Archive for the ‘Medicine’ Category

Baby cured of HIV?

March 4, 2013

A baby has apparently been cured of HIV by very early treatment. There are headlines around the world.

A giant leap forward it would seem and it ought to be a cause of great celebration

But my reaction is completely dominated by this one sentence buried within Reuter’s report:

There are no samples that can be used by other researchers to confirm the findings, which may lead skeptics to challenge how the doctors know for sure that the child was infected.

I am extremely wary about hype surrounding “great advances” especially when a huge amount of research funding is possibly at stake.

Callous UN claims immunity to escape compensation for introducing cholera to Haiti

February 22, 2013

The UN has claimed immunity to avoid any compensation for introducing cholera to Haiti.

Sometime in October / November 2010, cholera was introduced into Haiti by Nepali UN troops. These troops were not sufficiently screened by the UN before being deployed and many were carriers of a Nepali strain of cholera. Even though they were being introduced into a region recovering from an earthquake the troops received no information or training regarding good practices regarding sewage handling or preventing the spread of infection.  The outbreak of cholera that was caused by broken sewage pipes from their camp developed into a virulent and catastrophic epidemic  in the infrastructural chaos that prevailed in Haiti after the January 2010 earthquake.  There is little doubt that this was the cause of the outbreak though this has never been acknowledged by the UN. The subsequent efforts made by the UN and the WHO  to fight the epidemic were not also free of criticism. Cheap but untested vaccines were deployed to contain costs. Till UN cholera arrived, Haiti had been free of cholera for over 100 years. Some 600,000 were infected in currently the largest outbreak in the world and almost 8,000 people have died. This virulent South Asian strain of cholera is now established in the Americas.

UN Cholera: image Reuters - Allison Shelley

UN Cholera: image Reuters – Allison Shelley

And now the UN has claimed immunity to avoid having to pay any compensation. The immunity is claimed under its own “UN’s Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN”. Of course the moral compass of the UN is only as good as that of its worst member but considering the overwhelming poverty in Haiti, invoking this convention seems a particularly callous and cowardly path to follow. It would seem that the UN (read the “world community”) does not put a very high value on a Haitian life. Cheap troops, cheap vaccines, cheap practices and no compensation! Perhaps the “world community” represented by the UN believes that Haiti has already received more than its fair share of economic support?

BBC: 

The United Nations has formally rejected compensation claims by victims of a cholera outbreak in Haiti that has killed almost 8,000 people. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called Haitian President Michel Martelly to inform him of the decision.

The UN says it is immune from such claims under the UN’s Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN. Evidence suggests cholera was introduced to Haiti through a UN base’s leaking sewage pipes. The UN has never acknowledged responsibility for the outbreak – which has infected more than 600,000 people – saying it is impossible to pinpoint the exact source of the disease, despite the mounting evidence the epidemic was caused by poor sanitation at a camp housing infected Nepalese peacekeepers. 

In a terse statement, Mr Ban’s spokesman said damages claims for millions of dollars filed by lawyers for cholera victims was “not receivable” under the 1947 convention that grants the UN immunity for its actions. …… 

……. The lawyer, Brian Concannon, said the victims’ legal team would challenge the UN’s right to immunity from Haitian courts, on the grounds that it had not established an alternative mechanism for dealing with accountability issues, as stipulated in its agreement with the government.

He also said lifting immunity would not challenge UN policy, which is protected by the convention, but its practice, such as how to test troops for disease and properly dispose of sewage.

Wow! “Scientific study” reveals that healthy people live longer

December 17, 2012

This has been published in the BMJ today so it obviously has been “peer-reviewed” before publication. Crunch a little data (why only Olympic medalists and not all Olympic participants?), do some elementary statistics and come up with something profoundly obvious and it passes for “science”. It took no less than six authors!!

Survival of the fittest: retrospective cohort study of the longevity of Olympic medallists in the modern era, by Philip M Clarke, Simon J Walter, Andrew Hayen, William J Mallon, Jeroen Heijmans, and David M Studdert. BMJ 2012; 345

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8308 (Published 13 December 2012)

15 174 Olympic athletes from nine country groups (United States, Germany, Nordic countries, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, and Australia and New Zealand) who won medals in the Olympic Games held in 1896-2010. Medallists were compared with matched cohorts in the general population (by country, age, sex, and year of birth).

Results More medallists than matched controls in the general population were alive 30 years after winning (relative conditional survival 1.08, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.10). Medallists lived an average of 2.8 years longer than controls. Medallists in eight of the nine country groups had a significant survival advantage compared with controls. Gold, silver, and bronze medallists each enjoyed similar sized survival advantages. Medallists in endurance sports and mixed sports had a larger survival advantage over controls at 30 years (1.13, 1.09 to 1.17; 1.11, 1.09 to 1.13) than that of medallists in power sports (1.05, 1.01 to 1.08).

Conclusions Olympic medallists live longer than the general population, irrespective of country, medal, or sport. This study was not designed to explain this effect, but possible explanations include genetic factors, physical activity, healthy lifestyle, and the wealth and status that come with international sporting glory.

The discussion is remarkably mundane and offers little insight into anything:

One explanation is that athletes are much healthier than the average person. Part of this advantage could be genetic, but environmental factors undoubtedly amplify genetic advantages. Young athletes who exhibit exceptional physical talents are often selected into national training squads to undergo intensive physical training over many years. Most Olympic medallists will have come through such programmes.

Strong evidence indicates that physical activity confers many health benefits, including improved functional health status and reduced risks of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, depression, type 2 diabetes, and breast and colon cancer ………

Ah well! One more publication to add to the list.

Suit filed in California against Nobel medical prize committee

December 7, 2012

I suspect that this practitioner of human body regenerative restoration science needs publicity badly for some commercial enterprise. That the suit is filed in California itself is suggestive!!

The Nobel awards will be made on Monday December 10th.

Svenska Dagbladet reports today that the “Karolinska Institute (KI) Nobel Committee has been sued for their justification of their award of the medicine prize to Briton John Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka of Japan, reports the AFP news agency. Rongxian Xu, a researcher based in the U.S., has filed a lawsuit in a court in California”. 

Xu Rongxiang describes himself as Professor, MD, President of CBAIM, Founder of Human Body Regenerative Restoration Science, Inventor of MEBT/MEBO .

=====================================================

Update

This seems to be his book published in September 2009  and seems to be available on line

Chapter 1 Scientific Announcement

Chapter 5 Interpretation of the study on ‘Induction of Stem Cells from Somatic Cells’

===================================================

Xu Rongxiang

Xu Rongxiang

The Australian: Rongxiang Xu, who describes himself as the founder of “human body regenerative restoration science” claims he made a key discovery credited to the Nobel winners a decade before they did.

He filed a lawsuit in California this week against the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet, which awarded this year’s prize to Shinya Yamanaka of Japan and John Gurdon of Britain. The two scientists won the prize in October for work in cell programming, a research area that has nourished dreams of replacement tissue for people crippled by disease. Specifically, they found that adult cells can be transformed back to an infant state called stem cells, the key ingredient in the vision of regenerative medicine.

In awarding the prize, the Nobel jury said: “Their findings have revolutionised our understanding of how cells and organisms develop,” and “created new opportunities to study diseases and develop methods for diagnosis and therapy”.

Describing his lawsuit as a first against the Nobel assembly, Xu said he discovered “regenerative” cells in 1984 while studying treatments that have benefited 20 million burn victims in 73 countries. Alleging libel and unfair competition in the suit filed in Orange County, southern California, the Los Angeles-based scientist claims his good reputation was defamed by the Nobel Assembly. Xu claims the Nobel assembly’s statement “is false, as he was the scientist who made the discovery a decade earlier, therefore defaming his exemplary reputation,” said a statement announcing the lawsuit.

“My main priority for filing this suit was to clarify the Academy’s mistaken and misleading statements for the preservation of humanity and future generations,” he was cited as saying.

There was no immediate comment to emailed requests for reaction from the Sweden-based Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet or British Nobel laureate Gurdon.

The Nobel Laureates take center stage in Stockholm on 10 December when they receive the Nobel Prize Medal, Nobel Prize Diploma and document confirming the Nobel Prize amount from King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. In Oslo, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates receive their Nobel Peace Prize from the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in the presence of King Harald V of Norway.

When “science” becomes a marketing tool for pharmaceuticals

December 3, 2012

There are many industries which play the “science as marketing game” but perhaps the most blatant are the pharmaceutical and medical industries. Sometimes researchers are just unwitting pawns in the marketing game but in a sense they are also at fault in being susceptible to becoming pawns. This cautionary tale about the diabetes drug Avandia reported in the Washington Post only enforces my view that since society invests the scientist with an aura of objective truth-seeking, then society must also demand a measure of responsibility and accountability from the scientist. And that can only happen if scientists have a measure of liability for the “product” they produce.

(more…)

Aspberger’s syndrome is no longer an ailment

December 2, 2012

Sometimes I think that for psychiatry and psychiatrists, all behaviour is abnormal. Of course there is a vested financial interest for the discipline – which is a long way from being a science – to include as many behavioural conditions as possible within the definition of what is an ailment. In many countries it becomes of great benefit for the “patient” to be formally acknowledged to be suffering from an “ailment”. It can trigger insurance payments and be the qualification for financial and clinical support. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders produced by the American Psychiatric Association is the most influential standard for diagnosis in the US and is extensively used world-wide. Currently  the 4th edition is in use (DSM IV) and the 5th edition, DSM V,  is scheduled for release in May 2013. The debates and arguments about what is to be included or removed from DSM V is reminiscent of political lobbying!

I have the perception that far more behavioural conditions are included as “ailments” than should be. In that sense psychiatry causes more illness than it cures! The APA invites ridicule when it indulges in (Slate), 

(more…)

Liverpool Care Pathway for babies is surely euthanasia but it is not painless

November 29, 2012

I have no doubt that the Care Pathways have the best of intentions to make an inevitable death as painless and comfortable as possible. But at best this is euthanasia and at worst it is something else. The latest article in the Daily Mail’s “campaign”  is more than a little disturbing. If a Care Pathway – by definition – is intended to lead to a dignified and pain-free death then causing additional suffering by being put on the Pathway cannot be right. I am not sure where the ethical line goes but I cannot help feeling that a final painless lethal injection may be preferable to 10 days of starvation and thirst and suffering as feeding and fluids are denied and a baby shrinks to death.

(more…)

Flu vaccines are “over-promoted and over-hyped” and of limited effectiveness

November 21, 2012

I am rather suspicious of the enthusiasm with which influensa vaccination programs are pushed by some (including the WHO). The manufacture and sale of flu vaccines is enormously lucrative. Just in the UK the program costs £120 million every year. Worldwide just influensa vaccine sales are an estimated $4 – 5 billion. The total vaccines market is expected to grow from about $30 billion in 2012 to about $40 billion in 2015! For adult vaccines the biggest growth comes from public health programs pushing influensa vaccines:

Driving that growth is an increasing acceptance of adult vaccines and the public health focus on flu prevention, ……  world sales of adult vaccines reached $12.5B in 2010, up from $10.1B in 2009 largely on strong growth of influenza vaccines. ….

….. Most vaccine revenues are earned by five companies: Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Pfizer, and Novartis. They held nearly 80% of the market as of 2010.

The names of the members of the committees which recommend wholesale flu vaccinations are often shrouded in secrecy and often  – when revealed – are found to have unhealthy ties to the manufacturers of the vaccines.

Something smells!

The Independent takes up the issue:

The flu vaccine given to millions of people each year in Britain is “over-promoted” and “over-hyped” and the protection it offers against the seasonal illness has been exaggerated, scientists claim. Flu causes thousands of deaths, mainly among the elderly, in the UK each year but the vaccine is of limited effectiveness, especially for older people. One expert told The Independent the Government should be held accountable for “wasting taxpayer’s money” on the annual £120m national vaccination campaign. ….

… A report published by the Centre for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, US, says the misperception that existing flu vaccines are highly effective has become a barrier to developing new and better vaccines. It also risks undermining public trust in mass immunisation campaigns if Governments fail to tell the truth about the vaccine. ….

…… Flu vaccine has to be re-formulated every year on the basis of an educated guess by experts who attempt to match it with the strains of the rapidly mutating flu virus likely to be circulating that season.

A 2010 review by the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration, an international network of experts, concluded that the vaccine had little impact in years, like the winter of 2011-12, when the vaccine and the viruses were mismatched.

On average, flu vaccine shortened the illness by about half a day but did not reduce the number of people hospitalised, it said. …….

What is evolutionary selection now selecting for?

November 14, 2012

What are the genetic characteristics that are effectively being “selected for” today?

Evolutionary selection is a result not a cause. It is a result describing the genetic change of a population not of an individual. But all genetic change in a population comes about only through the procreation of new generations of individuals.

Evolution then is the result of the survival, success and reproduction of organisms within an environment which is changing. By environment I mean all surrounding factors whether geologic or climatic or of competition within the species or with other species. In a population of organisms the relative success of and subsequent reproduction of those better suited to the environment begets a gradual change in the  characteristics of the surviving organisms.  It is because of the environmental changes in the first place that there is a subsequent change in the characteristics of the organism best suited to that environment. It is this gradual change of the surviving characteristics that we call evolution and we say that the resultant, surviving characteristics have been “selected for”. If the environment did not change and if an organism was suited to its environment, the genetic make-up of the organisation would always tend back to its stable equilibrium position. Any mutational changes would provide no benefit and would just die away. Without environmental change there would be no evolution to report. Over long stretches of time and many thousands of generations, these gradual changes of environment have been sufficient to have created all the species of living things that have ever existed and to have eliminated all the non-viable species that have gone extinct.

Read more

Do not resuscitate! A case of an “institutionally mandated execution”?

November 6, 2012

In the light of the recent criticisms of the Care Pathways in the UK, this case of the “Do Not Resuscitate” orders by doctors – against the patient’s wishes –  and Janet Tracy’s subsequent death  is more than a little disturbing. She was suffering from terminal cancer but her death was surely accelerated by the DNR.

When a patient’s death is apparently deliberately caused – by inaction and prematurely – by the “policies” of a hospital (and its doctors), we are entering into the murky realm of institutionally mandated executions.

I don’t live in the UK but the National Health Service is held up as a model in so many other countries that what is practised at hospitals in the UK today will be quickly justified and adopted in many other places.

The Independent:

Doctors twice placed ‘do not resuscitate’ orders on medical notes of Janet Tracey, against her and her family’s wishes

A dying woman was “badgered” by doctors so much about agreeing to a do not resuscitate order that she was reduced to terrified tears, her husband said today.

Janet Tracey, 63, had been determined to fight cancer but within days of being admitted to hospital after a car crash, she became “anxious and distressed”.

“At one point she told me they were trying to get rid of her and I told her not to be silly, which proved to be a mistake. She was panicked. They were questioning her all the time about a DNACPR (do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation order),” her widower David Tracey told the High Court today as he explained that he and his daughters asked for the order to be removed.

Days later, on 7 March last year, Mrs Tracey died after second DNR was placed on her files, explicitly against her family’s wishes. ….. 

Something is not quite right if the death of a patient – even a terminally ill patient – is caused deliberately and prematurely – whether by action or by inaction – against the patient’s wishes. This comes perilously close to  an execution being mandated by an institution’s “policies”.

Related articles