MMR doctor struck off register

By Nick Triggle Health reporter, BBC News Dr Wakefield still stands by his research The doctor who first suggested a link between MMR vaccinations and autism has been struck off the medical register. The General Medical Council found Dr Andrew Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct over the way he carried out his controversial research. It follows a GMC ruling earlier this year that he had acted unethically. Dr Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet study caused vaccination rates to plummet, resulting in a rise in measles - but the findings were later discredited. The GMC ruled in January he had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in conducting his research, but under its procedures the sanctions are made at a later date. The case did not investigate whether Dr Wakefield’s findings were right or wrong, instead it focused on the methods of research. The panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest… Chairman of the hearing During the two-and-a-half-year case, the longest in GMC history, he was accused of carrying out invasive tests on vulnerable children which were against their best interests. The GMC also said Dr Wakefield, who was working at London’s Royal Free Hospital as a gastroenterologist at the time, did not have the ethical approval or relevant qualifications for such tests. And the panel hearing the case took exception with the way he gathered blood samples. Dr Wakefield paid children £5 for the samples at his son’s birthday party. It also said Dr Wakefield should have disclosed the fact that he had been paid to advise solicitors acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR. Serious misconduct In making the verdict on the sanctions, Dr Surendra Kumar, the panel’s chairman, said Dr Wakefield had “brought the medical professional into disrepute” and his behaviour constituted “multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct”. In total, there were more than 30 charges he was found guilty of. Dr Kumar also explained the reasoning for striking Dr Wakefield off. Efforts to discredit and silence me through the GMC process have provided a screen to shield the government from exposure on the MMR vaccine scandal Dr Wakefield “The panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession, and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him.” Dr Wakefield, who is now based in the US, has 28 days to appeal the verdict. He has consistently claimed the allegations against him were “unfounded and unjust”. As the GMC announced its sanctions, Dr Wakefield said: “Efforts to discredit and silence me through the GMC process have provided a screen to shield the government from exposure on the MMR vaccine scandal.” Two of his former colleagues at the Royal Free were also ruled to have broken guidelines. Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch both helped Dr Wakefield carry out the research. Professor Walker-Smith, who is 73 and has been retired for the past 10 years, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off the register. Professor Murch was found not guilty. Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said the scare over the vaccine had done “untold damage to the UK vaccination programme”. “We cannot stress too strongly that all children and young people should have the MMR vaccine.” The Department of Health reiterated this. A spokesman said: “The safety of MMR has been endorsed through numerous studies in many countries.”

Technorati Tags: Autism, MMR, MMR and Autism, MMR Vaccination

Persons aged ≥65 years are at greater risk for hospitalization and death from seasonal influenza compared with other age groups (1,2).

They respond to vaccination with lower antibody titers to influenza hemagglutinin (an established correlate of protection against influenza) compared with younger adults (3).

On December 23, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed an injectable inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (Fluzone High-Dose, Sanofi-Pasteur) that contains an increased amount of influenza virus hemagglutinin antigen compared with other inactivated influenza vaccines such as Fluzone.

Fluzone High-Dose is licensed as a single dose for use among persons aged ≥65 years and will be available beginning with the 2010–11 influenza season.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reviewed data from prelicensure clinical trials on the safety and immunogenicity of Fluzone High-Dose and expressed no preference for the new vaccine over other inactivated trivalent influenza vaccines (4).

This report summarizes the FDA-approved indications for Fluzone High-Dose and provides guidance from ACIP for its use.

Click here to read all of the article about the new Flu vaccine for older people.

Technorati Tags: flu vaccine, Senior

Food Poison - Whywhoo.com image

Food poisoning!

Food borne illness or food poisoning is caused by consuming food contaminated with pathogenic bacteria, toxins, viruses, prions or parasites. Such contamination usually arises from improper handling, preparation or storage of food. Food borne illness can also be caused by adding pesticides or medicines to food, or consuming or by accidentally consuming naturally poisonous substances like poisonous mushrooms or reef fish. Contact between food and pests, especially flies, rodents and cockroaches, is a further cause of contamination of food.

Some common diseases are occasionally food borne mainly through the water vector, even though they are usually transmitted by other routes. These include infections caused by Shigella, Hepatitis A, and the parasites Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum.

World Health Organization definition

Food borne illnesses are defined by the World Health Organization as diseases, usually either infectious or toxic in nature, caused by agents that enter the body through the ingestion of food. Every person is at risk of food borne illness

Symptoms and mortality

Symptoms typically begin several hours after ingestion and depending on the agent involved, can include one or more of the following: nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, headache or tiredness. In most cases the body is able to permanently recover after a short period of acute discomfort and illness. However, food borne illness can result in permanent health problems or even death, especially in babies, pregnant women (and their fetuses), elderly people, sick people and others with weak immune systems. Similarly, people with liver disease are especially susceptible to infections from Vibrio vulnificus, which can be found in oysters.

Incubation period

The delay between consumption of a contaminated food and appearance of the first symptoms of illness is called the incubation period. This ranges from hours to days (and rarely years), depending on the agent, and on how much was consumed.

During the incubation period, microbes pass through the stomach into the intestine, attach to the cells lining the intestinal walls, and begin to multiply there. Some types of microbes stay in the intestine, some produce a toxin that is absorbed into the bloodstream, and some can directly invade the deeper body tissues. The symptoms produced depend on the type of microbe.

Click here for more information on food poisoning and what to do if you get it.

Technorati Tags: food poisoning, oysters, shigella, travel

A brand name drug has to go through 10-15 years of research and testing in animals and people before it can be sold to the public.

During this testing, the company making the drug must prove that it is safe and effective for people to use. All of this testing can cost over $1 billion. Once the new drug is approved, the company that made and tested it receives a patent. This means that no other company can make the drug until the end of the patent, which is usually 10-15 years after the drug is released.

When a patent for a brand name drug expires, any other company can copy the drug and sell a generic version. These other companies must only prove that their product is the same as the brand name drug.

This means that generic drug companies do not have to spend as much time and money because they do not have to invent or test the drug for safety and get FDA-approval. This is why generic drugs cost less.

When a patent for a brand name drug expires, there are usually a number of companies that begin to make a generic version of the drug. Since there is more than one company making the drug, the price is lowered even farther due to competition between all of the different generic drug makers.

Technorati Tags: Generic drugs

.

This is a very interesting and informative video produced by eye surgeon Dr. Dave Allenby. In it he explains and visually demonstrates the four primary reasons that people may need their vision corrected by glasses and/or surgery.

.

Technorati Tags: Add new tag, Astigmatism, Hyperopia, Myopia, Presbyopia

Technorati Tags: Medicare Part D, Medicine, Senior

Landmark ACCORD Trial Finds Intensive Blood Pressure and Combination Lipid Therapies do not Reduce Combined Cardiovascular Events in Adults with Diabetes

Type-2 or Adult Onset Diabetes LegacyofHope.com photo

Lowering blood pressure to normal levels — below currently recommended levels — did not significantly reduce the combined risk of fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular disease events in adults with type 2 diabetes who were at especially high risk for cardiovascular disease events, according to new results from the landmark Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) clinical trial. Similarly, treating multiple blood lipids with combination drug therapy of a fibrate and a statin did not reduce the combined risk of cardiovascular disease events more than treatment with statin alone. The study of more than 10,000 participants is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

ACCORD is one of the largest studies ever conducted in adults with type 2 diabetes who were at especially high risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks, stroke, or death from cardiovascular disease. The multicenter clinical trial tested three potential strategies to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events: intensive control of blood sugar, intensive control of blood pressure, and treatment of multiple blood lipids. The lipids targeted for intensive treatment were high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides, in addition to standard therapy of lowering low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The results of the ACCORD blood pressure and lipid clinical trials appear online in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) today and will be in the April 29, 2010, NEJM print edition. The results are also being presented today at the American College of Cardiology’s 59th annual scientific session in Atlanta. Results of the ACCORD blood sugar clinical trial were reported in 2008.

“ACCORD provides important evidence to help guide treatment recommendations for adults with type 2 diabetes who have had a heart attack or stroke or who are otherwise at especially high risk for cardiovascular disease,” said Susan B. Shurin, M.D., acting director of the NIH’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the primary sponsor of ACCORD. “This information provides guidance to avoid unnecessarily increasing treatment that provides limited benefit and potentially increases the risk of adverse effects.”

ACCORD researchers from 77 medical centers in the United States and Canada studied 10,251 participants between the ages of 40 and 79 who had type 2 diabetes for an average of 10 years. When they joined the study, all participants were at especially high risk of cardiovascular events because they had pre-existing cardiovascular disease, evidence of subclinical cardiovascular disease, or at least two cardiovascular disease risk factors in addition to diabetes.

Click here to read the rest of this article.

Technorati Tags: Blood pressure, combination lipid therapy, Type 2 Diabetes

by David Prentice

Technorati Tags: Adult Stem Cells, Blood Disorders, Stem Cells

During January 12 –February 25, CDC received reports of 11 laboratory-confirmed cases of P. falciparum malaria acquired in Haiti.

Patients included seven U.S. residents who were emergency responders, three Haitian residents, and one U.S. traveler. This report summarizes the 11 cases and provides chemoprophylactic and additional preventive recommendations to minimize the risk for acquiring malaria for persons traveling to Haiti.

Of the seven emergency responders, six were U.S. military personnel. Among the six, four cases were uncomplicated and treated locally in Haiti. Two other patients were moderately to seriously ill and transferred to the United States for intensive care; one required intubation and mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. All are expected to make a full recovery.

All six military personnel had been provided oral chemoprophylaxis with doxycycline before departure from the United States and personal protective equipment (e.g., insect repellent and insecticide-treated netting and uniforms) after arrival in Haiti. Of the 11 total patients, chemoprophylaxis was indicated for the seven emergency responders and the lone U.S. traveler. Six of these eight patients (including the two hospitalized military personnel) reported nonadherence to the recommended malaria medication regimen. Adherence status was unknown for the remaining two patients.

Three cases occurred in Haitian residents who traveled to the United States, including one Haitian adoptee. The number of U.S. malaria cases imported from Haiti likely is underestimated because typically not all cases are reported to CDC.

Click on this link for the whole article from the Center for Disease Control - CDC

Technorati Tags: Haiti, Malaria

by Aleksander Phillips

Millions of diabetics have been prescribed Avandia, which is sold by GlaxoSmithKline PLC, since it came on the market in 1999.

However, in May 2007, Avandia was linked to a 43 percent greater risk of heart attack and death in a scientific analysis published by the New England Journal of Medicine.

Upon the release of the 2007 study, GlaxoSmithKline downplayed the report and encouraged continued use of Avandia.  Dr. Lawson McCartney, who led Glaxo’s diabetes drug development, said, “We remain very confident in the safety and of course in the efficacy of Avandia as an important diabetic medicine.”

But a piece in today’s New York Times says hundreds of people taking Avandia needlessly suffer heart attacks and heart failure every month, according to confidential Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports obtained by the newspaper, recommending the drug be removed from the market.

The reports say that if every diabetic now taking Avandia were instead given a similar pill named Actos, about 500 heart attacks and 300 cases of heart failure would be averted every month because Avandia damages the heart.

Avandia, whose generic name is rosiglitazone, is intended to treat Type 2 diabetes.  It was linked to 304 deaths during the third quarter of 2009.

In cases such as this, where a drug maker refuses to pull a potentially fatal medication off the market, doesn’t the FDA have the authority to force a recall?  Not necessarily.  The FDA has authority to force a “black box warning” be placed on the drug, but does not have explicit power to force a company to remove the drug from the market, in the interest of free commerce.  As long as the risks and benefits of a drug are fully disclosed to a patient and the patient voluntarily consents to its use, the FDA has no power to interfere in that patient’s treatment.

Article link: FDA recommends recall of  Avandia

Technorati Tags: Avandia, Diabetes