May 18, 2012

DNA nanorobots deliver ‘suicide’ messages to cancer cells, other diseases

By Kurzweil AI on February 17, 2012

Researchers at Harvard University’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering have developed

Gated Nanorobot

Hinged nanorobot opens when target molecules are sensed

a nanorobotic device made from DNA that could potentially seek out specific cell targets within a complex mixture of cell types and deliver important molecular instructions, such as telling cancer cells to self-destruct.

Inspired by the mechanics of the body’s own immune system, the technology might one day be used to program immune responses to treat various diseases.

Using the DNA origami method  (complex 3-D shapes and objects are constructed by folding strands of DNA), the researchers created a nanosize robot in the form of an open barrel whose two halves are connected by a hinge.

Recognition molecules

The nanorobot’s DNA barrel acts as a container that can hold various types of contents, including specific molecules with encoded instructions that can interact with specific signaling receptors on cell surfaces, including disease markers.

The barrel is normally held shut by special DNA latches. But when the latches find their targets, they reconfigure, causing the two halves of the barrel to swing open and expose its contents, or payload.

Programming cancer-cell suicide

The researchers used this system to deliver instructions, encoded in antibody fragments, to two different types of cancer cells — leukemia and lymphoma.

Schematic front orthographic view of DNA barrel of closed nanorobot loaded with a protein payload. Two DNA-aptamer locks fasten the front of the device on the left (boxed) and right.

In each case, the message to the cell was: activate your apoptosis or “suicide switch” — which allows aging or abnormal cells to be eliminated.

This programmable nanotherapeutic approach was modeled on the body’s own immune system, in which white blood cells patrol the bloodstream for any signs of trouble.

These infection fighters are able to home in on specific cells in distress, bind to them, and transmit comprehensible signals to direct them to self-destruct. This programmable power means the system has the potential to one day be used to treat a variety of diseases.

Integrating sensing and logical computing functions

“We can finally integrate sensing and logical computing functions via complex,

Aptamer lock mechanism, consisting of a DNA aptamer (blue) and a partially complementary strand (orange).

yet predictable, nanostructures — some of the first hybrids of structural DNA, antibodies, aptamers, and metal atomic clusters — aimed at useful, very specific targeting of human cancers and T-cells,” said George Church, a Wyss core faculty member and professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, who is principal investigator on the project.

Because DNA is a natural biocompatible and biodegradable material, DNA nanotechnology is widely recognized for its potential as a delivery mechanism for drugs and molecular signals.

There have been significant challenges to its implementation, such as what type of structure to create; how to open, close,

and reopen that structure to insert, transport, and deliver a payload; and how to program this type of nanoscale robot.

By combining several novel elements for the first time, the new system represents a significant advance in overcoming these implementation obstacles.

For instance, because the barrel-shaped structure has no top or bottom lids, the payloads can be loaded from the side in a single step — without having to open the structure first and then re-close it.

Also, while other systems use release mechanisms that respond to DNA or RNA, the novel mechanism used here responds to proteins, which are more commonly found on cell surfaces and are largely responsible for transmembrane signaling in cells.

This is the first DNA-origami-based system that uses antibody fragments to convey molecular messages

Payloads such as gold nanoparticles (gold) and antibody fragments (magenta) can be loaded inside the nanorobot

— a feature that offers a controlled and programmable way to replicate an immune response or develop new types of targeted therapies.

“This work represents a major breakthrough in the field of nanobiotechnology as it demonstrates the ability to leverage recent advances in the field of DNA origami pioneered by researchers around the world, including the Wyss Institute’s own William Shih, to meet a real-world challenge, namely killing cancer cells with high specificity,” said Wyss Institute Founding Director Donald Ingber.

Ingber is also the Judah Folkman Professor of Vascular Biology at Harvard Medical School and the Vascular Biology Program at Children’s Hospital Boston, and professor of bioengineering at Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. “This focus on translating technologies from the laboratory into transformative products and therapies is what the Wyss Institute is all about.”

Ref.: Shawn M. Douglas, Ido Bachelet, George M. Church, A Logic-Gated Nanorobot for Targeted Transport of Molecular Payloads, Science, 2012 [DOI:10.1126/science.1214081]

Credit for images: Shawn M. Douglas et al./Science

Source: http://www.kurzweilai.net/dna-nanorobots-deliver-suicide-messages-to-cancer-cells-other-diseases

Cancer Costs Forecast To Rise 62% By 2021

The cost of diagnosing and treating cancer patients could rise by two-thirds over the next decade, according to a new report.

Healthcare analysts Laing and Buisson warned diagnosis and treatment costs are set to increase by 62% from £9.4bn in 2010 to £15.3bn by 2021. 

This will mean the average cost of treating someone suffering from cancer will go from £30,000 in 2010 to almost £40,000 in 2021.

The Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: A 2021 Projection report, conducted for Bupa, warns this will inevitably affect cancer survival rates in the UK.

It said: “If we do not address the rising cost of cancer, we are unlikely to be able to afford the desired and expected level of cancer diagnosis and treatment over the next 10 years and beyond.

“This possibility will mean that the UK’s cancer survival rate could fall even further behind that of other developed countries.”

The study comes weeks after data from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development revealed the UK is lagging behind other countries on average survival rates for breast, bowel and cervical cancer.

The predicted hike in costs would largely be due to Britain’s ageing population, which is predicted to lead to a 20% growth in cancer rates by 2021.

Rising costs of technology and treatments used to combat forms of the disease will also be a contributing factor.

Professor Karol Sikora, medical director of Cancer Partners UK , said: “Ironically, the reasons behind this dramatic increase in costs are a cause for celebration.

“Cancer is predominantly a disease of older people and because of the advances of modern medicine, many more are living in good health well beyond retirement. This trend is set to continue so cancer incidence will inevitably rise.

“Fortunately, when cancer does strike, we now have powerful new technologies available to gradually turn cancer into a chronic, controllable disease like diabetes.

“However, the rising numbers and the advent of innovation come with a hefty price tag.”

According to the report, the NHS will take the greatest hit, with the money it spends on diagnosing and treating cancer going up by £5.2bn.

Costs are also predicted to rise in the private sector by an estimated £531m and by £131m in the voluntary sector.

 

Source:  http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cancer-costs-forecast-rise-62-2021-005343944.html

Flu Shots Could Actually Be Increasing Your Risk of Developing the Flu

Explosive new research has found that flu shots may actually weaken children’s immune systems, and increase their risk of developing other influenza viruses. 

The report is one of many to come out within the recent months highlighting the overall ineffectiveness of the widely-promoted flu vaccine.

Published in the Journal of Virology, 41 children were examined by researchers from the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Of the children, 27 were considered healthy and unvaccinated.

The other 14 children were diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and received an annual flu shot.

Interestingly, children with chronic illness like cystic fibrosis are actually required to get flu shots in the netherlands — where the study was conducted. The average age of the children participants was 6.

Special report: Even Low Dose Vitamin D Slashes Flu Risk by Nearly Half

The researchers found that children who were not vaccinated built up more antibodies across a broader array of influenza strains than the children who were vaccinated. This means that according to the study results, receiving the flu shot actually weakens your natural ability to fight the flu.

Of course some health officials are still clinging to flu shots, recommending them despite the mounting evidence that they are not only ineffective but quite dangerous.

“Annual vaccination against influenza is effective but may have potential drawbacks that have previously been underappreciated and that are also a matter of debate,” lead author Rogier Bodewes said in a statement.

Amazingly, similar research has been conducted on the subject with the same conclusions. One study examined the effectiveness of the flu vaccine only to find that flu shots are effective in only around 1% of injected individuals.

The researchers from the study stated:

“The corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)” announced the study authors.  In other words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people affected by the influenza virus by just one.

The findings do not stop there. The researchers also highlighted other findings about the flu vaccine, which topple the mainstream concept of their safety and effectiveness:

  • “Vaccinations had…no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”
  • “Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost.”
  • “The analysis showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”
  • “There is no evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” — Meaning vaccines do not affect transmission of disease, what they are designed for.
  • “In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”

As prominent studies continue to highlight the ineffectiveness of the seasonal flu shot, it is truly amazing that many mainstream health officials and organizations still push the shot on the public despite links to nerve disease and narcolepsy. 

 

Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/flu-shots-could-actually-be-increasing.html

Merck Scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman Admitted Presence Of Sv40, Aids And Cancer Viruses In Vaccines

Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted presence of SV40, AIDS and cancer viruses in vaccines. 

One of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry — a Merck scientist — made a recording where he openly admits that vaccines given to Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses. In response, his colleagues (who are also recorded here) break out into laughter and seem to think it’s hilarious. They then suggest that because these vaccines are first tested in Russia, they will help the U.S. win the Olympics because the Russian athletes will all be “loaded down with tumors.” (Thus, they knew these vaccines caused cancer in humans.)

This isn’t some conspiracy theory — these are the words of a top Merck scientist who probably had no idea that his recording would be widely reviewed across the internet (which didn’t even exist when he made this recording). He probably thought this would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn’t get out to the press, he replied “Obviously you don’t go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community.”

In other words, vaccine scientists cover for vaccine scientists. They keep all their dirty secrets within their own circle of silence and don’t reveal the truth about the contamination of their vaccines.

Transcript of audio interview with Dr. Maurice Hilleman

Dr. Len Horowitz: Listen now to the voice of the worlds leading vaccine expert Dr Maurice Hilleman, Chief of the Merck Pharmaceutical Company’s vaccine division relay this problem he was having with imported monkeys. He best explains the origin of AIDS, but what you are about to hear was cut from any public disclosures.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: and I think that vaccines have to be considered the bargain basement technology for the 20th century.

Narrator: 50 years ago when Maurice Hilleman was a high school student in Miles City Montana, he hoped he might qualify as a management trainee for the local JC Penney’s store. Instead he went on to pioneer more breakthroughs in vaccine research and development than anyone in the history of American medicine. Among the discoveries he made at Merck, are vaccines for mumps, rubella and measles…

Dr Edward Shorter: Tell me how you found SV40 and the polio vaccine.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Well, that was at Merck. Yeah, I came to Merck. And uh, I was going to develop vaccines. And we had wild viruses in those days. You remember the wild monkey kidney viruses and so forth? And I finally after 6 months gave up and said that you cannot develop vaccines with these damn monkeys, we’re finished and if I can’t do something I’m going to quit, I’m not going to try it. So I went down to see Bill Mann at the zoo in Washington DC and I told Bill Mann, I said “look, I got a problem and I don’t know what the hell to do.” Bill Mann is a real bright guy. I said that these lousy monkeys are picking it up while being stored in the airports in transit, loading, off loading. He said, very simply, you go ahead and get your monkeys out of West Africa and get the African Green, bring them into Madrid unload them there, there is no other traffic there for animals, fly them into Philadelphia and pick them up. Or fly them into New York and pick them up, right off the airplane. So we brought African Greens in and I didn’t know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.

Miscellaneous background voices:…(laughter)… it was you who introduced the AIDS virus into the country. Now we know! (laughter) This is the real story! (laughter) What Merck won’t do to develop a vaccine! (laughter)

Dr Maurice Hilleman: So what he did, he brought in, I mean we brought in those monkeys, I only had those and this was the solution because those monkeys didn’t have the wild viruses but we…

Dr Edward Shorter: Wait, why didn’t the greens have the wild viruses since they came from Africa?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …because they weren’t, they weren’t, they weren’t being infected in these group holding things with all the other 40 different viruses…

Dr Edward Shorter: but they had the ones that they brought from the jungle though…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …yeah, they had those, but those were relatively few what you do you have a gang housing you’re going to have an epidemic transmission of infection in a confined space. So anyway, the greens came in and now we have these and were taking our stocks to clean them up and god now I’m discovering new viruses. So, I said Judas Priest. Well I got an invitation from the Sister Kinney Foundation which was the opposing foundation when it was the live virus…

Dr Edward Shorter: Ah, right…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Yeah, they had jumped on the Sabin’s band wagon and they had asked me to come down and give a talk at the Sister Kinney Foundation meeting and I saw it was an international meeting and god, what am I going to talk about? I know what I’m going to do, I’m going to talk about the detection of non detectable viruses as a topic.

Dr Albert Sabin…there were those who didn’t want a live virus vaccine… (unintelligible) …concentrated all its efforts on getting more and more people to use the killed virus vaccine, while they were supporting me for research on the live viruses.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: So now I got to have something (laughter), you know that going to attract attention. And gee, I thought that damn SV40, I mean that damn vaculating agent that we have, I’m just going to pick that particular one, that virus has got to be in vaccines, it’s got to be in the Sabin’s vaccines so I quick tested it (laughter) and sure enough it was in there.

Dr Edward Shorter: I’ll be damned

Dr Maurice Hilleman: … And so now…

Dr Edward Shorter: …so you just took stocks of Sabin’s vaccines off the shelf here at Merck…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …yeah, well it had been made, it was made at Merck…

Dr Edward Shorter: You were making it for Sabin at this point?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Yeah, it was made before I came…

Dr Edward Shorter: yeah, but at this point Sabin is still just doing massive field trials…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …uh huh

Dr Edward Shorter: okay,

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …in Russia and so forth. So I go down and I talked about the detection of non detectable viruses and told Albert, I said listen Albert you know you and I are good friends but I’m going to go down there and you’re going to get upset. I’m going to talk about the virus that it’s in your vaccine. You’re going to get rid of the virus, don’t worry about it, you’re going to get rid of it… but umm, so of course Albert was very upset…

Dr Edward Shorter: What did he say?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well he said basically, that this is just another obfuscation that’s going to upset vaccines. I said well you know, you’re absolutely right, but we have a new era here we have a new era of the detection and the important thing is to get rid of these viruses.

Dr Edward Shorter: Why would he call it an obfuscation if it was a virus that was contaminating the vaccine?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well there are 40 different viruses in these vaccines anyway that we were inactivating and uh,

Dr Edward Shorter: but you weren’t inactivating his though…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …no that’s right, but yellow fever vaccine had leukemia virus in it and you know this was in the days of very crude science. So anyway I went down and talked to him and said well, why are you concerned about it? Well I said “I’ll tell you what, I have a feeling in my bones that this virus is different, I don’t know why to tell you this but I …(unintelligible) …I just think this virus will have some long term effects.” And he said what? And I said “cancer”. (laughter) I said Albert, you probably think I’m nuts, but I just have that feeling. Well in the mean time we had taken this virus and put it into monkeys and into hamsters. So we had this meeting and that was sort of the topic of the day and the jokes that were going around was that “gee, we would win the Olympics because the Russians would all be loaded down with tumors.” (laughter) This was where the vaccine was being tested, this was where… so, uhh, and it really destroyed the meeting and it was sort of the topic. Well anyway…

Dr Edward Shorter: Was this the physicians… (unintelligible) …meeting in New York?

Maurice Hilleman1 Merck Scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman Admitted Presence of SV40, AIDS and Cancer Viruses in Vaccines

Dr Maurice Hilleman…well no, this was at Sister Kinney…

Dr Edward Shorter: Sister Kinney, right…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …and Del Becco (sp) got up and he foresaw problems with these kinds of agents.

Dr Edward Shorter: Why didn’t this get out into the press?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well, I guess it did I don’t remember. We had no press release on it. Obviously you don’t go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community…

Voice of news reporter: …an historic victory over a dread disease is dramatically unfolded at the U of Michigan. Here scientists usher in a new medical age with the monumental reports that prove that the Salk vaccine against crippling polio to be a sensational success. It’s a day of triumph for 40 year old Dr. Jonas E Salk developer of the vaccine. He arrives here with Basil O’Connor the head of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis that financed the tests. Hundreds of reporters and scientists gathered from all over the nation gathered for the momentous announcement….

Dr Albert Sabin: …it was too much of a show, it was too much Hollywood. There was too much exaggeration and the impression in 1957 that was, no in 1954 that was given was that the problem had been solved , polio had been conquered.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …but, anyway we knew it was in our seed stock from making vaccines. That virus you see, is one in 10,000 particles is not an activated… (unintelligible) …it was good science at the time because that was what you did. You didn’t worry about these wild viruses.

Dr Edward Shorter: So you discovered, it wasn’t being inactivated in the Salk vaccine?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Right. So then the next thing you know is, 3, 4 weeks after that we found that there were tumors popping up on these hamsters.

Dr. Len Horowitz: Despite AIDS and Leukemia suddenly becoming pandemic from “wild viruses” Hilleman said, this was “good science” at that time.

 

Source:  http://majortrend.tv/5655/merck-scientist-dr-maurice-hilleman-admitted-presence-of-sv40-aids-and-cancer-viruses-in-vaccines/

Childhood Vaccine Exemption Rates Increasing Nationwide

It seems as though the “necessity” of childhood vaccinations, widely voiced by many mainstream health officials and government figureheads, is simply not being accepted by parents around the country. 

While the rates of children receiving vaccines remains high, we are seeing an increase in childhood vaccine exemption rates.

In eight different states, more than 1 in 20 public kindergartners are not receiving all the vaccines that the government requires’ for school attendance

Where are the highest vaccine exemption rates? 

States in the West and Upper Midwest currently hold the highest vaccine exemption rates.

In Washington, an overall 6 percent of public school parents decided against at least one of the vaccines “required” for their child’s attendance, while some specific locations in Washington have exemption rates as high as 20 or even 50 percent.

Some other states with high vaccine exemptions rates are:

  • Alaska
  • Colorado
  • Minnesota
  • Vermont
  • Oregon
  • Michigan
  • Illinois     

In addition, vaccine exemption rates increased in over half of the states, including many of the states with already high exemption rates. Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin were all states with increasing vaccine exemption rates.

Why are parents refusing vaccines for their children? 

Parents just aren’t seeing what health and government officials seem to think is so clear about vaccine safety, necessity, and effectiveness. Could it be that parents are reluctant to get their children vaccinated due to the not so flattering history of many vaccines? The flu vaccine alone has been tied to convulsionsGuillain-Barre syndrome, and a number of other negative health effects. Gardasil is also a heavy hitter when it comes to serious health problems, with the vaccine leading to many deaths and thousands of hospitalizations.

Even more compelling is the severe lack of evidence highlighting the effectiveness of the shots. The Cochrane Database Review, the gold standard within the evidence-based medical model for determining the effectiveness of common medical interventions, does not lend clear scientific support to the theory that flu vaccines are safe or effective. Shockingly, these authoritative reviews reveal that there is actually a severe lack of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in children under 2healthy adultsthe elderly, and healthcare workers who care for the elderly. Other research reported on by The Lancet shows that the flu vaccine only prevents the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the flu vaccine.

Maybe these are some reasons why parents are refusing vaccines for their children.

But the possibility of one vaccine causing damage isn’t the only reason parents are skeptical of vaccines. The amount of shots children are given is of great concern, with the cumulative effect leading to vaccine-induced and heavy metal toxicity. By the age of 6 a child may receive 24 pricks. Not only is the number of vaccinations alarming, but parents rightfully feel that many of the vaccines are downright unnecessary, further off-putting parents and leading to vaccination refusal.

‘Many of the vaccines are unnecessary and public health officials don’t honestly know what the effect of giving so many vaccines to such small children really are,’ said Jennifer Margulis, a mother of four and parenting book author.

Parents nationwide simply aren’t buying into the claim that vaccines are absolutely necessary. There is a massive distrust in the pharmaceutical industry as well as in officials and legislators pushing for vaccines. If you are one of the parents who is thinking about partaking in vaccine exemption for your child, it is vital that you know that medical, religious, and philosophical reasons for exemption are at your disposal. Take advantage of these possibilities today, as there is a distinct possibility that the United States government will soon come after the exemptions through abuse of the legal system.

Source:  http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/childhood-vaccine-exemption-rates.html

Global Health Organization To Purchase Millions Of Toxic HPV Vaccines To Administer To Women And Girls In Third-World Countries

At its recent board meeting in Bangladesh, the GAVI Alliance, formerly known as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, announced plans to bring the deadly human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines Gardasil (Merck & Co.) and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) into the third world. A pro-vaccination group backed by the World Bank, UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the vaccine industry, GAVI’s stated goal is to vaccinate 240 million children by 2015.

As many as two million women and girls in nine unidentified developing countries could soon receive one of the two HPV vaccines, even though HPV is potentially linked to only one percent, of all cervical cancers, according to some reports (http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/…). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), however, has stated that “HPV is not associated with cervical cancer” at all (http://www.naturalnews.com/022404.html). 

And yet the vaccine industry through its various “nonprofit” and government partnership continues to push the deadly vaccine on young girls, women, and now even young boys around the world, despite the fact that it does not work and can cause horrific side effects. According to the latest figures released by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Gardasil alone has caused more than 20,000 adverse events and 71 known deaths since it was first unveiled (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/va…).

These figures are actually higher when taking into account the 26 additional deaths concealed in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents that were recently exposed by Judicial Watch, a public watchdog group. SaneVax, a vaccine group that tracks HPV vaccine cases, says there have actually been more than 23,300 adverse events and 103 deaths caused by HPV vaccines, to date (http://sanevax.org/).

With all this in mind, it is concerning, to say the least, that GAVI is advocating that the poorest women and children in the world be subjected to this chemical poison. Nevertheless, the group is reportedly working on a deal with both Merck and GSK to get the vaccines at a reduced rate, and the UN World Bank will be issuing bonds to countries in order to fund the whole HPV vaccine campaign.

A GAVI press release also states that the group will push rubella vaccines along with the HPV vaccines. The goal is to vaccinate 588 million children against rubella by 2015.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/034269_global_health_HPV_vaccines.html#ixzz1fBix0mv1

China’s Vaccine Makers Gear Up for Overseas Markets; Product Safety Image Still a Concern

By Melissa Chan on November 29, 2011

China’s vaccine companies are aiming to export lower cost immunizations, which would create new competition for western pharmaceutical companies in providing  to poorer countries. There is still speculation about the safety of Chinese products because of the food and drug safety record in recent years. The Associated Press reports:

China’s vaccine-making prowess captured world attention in 2009 when one of its companies developed the first effective vaccine against  — in just 87 days — as the new virus swept the globe. In the past, new vaccine developments had usually been won by the U.S. and Europe.

But more needs to be done to build confidence in Chinese vaccines overseas, said Helen Yang of Sinovac, the NASDAQ-listed Chinese biotech firm that rapidly developed the H1N1 swine flu vaccine. “We think the main obstacle is that we have the name of ‘made in China’ still. That is an issue.”

China’s food and  record in recent years hardly inspires confidence: in 2007, Chinese cough syrup killed 93 people in Central America; one year later, contaminated blood thinner led to dozens of deaths in the United States while tainted milk powder poisoned hundreds of thousands of Chinese babies and killed six.

The government has since imposed more regulations, stricter inspections and heavier punishments for violators. Perhaps because of that, regulators routinely crack down on counterfeit and substandard drugmaking.

Source:

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2011/11/china’s-vaccine-makers-gear-up-for-overseas-markets-product-safety-image-still-a-concern

How war has driven medical advances

Many key developments in healthcare have their origins in the battlefield where the treatment of injured troops has led to innovations throughout history which continue today.

The hospital at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan is at the forefront in developments in trauma surgery. Last year it handled 8,000 casualties, many of them with extremely serious injuries.  

Incredibly, US and British army medics now expect to save 90% of those patients, the highest figure in the history of warfare.

“Start Quote

Without a doubt people have gone back alive who five years ago would not have survived ”

Lt Col Steve LordConsultant, Camp Bastion Emergency Department

Yet 500 years ago, the best a fallen soldier could hope for was to be dragged off the battlefield by his friends and, if he survived long enough, have his wounds cauterised with hot irons or sealed with boiling oil.

Horrors of war

Blood loss has always been the biggest killer in war. A big turning point came, in 1537, when a French barber called Ambroise Pare was sent as a surgeon to the Siege of Turin.

He was so horrified by what he saw, that he came up with an incredibly simple alternative, the ligature. He would identify bleeding arteries, clamp them, and then tie the ends with silk threads.

Ligatures were used by the Romans and the Arabs, but the skills had been lost and it took time for Pare’s work to change people’s attitudes. A century later surgeons were still using boiling oil and cauterising wounds.

The idea of using specialised transport to evacuate the wounded from the battlefield came 200 years ago and again it was a Frenchman who first saw the need.

Dominique Jean Larrey, surgeon-in-chief to Napoleon’s armies, noticed that the French artillery were able to move cannon at high speed around the battlefield with horse-drawn carriages.

He wondered if similar vehicles could be used to move casualties. At the time many soldiers were left to die where they fell. It could take 24 hours or more to get a wounded man to a field hospital.

“When a limb is carried away by a ball, by the burst of a grenade, or a bomb, the most prompt amputation is necessary,” Larrey wrote in his memoirs.  

“The least delay endangers the life of the wounded…. without the assistance of the flying ambulance…a great number would have died from this cause alone.”

Larrey created what he called, “flying ambulances”. These were horse-drawn carts which could carry the wounded in some comfort and at high speed to the waiting surgeons. The Duke of Wellington was so impressed he ordered his men not to fire at them.

Air ambulance

In Afghanistan, modern equipment has allowed Larrey’s approach to be taken to a new level with troops evacuated by a helicopter carrying a doctor, nurse and two paramedics, as well as the sort of equipment you would normally find in a hospital emergency unit.

But the treatment starts while the air ambulance is still scrambling into action.

American and British troops are now all equipped with tourniquets, so if a colleague loses an arm or leg they can apply pressure to stop the bleeding, long enough to get them onto the helicopters and heading for hospital.

En route they are given blood, often a lot of it. Army medics working in Iraq discovered that if troops were given extra plasma, which contains agents that help blood clot, this almost doubled survival rates.

On arrival at Camp Bastion, casualties are scanned for signs of internal bleeding, in which case surgery can be under way in minutes with teams of doctors working on a single patient.

“Without a doubt people have gone back alive who 5 years ago would not have survived,” said Lieutenant Colonel Steve Lord, a consultant in the Emergency Department at Camp Bastion.

War and Medicine   

  • The use of a tourniquet to limit blood loss was known in Roman times and may well have been developed in the Roman army where its uses included in amputation.
  • Modern infection control borrows much from the work of Florence Nightingale during the Crimean War in the mid 19th century. She ensured hospital wards were cleaned and ventilated leading to a dramatic drop in mortality rates.
  • In World War I, French doctors first formalised the system of triage to treat mass casualties. Patients were split into three categories to allow prioritisation. Those who were most likely to benefit from treatment were selected ahead of those likely to live and those likely to die regardless.
  • Fleming’s discovery of penicillin in 1928 was initially over-looked and was only made into an effective drug in World War Two, when medical researchers were seeking a method of infection control in troops.

Anyone with a suspected internal injury gets a full body scan he explained. “That is something we should consider more of in the NHS.”

The new blood protocol, with increased plasma for trauma patients is already being introduced in parts of the NHS.

And the military tourniquets, which can be applied with one hand, are also being used by increasing numbers of ambulance services. Another technique developed by the military, hand in hand with civilian medics is the use of portable ultrasound.

This is used not only for scans but also for pain control by allowing surgeons to locate and anaesthetise individual nerves.

Ultrasound was itself a product of war, first used by tank engineers in World War Two to detect cracks in armour.

Today it has become a fantastic medical tool, used for everything from scanning pregnant women to looking for cancers.

 

Source:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15771688

Depression in Women doubles since 1970s

Women have taken on more responsibilities and challenges over the years, such as handling a family and working simultaneously. Along with these responsibilities came feelings of depression and unhappiness, researchers say.

While women used to be the happy ones, the tables have turned, with women being the unhappy gender in today’s world. Women reported being much happier and less stressed decades ago compared to recent years. Since the 1970′s, depressive episodes have doubled, with further increasing up until the 1990′s. Since then, the amount of depression women face has stagnated, with it leveling off in recent years.  

Daily Mail Online reporter writes the following:

Researchers who have studied the extent of mental health problems across Europe say rates of depression in women have doubled since the 1970s.

They found that women are most at risk from the age of 16 to 42, when they tend to have children.

These age groups have between 10 and 13.4 per cent chance of developing depression – twice as high as men in the same age bracket.

Professor Hans-Ulrich Wittchen, who led the study, said: ‘In depression you see this 2.6 times higher rate amongst females.

‘There are clusters in the reproductive years between the ages of 16 to 42.

‘In females you see these incredibly high rates of depressive episodes at the time when they are having babies, where they raise children, where they have to cope with the double responsibilities of having a job and a family.

‘This is what is causing the tremendous burden.

‘It’s the effect on the females who can’t care any more for their family and are trying to be active in their profession, which is one of these major drivers of these higher rates.

‘We have seen compared to the 1970s a doubling of depressive episodes amongst females.

‘It happened in the 1980s and 1990s, there are no further increases now.

‘It’s now levelling off, it’s pretty much stabilised but it’s much much higher than the 1970s.’

The German researchers looked at the extent of mental health problems including dementia, eating disorders and even insomnia across the continent using previous studies and surveys.

Their work, which is published in the journal European Neuropsychopharmacology, found that 38 per cent of people are suffering from some form of mental illness. The most common of these are depression, insomnia, phobias and dementia in old age.

Just last month American researchers found that ‘supermums’ – women who try to juggle careers and families – are far more likely to be depressed.

Their study of 1,600 young women  was carried out at the University  of Washington.

It concluded that the women who try to do it all are more likely to feel  like failures.

But other experts said men are just as likely to suffer from depression.

The difference is that men tend not to admit it so they are often never diagnosed, researchers say.

Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity SANE, said: ‘The reason we believe that depression is twice as common amongst women than men is that women are more prepared to talk about it.

‘Men can find it more difficult to describe their feelings of anxiety, depression or loneliness and may  lack the language to express their  inner feelings.’

 

Source:  http://naturalsociety.com/depression-in-women-doubles-since-1970s/

Addiction Discriminates? What That Means in Today’s Troubled Economy

With America facing the greatest income gap since the Great Depression, the largely unpublicized link between financial inequality and drug addiction suggests big trouble ahead.

For decades now, we’ve branded addiction “an equal opportunity disease.” And judging from the largely white, middle-class people who populate most AA meetings and rehabs, it is. 

But while no sector of society is immune from substance abuse, addiction does discriminate. Examples abound: “drug problems” among college grads is nearly a third lower than those for high school dropouts, according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health. Unemployed people are twice as likely to be addicts as people with jobs. With America facing the greatest income gap since the Great Depression, the largely unpublicized link between financial inequality and drug addiction suggests big trouble ahead.

Of course, the causal connection between poverty and substance use runs both ways. People who are suffering from alcohol or drug problems are obviously more likely to drop out of school or lose their jobs, while those who don’t have the education and skills to find a job in this fast-changing, increasingly high-tech economy not only increase face increased odds of addiction but also dramatically lower odds of recovery.

Stigma keeps addiction low on the list of “causes”; if, for purposes of raising funds and sympathy, the public face of recovery looks most like the people who have the resources to donate—with a celebrity or two thrown in—what’s the beef?

For example, Americans earning less than $20,000 a year are half as likely to successfully quit smoking—and nearly one third less likely to end a cocaine addiction—than those making $70,000 a year or more.

The recovery community has typically shied away from acknowledging these inconvenient truths. For one thing, addiction is so painful and destructive—and sobriety so difficult and one-day-at-a-time—that distinctions based on class or race can seem churlish. For another, stigma keeps addiction low on the list of “causes”; if, for purposes of raising funds and sympathy, the public face of recovery looks most like the people who have the resources to donate—with a celebrity or two thrown in—what’s the beef? Still, among ourselves, we need to admit the truth: addiction is disproportionately concentrated among the poor, and, consequently, among blacks and Hispanics.

Social problems plaguing the poor are largely ignored as intractable, a given of the invisible “underclass.” But as more and more Americans in the middle class become poorer, if not impoverished, by our ongoing economic crises—the implosion of the financial industry (goodbye IRAs and retirement funds), the raft of foreclosures and 10% unemployment (farewell to the bedrock American belief in a house and a job)—denying the link between income and addiction keeps us from finding workable solutions for the explosion in addictive behavior all around us. The most potent anti-craving medications in the world won’t prevent relapse among people who lack skills, job opportunities and hope.

It’s important to emphasize that drawing attention to the increased vulnerability to addiction that poverty poses is in no way meant to pit addict against addict or to sew discord. There are all too many middle-class and rich people in this country battling various addictions. But if we continue to ignore the special role that the lack of education and employment play in fermenting the growing drug problem, we are likely to leave them out of the solution when it comes to crafting treatment and prevention.

Instead, we need to address the specific social and economic problems that have made the US one of the most drugged-out countries in the world. The magic-wand policy answer would be, of course, to cut economic inequality. Almost without exception, nations, and even US states, where the concentration of wealth is greatest have not only more addictions but also more obesity, heart disease, stroke, mental illness and other major health problems than those with less inequality. The greater the inequality, the higher the murder rate, too.

These differences relate not to overall amount of wealth in industrialized countries but to how the money is distributed among the population. So why does inequality per se have such a profound impact on health, including addiction?

Like other primates, humans are hierarchical creatures: there are alphas and betas and so on down the line for both males and females. However, humans also have an innate desire for fairness. The reason children are so quick to say, “That’s not fair,” when their siblings get what seems to be a bigger piece of cake is not because parents teach them to measure their portions but because our brains predispose us to prefer at least some degree of equality—or at the very least rational explanation of unfair distributions.

Numerous studies demonstrate this preference. A major study conducted by the noted Duke University economist and author Dan Ariely found that Americans would favor a system of wealth distribution closer to the one found in Sweden (one of the world’s most egalitarian countries) than the  current status quo in the United States. The 5,522 participants surveyed tended to believe that our existing wealth distribution was much closer to equitable than it is—before the crash made us much more aware of the reality.

Study after study has also found that people will pay to punish others who treat them unfairly, even when it isn’t in their own economic interest to do so. While people obviously often selfishly seek their own individual advantages, the idea that we prefer a Darwinian “dog eat dog” world over one in which people have a fair chance at winning through hard work is simply not supported by the data. We’re hierarchical, but we also crave justice. 

This is probably related to the fact that we evolved in tight-knit, highly egalitarian groups in which selfishness was highly discouraged because survival required cooperation. Whatever the case, even in the most egalitarian societies, there is a survival difference between those on top and those on the bottom. But that difference is greatly magnified when economic inequality is high. A stress abuse of mortality among all human beings is stress, which is the primary factor in a long list of fatal illnesses. By and large, wealthier people are more equipped to insulate themselves from the stressors of daily life. But people in poverty suffer through a much the greater degree of uncertainty and insecurity, both of which exacerbate chronic stress. Even at the top of the financial pyramid, however, competition, responsibility, and fear of failure take a constant toll.

Meanwhile, chronically elevated stress hormone levels increase the risk of virtually every illness you can name: not just addictions, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, but also infectious diseases, infant mortality and most cancers.

In one famous study of British civil servants, people on the bottom rung of the hierarchy suffered mortality rates three times higher than those on the top at every age—and the difference was graded sequentially from top to bottom. Only about one third of the difference in death rates was accounted for by factors like smoking and obesity—the rest was caused by the stress itself, not self-medication to try to cope with it.

Keep in mind that those on the bottom weren’t unemployed or even poor: they were working class, and because Britain has a national health care system, their worse health was not due to lack of access to medical services. Further, the US is even more unequal than the UK: in America, the ratio of CEO to worker pay is now 185 to one; in Great Britain, that figure is 28 to one (and they’re considered one of the most inequitable countries in Western Europe).

Although direct comparisons between countries on rates of drug problems are hard to make, one 2003 study contrasted rates of active drug dependence (the DSM diagnostic term for “addiction”) among Americans to that of Brits. It found a drug dependence rate of 1.5% in the U.S. and 0.5% in the UK: three times lower.

America, as many of us may remember, used to be far less unequal: in the postwar years from 1948 to 1985, on average, annual American income grew by $21,162. Some 60% of that growth went to the bottom 90% of earners. In contrast, between 1986 and 2008, average yearly take-home grew by a mere $6,894—and 100% went to the top 10%. In fact, on average, the income for 90% of Americans declined.

If we want to fight addiction, these numbers and trends are unsustainable. Reducing inequality isn’t just a boon to the middle class and poor—it could help every level of society by raising educational achievement, cutting health costs, crime, criminal justice expenditures and stress.

Obviously, this would require more taxes on the wealthy and on corporations and greater spending on schools, particularly early childhood care. It would require a commitment to genuine equality of opportunity—not of outcome, but of real options.

Alternatively, we can continue to self-medicate with food, cigarettes, alcohol, heroin, coke, meth, oxy, sex, the Internet—the list of consumer goods employed in a failing attempt to alleviate stress without getting to its root causes keeps growing—and go on fighting an endless, equally failing, war on drugs—and on ourselves.

 

Source:  http://www.alternet.org/drugs/152996/_addiction_discriminates_what_that_means_in_today%27s_troubled_economy/?page=entire