Thursday, 6 September 2012

Liquitabs alert after children burned

Liquitabs alert after children burned



Washing machine switch
Doctors are warning about the dangers of liquitabs used in washing machines and dishwashers, after treating some children for near fatal injuries.
The Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Glasgow has admitted five children this year, all under two, who had either bitten into or squeezed the tabs.
They suffered chemical burns to their eyes or throats.
When liquid was swallowed, a tube had to be inserted to aid breathing until swelling in the airways was treated.
Dr Lyndsay Fraser, from the hospital's ear nose and throat unit, said: "We have known for some time about the risk of eye injuries from kids squeezing these liquitabs until they burst.
"What we have seen more recently is that children are biting into the tablets, presumably because they think they are sweets as they have the same soft texture and bright colouring.
"The alkaline chemicals in the liquitab cause an immediate chemical burn, causing breathing problems as the airway starts to swell rapidly.

Shannon Hutchison's daughter Orla spent 10 days in hospital
"Getting them to hospital straight away is imperative. In most of the cases seen so far we have had to insert a breathing tube to protect the child's airway from the swelling and help them breathe."
Dr Fraser said that if these children had not reached the hospital on time, their airway "could have closed over completely with potentially fatal consequences".
The medic added: "Once the breathing tube has been inserted, children can be on a ventilator for anything up to two weeks whilst the swelling settles and one child so far has required further surgery to repair the damage caused by the liquitab.
"It really is only good fortune that we haven't seen a death resulting from this type of injury."
Staff at the hospital have been alarmed by the number of children recently admitted as emergency cases.it is easy to access to them especially if they are left within reach and sight of young children or toddlers.
"Most parents are not aware of the dangers of these common household items, commonly storing them in unlocked cupboards within potential reach of their child.
"It is important parents realise that these liquid capsules are dangerous chemicals and they should be kept locked away so children can't reach them."
Shannon Hutchison backed the hospital's safety campaign after her daughter Orla swallowed the contents of a liquitab at the age of seven months.
She said: "Orla was at my sister's house playing with my two-year-old nephew who managed to get hold of one of these liquitabs.
"He thought it was a sweetie because it was bright and like a jelly so he gave it to Orla who bit into it.
"Immediately we realised there was a problem as she was going in and out of consciousness so phoned an ambulance right away, it was terrifying. I'm just so lucky to still have my little girl."
'Bright sweeties'
Orla was rushed to intensive care and spent 10 days in hospital.
Since the incident, Shannon said she had been much more careful about where all her family are keeping liquitabs.
"To kids they do look like bright sweeties and they are not in a sealed box, kids can get into them so easily and I had no idea what could happen until I saw what happened to Orla," she said.
"When we got to hospital the doctors told me they see this two or three a year. Now I make sure that all the liquitabs are locked away and I tell everyone to do the same.
"The boxes they come in really should be child proof and I hope manufacturers do something about this as I wouldn't want this to happen to any other little girl or boy."

Wednesday, 5 September 2012

Thalidomide


Thalidomide apology insulting, campaigners say

)Bronze statue symbolizing a child born without limbs because of thalidomide The bronze statue of a child born with thalidomide symptoms is on display in Stolberg, Germany
The drug, sold in the 1950s as a cure for morning sickness, was linked to birth defects and withdrawn in 1961.
German-based Gruenenthal has issued its first apology in 50 years, but said the drug's possible side-effects "could not be detected" before it was marketed.
But the UK's Thalidomide Trust said any apology should also admit wrongdoing.
Nick Dobrik, a member of the trust's national advisory council, said it "should be an unreserved apology, not a conditional apology".
"We feel that a sincere and genuine apology is one which actually admits wrongdoing. The company has not done that and has really insulted the thalidomiders."
Compensation
Martin Johnson, the trust's director, told the BBC that the news that the manufacturers were starting to acknowledge responsibility was welcome but they were still trying to perpetuate the myth that no-one could have known of the harm the drug could cause when there was, he said, much evidence that they did know.
And Freddie Astbury, president of Thalidomide UK, said: "It's taken a long time for them to apologise. There are a lot of people damaged by thalidomide struggling with health problems in the UK and around the world.
"So we welcome the apology, but how far do they want to go? It's no good apologising if they won't open discussions on compensation. They've got to seriously consider financial compensation for these people."
By the time the drug was pulled from the market, more than 10,000 babies worldwide had been born with a range of disabilities caused by the drug.
This included shortened arms and legs, blindness, deafness, heart problems and brain damage.
There are between 5,000 and 6,000 sufferers still alive. Thalidomide UK says there are 458 people in the UK who were affected by the drug, but that for every thalidomide baby that lived there were 10 that died.
Harald Stock, Gruenenthal's chief executive, issued his company's apology at the unveiling of a bronze statue symbolising a child born without limbs because of thalidomide.
"We ask for forgiveness that for nearly 50 years we didn't find a way of reaching out to you from human being to human being," he said at a ceremony in the western German city of Stolberg, where the firm is based.
"We ask that you regard our long silence as a sign of the shock that your fate caused in us."
Mr Stock said the company regretted that the potential for thalidomide to affect the development of foetuses "could not be detected by the tests that we and others carried out before it was marketed".
Class action
BBC science correspondent for the Today programme, Tom Feilden, said one of the main issues was what Gruenenthal knew about the drug's side effects, when it knew about them and whether the company could have acted sooner in withdrawing it from the market.
Some compensation has been paid, particularly by thalidomide's British distributor.
Gruenenthal itself has previously paid compensation to survivors of the drug, many in Germany, and has voiced regret over the issue - but has not admitted liability.
In the early 1970s, it agreed to pay 100m Deutschmarks (£40m) into an official fund for German thalidomide survivors and was given permanent legal indemnity by the German government.
Since the original fund money ran out, continuing compensation payments have been made by the government. In 2009 the company added a further 50m euro (£39.6m) one-off endowment.
Compensation claims are still outstanding, including one key class action in Australia, which saw thalidomide survivors win the right to have their case for compensation heard there.
The drug is still used today under strict controls to treat some bone marrow cancer patients

Thalidomide apology insulting, campaigners say

Bronze statue symbolizing a child born without limbs because of thalidomide The bronze statue of a child born with thalidomide symptoms is on display in Stolberg, Germany
The company which invented thalidomide has "insulted" those affected by the drug by issuing an "insincere" apology, campaigners have said.
The drug, sold in the 1950s as a cure for morning sickness, was linked to birth defects and withdrawn in 1961.
German-based Gruenenthal has issued its first apology in 50 years, but said the drug's possible side-effects "could not be detected" before it was marketed.
But the UK's Thalidomide Trust said any apology should also admit wrongdoing.
Nick Dobrik, a member of the trust's national advisory council, said it "should be an unreserved apology, not a conditional apology".

Compensation
Martin Johnson, the trust's director, told the BBC that the news that the manufacturers were starting to acknowledge responsibility was welcome but they were still trying to perpetuate the myth that no-one could have known of the harm the drug could cause when there was, he said, much evidence that they did know.
And Freddie Astbury, president of Thalidomide UK, said: "It's taken a long time for them to apologise. There are a lot of people damaged by thalidomide struggling with health problems in the UK and around the world.
"So we welcome the apology, but how far do they want to go? It's no good apologising if they won't open discussions on compensation. They've got to seriously consider financial compensation for these people."
By the time the drug was pulled from the market, more than 10,000 babies worldwide had been born with a range of disabilities caused by the drug.
This included shortened arms and legs, blindness, deafness, heart problems and brain damage.
There are between 5,000 and 6,000 sufferers still alive. Thalidomide UK says there are 458 people in the UK who were affected by the drug, but that for every thalidomide baby that lived there were 10 that died.
Harald Stock, Gruenenthal's chief executive, issued his company's apology at the unveiling of a bronze statue symbolising a child born without limbs because of thalidomide.
"We ask for forgiveness that for nearly 50 years we didn't find a way of reaching out to you from human being to human being," he said at a ceremony in the western German city of Stolberg, where the firm is based.
"We ask that you regard our long silence as a sign of the shock that your fate caused in us."
Mr Stock said the company regretted that the potential for thalidomide to affect the development of foetuses "could not be detected by the tests that we and others carried out before it was marketed".
Class action
BBC science correspondent for the Today programme, Tom Feilden, said one of the main issues was what Gruenenthal knew about the drug's side effects, when it knew about them and whether the company could have acted sooner in withdrawing it from the market.
Some compensation has been paid, particularly by thalidomide's British distributor.
Gruenenthal itself has previously paid compensation to survivors of the drug, many in Germany, and has voiced regret over the issue - but has not admitted liability.
In the early 1970s, it agreed to pay 100m Deutschmarks (£40m) into an official fund for German thalidomide survivors and was given permanent legal indemnity by the German government.
Since the original fund money ran out, continuing compensation payments have been made by the government. In 2009 the company added a further 50m euro (£39.6m) one-off endowment.
Compensation claims are still outstanding, including one key class action in Australia, which saw thalidomide survivors win the right to have their case for compensation heard there.
The drug is still used today under strict controls to treat some bone marrow cancer patients

Thalidomide timeline

  • 1953: Drug created in Germany by the Gruenenthal Group
  • 1958: Thalidomide is first licensed for use in the UK
  • 1961: Australian doctor William McBride reports an increase in deformed babies being born at his hospital to mothers who had taken thalidomide
  • Drug is withdrawn later that year
  • 1968: UK manufacturers Distillers Biochemicals Limited (now Diageo) reaches compensation settlement following a legal battle by affected families
  • 2005: Diageo doubles its compensation payouts from £2.8m to about £6.5m a year
  • 2008: The drug is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma - bone marrow cancer - by the European Medicines Agency
  • 2009: UK government agrees a £20m grant, to be paid to the Thalidomide Trust over three years
  • 2010: UK health minister Mike O'Brien makes a formal apology to thalidomide survivors on behalf of the government

Monday, 3 September 2012

scientists really do not read their own words


Gorillas and chimps are threatened by human disease

Eastern gorilla (Arup Shah / NPL)

Related Stories

In a bid to save wild apes from extinction, people may be unwittingly infecting them with potentially deadly diseases, new research shows.
Humans and great apes are closely related, creating the potential for diseases to jump between them.
Isolated incidents have been documented of apes and monkeys contracting measles, pneumonia, and influenza from people, as well as a range of other bacteria, viruses and parasites.
But the problem may be greater than even that, as highlighted by five recently published academic studies.

Your close cousins

Chimpanzees
The close contact between animals and humans in research centres and sanctuaries is facilitating the spread of pathogens to apes, say scientists.
A newly published study by researchers in Japan examined blood serum from 14 captive chimpanzees in Japanese primate research institutes.
Takanori Kooriyama of the Rakuno Gakuen University in Ebetsu, and colleagues across Japan, tested for antibodies against 62 human pathogens.
The chimps had antibodies against 29 of these pathogens, showing they had been exposed to them.
"Captive chimpanzees are highly susceptible to human pathogens," the researchers write in the journal Primates.
Bad bugs
Earlier this month, Frieder Schaumberg of the Institute of Medical Microbiology in Munster, Germany, and colleagues in Germany, the US and Uganda, published a revealing study in the American Journal of Primatology.
They found a high prevalence of drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureusbacteria in sanctuary chimpanzees in Zambia and Uganda.
Chimp and humanHelping hand or health risk?
These bacteria were likely passed to the apes by the veterinarians and staff caring for them.
The bugs are difficult to eradicate and can cause skin and tissue infections as well as severe bouts of pneumonia and septicaemia.
The study shows specifically that human pathogens can be passed to apes that are destined for release in the wild.
Researchers say that plans to reintroduce apes into the wild need to be re-evaluated to prevent drug-resistant diseases being spread through populations of rare animals.
Knowing the risks
Steve Unwin of the Animal Health Centre at Chester Zoo, UK and colleagues in the UK and US, agree that the development is "worrying".
But in the same issue of the journal, they argue that it is too soon to consider stopping reintroductions.

Past ills

  • Humans, possibly ecotourists, are thought to have passed the skin disease scabies and intestinal worms to gorillas living in Biwindi National Park, Uganda
  • Human metapneumovirus is suspected to have killed mountain gorillas in Rwanda, and been responsible for chimpanzee die offs in Tai National Park in Cote D'Ivoire.
The problem has been known for a while, they say, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed a set of guidelines governing the release of animals and rare species back into the wild.
These guidelines recommend screening animals for health issues prior to their release and potentially placing them in quarantine.
By testing for human-borne diseases, and preventing the release of infected animals, the problem may be averted, they say.
Two researchers, Charles Nunn of Harvard University, Massachusetts, US and Brian Hare of Duke University, North Carolina, US, who are experts in the evolutionary biology of humans and other apes, also comment in the same journal.
They recommend a number of areas for future research.
For example, to better understand the risks, we need to know more about how antibiotic-strains of bacteria spread between individual apes, and whether they actually cause any greater sickness or death in these animals.
It may be that other pathogens we are unaware of can spread between humans and apes too. And young animals are more prone to infection, as they spend more time in physical contact with sanctuary workers.
Scratched and bitten
Solving the problem is difficult, in part because passing diseases to primates is a practical as well as an ethical issue.
As Prof Nunn and Prof Hare point out in their paper, the release of apes back into the wild remains an art form.

Gorilla marvels

Gorilla
Sanctuary managers face a range of political, time and financial pressures that limit their ability to take in new apes, care for them, and then release them.
Between 2000 and 2006, for example, the chimp population living at Pan African Sanctuary Alliance sanctuaries grew 15% a year, driven by the adoption of an average of 56 new apes each year - animals that had been orphaned by the bushmeat trade.
Reintroducing these animals is important, argue Unwin and colleagues.
Not only does it help rehabilitate the lives of individual apes, and boost numbers of rare species in the wild, but the process can help educate local people about the importance of conservation.
Diseases can spread of course from primates to people: the group of HIV viruses that cause AIDS has jumped from monkeys and chimpanzees into people, seeding a global human health crisis. Ebola meanwhile is harboured by gorillas.
A study published late last year by George Engel and Lisa-Jones Engel of the University of Washington, Seattle, US, in the American Journal of Primatology, presented the results of a survey of 116 primatologists who had worked closely with non-human primate species.
Of those surveyed, almost 60% said they had been scratched by a primate and 40% had been bitten, highlighting the risk of disease transmission.
But our ability to pass novel diseases back into ape and monkey species is less well known.

Monkey malaise

  • A study presented at the 35th Meeting of the American Society of Primatologists in Sacremento, California, US in June, showed that macaques had antibodies to both human and avian influenza viruses in areas where high densities of people live.
  • That reveals the macaques had been exposed to the viruses and may be susceptible to them.
  • Drs Engle and Engle sampled blood serum from more than 200 macaques at sites in Singapore, Bangladesh, Gibraltar, Cambodia and Indonesia.
Wild apes are also exposed to human pathogens through a number of different routes, including when apes raid crops, when tourists encounter apes in their natural habitat and when workers go into forests to exploit resources, such as mining, logging and the hunting of bushmeat.
At the heart of the issue is a painful dilemma. Contact between humans and apes often occurs because conservationists and researchers have to get close to the apes to save them.
Scientists themselves can pass diseases to the apes they study.
In recent years, primatologists have debated the extent to which they might be threatening the wild apes they research, and what to do about it.
Many research groups now wear face masks when close to their subjects, to avoid transmitting airborne diseases.
Disinfecting boots before heading into the forest, and observing apes from predetermined safe distances, are other safeguards, ones that many feel ecotourists should also follow.
For many primatologists, it seems, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Sir David Attenborough meets a gorilla family
Populations of great apes; gorilla, chimp and orang-utan species, and the small apes, or gibbons, are dwindling around the world, and everything possible must be done to save them, they say.
Researchers must study the animals in the wild to understand them, and find better ways to protect them.
The benefits of such research far outweighs the costs, many experts argue.
As well as providing valuable information about the size and behaviour of great ape populations, the presence of researchers can deter poachers, encourage politicians to take an interest in primate conservation and directly save or protect the lives of many rare apes.
Sanctuaries take in apes as a last resort, and their reintroduction is considered to be an important conservation tool.
However, as the latest research shows, the difficult part is finding ways to save these closest relatives of ours, without unwittingly harming them in the process.

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Sunday, 2 September 2012

Human rights of old age


richimag said...
Human rights of old age
Next page


'Chemical cosh' early death risk

The drugs were designed to treat schizophrenia
Patients with dementia are dying early because they are being prescribed sedative drugs inappropriately in nursing homes, warn researchers.
A five-year investigation revealed the antipsychotic drugs were being used as a 'chemical cosh' to control patients, contrary to expert advice.
Patients prescribed these drugs were dying on average six months earlier, the Alzheimer's Research Trust found.
But GPs said the drugs were only used "as a last resort".
'Chemical cosh'
Guidelines say they can be given if the patient is severely agitated or violent.
But lead researcher Professor Clive Ballard says in the majority of cases the prescriptions are inappropriate and do more harm than good - doubling the risk of early death.
Estimates suggest that as many as 40% of nursing home residents with Alzheimer's disease - 150,000 people - are prescribed these drugs, known as neuroleptics

NHS announces new deadline to register claims For cases during the period 1st April 2004 – 31st March 2011 the deadline for individuals or their families and representatives to notify the relevant PCT will be 30th September 2012. For cases during the period 1st April 2011 – 31st March 2012 the deadline for individuals or their families and representatives to notify the relevant PCT will be 31st March 2013



NHS announces new deadline to register claimsFor cases during the period 1st April 2004 – 31st March 2011 the deadline for individuals or their families and representatives to notify the relevant PCT will be 30th September 2012.For cases during the period 1st April 2011 – 31st March 2012 the deadline for individuals or their families and representatives to notify the relevant PCT will be 31st March 2013

Thursday, 30 August 2012

Vitamin B3 'helps kill superbugs'????


Vitamin B3 'helps kill superbugs'


Drug-resistant MRSAAntibiotic resistance is increasing

Related Stories

Vitamin B3 could be the new weapon in the fight against superbugs such as MRSA, researchers have suggested.
US experts found B3, also known as nicotinamide, boosts the ability of immune cells to kill Staphylococcus bacteria.
B3 increases the numbers and efficacy of neutrophils, white blood cells that can kill and eat harmful bugs.
The study, in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, could lead to a "major change in treatment", a UK expert said.
B3 was tested on Staphylococcal infections, such as the potentially fatal MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus).
Such infections are found in hospitals and nursing homes, but are also on the rise in prisons, the military and among athletes.
'Turn on'
The scientists used extremely high doses of B3 - far higher than that obtained from dietary sources - in their tests, carried out both on animals and on human blood.

Start Quote

I cannot see why this couldn't be used straight away in infected patients”
Prof Mark Enright,University of Bath
And the researchers say there is as yet no evidence that dietary B3 or supplements could prevent or treat bacterial infections.
The researchers say B3 appears to be able to "turn on" certain antimicrobial genes, boosting the immune cells' killing power.
Prof Adrian Gombart, of Oregon State University's Linus Pauling Institute, who worked on the research, said: "This is potentially very significant, although we still need to do human studies.
"Antibiotics are wonder drugs, but they face increasing problems with resistance by various types of bacteria, especially Staphylococcus aureus.
"This could give us a new way to treat Staph infections that can be deadly, and might be used in combination with current antibiotics.
"It's a way to tap into the power of the innate immune system and stimulate it to provide a more powerful and natural immune response."
Prof Mark Enright, of the University of Bath, said: "Neutrophils are really the front line against infections in the blood and the use of nicotinamide seems safe at this dose to use in patients as it is already licensed for use.
"This could cause a major change in treatment for infections alongside conventional antibiotics to help bolster patients immune system.
"I would like to see in patient clinical trials but cannot see why this couldn't be used straight away in infected patients."

More on This Story

Related Stories

Featured post

More patients in Scotland given antidepressants

More patients in Scotland given antidepressants 13 October 2015   From the section Scotland Image copyright Thinkstock Image ca...