MRI and to correlate abnormalities in these regions with an impaired working memory.
Working memory is the ability to remember and process information in the moment and—if needed—transfer it to long-term memory. Previous studies have evaluated the effects of marijuana on the cortex, and few have directly compared chronic marijuana use in otherwise healthy individuals and individuals with schizophrenia.
According to the lead study author Mathew Smith an assistant research professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine;
“The study links the chronic use of marijuana to these concerning brain abnormalities that appear to last for at least a few years after people stop using it. With the movement to decriminalize marijuana, we need more research to understand its effect on the brain.”
But in contrast to these findings another study conducted at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, has shown a genetic link between cannabis use and schizophrenia. Kate Kelland reports for Reuters that;
The results chime with previous studies linking schizophrenia and cannabis, but suggest the association may be due to common genes and might not be a causal relationship where cannabis use leads to increased schizophrenia risk.
"We know that cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia. Our study certainly does not rule this out, but it suggests that there is likely to be an association in the other direction as well – that a pre-disposition to schizophrenia also increases your likelihood of cannabis use," said Robert Power, who led the study at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London.
But what become evident from both these recent studies is the clear connection between adolescent use of cannabis and the development of schizophrenia. Therefore it is important for parents to discourage their children from getting swept up in this growing wave of legal recreational use of marijuana. We need to educate ourselves and our children on the very real dangers and consequences of indiscriminate use of marijuana.
References:
The brains of teenagers smoking cannabis daily for about three years showed significant structural changes affecting memory. Some of those changes appear very similar to those seen in the brains of schizophrenics.These youngsters also performed badly when tested on memory tasks, indicating poor memory functioning.As reported by Marla Paul for Northwestern University on Futurity;
This is the first study to target key brain regions in the deep sub-cortical gray matter of chronic marijuana users with structural MRI and to correlate abnormalities in these regions with an impaired working memory.
Working memory is the ability to remember and process information in the moment and—if needed—transfer it to long-term memory. Previous studies have evaluated the effects of marijuana on the cortex, and few have directly compared chronic marijuana use in otherwise healthy individuals and individuals with schizophrenia.
According to the lead study author Mathew Smith an assistant research professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine;
“The study links the chronic use of marijuana to these concerning brain abnormalities that appear to last for at least a few years after people stop using it. With the movement to decriminalize marijuana, we need more research to understand its effect on the brain.”
But in contrast to these findings another study conducted at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, has shown a genetic link between cannabis use and schizophrenia. Kate Kelland reports for Reuters that;
The results chime with previous studies linking schizophrenia and cannabis, but suggest the association may be due to common genes and might not be a causal relationship where cannabis use leads to increased schizophrenia risk.
"We know that cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia. Our study certainly does not rule this out, but it suggests that there is likely to be an association in the other direction as well – that a pre-disposition to schizophrenia also increases your likelihood of cannabis use," said Robert Power, who led the study at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London.
But what become evident from both these recent studies is the clear connection between adolescent use of cannabis and the development of schizophrenia. Therefore it is important for parents to discourage their children from getting swept up in this growing wave of legal recreational use of marijuana. We need to educate ourselves and our children on the very real dangers and consequences of indiscriminate use of marijuana.
References:
Teen marijuana use linked with schizophrenia (Futurity-January 3, 2014)
Study finds genetic links between schizophrenia and cannabis use (Reuters-June 24, 2014)
Cannabis-Related Working Memory Deficits and Associated Subcortical Morphological Differences in Healthy Individuals and Schizophrenia Subjects (Schizophrenia Bulletin-December 15, 2013)
Genetic predisposition to schizophrenia associated with increased use of cannabis (Molecular Psychiatry-June 24, 2014)
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Air Pollution damaging not children's health but also their IQs
In a recent study at Columbia University School of Public Health, researchers have shown that air pollution might affect children's earning potential later in life. The study has been published in The Journal of Public Health Policy May issue.
The researchers gathered data by tracking poor and pregnant African American and Dominican mothers and their children til the age of five.
The results as also discussed by Sydney Brownstone in Fast Company Coexist section showed an inverse relationship in air quality (presence of neurotoxicants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) released to ambient air by combustion of fossil fuel and other organic material) and the children's IQ. Here are excerpts of the article;
Some of the biggest barriers blocking children's access to opportunity are also the most invisible. It’s no small difference either. If New York City were to reduce its pollution from sources like diesel fumes by even a quarter, affected children could earn an additional $215 million in their lifetimes.
It’s old news that some types of air pollution affect some groups more than others. Poor communities of color are most at risk, often housed in the polluted miasma next to highways, city dumps, landfills, power plants, and other undesirable places to live. New York City is no exception. In 2006, NYU researchers analyzed backpacks of South Bronx schoolchildren to link the borough’s heavy diesel-powered truck traffic to shockingly high rates of childhood asthma hospitalizations.
The Columbia researchers were able to see if pollution exposure correlated with academic performance and IQ. When they factored in the well-documented relationship between IQ and future earnings, the researchers calculated that if the city decreased PAH pollution by a quarter, each child could earn an additional $3,382 on average. Multiply that by the 63,500 kids exposed to this kind of pollution in the city, and the total comes to $215 million in lost dollars.
These findings have been supported by others studies and medical papers. Such as the 2012 paper published by the National Institute of Health in which Harvard Medical School Neurologist Dr. David C. Bellinger concluded that;
Any effort to compare the neurodevelopmental burden associated with different risk factors is limited by the data available and the assumptions required. It was possible to estimate the total loss of FSIQ points in the population of 0- to 5-year-old U.S. children for a variety of risk factors, including three environmental chemicals: methylmercury, organophosphate pesticides, and lead. Despite the limitations of the approach, it appears that when population impact is considered, the contributions of chemicals to FSIQ loss in children are substantial, in some cases exceeding those of other recognized risk factors for neurodevelopmental impairment in children. The primary reason for this is the relative ubiquity of exposure.
Although American industry will insist on more targeted and exact data to force any significant regulations to further reduce air pollution and other environmental pollutants, it is clear that harm is being done. If we want our children to have a fair chance at success and progress we need to take action now.
References:
A Strategy for Comparing the Contributions of Environmental Chemicals and Other Risk Factors to Neurodevelopment of Children (NIH April 1, 2012)
A Study Links Trucks’ Exhaust to Bronx Schoolchildren’s Asthma (The New York Times- June 2, 2006)
The researchers gathered data by tracking poor and pregnant African American and Dominican mothers and their children til the age of five.
The results as also discussed by Sydney Brownstone in Fast Company Coexist section showed an inverse relationship in air quality (presence of neurotoxicants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) released to ambient air by combustion of fossil fuel and other organic material) and the children's IQ. Here are excerpts of the article;
Some of the biggest barriers blocking children's access to opportunity are also the most invisible. It’s no small difference either. If New York City were to reduce its pollution from sources like diesel fumes by even a quarter, affected children could earn an additional $215 million in their lifetimes.
It’s old news that some types of air pollution affect some groups more than others. Poor communities of color are most at risk, often housed in the polluted miasma next to highways, city dumps, landfills, power plants, and other undesirable places to live. New York City is no exception. In 2006, NYU researchers analyzed backpacks of South Bronx schoolchildren to link the borough’s heavy diesel-powered truck traffic to shockingly high rates of childhood asthma hospitalizations.
The Columbia researchers were able to see if pollution exposure correlated with academic performance and IQ. When they factored in the well-documented relationship between IQ and future earnings, the researchers calculated that if the city decreased PAH pollution by a quarter, each child could earn an additional $3,382 on average. Multiply that by the 63,500 kids exposed to this kind of pollution in the city, and the total comes to $215 million in lost dollars.
These findings have been supported by others studies and medical papers. Such as the 2012 paper published by the National Institute of Health in which Harvard Medical School Neurologist Dr. David C. Bellinger concluded that; Any effort to compare the neurodevelopmental burden associated with different risk factors is limited by the data available and the assumptions required. It was possible to estimate the total loss of FSIQ points in the population of 0- to 5-year-old U.S. children for a variety of risk factors, including three environmental chemicals: methylmercury, organophosphate pesticides, and lead. Despite the limitations of the approach, it appears that when population impact is considered, the contributions of chemicals to FSIQ loss in children are substantial, in some cases exceeding those of other recognized risk factors for neurodevelopmental impairment in children. The primary reason for this is the relative ubiquity of exposure.
Although American industry will insist on more targeted and exact data to force any significant regulations to further reduce air pollution and other environmental pollutants, it is clear that harm is being done. If we want our children to have a fair chance at success and progress we need to take action now.
References:
The Toxins That Threaten Our Brains(The Atlantic-May 18, 2014)
(Fast Company-CoExist May 12, 2014)
Prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and IQ: Estimated benefit of pollution reduction (Journal Of Public Health Policy- May 8, 2014)
Air Pollution and Health Risk (EPA)A Strategy for Comparing the Contributions of Environmental Chemicals and Other Risk Factors to Neurodevelopment of Children (NIH April 1, 2012)
A Study Links Trucks’ Exhaust to Bronx Schoolchildren’s Asthma (The New York Times- June 2, 2006)
Thursday, May 8, 2014
The autism vs vaccines controversy
In 1998 an article published in the British Journal The Lancet claimed it found a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Although that article was widely disputed and later retracted, it has left behind a significant following, leading many parents to refuse MMR vaccination for their children. The anti-vaccine groups also stressed on the use of mercury-based preservative Thimerosal in vaccines as a suspected culprit. As a result the government has gradually removed it or reduced it to trace amounts in all vaccines in 2001, in spite of no scientific proof of its possible link to incidence of autism. As explained on the CDC website;
"Over the years, some people have had concerns that autism might be linked to the vaccines children receive. One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal, previously used as a preservative in many recommended childhood vaccines. However, in 2001 thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for one type of influenza vaccine, and thimerosal-free alternatives are available for influenza vaccine. Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. Furthermore, a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism." CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism rates in children.
The IOM also recently conducted a thorough review of the current medical and scientific evidence on vaccines and certain health events that may be observed after vaccination. It released a report in August 2011 on 8 vaccines given to children and adults that found the vaccines to be generally safe and serious adverse events following these vaccinations to be rare."
A measles outbreak that struck a Texas megachurch community late last
summer sickened 21 people. And just recently, at least 16 people got
sick during a measles outbreak in Ohio. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported 13 measles outbreaks so far in 2014 -- the most since 1996.
According to an article in JAMA News;
Overall, among 140 US residents who acquired measles, 117 (84%) were unvaccinated, and 11 (8%) had unknown vaccination status. Of those who were unvaccinated, 92 (79%) had philosophical objections to vaccination, and 15 cases (13%) occurred among infants younger than 12 months who were not eligible for vaccination.
Besides leading to prevention and saving lives, these vaccines are also economically beneficial, as pointed out by Kuneet Kollipara;
A new study from CDC researchers led by Anne Schuchat analyzed what happened to disease rates as childhood vaccination rates increased starting in the early 1990s. The researchers used these findings to model the resulting effect over the kids' lifetimes. In the analysis, the researchers factored in most routine vaccines recommended for children below age 6 (among them the MMR and whooping cough vaccines). Their findings: Routine childhood vaccinations given between 1994 and 2013 will save 732,000 lives and prevent 322 million cases of illness and 21 million hospitalizations over the course of the children's lifetimes.
In 2009 alone, the researchers determined, each $1 spent on vaccines and their administration yielded $10 in benefits to society. And the vaccinations from 1994-2013, the researchers found, will save society a net $1.38 trillion, both directly (by reducing health expenses) and indirectly (via the economic activity that is saved from avoided illnesses). That's almost 10 percent of the U.S. economy's gross domestic product.
In the end vaccines may not be without fault but there is no clear cut evidence to their causal link to autism. And they are definitely effective and save lives if given to a significant percentage of the population.
References:
How the anti-vaccine movement is endangering lives (The Washington Post-May 5, 2014).
"Over the years, some people have had concerns that autism might be linked to the vaccines children receive. One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal, previously used as a preservative in many recommended childhood vaccines. However, in 2001 thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for one type of influenza vaccine, and thimerosal-free alternatives are available for influenza vaccine. Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. Furthermore, a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism." CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism rates in children.
The IOM also recently conducted a thorough review of the current medical and scientific evidence on vaccines and certain health events that may be observed after vaccination. It released a report in August 2011 on 8 vaccines given to children and adults that found the vaccines to be generally safe and serious adverse events following these vaccinations to be rare."
The 2012 National Immunization Survey found that about 90% of children aged 19 to 35 months
completed recommended vaccinations and less than 1% received no vaccines
at all. But it also highlighted the fact that rates are varied by states and regions therefore leaving some areas vulnerable to outbreaks of measles and other vaccine preventable diseases. The resurgence of measles and whooping cough (Pertussis) in recent years after decades of almost complete extinction could
possibly be the distressing consequence of an increasing number of parents refusing the MMR vaccine on grounds of its possible association to autism.
As explained by Puneet Kollipara in The Washington Post article How the anti-vaccine movement is endangering lives (May 5, 2014).
According to an article in JAMA News;
Overall, among 140 US residents who acquired measles, 117 (84%) were unvaccinated, and 11 (8%) had unknown vaccination status. Of those who were unvaccinated, 92 (79%) had philosophical objections to vaccination, and 15 cases (13%) occurred among infants younger than 12 months who were not eligible for vaccination.
Besides leading to prevention and saving lives, these vaccines are also economically beneficial, as pointed out by Kuneet Kollipara;
A new study from CDC researchers led by Anne Schuchat analyzed what happened to disease rates as childhood vaccination rates increased starting in the early 1990s. The researchers used these findings to model the resulting effect over the kids' lifetimes. In the analysis, the researchers factored in most routine vaccines recommended for children below age 6 (among them the MMR and whooping cough vaccines). Their findings: Routine childhood vaccinations given between 1994 and 2013 will save 732,000 lives and prevent 322 million cases of illness and 21 million hospitalizations over the course of the children's lifetimes.
In 2009 alone, the researchers determined, each $1 spent on vaccines and their administration yielded $10 in benefits to society. And the vaccinations from 1994-2013, the researchers found, will save society a net $1.38 trillion, both directly (by reducing health expenses) and indirectly (via the economic activity that is saved from avoided illnesses). That's almost 10 percent of the U.S. economy's gross domestic product.
In the end vaccines may not be without fault but there is no clear cut evidence to their causal link to autism. And they are definitely effective and save lives if given to a significant percentage of the population.
References:
How the anti-vaccine movement is endangering lives (The Washington Post-May 5, 2014).
Vaccination Rates for US Children Remain Generally High, But Measles Outbreaks Underscore Shortfalls in Some Regions(JAMA News Spetember 2013)
Saturday, May 3, 2014
The serious and difficult outcomes of saving extremely premature babies.
According to the CDC 1 in every 8 babies born in the US is preterm (birth of an infant prior to 37 weeks of pregnancy). 35% of all infant deaths in 2009 were because of preterm related causes of death. The US health care system spent about $26 billion on preterm births in 2005.
But the statistic that should be raising concern is that 'preterm birth is also a leading cause of long-term neurological disabilities in children.'
It is, says Pearce, a great taboo to wonder if she should have let her son go when he was born so fragile and weak, but one that she feels strongly that she should break. "More people need to be aware of what these little chaps go through," she said.
"I have no regrets that what has happened has happened. Now this most gorgeous little thing is here and I absolutely adore him. I am so glad I have got to know him. But that doesn't stop me knowing that all I have done is postpone the inevitable. He's not expected to live a very long life. I don't think he'll make it to his teens. He's so frail.
While the latest figures show that 39% of babies born at 24 weeks are now surviving with help from medical advances, the chances of those children suffering no serious ill-effects in later life are low – around six in 100.Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.
Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.
"You hear about 'miracle babies' or 'little fighters' and people have such a romantic view about premature babies – 'Oh, there's an incubator for a little while and then they go home and everything is rosy'. It's not."
"Obviously every life deserves a chance, every life. But you wouldn't put an adult through that. You wouldn't put an animal through it. If an adult required that level of medical intervention then someone would be taking the family aside and suggesting gently that the machines are switched off."
Pearce had no warning of her own premature birth, brought about by a sudden complication in the pregnancy, a placental abruption, and had none of the risk factors – she doesn't drink or smoke, isn't obese and her first son, Dominick, now five, was born at full term.
"Birth and death are the most natural processes a body can go through and Nathan's birth and treatment was so far removed from that. Strange birth, choices to be made, difficult bonding. I had to wait six weeks to hold my son and when I did he was still attached to a ventilator and I had many nurses around me. It was all so clinical."
An advocate or counsellor figure would, she feels, help the mother think more clearly about the situation.
But for Alexia Pearce, it's important for families to fully understand too that the difficult times do not end when the baby leaves the incubator. "When you go into labour that early, nobody is a winner," she said. "I'm not saying stop people from having their premature baby resuscitated. I'm not saying babies shouldn't be saved. I am saying that the myth that there is a happy ever after needs to be explored and it's important that we talk about it.
(Read Complete Article)
References:
'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms' (The Guardian/The Observer)
CDC Reproductive Health- Preterm Births
Preterm Births- Complications (Mayo Clinic)
But the statistic that should be raising concern is that 'preterm birth is also a leading cause of long-term neurological disabilities in children.'
With modern medicine and all our advances in medical sciences, we have made it possible to save babies born at 22-23 weeks of gestation. But preterm births are associated with some serious short term and long term complications. Not only do these prevent the child from living a normal healthy life they can take a severe toll on the family and the community.
In the article 'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms' reporter Tracy McVeigh covers the story of Alexia Pearce mother of a three years old son who was born prematurely at 23 weeks and now lives a difficult life with cerebral palsy and chronic lung disease. Alexia loves her son deeply yet she asks if "we are always right to save premature babies". Here are excerpt of the story;
Alexia Pearce looks at her three-year-old son Nathan every day and feels
the same rush of guilt. Guilt that she chose to let him live when he
was born too early, just 23 weeks into her pregnancy. "If I'd known then
what I know now about what extremely premature babies have to go
though, I would not have chosen that for my little boy.
"I would have wanted them to give him to me and for him to pass away in
my arms. I find the whole issue of what he has been put through, what he
continues to be put through, very difficult. I feel very guilty that I
took that decision, postponing the inevitable."
"He can't walk or talk. He's oxygen dependent, although hopefully
that might change. He has chronic lung disease, cerebral palsy and
global developmental delay. He has diabetes inspidus and his thermostat
is a bit wonky so he gets hot and cold."It is, says Pearce, a great taboo to wonder if she should have let her son go when he was born so fragile and weak, but one that she feels strongly that she should break. "More people need to be aware of what these little chaps go through," she said.
"I have no regrets that what has happened has happened. Now this most gorgeous little thing is here and I absolutely adore him. I am so glad I have got to know him. But that doesn't stop me knowing that all I have done is postpone the inevitable. He's not expected to live a very long life. I don't think he'll make it to his teens. He's so frail.
While the latest figures show that 39% of babies born at 24 weeks are now surviving with help from medical advances, the chances of those children suffering no serious ill-effects in later life are low – around six in 100.Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.
Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.
"You hear about 'miracle babies' or 'little fighters' and people have such a romantic view about premature babies – 'Oh, there's an incubator for a little while and then they go home and everything is rosy'. It's not."
"Obviously every life deserves a chance, every life. But you wouldn't put an adult through that. You wouldn't put an animal through it. If an adult required that level of medical intervention then someone would be taking the family aside and suggesting gently that the machines are switched off."
Pearce had no warning of her own premature birth, brought about by a sudden complication in the pregnancy, a placental abruption, and had none of the risk factors – she doesn't drink or smoke, isn't obese and her first son, Dominick, now five, was born at full term.
"Birth and death are the most natural processes a body can go through and Nathan's birth and treatment was so far removed from that. Strange birth, choices to be made, difficult bonding. I had to wait six weeks to hold my son and when I did he was still attached to a ventilator and I had many nurses around me. It was all so clinical."
An advocate or counsellor figure would, she feels, help the mother think more clearly about the situation.
But for Alexia Pearce, it's important for families to fully understand too that the difficult times do not end when the baby leaves the incubator. "When you go into labour that early, nobody is a winner," she said. "I'm not saying stop people from having their premature baby resuscitated. I'm not saying babies shouldn't be saved. I am saying that the myth that there is a happy ever after needs to be explored and it's important that we talk about it.
(Read Complete Article)
References:
'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms' (The Guardian/The Observer)
CDC Reproductive Health- Preterm Births
Preterm Births- Complications (Mayo Clinic)
(NCBI- National Center for Biotechnology Information)
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
A surge in antimicrobial resistance reported by WHO
The constant increase in the incidence of antimicrobial resistant infections is now becoming a major concern for the WHO. According to their recent report on 'Antimicrobial Resistance' this is a very real threat to global public health.
In recent decades the world has been aware of the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria and has been trying to promote responsible use of antibiotic treatment in an effort to counteract this rise. But it is the first time that the WHO has warned of a much more serious problem since antimicrobial resistance covers a much broader spectrum of microbes (eg. parasites, fungi, and viruses).
If such a resistance is seen the world over, effective treatment of even common infection may be difficult or impossible. According to the report;
Infections caused by resistant microorganisms often fail to respond to the standard treatment, resulting in prolonged illness, higher health care expenditures, and a greater risk of death.
As an example, the death rate for patients with serious infections caused by common bacteria treated in hospitals can be about twice that of patients with infections caused by the same non-resistant bacteria. For example, people with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, another common source of severe infections in the community and in hospitals) are estimated to be 64% more likely to die than people with a non-resistant form of the infection.
Although this kind of resistance to antimicrobial is being seen more around the world. Unfortunately not only do many of these cases go unreported, but often the infections last longer, leaving the patients infectious for a much longer time period , thus increasing the risk of further spreading the infection to others.
The report also highlights another consequence of AMR (Antimicrobial resistance), when infections fail to respond to first line of drugs, doctors have to resort to more aggressive therapies which are far more expensive, patients need medical supervision for a longer duration and hospital stays are also prolonged. All together these factors significantly increase the health care costs.
According to the report, the economic outcome can be damaging;
The growth of global trade and travel allows resistant microorganisms to be spread rapidly to distant countries and continents through humans and food. Estimates show that AMR may give rise to losses in Gross Domestic Product of more than 1% and that the indirect costs affecting society may be more than 3 times the direct health care expenditures. It affects developing economies proportionally more than developed ones.
Some of the noteworthy resistances being seen globally are:
Resistance in Bacteria
WHO’s 2014 report on global surveillance of antimicrobial resistance reveals that antibiotic resistance is no longer a prediction for the future; it is happening right now, across the world, and is putting at risk the ability to treat common infections in the community and hospitals. Without urgent, coordinated action, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era, in which common infections and minor injuries, which have been treatable for decades, can once again kill.
Resistance in Tuberculosis
Globally, 6% of new TB cases and 20% of previously treated TB cases are estimated to have MDR-TB, with substantial differences in the frequency of MDR-TB among countries. Extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB, defined as MDR-TB plus resistance to any fluoroquinolone and any second-line injectable drug) has been identified in 92 countries, in all regions of the world.
Resistance in Malaria
The emergence of P. falciparum resistance to artemisinin in the Greater Mekong subregion is an urgent public health concern that is threatening the ongoing global effort to reduce the burden of malaria. Routine monitoring of therapeutic efficacy is essential to guide and adjust treatment policies. It can also help to detect early changes in P. falciparum sensitivity to antimalarial drugs.
Resistance in HIV
At the end of 2011, more than 8 million people were receiving antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries to treat HIV. Although it can be minimized through good programme practices, some amount of resistance to the medications used to treat HIV is expected to emerge.
There is no clear evidence of increasing levels of resistance to other classes of HIV drugs. Of 72 surveys of transmitted HIV drug resistance conducted between 2004 and 2010, 20 (28%) were classified as having moderate (between 5% and 15%) prevalence of resistance.
Resistance in Influenza
Several countries have developed national guidance on their use and have stockpiled the drugs for pandemic preparedness. The constantly evolving nature of influenza means that resistance to antiviral drugs is continuously emerging.
By 2012, virtually all influenza A viruses circulating in humans were resistant to drugs frequently used for the prevention of influenza (amantadine and rimantadine). However, the frequency of resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir remains low (1-2%). Antiviral susceptibility is constantly monitored through the WHO Global Surveillance and Response System.
How can this surge be slowed down?
According to the WHO report, this rise in AMR is the result of a multiple factors.
Here are some suggestions it provides in the report:
People
In the end what is the WHO doing to counteract AMR?
In 2014, WHO published its first global report on surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, with data provided by 114 countries.
WHO is guiding the response to AMR by:
References:
WHO Report on Antimicrobial Resistance (Updated April 2014)
Detect and Protect Against Antibiotic Resistance Budget Initiative (CDC)
In recent decades the world has been aware of the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria and has been trying to promote responsible use of antibiotic treatment in an effort to counteract this rise. But it is the first time that the WHO has warned of a much more serious problem since antimicrobial resistance covers a much broader spectrum of microbes (eg. parasites, fungi, and viruses).
If such a resistance is seen the world over, effective treatment of even common infection may be difficult or impossible. According to the report;
Infections caused by resistant microorganisms often fail to respond to the standard treatment, resulting in prolonged illness, higher health care expenditures, and a greater risk of death.
As an example, the death rate for patients with serious infections caused by common bacteria treated in hospitals can be about twice that of patients with infections caused by the same non-resistant bacteria. For example, people with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, another common source of severe infections in the community and in hospitals) are estimated to be 64% more likely to die than people with a non-resistant form of the infection.
Although this kind of resistance to antimicrobial is being seen more around the world. Unfortunately not only do many of these cases go unreported, but often the infections last longer, leaving the patients infectious for a much longer time period , thus increasing the risk of further spreading the infection to others.
The report also highlights another consequence of AMR (Antimicrobial resistance), when infections fail to respond to first line of drugs, doctors have to resort to more aggressive therapies which are far more expensive, patients need medical supervision for a longer duration and hospital stays are also prolonged. All together these factors significantly increase the health care costs.
According to the report, the economic outcome can be damaging;
The growth of global trade and travel allows resistant microorganisms to be spread rapidly to distant countries and continents through humans and food. Estimates show that AMR may give rise to losses in Gross Domestic Product of more than 1% and that the indirect costs affecting society may be more than 3 times the direct health care expenditures. It affects developing economies proportionally more than developed ones.
Some of the noteworthy resistances being seen globally are:
Resistance in Bacteria
WHO’s 2014 report on global surveillance of antimicrobial resistance reveals that antibiotic resistance is no longer a prediction for the future; it is happening right now, across the world, and is putting at risk the ability to treat common infections in the community and hospitals. Without urgent, coordinated action, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era, in which common infections and minor injuries, which have been treatable for decades, can once again kill.
Resistance in Tuberculosis
Globally, 6% of new TB cases and 20% of previously treated TB cases are estimated to have MDR-TB, with substantial differences in the frequency of MDR-TB among countries. Extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB, defined as MDR-TB plus resistance to any fluoroquinolone and any second-line injectable drug) has been identified in 92 countries, in all regions of the world.
Resistance in Malaria
The emergence of P. falciparum resistance to artemisinin in the Greater Mekong subregion is an urgent public health concern that is threatening the ongoing global effort to reduce the burden of malaria. Routine monitoring of therapeutic efficacy is essential to guide and adjust treatment policies. It can also help to detect early changes in P. falciparum sensitivity to antimalarial drugs.
Resistance in HIV
At the end of 2011, more than 8 million people were receiving antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries to treat HIV. Although it can be minimized through good programme practices, some amount of resistance to the medications used to treat HIV is expected to emerge.
There is no clear evidence of increasing levels of resistance to other classes of HIV drugs. Of 72 surveys of transmitted HIV drug resistance conducted between 2004 and 2010, 20 (28%) were classified as having moderate (between 5% and 15%) prevalence of resistance.
Resistance in Influenza
Several countries have developed national guidance on their use and have stockpiled the drugs for pandemic preparedness. The constantly evolving nature of influenza means that resistance to antiviral drugs is continuously emerging.
By 2012, virtually all influenza A viruses circulating in humans were resistant to drugs frequently used for the prevention of influenza (amantadine and rimantadine). However, the frequency of resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir remains low (1-2%). Antiviral susceptibility is constantly monitored through the WHO Global Surveillance and Response System.
How can this surge be slowed down?
According to the WHO report, this rise in AMR is the result of a multiple factors.
Here are some suggestions it provides in the report:
People
- using antibiotics only when they are prescribed by a certified health professional;
- completing the full treatment course, even if they feel better;
- never sharing antibiotics with others or using leftover prescriptions.
- enhancing infection prevention and control;
- prescribing and dispensing antibiotics only when they are truly needed;
- prescribing and dispensing the right antibiotic(s) to treat the illness.
- strengthening resistance tracking and laboratory capacity;
- strengthening infection control and prevention;
- regulating and promoting appropriate use of medicines;
- promoting cooperation and information sharing among all stakeholders.
- fostering innovation and research and development of new vaccines, diagnostics, infection treatment options and other tools.
In the end what is the WHO doing to counteract AMR?
In 2014, WHO published its first global report on surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, with data provided by 114 countries.
WHO is guiding the response to AMR by:
- bringing all stakeholders together to agree on and work towards a coordinated response;
- strengthening national stewardship and plans to tackle AMR;
- generating policy guidance and providing technical support for Member States;
- actively encouraging innovation, research and development.
References:
WHO Report on Antimicrobial Resistance (Updated April 2014)
Detect and Protect Against Antibiotic Resistance Budget Initiative (CDC)
WHO report: Antibiotic resistance happening right now all over the world (The Independent-April 30, 2014)
Sunday, April 20, 2014
The damage caused by bullying persists much longer then the bullying itself
According to a longitudinal British study just published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the detrimental effects of bullying can lasts for decades and influence a person's socioeconomic status, social relationships, often leading to a poorer quality of life as far out as in their 50s.
As reported by the researchers of the study;
The impact of bullying victimization was not limited to indicators of adult health. Children who were frequently bullied had lower educational levels at midlife, and men in the labor market were more likely to be unemployed and to earn less than their peers. Social relationships in adulthood were affected too; children who were bullied were at increased risk of living without a spouse or partner at age 50, were less likely to have met up with friends in the recent past, and were less likely to have access to social support if they were sick. Bullying victimization also affected adult well-being; being bullied was associated with lower perceived quality of life at age 50 and lower satisfaction with life so far. Cohort members who had been frequently bullied also anticipated less life satisfaction in the years to come. When controlling for childhood confounders, bullying victimization became marginally associated with unemployment (for men), net pay (for men), and meeting friends in the last 2 weeks. All other associations remained significant.
In this study data was collected from almost 98% of all births in one week of 1958 in Scotland, England and Wales, leading to about 18,000 participants. Subsequent follow-up were then carried out at age 7, 11 and 16 years in their childhood, and then at ages 23, 33, 42, and 50 years in adulthood. To assess presence and frequency of bullying during childhood researchers interviewed parents. Whereas the psychological distress resulting in adult life was assessed through various standardized test.
It is clear from these observations that in addition to effectively reducing incidents of childhood bullying efforts must be made to minimize its effect on mental, emotional and physical.
To learn more about bullying and to find help please check Stopbullying.gov
References:
Adult Health Outcomes of Childhood Bullying Victimization: Evidence From a Five-Decade Longitudinal British Birth Cohort (American Journal of Psychiatry)
Mental And Physical Toll Of Bullying Persists For Decades (Health News from NPR)
As reported by the researchers of the study;
The impact of bullying victimization was not limited to indicators of adult health. Children who were frequently bullied had lower educational levels at midlife, and men in the labor market were more likely to be unemployed and to earn less than their peers. Social relationships in adulthood were affected too; children who were bullied were at increased risk of living without a spouse or partner at age 50, were less likely to have met up with friends in the recent past, and were less likely to have access to social support if they were sick. Bullying victimization also affected adult well-being; being bullied was associated with lower perceived quality of life at age 50 and lower satisfaction with life so far. Cohort members who had been frequently bullied also anticipated less life satisfaction in the years to come. When controlling for childhood confounders, bullying victimization became marginally associated with unemployment (for men), net pay (for men), and meeting friends in the last 2 weeks. All other associations remained significant.In this study data was collected from almost 98% of all births in one week of 1958 in Scotland, England and Wales, leading to about 18,000 participants. Subsequent follow-up were then carried out at age 7, 11 and 16 years in their childhood, and then at ages 23, 33, 42, and 50 years in adulthood. To assess presence and frequency of bullying during childhood researchers interviewed parents. Whereas the psychological distress resulting in adult life was assessed through various standardized test.
It is clear from these observations that in addition to effectively reducing incidents of childhood bullying efforts must be made to minimize its effect on mental, emotional and physical.
To learn more about bullying and to find help please check Stopbullying.gov
References:
Adult Health Outcomes of Childhood Bullying Victimization: Evidence From a Five-Decade Longitudinal British Birth Cohort (American Journal of Psychiatry)
Mental And Physical Toll Of Bullying Persists For Decades (Health News from NPR)
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Green makes us all happier
A recent survey of 2500 individuals about anxiety, depression and stress conducted and analyzed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. They also analyzed 229 neighborhoods for vegetation cover. The verdict; people who live close to a park and green spaces are happier!
These results were discussed on Co.Exist (Fast Company) by Ben Schiller in his recent article, '
Those places with more trees tended to be happier, and the association was "significant and sizable," according to a paper discussing the results. In fact, the relationship of happiness to trees was similar to well-known correlations, like unemployment. "The most interesting thing is that decreased symptoms attributed to green space were similar to decreases observed for other important determinants of mental health, including insurance status and income," wrote Kirsten Beyer, an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in an email.
Read on
References:
These results were discussed on Co.Exist (Fast Company) by Ben Schiller in his recent article, '
If You Live Near A Park, You're More Likely To Be Happy'
Those places with more trees tended to be happier, and the association was "significant and sizable," according to a paper discussing the results. In fact, the relationship of happiness to trees was similar to well-known correlations, like unemployment. "The most interesting thing is that decreased symptoms attributed to green space were similar to decreases observed for other important determinants of mental health, including insurance status and income," wrote Kirsten Beyer, an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in an email.
The paper shows the difference in well-being levels between areas with
zero tree canopy cover and 100% canopy cover was greater than the
well-being difference between someone having and not having health
insurance.
References:
(International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health)
(Fast Company- Co.Exist)
Friday, April 18, 2014
Older dads might increase the risk of mental health issues in their children
A child's health issues have often been linked
to their mother's age at time of their birth. Now a study at University
of Indiana has found evidence that a father's age can influence a
child's risk of developing conditions such as autism, ADHD and bipolar
disorder. The children of older fathers were also seen to be more likely
to consider suicide.
Suicidal behaviour and substance misuse was twice as likely, according to the study, which is published today in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
Brian D’Onofrio, who led the research, told The Times: “We were shocked by the findings. The specific associations with paternal age were much, much larger than in previous studies.”
The researchers looked at information about everyone born in Sweden from 1973 until 2001, some 2,615,081 people.
Christopher Barratt, a professor of Reproductive Medicine at Dundee University, suggested younger men should consider freezing their sperm in case they want to have a child when they are in their 40s.
(Read on)
References:
As reported in The Independent by Ian Johnston in his article Children of older dads face more health problem;
Scientists at Indiana University found that a child born when their
father is 45 was 3.5 times more likely to have autism, 13 times more
likely to have ADHD and 25 times more likely to have bipolar disorder
than the child of a 24-year-old man.Suicidal behaviour and substance misuse was twice as likely, according to the study, which is published today in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
Brian D’Onofrio, who led the research, told The Times: “We were shocked by the findings. The specific associations with paternal age were much, much larger than in previous studies.”
The researchers looked at information about everyone born in Sweden from 1973 until 2001, some 2,615,081 people.
Christopher Barratt, a professor of Reproductive Medicine at Dundee University, suggested younger men should consider freezing their sperm in case they want to have a child when they are in their 40s.
(Read on)
References:
Children of older dads face more health problems (The Independent- April 4, 2014)
A Comprehensive Assessment of Parental Age and Psychiatric Disorders (JAMA Psychiatry)
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
How much benefit do we really get from Organic food?
Most people myself included tend to think of organic foods as healthier and safer. But that may not always be the case, points out Tamar Haspel in her recent article in The Washington Post's Health and food section. To make it simple she simply gives the evidence on the nutrition and contamination of both organic and conventional foods such as milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish. Here is a short excerpt of the article;
Nutrition: Compared with conventional milk, organic milk has higher levels of omega-3 fats, which protect against heart disease and may decrease the risk of depression, stroke, cancer and other diseases, but the quantities are too small to be very meaningful. (It takes 11 quarts of organic milk to equal the omega-3s in four ounces of salmon.)
Milk’s omega-3 content is a function of the cow’s diet, and higher
levels reflect more grass. (A few other nutritional differences between
organic and conventional milk have been studied, but there isn’t enough
research to draw conclusions.)
Contamination: Neither organic nor conventional milk contains antibiotics. By law, every truckload of milk, organic and conventional, is tested for veterinary drugs, including antibiotics, by trained dairy workers. Any load that tests positive is pulled out of the food supply.
Hormones: The issue with milk is that many conventionally raised dairy cows, unlike organic ones, are injected with bovine growth hormone (BGH, the synthetic version of which is called either recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBGH, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST) to increase their milk production.Both organic and conventional cows have IGF-I in their milk, but cows that get hormone treatment may have more of it.
The use of rBGH has fueled concerns among some parents about giving milk to children, but the FDA report concluded that “consumption by infants and children of milk and edible products from rBGH-treated cows is safe.”
Bottom line: Organic milk has higher omega-3 fat levels, but probably not enough to make a difference. Exposure to pesticides, contaminants or hormones is not a significant risk in either organic or conventional milk.
Produce
Nutrition: Many studies have compared the vitamins, minerals, macronutrients and other compounds in organic and conventional produce, and a 2012 review concluded that the results were all over the map. The one exception was that the phosphorus content of organic produce is higher, although the review, done by Stanford University scientists, calls that finding “not clinically significant.”
Contamination: There are two issues for foods that grow
in the ground: pesticides and pathogens. There is widespread agreement
that organic produce, while not pesticide-free, has lower residue levels
and fewer pesticides.
Carl Winter, a toxicologist at the University of California at Davis, says that the Environmental Protection Agency, working from animal research and factoring in the special sensitivities of human subgroups such as babies and children, has found that lifetime risk of adverse health effects due to low-level exposure to pesticide residue through consumption of produce is “far below even minimal health concerns, even over a lifetime.”
As for pathogens, the 2012 Stanford review found that E. coli contamination is slightly more likely in organic than conventional produce.
The best strategy to reduce risk from produce isn’t to buy either organic or conventional. Rather, it’s to cook your food.
Bottom line: While there may be no significant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce, organic does have lower levels of pesticide residue. However, there isn’t universal agreement on the risk those residues pose.
Meat
Nutrition: As with milk, the main issue here is omega-3
fats. Some organic meat and poultry have more of them than conventional
products do. The reason is diet: Animals that eat more grass have
lower fat levels overall and higher omega-3 levels than animals fed more
grain.
Although measurements of omega-3 fats in beef vary, the numbers are low and substantially below what can be found in a serving of salmon.
Contaminants: The USDA randomly tests carcasses for residues of pesticides, contaminants and veterinary drugs including antibiotics. In 2011, it screened for 128 chemicals, and 99 percent of the tested carcasses were free of all of them.
It found a few with residue violations and a similar small number with residue within legal limits (mostly of arsenic and antibiotics). Although the USDA doesn’t report organic and conventional separately, contaminant risk overall is extremely low.
The bigger concern is pathogens. Studies of bacterial contamination levels of organic and conventional meat show widely varying results. These findings suggest that organic meat may be slightly more likely to be contaminated, possibly because no antibiotics are used. But conventional meat is more likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But the risk in meat overall was essentially the same. And whether meat is conventional or organic, the solution is adequate cooking.
Bottom line: Grass-fed beef has a slight edge over grain-fed because of higher omega-3 levels, but the amounts are probably too small to affect human health.
Eggs
Nutrition: As with milk and meat, the omega-3 levels of
eggs are affected by the hens’ diet and can be increased by pasturing
or diet supplementation for either organic or conventional hens. Eggs
high in omega-3s are generally labeled.
Contaminants: There’s very little research on contaminants in eggs. The 2012 Stanford review concluded that there is “no difference” in contamination risk between conventional and organic eggs.
Bottom line: There are no significant differences affecting health between organic and conventional eggs.
Fish
The USDA has not issued any organic standards for farmed fish or shellfish, but several overseas organizations have. (Because there’s no way to control the diet of wild fish, “organic” doesn’t apply.) Canadian standards prohibit antibiotics and hormones, restrict pesticides and set criteria for acceptable feed. There’s not enough research comparing organic and conventional fish to draw any conclusions about their health benefits.
Reference:
Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.
(The Washington Post- Health, Science and Environment 07/04/14)
Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.
Organic or conventional? It’s a choice many grocery shoppers are faced with, over and over. The price difference is easy to see; it’s right there on the product. The quality difference is much harder. Is the organic milk better for your kids? Is the conventional lettuce more likely to carry pathogens?
Leave aside for the moment whether organic agriculture is better for the planet and whether organic livestock have better lives, although there’s a strong case for both of those arguments. Leave aside flavor, too, because it’s subjective and variable. What motivates many organic buyers, particularly the parents of small children, is health benefits, and there are two questions: Do organics do us more good (in the form of better nutrition), and do they do us less harm (in the form of fewer contaminants and pathogens)?Milk
Nutrition: Compared with conventional milk, organic milk has higher levels of omega-3 fats, which protect against heart disease and may decrease the risk of depression, stroke, cancer and other diseases, but the quantities are too small to be very meaningful. (It takes 11 quarts of organic milk to equal the omega-3s in four ounces of salmon.)
Milk’s omega-3 content is a function of the cow’s diet, and higher
levels reflect more grass. (A few other nutritional differences between
organic and conventional milk have been studied, but there isn’t enough
research to draw conclusions.)Contamination: Neither organic nor conventional milk contains antibiotics. By law, every truckload of milk, organic and conventional, is tested for veterinary drugs, including antibiotics, by trained dairy workers. Any load that tests positive is pulled out of the food supply.
Hormones: The issue with milk is that many conventionally raised dairy cows, unlike organic ones, are injected with bovine growth hormone (BGH, the synthetic version of which is called either recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBGH, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST) to increase their milk production.Both organic and conventional cows have IGF-I in their milk, but cows that get hormone treatment may have more of it.
The use of rBGH has fueled concerns among some parents about giving milk to children, but the FDA report concluded that “consumption by infants and children of milk and edible products from rBGH-treated cows is safe.”
Bottom line: Organic milk has higher omega-3 fat levels, but probably not enough to make a difference. Exposure to pesticides, contaminants or hormones is not a significant risk in either organic or conventional milk.
Produce
Nutrition: Many studies have compared the vitamins, minerals, macronutrients and other compounds in organic and conventional produce, and a 2012 review concluded that the results were all over the map. The one exception was that the phosphorus content of organic produce is higher, although the review, done by Stanford University scientists, calls that finding “not clinically significant.”
Contamination: There are two issues for foods that grow
in the ground: pesticides and pathogens. There is widespread agreement
that organic produce, while not pesticide-free, has lower residue levels
and fewer pesticides.Carl Winter, a toxicologist at the University of California at Davis, says that the Environmental Protection Agency, working from animal research and factoring in the special sensitivities of human subgroups such as babies and children, has found that lifetime risk of adverse health effects due to low-level exposure to pesticide residue through consumption of produce is “far below even minimal health concerns, even over a lifetime.”
As for pathogens, the 2012 Stanford review found that E. coli contamination is slightly more likely in organic than conventional produce.
The best strategy to reduce risk from produce isn’t to buy either organic or conventional. Rather, it’s to cook your food.
Bottom line: While there may be no significant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce, organic does have lower levels of pesticide residue. However, there isn’t universal agreement on the risk those residues pose.
Meat
Nutrition: As with milk, the main issue here is omega-3
fats. Some organic meat and poultry have more of them than conventional
products do. The reason is diet: Animals that eat more grass have
lower fat levels overall and higher omega-3 levels than animals fed more
grain.
Although measurements of omega-3 fats in beef vary, the numbers are low and substantially below what can be found in a serving of salmon.
Contaminants: The USDA randomly tests carcasses for residues of pesticides, contaminants and veterinary drugs including antibiotics. In 2011, it screened for 128 chemicals, and 99 percent of the tested carcasses were free of all of them.
It found a few with residue violations and a similar small number with residue within legal limits (mostly of arsenic and antibiotics). Although the USDA doesn’t report organic and conventional separately, contaminant risk overall is extremely low.
The bigger concern is pathogens. Studies of bacterial contamination levels of organic and conventional meat show widely varying results. These findings suggest that organic meat may be slightly more likely to be contaminated, possibly because no antibiotics are used. But conventional meat is more likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But the risk in meat overall was essentially the same. And whether meat is conventional or organic, the solution is adequate cooking.
Bottom line: Grass-fed beef has a slight edge over grain-fed because of higher omega-3 levels, but the amounts are probably too small to affect human health.
Eggs
Nutrition: As with milk and meat, the omega-3 levels of
eggs are affected by the hens’ diet and can be increased by pasturing
or diet supplementation for either organic or conventional hens. Eggs
high in omega-3s are generally labeled.Contaminants: There’s very little research on contaminants in eggs. The 2012 Stanford review concluded that there is “no difference” in contamination risk between conventional and organic eggs.
Bottom line: There are no significant differences affecting health between organic and conventional eggs.
Fish
The USDA has not issued any organic standards for farmed fish or shellfish, but several overseas organizations have. (Because there’s no way to control the diet of wild fish, “organic” doesn’t apply.) Canadian standards prohibit antibiotics and hormones, restrict pesticides and set criteria for acceptable feed. There’s not enough research comparing organic and conventional fish to draw any conclusions about their health benefits.
Reference:
Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.
(The Washington Post- Health, Science and Environment 07/04/14)
Friday, January 31, 2014
Millions living with leprosy in spite of being curable
On January 26th The World Day of Leprosy, I saw a video on The Guardian global development news page by Maria Zupello titled Leprosy in Brazil: Uncovering a hidden disease. Realizing that leprosy is still around was rather disturbing, especially because this is a curable disease and therefore there should be no such thing as living with leprosy in these times, but after doing some research it became apparent that is not the case.
WHO: Leprosy Statistics:
According to the World Health Organization's latest stats on leprosy in the world, there are still around 200,000 reported new cases of leprosy every year in the world. Also known as Hansen's Disease, leprosy is endemic in 91 countries around the world. The highest concentration of reported new cases (at the start of 2012) being in South East Asia (117,147). The majority of which are in India. The second highest incidence is in the Americas (34,801), of these reported new cases the majority are from Brazil. But because of its long incubation period and the lack of tools to allow early detection leading to late diagnosis, the exact prevalence of Hansen's disease is not clear.
India:
Although the Indian Government declared it has eliminated leprosy in 2005. It has since then become clear that the claim was premature. Of the total leprosy cases in the world 55% are in India, and about 127,000 new cases were reported between 2010-2011. Besides lack of access to basic healthcare services, leprosy patients also suffer socioeconomic isolation as a result of the stigma and discrimination that still exists in India.
Brazil:
Leprosy is more prevalent in Brazil than in any other country except India. More than 30,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. Despite economic development, expansion of public healthcare, and efforts of the leprosy control program in the past 30 years, this disease has not been eliminated, and new cases are still being detected. The leprosy control program in Brazil distributes free drugs as part of the World Health Organization multidrug regimen for treatment of leprosy. Unfortunately health care services are not available in rural parts of the country. The amazon region of Brazil where leprosy has been endemic for more than a century is almost deprived of such health services.
What is Leprosy?
Leprosy is a chronic bacterial disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis. This infection primarily affects the skin, peripheral nerves and upper airway. It is well known that leprosy is not spread through casual contact.
About 95% of human beings are naturally immune making leprosy the 'least contagious communicable disease'. The World Health Organization suggests that it is transmitted through moisture from the nose and mouth during frequent and close contact with an untreated leprosy-affected person. It might also happen if you are exposed to other nasal fluids (also known as secretions). Droplets and other secretions can contain the bacteria that cause Hansen’s disease. If you breathe these in, you can become sick with the disease.
According to the CDC, as incubation period of the bacteria is long , it may take up to 2-10 years for signs and symptoms to appear. The disease mainly affects the skin, nerves and the mucous membranes. Common signs and symptoms include; disfiguring skin sores, lumps, or bumps that do not go away after several weeks or months. The skin sores are pale-colored. Nerve damage can lead to loss of feeling in arms and legs and muscle weakness. Without treatment, leprosy can permanently damage your skin, nerves, arms, legs, feet, and eyes.
Treatment of Leprosy
P.S:
The Leprosy Mission India
The Leprosy Mission Canada
Hansen's Disease (CDC)
Leprosy (WebMD)
Leprosy Today (WHO)
National Hansen's Disease Program (HRSA)
Watch Video: Leprosy in Brazil: Uncovering a hidden disease (The Guardian)
WHO: Leprosy Statistics:
According to the World Health Organization's latest stats on leprosy in the world, there are still around 200,000 reported new cases of leprosy every year in the world. Also known as Hansen's Disease, leprosy is endemic in 91 countries around the world. The highest concentration of reported new cases (at the start of 2012) being in South East Asia (117,147). The majority of which are in India. The second highest incidence is in the Americas (34,801), of these reported new cases the majority are from Brazil. But because of its long incubation period and the lack of tools to allow early detection leading to late diagnosis, the exact prevalence of Hansen's disease is not clear.
India:
Although the Indian Government declared it has eliminated leprosy in 2005. It has since then become clear that the claim was premature. Of the total leprosy cases in the world 55% are in India, and about 127,000 new cases were reported between 2010-2011. Besides lack of access to basic healthcare services, leprosy patients also suffer socioeconomic isolation as a result of the stigma and discrimination that still exists in India.
Brazil:
Leprosy is more prevalent in Brazil than in any other country except India. More than 30,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. Despite economic development, expansion of public healthcare, and efforts of the leprosy control program in the past 30 years, this disease has not been eliminated, and new cases are still being detected. The leprosy control program in Brazil distributes free drugs as part of the World Health Organization multidrug regimen for treatment of leprosy. Unfortunately health care services are not available in rural parts of the country. The amazon region of Brazil where leprosy has been endemic for more than a century is almost deprived of such health services.
Leprosy
is particularly prevalent among the poorest and most marginalised
communities due to their lack of access to healthcare, poor sanitation
and congested living spaces. - See more at:
http://www.tlmindia.org/index.php/about-leprosy/facts#sthash.zlOMnaBW.dpuf
Government
statistics under estimate the extent of leprosy according to research
organisations, NGOs and some medical personnel who argue that leprosy
cases are on the rise - See more at:
http://www.tlmindia.org/index.php/about-leprosy/facts#sthash.zlOMnaBW.dpuf
Government
statistics under estimate the extent of leprosy according to research
organisations, NGOs and some medical personnel who argue that leprosy
cases are on the rise - See more at:
http://www.tlmindia.org/index.php/about-leprosy/facts#sthash.zlOMnaBW.dpuf
Government
statistics under estimate the extent of leprosy according to research
organisations, NGOs and some medical personnel who argue that leprosy
cases are on the rise - See more at:
http://www.tlmindia.org/index.php/about-leprosy/facts#sthash.zlOMnaBW.dpuf
To understand why the stigmatization, socioeconomic isolation, discrimination leading to leprosy communities in countries like India and Brazil is so wrong, here are some basic facts about Leprosy( Hansen's Disease);What is Leprosy?
Leprosy is a chronic bacterial disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium lepromatosis. This infection primarily affects the skin, peripheral nerves and upper airway. It is well known that leprosy is not spread through casual contact.
About 95% of human beings are naturally immune making leprosy the 'least contagious communicable disease'. The World Health Organization suggests that it is transmitted through moisture from the nose and mouth during frequent and close contact with an untreated leprosy-affected person. It might also happen if you are exposed to other nasal fluids (also known as secretions). Droplets and other secretions can contain the bacteria that cause Hansen’s disease. If you breathe these in, you can become sick with the disease.
According to the CDC, as incubation period of the bacteria is long , it may take up to 2-10 years for signs and symptoms to appear. The disease mainly affects the skin, nerves and the mucous membranes. Common signs and symptoms include; disfiguring skin sores, lumps, or bumps that do not go away after several weeks or months. The skin sores are pale-colored. Nerve damage can lead to loss of feeling in arms and legs and muscle weakness. Without treatment, leprosy can permanently damage your skin, nerves, arms, legs, feet, and eyes.
Treatment of Leprosy
Leprosy can be cured. In the last two decades, more than
14 million people with leprosy have been cured. The World Health
Organization provides free treatment for all people with leprosy.
Treatment
depends on the type of leprosy that you have. It is treated with a combination of antibiotics. The treatment may last anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. People with severe
leprosy may need to take antibiotics longer. Antibiotics cannot treat
the nerve damage.
Anti-inflammatory drugs are used to control swelling related to leprosy. This may include steroids, such as prednisone.
Patients with leprosy may also be given thalidomide,
a potent medication that suppresses the body's immune system. It helps
treat leprosy skin nodules. Thalidomide is known to cause severe,
life-threatening birth defects and should never be taken by pregnant women.
According to the WHO 'Access to information, diagnosis and treatment with multidrug therapy
(MDT) remain key elements in the strategy to eliminate the disease as a
public health problem, defined as reaching a prevalence of less than 1
leprosy case per 10,000 population. Only a couple of endemic countries
have still to achieve this goal at the national level; most are now
applying the same elimination strategy at regional, district and
sub-district levels.
MDT treatment has been made available by WHO free of charge to all
patients worldwide since 1995, and provides a simple yet highly
effective cure for all types of leprosy.
Most countries that were previously highly endemic for leprosy have
achieved elimination at the national level and are intensifying their
efforts at regional and district levels.'
Information campaigns about leprosy in high risk areas are crucial so
that patients and their families, who were historically ostracized from
their communities, are encouraged to come forward and receive treatment.
The most effective way of preventing disabilities in leprosy, as well
as preventing further transmission of the disease, lies in early
diagnosis and treatment with MDT. (WHO)
P.S:
The Leprosy Mission India
The Leprosy Mission Canada
Hansen's Disease (CDC)
Leprosy (WebMD)
Leprosy Today (WHO)
National Hansen's Disease Program (HRSA)
Watch Video: Leprosy in Brazil: Uncovering a hidden disease (The Guardian)
Watch Video: Battling leprosy in Brazil(BBC World)
Watch Video: Leprosy: India's Hidden Disease (The Guardian)
Photo Gallery: Colonia Antonio Alexio - Leprosy community in Manaus, Brazil (Photojournalist: Sharon Steinmann)
Friday, January 24, 2014
Easy way to lose weight... just turn the heat down
Obesity and the struggle to lose weight is starting to become the plight of our time. Much research is being done to find effective ways to understand the causes and finding effective ways to win this losing battle. Right now, more than one third of adults in the US are obese or overweight and a little more then a quarter of the adults in UK is obese or overweight.
Amongst all that research work a recent study published in Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism Journal, suggests that central heating might be another contributing factor to rising number of overweight individuals. As the temperature in homes, offices, hospitals and most places is being kept high our bodies are no longer burning that many calories to keep the body warm. Normally our metabolism rate (BMR) rise in cold weather to produce body heat. About 80% of the energy produced from our food intake is used up by our BMR.
According to the researchers at Maastricht University, a temperature of 66F would suffice to maintain a normal balance. The report also points out that about 90% of people remain mostly indoors while keeping the temperature at maximum comfort levels in turn minimizing caloric use by our bodies to maintain normal body temperature, shifting the balance towards weight gain.
Although lowering the thermostat alone may not lead to weight loss but it will definitely help along with exercise and diet. The report also mentions a study from Japan in which volunteers showed a decrease in body fat after spending two hours a day in 17C over a period of six weeks.According to BBC World reporter James Gallagher;
Dr Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt told the BBC: "19C is enough - and not for the whole day.
"Energy increases were in the order of 6% in mild cold, and in the long term that could really make a difference.
"It could be a substantial influence and help in combination with food changes and exercise."
He said people could "try turning the thermostat down" at home or "go outside".
P.S:
Central heating may make you fat, say researchers (BBC World)
Want to lose weight? Try turning your heating down: Being cold is a 'cheap way to get slim' (Daily Mail UK)
Amongst all that research work a recent study published in Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism Journal, suggests that central heating might be another contributing factor to rising number of overweight individuals. As the temperature in homes, offices, hospitals and most places is being kept high our bodies are no longer burning that many calories to keep the body warm. Normally our metabolism rate (BMR) rise in cold weather to produce body heat. About 80% of the energy produced from our food intake is used up by our BMR.
According to the researchers at Maastricht University, a temperature of 66F would suffice to maintain a normal balance. The report also points out that about 90% of people remain mostly indoors while keeping the temperature at maximum comfort levels in turn minimizing caloric use by our bodies to maintain normal body temperature, shifting the balance towards weight gain.
Although lowering the thermostat alone may not lead to weight loss but it will definitely help along with exercise and diet. The report also mentions a study from Japan in which volunteers showed a decrease in body fat after spending two hours a day in 17C over a period of six weeks.According to BBC World reporter James Gallagher;
Dr Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt told the BBC: "19C is enough - and not for the whole day.
"Energy increases were in the order of 6% in mild cold, and in the long term that could really make a difference.
"It could be a substantial influence and help in combination with food changes and exercise."
He said people could "try turning the thermostat down" at home or "go outside".
P.S:
Central heating may make you fat, say researchers (BBC World)
Want to lose weight? Try turning your heating down: Being cold is a 'cheap way to get slim' (Daily Mail UK)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)