User login
Richard Franki is the associate editor who writes and creates graphs. He started with the company in 1987, when it was known as the International Medical News Group. In his years as a journalist, Richard has worked for Cap Cities/ABC, Disney, Harcourt, Elsevier, Quadrant, Frontline, and Internet Brands. In the 1990s, he was a contributor to the ill-fated Indications column, predecessor of Livin' on the MDedge.
The pandemic changed smokers, but farming didn’t change humans
Pandemic smoking: More or less?
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.
New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.
Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?
Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”
This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear
Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.
It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?
To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.
Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.
It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
Proteins don’t lie
Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.
The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.
The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
Dreaming about COVID?
We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?
This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”
“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.
We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.
Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary.
Pandemic smoking: More or less?
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.
New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.
Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?
Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”
This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear
Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.
It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?
To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.
Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.
It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
Proteins don’t lie
Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.
The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.
The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
Dreaming about COVID?
We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?
This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”
“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.
We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.
Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary.
Pandemic smoking: More or less?
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.
New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.
Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?
Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”
This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear
Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.
It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?
To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.
Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.
It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
Proteins don’t lie
Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.
The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.
The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
Dreaming about COVID?
We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?
This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”
“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.
We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.
Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary.
By the numbers: Children and COVID-19 prevention
Over 6.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to children aged 12-17 years as of June 7, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The latest results from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker show that , with the corresponding figures for vaccine completion coming in at 4.1% and 26.4%. Compared with a week earlier, those numbers are up by 15.4% (one dose) and 486% (completion) for the younger group and by 4.7% and 8.6%, respectively, for the older children.
Children aged 12-15 represented 17.9% of all persons who initiated vaccination in the last 14 days up to June 7, while children aged 16-17 made up 4.8% of vaccine initiation over that period. The 25- to 39-year-olds, at 23.7% of all vaccine initiators, were the only group ahead of those aged 12-15, and the 50- to 64-year-olds were just behind at 17.7%, the CDC data show.
Both groups of children were on the low side, however, when it came to vaccine completion in the last 14 days, with those aged 12-15 at 6.7% of the total and those aged 16-17 years at 4.3%. The only age groups lower than that were ≥75 at 3.5% and <12 at 0.2%, and the highest share of vaccine completion was 26.0% for those aged 25-39, which also happens to be the group with the largest share of the U.S. population (20.5%), the CDC said.
People considered fully vaccinated are those who have received the second dose of a two-dose series or one dose of a single-shot vaccine, but children under age 18 years are eligible only for the Pfizer-BioNTech version, the CDC noted.
Meanwhile, back on the incidence side of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of new cases in U.S. children for the week ending June 3 was at its lowest point (16,281) since mid-June of 2020, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
Cases among children now total 3.99 million, which represents 14.1% of cases among all ages, a proportion that hasn’t increased since mid-May, which hasn’t happened since the two groups started keeping track in mid-April of 2020 in the 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam that report such data by age.
Less encouraging was the CDC’s report that “COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased during March and April, following declines in January and February 2021.”
Children have been experiencing much lower rates of severe disease than those of adults throughout the pandemic, the CDC pointed out, but “recent increases in COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates and the potential for severe disease in adolescents reinforce the importance of continued prevention strategies, including vaccination and the correct and consistent use of masks in those who are not yet fully vaccinated.”
Over 6.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to children aged 12-17 years as of June 7, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The latest results from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker show that , with the corresponding figures for vaccine completion coming in at 4.1% and 26.4%. Compared with a week earlier, those numbers are up by 15.4% (one dose) and 486% (completion) for the younger group and by 4.7% and 8.6%, respectively, for the older children.
Children aged 12-15 represented 17.9% of all persons who initiated vaccination in the last 14 days up to June 7, while children aged 16-17 made up 4.8% of vaccine initiation over that period. The 25- to 39-year-olds, at 23.7% of all vaccine initiators, were the only group ahead of those aged 12-15, and the 50- to 64-year-olds were just behind at 17.7%, the CDC data show.
Both groups of children were on the low side, however, when it came to vaccine completion in the last 14 days, with those aged 12-15 at 6.7% of the total and those aged 16-17 years at 4.3%. The only age groups lower than that were ≥75 at 3.5% and <12 at 0.2%, and the highest share of vaccine completion was 26.0% for those aged 25-39, which also happens to be the group with the largest share of the U.S. population (20.5%), the CDC said.
People considered fully vaccinated are those who have received the second dose of a two-dose series or one dose of a single-shot vaccine, but children under age 18 years are eligible only for the Pfizer-BioNTech version, the CDC noted.
Meanwhile, back on the incidence side of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of new cases in U.S. children for the week ending June 3 was at its lowest point (16,281) since mid-June of 2020, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
Cases among children now total 3.99 million, which represents 14.1% of cases among all ages, a proportion that hasn’t increased since mid-May, which hasn’t happened since the two groups started keeping track in mid-April of 2020 in the 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam that report such data by age.
Less encouraging was the CDC’s report that “COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased during March and April, following declines in January and February 2021.”
Children have been experiencing much lower rates of severe disease than those of adults throughout the pandemic, the CDC pointed out, but “recent increases in COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates and the potential for severe disease in adolescents reinforce the importance of continued prevention strategies, including vaccination and the correct and consistent use of masks in those who are not yet fully vaccinated.”
Over 6.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to children aged 12-17 years as of June 7, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The latest results from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker show that , with the corresponding figures for vaccine completion coming in at 4.1% and 26.4%. Compared with a week earlier, those numbers are up by 15.4% (one dose) and 486% (completion) for the younger group and by 4.7% and 8.6%, respectively, for the older children.
Children aged 12-15 represented 17.9% of all persons who initiated vaccination in the last 14 days up to June 7, while children aged 16-17 made up 4.8% of vaccine initiation over that period. The 25- to 39-year-olds, at 23.7% of all vaccine initiators, were the only group ahead of those aged 12-15, and the 50- to 64-year-olds were just behind at 17.7%, the CDC data show.
Both groups of children were on the low side, however, when it came to vaccine completion in the last 14 days, with those aged 12-15 at 6.7% of the total and those aged 16-17 years at 4.3%. The only age groups lower than that were ≥75 at 3.5% and <12 at 0.2%, and the highest share of vaccine completion was 26.0% for those aged 25-39, which also happens to be the group with the largest share of the U.S. population (20.5%), the CDC said.
People considered fully vaccinated are those who have received the second dose of a two-dose series or one dose of a single-shot vaccine, but children under age 18 years are eligible only for the Pfizer-BioNTech version, the CDC noted.
Meanwhile, back on the incidence side of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of new cases in U.S. children for the week ending June 3 was at its lowest point (16,281) since mid-June of 2020, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
Cases among children now total 3.99 million, which represents 14.1% of cases among all ages, a proportion that hasn’t increased since mid-May, which hasn’t happened since the two groups started keeping track in mid-April of 2020 in the 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam that report such data by age.
Less encouraging was the CDC’s report that “COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased during March and April, following declines in January and February 2021.”
Children have been experiencing much lower rates of severe disease than those of adults throughout the pandemic, the CDC pointed out, but “recent increases in COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates and the potential for severe disease in adolescents reinforce the importance of continued prevention strategies, including vaccination and the correct and consistent use of masks in those who are not yet fully vaccinated.”
Noses can be electronic, and toilets can be smart
Cancer loses … by a nose
Since the human nose is unpredictable at best, we’ve learned to rely on animals for our detailed nozzle needs. But researchers have found the next best thing to man’s best friend to accurately identify cancers.
A team at the University of Pennsylvania has developed an electronic olfaction, or “e-nose,” that has a 95% accuracy rate in distinguishing benign and malignant pancreatic and ovarian cancer cells from a single blood sample. How?
The e-nose system is equipped with nanosensors that are able to detect the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by cells in a blood sample. Not only does this create an opportunity for an easier, noninvasive screening practice, but it’s fast. The e-nose can distinguish VOCs from healthy to cancerous blood cells in 20 minutes or less and is just as effective in picking up on early- and late-stage cancers.
The investigators hope that this innovative technology can pave the way for similar devices with other uses. Thanks to the e-nose, a handheld device is in development that may be able to sniff out the signature odor of people with COVID-19.
That’s one smart schnoz.
Do you think this is a (food) game?
Dieting and eating healthy is tough, even during the best of times, and it has not been the best of times. With all respect to Charles Dickens, it’s been the worst of times, full stop. Millions of people have spent the past year sitting around their homes doing nothing, and it’s only natural that many would let their discipline slide.
Naturally, the solution to unhealthy eating habits is to sit down and play with your phone. No, that’s not the joke, the Food Trainer app, available on all cellular devices near you, is designed to encourage healthy eating by turning it into a game of sorts. When users open the app, they’re presented with images of food, and they’re trained to tap on images of healthy food and pass on images of unhealthy ones. The process takes less than 5 minutes.
It sounds really simple, but in a study of more than 1,000 people, consumption of junk food fell by 1 point on an 8-point scale (ranging from four times per day to zero to one time per month), participants lost about half a kilogram (a little over one pound), and more healthy food was eaten. Those who used the app more regularly, along the lines of 10 times per month or more, saw greater benefits.
The authors did acknowledge that those who used the app more may have been more motivated to lose weight anyway, which perhaps limits the overall benefit, but reviews on Google Play were overall quite positive, and if there’s one great truth in this world, it’s that Internet reviewers are almost impossible to please. So perhaps this app is worth looking into if you’re like the LOTME staff and you’re up at the top end of that 8-point scale. What, pizza is delicious, who wouldn’t eat it four times a day? And you can also get it from your phone!
It’s time for a little mass kickin’
The universe, scientists tell us, is a big place. Really big. Chromosomes, scientists tell us, are small. Really small. But despite this very fundamental difference, the universe and chromosomes share a deep, dark secret: unexplained mass.
This being a medical publication, we’ll start with chromosomes. A group of researchers measured their mass with x-rays for the first time and found that “the 46 chromosomes in each of our cells weigh 242 picograms (trillionths of a gram). This is heavier than we would expect, and, if replicated, points to unexplained excess mass in chromosomes,” Ian K. Robinson, PhD, said in a written statement.
We’re not just talking about a bit of a beer belly here. “The chromosomes were about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contained,” according to the investigators.
Now to the universe. Here’s what CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research, has to say about the mass of the universe: “Galaxies in our universe … are rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together. … which leads scientists to believe that something we cannot see is at work. They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass.”
But wait, there’s more! “The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe!”
So chromosomes are about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contain, and the universe is about 20 times heavier than the matter that can be seen. Interesting.
We are, of course, happy to share this news with our readers, but there is one catch: Don’t tell Neil deGrasse Tyson. He’ll want to reclassify our genetic solar system into 45 chromosomes and one dwarf chromosome.
A photo finish for the Smart Toilet
We know that poop can tell us a lot about our health, but new research by scientists at Duke University is really on a roll. Their Smart Toilet has been created to help people keep an eye on their bowel health. The device takes pictures of poop after it is flushed and can tell whether the consistency is loose, bloody, or normal.
The Smart Toilet can really help people with issues such as irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease by helping them, and their doctors, keep tabs on their poop. “Typically, gastroenterologists have to rely on patient self-reported information about their stool to help determine the cause of their gastrointestinal health issues, which can be very unreliable,” study lead author Deborah Fisher said.
Not many people look too closely at their poop before it’s flushed, so the fecal photos can make a big difference. The Smart Toilet is installed into the pipes of a toilet and does its thing when the toilet is flushed, so there doesn’t seem to be much work on the patient’s end. Other than the, um, you know, usual work from the patient’s end.
Cancer loses … by a nose
Since the human nose is unpredictable at best, we’ve learned to rely on animals for our detailed nozzle needs. But researchers have found the next best thing to man’s best friend to accurately identify cancers.
A team at the University of Pennsylvania has developed an electronic olfaction, or “e-nose,” that has a 95% accuracy rate in distinguishing benign and malignant pancreatic and ovarian cancer cells from a single blood sample. How?
The e-nose system is equipped with nanosensors that are able to detect the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by cells in a blood sample. Not only does this create an opportunity for an easier, noninvasive screening practice, but it’s fast. The e-nose can distinguish VOCs from healthy to cancerous blood cells in 20 minutes or less and is just as effective in picking up on early- and late-stage cancers.
The investigators hope that this innovative technology can pave the way for similar devices with other uses. Thanks to the e-nose, a handheld device is in development that may be able to sniff out the signature odor of people with COVID-19.
That’s one smart schnoz.
Do you think this is a (food) game?
Dieting and eating healthy is tough, even during the best of times, and it has not been the best of times. With all respect to Charles Dickens, it’s been the worst of times, full stop. Millions of people have spent the past year sitting around their homes doing nothing, and it’s only natural that many would let their discipline slide.
Naturally, the solution to unhealthy eating habits is to sit down and play with your phone. No, that’s not the joke, the Food Trainer app, available on all cellular devices near you, is designed to encourage healthy eating by turning it into a game of sorts. When users open the app, they’re presented with images of food, and they’re trained to tap on images of healthy food and pass on images of unhealthy ones. The process takes less than 5 minutes.
It sounds really simple, but in a study of more than 1,000 people, consumption of junk food fell by 1 point on an 8-point scale (ranging from four times per day to zero to one time per month), participants lost about half a kilogram (a little over one pound), and more healthy food was eaten. Those who used the app more regularly, along the lines of 10 times per month or more, saw greater benefits.
The authors did acknowledge that those who used the app more may have been more motivated to lose weight anyway, which perhaps limits the overall benefit, but reviews on Google Play were overall quite positive, and if there’s one great truth in this world, it’s that Internet reviewers are almost impossible to please. So perhaps this app is worth looking into if you’re like the LOTME staff and you’re up at the top end of that 8-point scale. What, pizza is delicious, who wouldn’t eat it four times a day? And you can also get it from your phone!
It’s time for a little mass kickin’
The universe, scientists tell us, is a big place. Really big. Chromosomes, scientists tell us, are small. Really small. But despite this very fundamental difference, the universe and chromosomes share a deep, dark secret: unexplained mass.
This being a medical publication, we’ll start with chromosomes. A group of researchers measured their mass with x-rays for the first time and found that “the 46 chromosomes in each of our cells weigh 242 picograms (trillionths of a gram). This is heavier than we would expect, and, if replicated, points to unexplained excess mass in chromosomes,” Ian K. Robinson, PhD, said in a written statement.
We’re not just talking about a bit of a beer belly here. “The chromosomes were about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contained,” according to the investigators.
Now to the universe. Here’s what CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research, has to say about the mass of the universe: “Galaxies in our universe … are rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together. … which leads scientists to believe that something we cannot see is at work. They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass.”
But wait, there’s more! “The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe!”
So chromosomes are about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contain, and the universe is about 20 times heavier than the matter that can be seen. Interesting.
We are, of course, happy to share this news with our readers, but there is one catch: Don’t tell Neil deGrasse Tyson. He’ll want to reclassify our genetic solar system into 45 chromosomes and one dwarf chromosome.
A photo finish for the Smart Toilet
We know that poop can tell us a lot about our health, but new research by scientists at Duke University is really on a roll. Their Smart Toilet has been created to help people keep an eye on their bowel health. The device takes pictures of poop after it is flushed and can tell whether the consistency is loose, bloody, or normal.
The Smart Toilet can really help people with issues such as irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease by helping them, and their doctors, keep tabs on their poop. “Typically, gastroenterologists have to rely on patient self-reported information about their stool to help determine the cause of their gastrointestinal health issues, which can be very unreliable,” study lead author Deborah Fisher said.
Not many people look too closely at their poop before it’s flushed, so the fecal photos can make a big difference. The Smart Toilet is installed into the pipes of a toilet and does its thing when the toilet is flushed, so there doesn’t seem to be much work on the patient’s end. Other than the, um, you know, usual work from the patient’s end.
Cancer loses … by a nose
Since the human nose is unpredictable at best, we’ve learned to rely on animals for our detailed nozzle needs. But researchers have found the next best thing to man’s best friend to accurately identify cancers.
A team at the University of Pennsylvania has developed an electronic olfaction, or “e-nose,” that has a 95% accuracy rate in distinguishing benign and malignant pancreatic and ovarian cancer cells from a single blood sample. How?
The e-nose system is equipped with nanosensors that are able to detect the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by cells in a blood sample. Not only does this create an opportunity for an easier, noninvasive screening practice, but it’s fast. The e-nose can distinguish VOCs from healthy to cancerous blood cells in 20 minutes or less and is just as effective in picking up on early- and late-stage cancers.
The investigators hope that this innovative technology can pave the way for similar devices with other uses. Thanks to the e-nose, a handheld device is in development that may be able to sniff out the signature odor of people with COVID-19.
That’s one smart schnoz.
Do you think this is a (food) game?
Dieting and eating healthy is tough, even during the best of times, and it has not been the best of times. With all respect to Charles Dickens, it’s been the worst of times, full stop. Millions of people have spent the past year sitting around their homes doing nothing, and it’s only natural that many would let their discipline slide.
Naturally, the solution to unhealthy eating habits is to sit down and play with your phone. No, that’s not the joke, the Food Trainer app, available on all cellular devices near you, is designed to encourage healthy eating by turning it into a game of sorts. When users open the app, they’re presented with images of food, and they’re trained to tap on images of healthy food and pass on images of unhealthy ones. The process takes less than 5 minutes.
It sounds really simple, but in a study of more than 1,000 people, consumption of junk food fell by 1 point on an 8-point scale (ranging from four times per day to zero to one time per month), participants lost about half a kilogram (a little over one pound), and more healthy food was eaten. Those who used the app more regularly, along the lines of 10 times per month or more, saw greater benefits.
The authors did acknowledge that those who used the app more may have been more motivated to lose weight anyway, which perhaps limits the overall benefit, but reviews on Google Play were overall quite positive, and if there’s one great truth in this world, it’s that Internet reviewers are almost impossible to please. So perhaps this app is worth looking into if you’re like the LOTME staff and you’re up at the top end of that 8-point scale. What, pizza is delicious, who wouldn’t eat it four times a day? And you can also get it from your phone!
It’s time for a little mass kickin’
The universe, scientists tell us, is a big place. Really big. Chromosomes, scientists tell us, are small. Really small. But despite this very fundamental difference, the universe and chromosomes share a deep, dark secret: unexplained mass.
This being a medical publication, we’ll start with chromosomes. A group of researchers measured their mass with x-rays for the first time and found that “the 46 chromosomes in each of our cells weigh 242 picograms (trillionths of a gram). This is heavier than we would expect, and, if replicated, points to unexplained excess mass in chromosomes,” Ian K. Robinson, PhD, said in a written statement.
We’re not just talking about a bit of a beer belly here. “The chromosomes were about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contained,” according to the investigators.
Now to the universe. Here’s what CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research, has to say about the mass of the universe: “Galaxies in our universe … are rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together. … which leads scientists to believe that something we cannot see is at work. They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass.”
But wait, there’s more! “The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe!”
So chromosomes are about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contain, and the universe is about 20 times heavier than the matter that can be seen. Interesting.
We are, of course, happy to share this news with our readers, but there is one catch: Don’t tell Neil deGrasse Tyson. He’ll want to reclassify our genetic solar system into 45 chromosomes and one dwarf chromosome.
A photo finish for the Smart Toilet
We know that poop can tell us a lot about our health, but new research by scientists at Duke University is really on a roll. Their Smart Toilet has been created to help people keep an eye on their bowel health. The device takes pictures of poop after it is flushed and can tell whether the consistency is loose, bloody, or normal.
The Smart Toilet can really help people with issues such as irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease by helping them, and their doctors, keep tabs on their poop. “Typically, gastroenterologists have to rely on patient self-reported information about their stool to help determine the cause of their gastrointestinal health issues, which can be very unreliable,” study lead author Deborah Fisher said.
Not many people look too closely at their poop before it’s flushed, so the fecal photos can make a big difference. The Smart Toilet is installed into the pipes of a toilet and does its thing when the toilet is flushed, so there doesn’t seem to be much work on the patient’s end. Other than the, um, you know, usual work from the patient’s end.
Children aged 12-15 years continue to close COVID-19 vaccination gap
More children aged 12-15 years already have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine than have 16- and 17-year-olds, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
with those figures representing increases of 31.6% and 6.6% in the past week, respectively. Since the overall size of the 12-15 population is much larger, however, the proportion vaccinated is still smaller: 19.5% to 36.4%, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.
A look at full vaccination status shows that only 0.7% of those aged 12-15 years have received both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of the single-shot variety, compared with 24% of those aged 16-17. For the country as a whole, 50.5% of all ages have received at least one dose and 40.7% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.
Children aged 12-15 represent the largest share of the U.S. population (23.4%) initiating vaccination in the 14 days ending May 30, while children aged 16-17 made up just 4.5% of those getting their first dose. The younger group’s later entry into the vaccination pool shows up again when looking at completion rates, though, representing just 0.4% of all Americans who reached full vaccination during that same 14-day period, compared with 4.6% of the older children, the CDC data show.
Not all states are reporting data such as age for vaccine recipients, the CDC noted, and there are other variables that affect data collection. “Demographic data ... might differ by populations prioritized within each state or jurisdiction’s vaccination phase. Every geographic area has a different racial and ethnic composition, and not all are in the same vaccination phase,” the CDC said.
More children aged 12-15 years already have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine than have 16- and 17-year-olds, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
with those figures representing increases of 31.6% and 6.6% in the past week, respectively. Since the overall size of the 12-15 population is much larger, however, the proportion vaccinated is still smaller: 19.5% to 36.4%, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.
A look at full vaccination status shows that only 0.7% of those aged 12-15 years have received both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of the single-shot variety, compared with 24% of those aged 16-17. For the country as a whole, 50.5% of all ages have received at least one dose and 40.7% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.
Children aged 12-15 represent the largest share of the U.S. population (23.4%) initiating vaccination in the 14 days ending May 30, while children aged 16-17 made up just 4.5% of those getting their first dose. The younger group’s later entry into the vaccination pool shows up again when looking at completion rates, though, representing just 0.4% of all Americans who reached full vaccination during that same 14-day period, compared with 4.6% of the older children, the CDC data show.
Not all states are reporting data such as age for vaccine recipients, the CDC noted, and there are other variables that affect data collection. “Demographic data ... might differ by populations prioritized within each state or jurisdiction’s vaccination phase. Every geographic area has a different racial and ethnic composition, and not all are in the same vaccination phase,” the CDC said.
More children aged 12-15 years already have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine than have 16- and 17-year-olds, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
with those figures representing increases of 31.6% and 6.6% in the past week, respectively. Since the overall size of the 12-15 population is much larger, however, the proportion vaccinated is still smaller: 19.5% to 36.4%, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.
A look at full vaccination status shows that only 0.7% of those aged 12-15 years have received both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of the single-shot variety, compared with 24% of those aged 16-17. For the country as a whole, 50.5% of all ages have received at least one dose and 40.7% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.
Children aged 12-15 represent the largest share of the U.S. population (23.4%) initiating vaccination in the 14 days ending May 30, while children aged 16-17 made up just 4.5% of those getting their first dose. The younger group’s later entry into the vaccination pool shows up again when looking at completion rates, though, representing just 0.4% of all Americans who reached full vaccination during that same 14-day period, compared with 4.6% of the older children, the CDC data show.
Not all states are reporting data such as age for vaccine recipients, the CDC noted, and there are other variables that affect data collection. “Demographic data ... might differ by populations prioritized within each state or jurisdiction’s vaccination phase. Every geographic area has a different racial and ethnic composition, and not all are in the same vaccination phase,” the CDC said.
Dermatologists took 2020’s income drop in stride
The numbers look like this: Average income was $394,000 in 2020, compared with $411,000 in 2019 – a drop of 4.1% – but 67% of dermatologists said they felt fairly compensated in 2020, compared with 65% in 2019, Medscape said in its 2021 Dermatologist Compensation Report. Only 3 of the 29 participating specialties had a more favorable reaction: oncology (79%), psychiatry (69%), and plastic surgery (68%).
“Most dermatologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the annual report, while also noting that 45% of dermatologist respondents “said that the pandemic did not cause them financial or practice-related harm.”
For the dermatologists who did see such negative effects, just over half (54%) said that they expect income to return to pre–COVID-19 levels in the next year, while 31% believe it will take 2-3 years and 12% said that their income would never return to normal. For all specialists included in the survey, the corresponding numbers were 42%, 41%, and 12%, with primary care physicians coming in at 39%, 43%, and 10%, the report said.
Among all participating specialties, plastic surgeons reported the highest average earnings at $526,000, with orthopedists ($511,000) and cardiologists ($459,000) next. Pediatricians had not just the lowest average income ($221,000) for 2020, but also the largest decline in patients seen per week (18%), according to the results of the survey, which was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and involved 17,903 physicians.
Dermatologists also experienced a larger-than-average decline (16%) in patient traffic – only the pediatricians had a larger drop – as their weekly patient count fell from 141 before the pandemic to the current 119. Despite that drop, though, average hours worked per week remained at 45, as time is now being spent on office safety protocols and other issues involving COVID-19, Medscape pointed out.
Dermatologists also spent more time on paperwork and administration in 2020 than in 2019: 14.6 hours per week versus 13.2 hours. Their 2020 average, however, was still lower than that of all physicians, 16.3 hours, and much lower than that of the infectious disease physicians, who topped the survey with an average of 24.2 hours per week, the Medscape data show.
One area where dermatologists did lead the survey was in their commitment to their specialty: 96% said they would choose dermatology again if given the chance, which was equaled by orthopedics and oncology, Medscape said.
The numbers look like this: Average income was $394,000 in 2020, compared with $411,000 in 2019 – a drop of 4.1% – but 67% of dermatologists said they felt fairly compensated in 2020, compared with 65% in 2019, Medscape said in its 2021 Dermatologist Compensation Report. Only 3 of the 29 participating specialties had a more favorable reaction: oncology (79%), psychiatry (69%), and plastic surgery (68%).
“Most dermatologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the annual report, while also noting that 45% of dermatologist respondents “said that the pandemic did not cause them financial or practice-related harm.”
For the dermatologists who did see such negative effects, just over half (54%) said that they expect income to return to pre–COVID-19 levels in the next year, while 31% believe it will take 2-3 years and 12% said that their income would never return to normal. For all specialists included in the survey, the corresponding numbers were 42%, 41%, and 12%, with primary care physicians coming in at 39%, 43%, and 10%, the report said.
Among all participating specialties, plastic surgeons reported the highest average earnings at $526,000, with orthopedists ($511,000) and cardiologists ($459,000) next. Pediatricians had not just the lowest average income ($221,000) for 2020, but also the largest decline in patients seen per week (18%), according to the results of the survey, which was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and involved 17,903 physicians.
Dermatologists also experienced a larger-than-average decline (16%) in patient traffic – only the pediatricians had a larger drop – as their weekly patient count fell from 141 before the pandemic to the current 119. Despite that drop, though, average hours worked per week remained at 45, as time is now being spent on office safety protocols and other issues involving COVID-19, Medscape pointed out.
Dermatologists also spent more time on paperwork and administration in 2020 than in 2019: 14.6 hours per week versus 13.2 hours. Their 2020 average, however, was still lower than that of all physicians, 16.3 hours, and much lower than that of the infectious disease physicians, who topped the survey with an average of 24.2 hours per week, the Medscape data show.
One area where dermatologists did lead the survey was in their commitment to their specialty: 96% said they would choose dermatology again if given the chance, which was equaled by orthopedics and oncology, Medscape said.
The numbers look like this: Average income was $394,000 in 2020, compared with $411,000 in 2019 – a drop of 4.1% – but 67% of dermatologists said they felt fairly compensated in 2020, compared with 65% in 2019, Medscape said in its 2021 Dermatologist Compensation Report. Only 3 of the 29 participating specialties had a more favorable reaction: oncology (79%), psychiatry (69%), and plastic surgery (68%).
“Most dermatologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the annual report, while also noting that 45% of dermatologist respondents “said that the pandemic did not cause them financial or practice-related harm.”
For the dermatologists who did see such negative effects, just over half (54%) said that they expect income to return to pre–COVID-19 levels in the next year, while 31% believe it will take 2-3 years and 12% said that their income would never return to normal. For all specialists included in the survey, the corresponding numbers were 42%, 41%, and 12%, with primary care physicians coming in at 39%, 43%, and 10%, the report said.
Among all participating specialties, plastic surgeons reported the highest average earnings at $526,000, with orthopedists ($511,000) and cardiologists ($459,000) next. Pediatricians had not just the lowest average income ($221,000) for 2020, but also the largest decline in patients seen per week (18%), according to the results of the survey, which was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and involved 17,903 physicians.
Dermatologists also experienced a larger-than-average decline (16%) in patient traffic – only the pediatricians had a larger drop – as their weekly patient count fell from 141 before the pandemic to the current 119. Despite that drop, though, average hours worked per week remained at 45, as time is now being spent on office safety protocols and other issues involving COVID-19, Medscape pointed out.
Dermatologists also spent more time on paperwork and administration in 2020 than in 2019: 14.6 hours per week versus 13.2 hours. Their 2020 average, however, was still lower than that of all physicians, 16.3 hours, and much lower than that of the infectious disease physicians, who topped the survey with an average of 24.2 hours per week, the Medscape data show.
One area where dermatologists did lead the survey was in their commitment to their specialty: 96% said they would choose dermatology again if given the chance, which was equaled by orthopedics and oncology, Medscape said.
Gene therapy is bad business, and hugging chickens is just … bad
Look ma, I’m writing with no hands
Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.
In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.
Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.
Even better, with continual use, the program’s algorithm comes to recognize the patterns of each letter, speeding up the number of words written. The previous record held for a BCI was about 40 characters per minute, but this new program enables users to type 90 characters per minute.
Think of how many emails you could reply to with just a thought. Or the LOTMEs we could write … or think? … Or think about writing?
Chicken noodle salmonella
Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.
As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.
In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.
People should refrain from kissing these animals and should wash their hands for at least 20 seconds after handling them, their products, or their manure. If they do happen to kiss and cuddle these animals, they should wash their face and brush their teeth.
It’s not that ducks and chickens are dirty creatures, but they naturally carry bacteria. Some can get salmonella from contaminated food, or even contract it from their mothers before birth.
We can’t speak for everyone, but we would find it hard to connect with an animal that’s going to end up on our dinner plate.
This kidney research rocks!
When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.
It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?
Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.
Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”
In its latest work, the team found that kidney stones develop as tiny bits of mineral called microspherules, which can then come together to form larger crystals if they are not flushed out of the kidney tissue. Some eventually become large enough to cause excruciating pain.
Their transdisciplinary approach, known as GeoBioMed, has produced a device the team calls the GeoBioCell, which is “a microfluidic cartridge designed to mimic the intricate internal structures of the kidney,” they said.
Great stuff, no doubt, but we’re thinking the geologists haven’t quite gotten over the whole last-picked-for-the-team business, or maybe they’re just really into Batman. They’ve named the GeoBioCell after themselves, and he had the Batmobile and the Bat-tweezers. Also the Bat-funnel. And the Bat-scilloscope.
Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?
Oh, you poor naive fool.
To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?
They go on to say that, while it would obviously be of enormous benefit to patients and society to give a one-shot cure rather than forcing a long, drawn-out series of treatments, current therapies for chronic disease represent a major source of money that would be cut off if a permanent treatment were found. They specifically mentioned hepatitis C, which has achieved a cure rate of over 90% in the past few years. In 2015, Gilead – the maker of these treatments – brought in sales of over $12 billion from its hepatitis C cure, but the report estimated that in 2021 they would bring in only $4 billion.
The authors of the report suggested that developers focus on “large markets,” such as hemophilia; diseases with high incidence like spinal muscular atrophy; and on diseases such as the various inherited retinal disorders, where there’s plenty of room to constantly bring out new and exciting treatments without sabotaging the all-important money flow.
While we can accept that Goldman Sachs may be technically correct in their assertion that curing disease is bad for business, that’s about as far as our sympathy goes, unless the big biotech companies of the world would like a sad song played on the world’s smallest violin.
Look ma, I’m writing with no hands
Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.
In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.
Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.
Even better, with continual use, the program’s algorithm comes to recognize the patterns of each letter, speeding up the number of words written. The previous record held for a BCI was about 40 characters per minute, but this new program enables users to type 90 characters per minute.
Think of how many emails you could reply to with just a thought. Or the LOTMEs we could write … or think? … Or think about writing?
Chicken noodle salmonella
Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.
As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.
In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.
People should refrain from kissing these animals and should wash their hands for at least 20 seconds after handling them, their products, or their manure. If they do happen to kiss and cuddle these animals, they should wash their face and brush their teeth.
It’s not that ducks and chickens are dirty creatures, but they naturally carry bacteria. Some can get salmonella from contaminated food, or even contract it from their mothers before birth.
We can’t speak for everyone, but we would find it hard to connect with an animal that’s going to end up on our dinner plate.
This kidney research rocks!
When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.
It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?
Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.
Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”
In its latest work, the team found that kidney stones develop as tiny bits of mineral called microspherules, which can then come together to form larger crystals if they are not flushed out of the kidney tissue. Some eventually become large enough to cause excruciating pain.
Their transdisciplinary approach, known as GeoBioMed, has produced a device the team calls the GeoBioCell, which is “a microfluidic cartridge designed to mimic the intricate internal structures of the kidney,” they said.
Great stuff, no doubt, but we’re thinking the geologists haven’t quite gotten over the whole last-picked-for-the-team business, or maybe they’re just really into Batman. They’ve named the GeoBioCell after themselves, and he had the Batmobile and the Bat-tweezers. Also the Bat-funnel. And the Bat-scilloscope.
Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?
Oh, you poor naive fool.
To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?
They go on to say that, while it would obviously be of enormous benefit to patients and society to give a one-shot cure rather than forcing a long, drawn-out series of treatments, current therapies for chronic disease represent a major source of money that would be cut off if a permanent treatment were found. They specifically mentioned hepatitis C, which has achieved a cure rate of over 90% in the past few years. In 2015, Gilead – the maker of these treatments – brought in sales of over $12 billion from its hepatitis C cure, but the report estimated that in 2021 they would bring in only $4 billion.
The authors of the report suggested that developers focus on “large markets,” such as hemophilia; diseases with high incidence like spinal muscular atrophy; and on diseases such as the various inherited retinal disorders, where there’s plenty of room to constantly bring out new and exciting treatments without sabotaging the all-important money flow.
While we can accept that Goldman Sachs may be technically correct in their assertion that curing disease is bad for business, that’s about as far as our sympathy goes, unless the big biotech companies of the world would like a sad song played on the world’s smallest violin.
Look ma, I’m writing with no hands
Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.
In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.
Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.
Even better, with continual use, the program’s algorithm comes to recognize the patterns of each letter, speeding up the number of words written. The previous record held for a BCI was about 40 characters per minute, but this new program enables users to type 90 characters per minute.
Think of how many emails you could reply to with just a thought. Or the LOTMEs we could write … or think? … Or think about writing?
Chicken noodle salmonella
Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.
As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.
In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.
People should refrain from kissing these animals and should wash their hands for at least 20 seconds after handling them, their products, or their manure. If they do happen to kiss and cuddle these animals, they should wash their face and brush their teeth.
It’s not that ducks and chickens are dirty creatures, but they naturally carry bacteria. Some can get salmonella from contaminated food, or even contract it from their mothers before birth.
We can’t speak for everyone, but we would find it hard to connect with an animal that’s going to end up on our dinner plate.
This kidney research rocks!
When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.
It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?
Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.
Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”
In its latest work, the team found that kidney stones develop as tiny bits of mineral called microspherules, which can then come together to form larger crystals if they are not flushed out of the kidney tissue. Some eventually become large enough to cause excruciating pain.
Their transdisciplinary approach, known as GeoBioMed, has produced a device the team calls the GeoBioCell, which is “a microfluidic cartridge designed to mimic the intricate internal structures of the kidney,” they said.
Great stuff, no doubt, but we’re thinking the geologists haven’t quite gotten over the whole last-picked-for-the-team business, or maybe they’re just really into Batman. They’ve named the GeoBioCell after themselves, and he had the Batmobile and the Bat-tweezers. Also the Bat-funnel. And the Bat-scilloscope.
Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?
Oh, you poor naive fool.
To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?
They go on to say that, while it would obviously be of enormous benefit to patients and society to give a one-shot cure rather than forcing a long, drawn-out series of treatments, current therapies for chronic disease represent a major source of money that would be cut off if a permanent treatment were found. They specifically mentioned hepatitis C, which has achieved a cure rate of over 90% in the past few years. In 2015, Gilead – the maker of these treatments – brought in sales of over $12 billion from its hepatitis C cure, but the report estimated that in 2021 they would bring in only $4 billion.
The authors of the report suggested that developers focus on “large markets,” such as hemophilia; diseases with high incidence like spinal muscular atrophy; and on diseases such as the various inherited retinal disorders, where there’s plenty of room to constantly bring out new and exciting treatments without sabotaging the all-important money flow.
While we can accept that Goldman Sachs may be technically correct in their assertion that curing disease is bad for business, that’s about as far as our sympathy goes, unless the big biotech companies of the world would like a sad song played on the world’s smallest violin.
COVID’s big impact made a fairly small dent in GI earnings
Despite the shutdowns and plummeting patient volumes early in the COVID-19 pandemic, gastroenterologists’ earnings were just 3.1% lower in 2020 than in 2019, according to new survey results from Medscape.
That drop, from $419,000 to $406,000, was larger, however, than the average for all specialists, which slipped just 0.6% in 2020.
“Most gastroenterologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the 2021 Medscape Gastroenterologist Compensation Report.
Specialties with larger declines than gastroenterology included dermatology (–4%), pediatrics (–5%), and otolaryngology (–9%). Conversely, plastic surgeons saw the largest increases last year, with their average compensation rising 10% over 2019. Oncologists (+7%) and cardiologists (+5%) also did well, the Medscape data show.
For the physicians who did encounter financial hardships, relief came in several forms.
Many turned to “the federal Paycheck Protection Program to help keep themselves afloat; some were able to renegotiate their lease contracts; a large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses; and those in capitated plans were still getting paid even though they weren’t seeing as many patients,” Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas, said in an interview.
One complication on the road to recovery was the furloughs experienced by some gastroenterologists, but work hours for the specialty have largely recovered. The prepandemic average was 53 hours per week, compared with 52 hours for this year’s gastroenterologist respondents, who represented about 2% of the 17,903 Medscape member physicians who completed the survey.
Among the gastroenterologists surveyed who did experience negative financial or practice-related effects from the pandemic, about one-third estimated that it would take 2-3 years for their income to return to the pre-COVID level, and 14% believe that it will never return to those levels. It is worth noting, however, that 45% of physicians overall reported no such harms last year.
Despite the drop in their incomes last year, more gastroenterologists said that they felt fairly compensated in 2020 than indicated as such in 2019 (55% vs. 52%). This year’s higher figure, though, is on the low end of the scale: of the 29 specialties included, only 4 were lower, and 19 were higher. Five others were the same, according to Medscape’s findings.
In other matters covered by the survey, gastroenterologists found themselves closer to the top. When asked if they would choose medicine again, 81% said yes. Only 8 of the 29 specialties were higher; 93% of gastroenterologists said they would choose gastroenterology again. Only four specialties were higher.
The survey was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and had a sampling error of ±0.73%. The salary figures were calculated using data for full-time physicians only.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite the shutdowns and plummeting patient volumes early in the COVID-19 pandemic, gastroenterologists’ earnings were just 3.1% lower in 2020 than in 2019, according to new survey results from Medscape.
That drop, from $419,000 to $406,000, was larger, however, than the average for all specialists, which slipped just 0.6% in 2020.
“Most gastroenterologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the 2021 Medscape Gastroenterologist Compensation Report.
Specialties with larger declines than gastroenterology included dermatology (–4%), pediatrics (–5%), and otolaryngology (–9%). Conversely, plastic surgeons saw the largest increases last year, with their average compensation rising 10% over 2019. Oncologists (+7%) and cardiologists (+5%) also did well, the Medscape data show.
For the physicians who did encounter financial hardships, relief came in several forms.
Many turned to “the federal Paycheck Protection Program to help keep themselves afloat; some were able to renegotiate their lease contracts; a large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses; and those in capitated plans were still getting paid even though they weren’t seeing as many patients,” Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas, said in an interview.
One complication on the road to recovery was the furloughs experienced by some gastroenterologists, but work hours for the specialty have largely recovered. The prepandemic average was 53 hours per week, compared with 52 hours for this year’s gastroenterologist respondents, who represented about 2% of the 17,903 Medscape member physicians who completed the survey.
Among the gastroenterologists surveyed who did experience negative financial or practice-related effects from the pandemic, about one-third estimated that it would take 2-3 years for their income to return to the pre-COVID level, and 14% believe that it will never return to those levels. It is worth noting, however, that 45% of physicians overall reported no such harms last year.
Despite the drop in their incomes last year, more gastroenterologists said that they felt fairly compensated in 2020 than indicated as such in 2019 (55% vs. 52%). This year’s higher figure, though, is on the low end of the scale: of the 29 specialties included, only 4 were lower, and 19 were higher. Five others were the same, according to Medscape’s findings.
In other matters covered by the survey, gastroenterologists found themselves closer to the top. When asked if they would choose medicine again, 81% said yes. Only 8 of the 29 specialties were higher; 93% of gastroenterologists said they would choose gastroenterology again. Only four specialties were higher.
The survey was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and had a sampling error of ±0.73%. The salary figures were calculated using data for full-time physicians only.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite the shutdowns and plummeting patient volumes early in the COVID-19 pandemic, gastroenterologists’ earnings were just 3.1% lower in 2020 than in 2019, according to new survey results from Medscape.
That drop, from $419,000 to $406,000, was larger, however, than the average for all specialists, which slipped just 0.6% in 2020.
“Most gastroenterologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the 2021 Medscape Gastroenterologist Compensation Report.
Specialties with larger declines than gastroenterology included dermatology (–4%), pediatrics (–5%), and otolaryngology (–9%). Conversely, plastic surgeons saw the largest increases last year, with their average compensation rising 10% over 2019. Oncologists (+7%) and cardiologists (+5%) also did well, the Medscape data show.
For the physicians who did encounter financial hardships, relief came in several forms.
Many turned to “the federal Paycheck Protection Program to help keep themselves afloat; some were able to renegotiate their lease contracts; a large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses; and those in capitated plans were still getting paid even though they weren’t seeing as many patients,” Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas, said in an interview.
One complication on the road to recovery was the furloughs experienced by some gastroenterologists, but work hours for the specialty have largely recovered. The prepandemic average was 53 hours per week, compared with 52 hours for this year’s gastroenterologist respondents, who represented about 2% of the 17,903 Medscape member physicians who completed the survey.
Among the gastroenterologists surveyed who did experience negative financial or practice-related effects from the pandemic, about one-third estimated that it would take 2-3 years for their income to return to the pre-COVID level, and 14% believe that it will never return to those levels. It is worth noting, however, that 45% of physicians overall reported no such harms last year.
Despite the drop in their incomes last year, more gastroenterologists said that they felt fairly compensated in 2020 than indicated as such in 2019 (55% vs. 52%). This year’s higher figure, though, is on the low end of the scale: of the 29 specialties included, only 4 were lower, and 19 were higher. Five others were the same, according to Medscape’s findings.
In other matters covered by the survey, gastroenterologists found themselves closer to the top. When asked if they would choose medicine again, 81% said yes. Only 8 of the 29 specialties were higher; 93% of gastroenterologists said they would choose gastroenterology again. Only four specialties were higher.
The survey was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and had a sampling error of ±0.73%. The salary figures were calculated using data for full-time physicians only.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 vaccination rate rising quickly among adolescents
With nearly half of all Americans having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the youngest eligible group is beginning to overcome its late start, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As of May 24, 49.4% of the U.S. population – that’s almost 164 million people – has received at least one dose of vaccine. The corresponding figure for children aged 12-15 years is 14.4%, but that’s up from only 0.6% just 3 weeks before. Among children aged 16-17, who’ve been getting vaccinated since early April in some states, the proportion receiving at least one dose went from 24.9% to 33.9% over those same 3 weeks, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.
The comparatively rapid increase among the younger group of eligible children can be seen over the last 14 days. To put that into perspective, only those aged 25-39 years were higher at 21.9%, while 18-24 (12.1%), 40-49 (13.4%), 50-64 (18.2%), 65-74 (5.3%), and ≥75 (2.9%) were all lower.
The 12- to 15-year-olds are further behind when it comes to full vaccination status, however, with just 0.6% having received both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of the single-shot variety, compared with 21.6% for those aged 16-17 years. Children aged 12-15 make up 5% of the total U.S. population but just 0.1% of all those who have been fully vaccinated versus 2.5% and 1.4%, respectively, for those aged 16-17, the CDC reported.
With nearly half of all Americans having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the youngest eligible group is beginning to overcome its late start, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As of May 24, 49.4% of the U.S. population – that’s almost 164 million people – has received at least one dose of vaccine. The corresponding figure for children aged 12-15 years is 14.4%, but that’s up from only 0.6% just 3 weeks before. Among children aged 16-17, who’ve been getting vaccinated since early April in some states, the proportion receiving at least one dose went from 24.9% to 33.9% over those same 3 weeks, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.
The comparatively rapid increase among the younger group of eligible children can be seen over the last 14 days. To put that into perspective, only those aged 25-39 years were higher at 21.9%, while 18-24 (12.1%), 40-49 (13.4%), 50-64 (18.2%), 65-74 (5.3%), and ≥75 (2.9%) were all lower.
The 12- to 15-year-olds are further behind when it comes to full vaccination status, however, with just 0.6% having received both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of the single-shot variety, compared with 21.6% for those aged 16-17 years. Children aged 12-15 make up 5% of the total U.S. population but just 0.1% of all those who have been fully vaccinated versus 2.5% and 1.4%, respectively, for those aged 16-17, the CDC reported.
With nearly half of all Americans having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the youngest eligible group is beginning to overcome its late start, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As of May 24, 49.4% of the U.S. population – that’s almost 164 million people – has received at least one dose of vaccine. The corresponding figure for children aged 12-15 years is 14.4%, but that’s up from only 0.6% just 3 weeks before. Among children aged 16-17, who’ve been getting vaccinated since early April in some states, the proportion receiving at least one dose went from 24.9% to 33.9% over those same 3 weeks, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.
The comparatively rapid increase among the younger group of eligible children can be seen over the last 14 days. To put that into perspective, only those aged 25-39 years were higher at 21.9%, while 18-24 (12.1%), 40-49 (13.4%), 50-64 (18.2%), 65-74 (5.3%), and ≥75 (2.9%) were all lower.
The 12- to 15-year-olds are further behind when it comes to full vaccination status, however, with just 0.6% having received both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of the single-shot variety, compared with 21.6% for those aged 16-17 years. Children aged 12-15 make up 5% of the total U.S. population but just 0.1% of all those who have been fully vaccinated versus 2.5% and 1.4%, respectively, for those aged 16-17, the CDC reported.
First issue vs. April 2021 issue: Much has changed since 1971
For the first readers of Family Practice News, it started with this: “How safe is the pill? An extensive epidemiologic study being carried out in the United Kingdom by the Royal College of General Practitioners is expected to provide definitive answers to this question within the next few years.”
That was the first paragraph of the lead article on the front page of our very first issue, published in October 1971. The report on oral contraceptives, coming from the annual meeting of the British Medical Association in Leicester, largely focused on recruiting – noting that “all women in the study are married” – and data-gathering methods.
That first issue also covered such topics as the effect of “early and frequent coitus” on cervical dysplasia incidence (p. 4), breast cancer in men (p. 13), and treatment of prostate inflammation in patients with impotence (p. 34).
Our April 2021 issue included five articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, starting on the front page and featuring a photo – a physician sitting at a computer, wearing a mask – and a topic – vaccine-hesitant patients.
Business of medicine today vs. in 1971
At the time of publication of our first issue the United States was in the midst of a 90-day freeze on wages and prices ordered by President Richard Nixon. Two articles in that first issue discussed the subject: “Freeze clouds future of health insurance plans” and “Freeze lets physicians ‘stabilize’ office fees.”
Besides COVID-19, here are some other topics covered in April 2021 but not in 1971: lessons learned from an electronic health records conversion, competition for physicians in the form of a “virtual primary care service” offered by United Healthcare, and the sleep effects of smartphone “addiction.”
Technology, clearly, plays a much larger role in physicians’ lives these days.
Similarities between issues
Not everything has changed, of course. We were informing physicians about heart disease in 1971 with “Primary MD can treat most vascular cases” and “Job satisfaction can help prevent heart disease.”
A look at the latest issue uncovered “Link clinched between high-glycemic index diets and cardiovascular disease events” and “Ultraprocessed ‘healthy’ foods raise cardiovascular disease events risk.” Diabetes is another topic that we have began covering since day one and continue to consider to be relevant to practicing family medicine. “Family attitude key to diabetic’s state” was published in our first issue and “Type 1 diabetes prevention moves toward reality as studies published” ran in our April 2021 issue.
The photos in that first issue, however, present a somewhat jarring counterpoint to our latest issue. The faces that look back from 50 years ago are men’s faces: 29 men, to be exact. There were no photos of women physicians in that issue.
That was not the case in April of 2021. Of the 26 physicians or research scientists who appeared in photos in that issue, 8 were women. Plus, three of those women appeared on the cover.
Among the photos from 1971 were 6 of the 14 founding members of our editorial advisory board, who were, again, all men. Our current board consists of 13 men and 8 women.
Times have changed.
This article was updated 5/27/21.
For the first readers of Family Practice News, it started with this: “How safe is the pill? An extensive epidemiologic study being carried out in the United Kingdom by the Royal College of General Practitioners is expected to provide definitive answers to this question within the next few years.”
That was the first paragraph of the lead article on the front page of our very first issue, published in October 1971. The report on oral contraceptives, coming from the annual meeting of the British Medical Association in Leicester, largely focused on recruiting – noting that “all women in the study are married” – and data-gathering methods.
That first issue also covered such topics as the effect of “early and frequent coitus” on cervical dysplasia incidence (p. 4), breast cancer in men (p. 13), and treatment of prostate inflammation in patients with impotence (p. 34).
Our April 2021 issue included five articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, starting on the front page and featuring a photo – a physician sitting at a computer, wearing a mask – and a topic – vaccine-hesitant patients.
Business of medicine today vs. in 1971
At the time of publication of our first issue the United States was in the midst of a 90-day freeze on wages and prices ordered by President Richard Nixon. Two articles in that first issue discussed the subject: “Freeze clouds future of health insurance plans” and “Freeze lets physicians ‘stabilize’ office fees.”
Besides COVID-19, here are some other topics covered in April 2021 but not in 1971: lessons learned from an electronic health records conversion, competition for physicians in the form of a “virtual primary care service” offered by United Healthcare, and the sleep effects of smartphone “addiction.”
Technology, clearly, plays a much larger role in physicians’ lives these days.
Similarities between issues
Not everything has changed, of course. We were informing physicians about heart disease in 1971 with “Primary MD can treat most vascular cases” and “Job satisfaction can help prevent heart disease.”
A look at the latest issue uncovered “Link clinched between high-glycemic index diets and cardiovascular disease events” and “Ultraprocessed ‘healthy’ foods raise cardiovascular disease events risk.” Diabetes is another topic that we have began covering since day one and continue to consider to be relevant to practicing family medicine. “Family attitude key to diabetic’s state” was published in our first issue and “Type 1 diabetes prevention moves toward reality as studies published” ran in our April 2021 issue.
The photos in that first issue, however, present a somewhat jarring counterpoint to our latest issue. The faces that look back from 50 years ago are men’s faces: 29 men, to be exact. There were no photos of women physicians in that issue.
That was not the case in April of 2021. Of the 26 physicians or research scientists who appeared in photos in that issue, 8 were women. Plus, three of those women appeared on the cover.
Among the photos from 1971 were 6 of the 14 founding members of our editorial advisory board, who were, again, all men. Our current board consists of 13 men and 8 women.
Times have changed.
This article was updated 5/27/21.
For the first readers of Family Practice News, it started with this: “How safe is the pill? An extensive epidemiologic study being carried out in the United Kingdom by the Royal College of General Practitioners is expected to provide definitive answers to this question within the next few years.”
That was the first paragraph of the lead article on the front page of our very first issue, published in October 1971. The report on oral contraceptives, coming from the annual meeting of the British Medical Association in Leicester, largely focused on recruiting – noting that “all women in the study are married” – and data-gathering methods.
That first issue also covered such topics as the effect of “early and frequent coitus” on cervical dysplasia incidence (p. 4), breast cancer in men (p. 13), and treatment of prostate inflammation in patients with impotence (p. 34).
Our April 2021 issue included five articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, starting on the front page and featuring a photo – a physician sitting at a computer, wearing a mask – and a topic – vaccine-hesitant patients.
Business of medicine today vs. in 1971
At the time of publication of our first issue the United States was in the midst of a 90-day freeze on wages and prices ordered by President Richard Nixon. Two articles in that first issue discussed the subject: “Freeze clouds future of health insurance plans” and “Freeze lets physicians ‘stabilize’ office fees.”
Besides COVID-19, here are some other topics covered in April 2021 but not in 1971: lessons learned from an electronic health records conversion, competition for physicians in the form of a “virtual primary care service” offered by United Healthcare, and the sleep effects of smartphone “addiction.”
Technology, clearly, plays a much larger role in physicians’ lives these days.
Similarities between issues
Not everything has changed, of course. We were informing physicians about heart disease in 1971 with “Primary MD can treat most vascular cases” and “Job satisfaction can help prevent heart disease.”
A look at the latest issue uncovered “Link clinched between high-glycemic index diets and cardiovascular disease events” and “Ultraprocessed ‘healthy’ foods raise cardiovascular disease events risk.” Diabetes is another topic that we have began covering since day one and continue to consider to be relevant to practicing family medicine. “Family attitude key to diabetic’s state” was published in our first issue and “Type 1 diabetes prevention moves toward reality as studies published” ran in our April 2021 issue.
The photos in that first issue, however, present a somewhat jarring counterpoint to our latest issue. The faces that look back from 50 years ago are men’s faces: 29 men, to be exact. There were no photos of women physicians in that issue.
That was not the case in April of 2021. Of the 26 physicians or research scientists who appeared in photos in that issue, 8 were women. Plus, three of those women appeared on the cover.
Among the photos from 1971 were 6 of the 14 founding members of our editorial advisory board, who were, again, all men. Our current board consists of 13 men and 8 women.
Times have changed.
This article was updated 5/27/21.
A new take on breathing and a performance-enhancing placebo
No ifs, ands, or butt ventilators
Breathing, on most days, is a pretty simple task. You inhale, the oxygen goes in, fills your lungs, becomes carbon dioxide, and is exhaled. But as certain recent events have made very clear, some diseases make this task difficult, which is where ventilators come in. The issue is, some patients can’t really use ventilators.
Enter a new study from Japan, which tested the ability of mice and pigs to absorb oxygen through the rectum. Yes, breathing through the butt. It’s not actually such a far-fetched idea; several aquatic animals such as sea cucumbers and catfish absorb oxygen through their intestines, and as any drunken frat boy can tell you after a good butt chug, other chemicals can absolutely be absorbed by human intestines.
After an initial successful experiment where a group of mice had their intestines scrubbed, had pure oxygen inserted enterally, and were exposed to a hypoxic environment, the researchers decided to step up their game and avoid the exhaustive act of digestive scrubbing by enlisting the aid of something out of science fiction: perfluorocarbon. If you haven’t seen “The Abyss,” this liquid can absorb massive amounts of oxygen, so you can actually breathe it in the same way you do with air.
In part two of the experiment, a group of hypoxic mice and pigs had perfluorocarbon inserted into their anuses, while another group got saline solution. The saline group did not fare well, but the animals that got perfluorocarbon had their hypoxic symptoms relieved within minutes.
The effectiveness of this procedure in humans clearly has yet to be tested, and while it may not be useful in all, or even most, situations, it is always beneficial to have more ways to combat a problem. Just don’t tell the frat boys: They’ll be hooking oxygen tanks up to their butts and chanting: “Breathe! Breathe! Breathe!”
Better, stronger, faster … pinker
Many people, most of whom aren’t even athletes, commit huge amounts of time, effort, and expense to improve their athletic performance. But what if there’s an easier way?
Research conducted at the University of Westminster (England) showed that participants could, with one fairly simple intervention, get on a treadmill and run 212 meters further in 30 minutes, increasing their speed by an average of 4.4%. Not only that, but “feelings of pleasure were also enhanced, meaning participants found running more enjoyable,” according to a statement from the university.
Is this amazing intervention a new wonder drug? No. Is it a super special nutritional supplement? Negatory. An energy drink that “gives you wiiings”? Nope. The latest designer steroid? Nyet.
Like we said, it’s simple, and it’s pink. Literally, the color pink. We will explain.
Each of the 10 study subjects completed two 30-minute trials on the treadmill. For one, they were given a clear, artificially sweetened drink while they were running. For the other, they received the exact same drink colored pink with food dye. Pink did better. So to recap the last month in our column, faster looks pink, and skinny smells like lemons.
Once again, science demonstrates that you can’t go wrong by fooling a brain. Next week, LOTME tries to find out if purple makes you funnier.
Hey … I’m singing here!
Noise pollution has been linked to plenty of negative outcomes, but the latest target is the poor baby zebra finch.
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Ornithology in Germany say traffic noise disrupts the timing of vocal development and impairs learning in the flying finches. The noise was also shown to suppress their immune systems, because of lingering stress.
The good news is that the birds with noise-induced stress sang as much as their peers in a control group, so the delay in development “was not due to a lack of vocal practice,” according to researchers. However, one long-term effect could be that zebra finch birdsongs could change over time due to noise-induced copying errors. Imagine a really long game of birdsong telephone – the song at the beginning is unlikely to be the song years from now.
While not mentioned in the study, one could also imagine that due to all that exposure to traffic, young zebra finches could be developing a salty dialect and impatience with fellow finches taking up too much space on the same tree branch. Hopefully, they don’t give others “the bird.”
Slimy soap
Remember at the beginning of the pandemic when it was almost impossible to find sufficient hand-washing supplies? Just when you thought you’d tried everything, there is soap made from snail slime.
Snail slime, surprisingly, has many beneficial properties for humans. The slime has antiaging and skin healing properties and is actually used in some Korean beauty supplies. The snails even use the slime to help fix their shells if they become damaged.
Happily, no snails are harmed in the slime extraction and making of the soap. Snail farmer Damien Desrochers says, “I only touch it with my finger, you see it’s not violent, it’s simple.”
As you can probably imagine, a lot of slime is needed to have a steady supply of this soap, so Mr. Desrochers has systems in place to get enough slime. Approximately 40 snails are needed to make 15 bars of soap, and he hopes to produce about 3,000 bars in the first year.
Nothing really surprises us anymore in the beauty world: People put eggs in their hair and bee venom on their skin, so what’s wrong with a little snail slime?
No ifs, ands, or butt ventilators
Breathing, on most days, is a pretty simple task. You inhale, the oxygen goes in, fills your lungs, becomes carbon dioxide, and is exhaled. But as certain recent events have made very clear, some diseases make this task difficult, which is where ventilators come in. The issue is, some patients can’t really use ventilators.
Enter a new study from Japan, which tested the ability of mice and pigs to absorb oxygen through the rectum. Yes, breathing through the butt. It’s not actually such a far-fetched idea; several aquatic animals such as sea cucumbers and catfish absorb oxygen through their intestines, and as any drunken frat boy can tell you after a good butt chug, other chemicals can absolutely be absorbed by human intestines.
After an initial successful experiment where a group of mice had their intestines scrubbed, had pure oxygen inserted enterally, and were exposed to a hypoxic environment, the researchers decided to step up their game and avoid the exhaustive act of digestive scrubbing by enlisting the aid of something out of science fiction: perfluorocarbon. If you haven’t seen “The Abyss,” this liquid can absorb massive amounts of oxygen, so you can actually breathe it in the same way you do with air.
In part two of the experiment, a group of hypoxic mice and pigs had perfluorocarbon inserted into their anuses, while another group got saline solution. The saline group did not fare well, but the animals that got perfluorocarbon had their hypoxic symptoms relieved within minutes.
The effectiveness of this procedure in humans clearly has yet to be tested, and while it may not be useful in all, or even most, situations, it is always beneficial to have more ways to combat a problem. Just don’t tell the frat boys: They’ll be hooking oxygen tanks up to their butts and chanting: “Breathe! Breathe! Breathe!”
Better, stronger, faster … pinker
Many people, most of whom aren’t even athletes, commit huge amounts of time, effort, and expense to improve their athletic performance. But what if there’s an easier way?
Research conducted at the University of Westminster (England) showed that participants could, with one fairly simple intervention, get on a treadmill and run 212 meters further in 30 minutes, increasing their speed by an average of 4.4%. Not only that, but “feelings of pleasure were also enhanced, meaning participants found running more enjoyable,” according to a statement from the university.
Is this amazing intervention a new wonder drug? No. Is it a super special nutritional supplement? Negatory. An energy drink that “gives you wiiings”? Nope. The latest designer steroid? Nyet.
Like we said, it’s simple, and it’s pink. Literally, the color pink. We will explain.
Each of the 10 study subjects completed two 30-minute trials on the treadmill. For one, they were given a clear, artificially sweetened drink while they were running. For the other, they received the exact same drink colored pink with food dye. Pink did better. So to recap the last month in our column, faster looks pink, and skinny smells like lemons.
Once again, science demonstrates that you can’t go wrong by fooling a brain. Next week, LOTME tries to find out if purple makes you funnier.
Hey … I’m singing here!
Noise pollution has been linked to plenty of negative outcomes, but the latest target is the poor baby zebra finch.
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Ornithology in Germany say traffic noise disrupts the timing of vocal development and impairs learning in the flying finches. The noise was also shown to suppress their immune systems, because of lingering stress.
The good news is that the birds with noise-induced stress sang as much as their peers in a control group, so the delay in development “was not due to a lack of vocal practice,” according to researchers. However, one long-term effect could be that zebra finch birdsongs could change over time due to noise-induced copying errors. Imagine a really long game of birdsong telephone – the song at the beginning is unlikely to be the song years from now.
While not mentioned in the study, one could also imagine that due to all that exposure to traffic, young zebra finches could be developing a salty dialect and impatience with fellow finches taking up too much space on the same tree branch. Hopefully, they don’t give others “the bird.”
Slimy soap
Remember at the beginning of the pandemic when it was almost impossible to find sufficient hand-washing supplies? Just when you thought you’d tried everything, there is soap made from snail slime.
Snail slime, surprisingly, has many beneficial properties for humans. The slime has antiaging and skin healing properties and is actually used in some Korean beauty supplies. The snails even use the slime to help fix their shells if they become damaged.
Happily, no snails are harmed in the slime extraction and making of the soap. Snail farmer Damien Desrochers says, “I only touch it with my finger, you see it’s not violent, it’s simple.”
As you can probably imagine, a lot of slime is needed to have a steady supply of this soap, so Mr. Desrochers has systems in place to get enough slime. Approximately 40 snails are needed to make 15 bars of soap, and he hopes to produce about 3,000 bars in the first year.
Nothing really surprises us anymore in the beauty world: People put eggs in their hair and bee venom on their skin, so what’s wrong with a little snail slime?
No ifs, ands, or butt ventilators
Breathing, on most days, is a pretty simple task. You inhale, the oxygen goes in, fills your lungs, becomes carbon dioxide, and is exhaled. But as certain recent events have made very clear, some diseases make this task difficult, which is where ventilators come in. The issue is, some patients can’t really use ventilators.
Enter a new study from Japan, which tested the ability of mice and pigs to absorb oxygen through the rectum. Yes, breathing through the butt. It’s not actually such a far-fetched idea; several aquatic animals such as sea cucumbers and catfish absorb oxygen through their intestines, and as any drunken frat boy can tell you after a good butt chug, other chemicals can absolutely be absorbed by human intestines.
After an initial successful experiment where a group of mice had their intestines scrubbed, had pure oxygen inserted enterally, and were exposed to a hypoxic environment, the researchers decided to step up their game and avoid the exhaustive act of digestive scrubbing by enlisting the aid of something out of science fiction: perfluorocarbon. If you haven’t seen “The Abyss,” this liquid can absorb massive amounts of oxygen, so you can actually breathe it in the same way you do with air.
In part two of the experiment, a group of hypoxic mice and pigs had perfluorocarbon inserted into their anuses, while another group got saline solution. The saline group did not fare well, but the animals that got perfluorocarbon had their hypoxic symptoms relieved within minutes.
The effectiveness of this procedure in humans clearly has yet to be tested, and while it may not be useful in all, or even most, situations, it is always beneficial to have more ways to combat a problem. Just don’t tell the frat boys: They’ll be hooking oxygen tanks up to their butts and chanting: “Breathe! Breathe! Breathe!”
Better, stronger, faster … pinker
Many people, most of whom aren’t even athletes, commit huge amounts of time, effort, and expense to improve their athletic performance. But what if there’s an easier way?
Research conducted at the University of Westminster (England) showed that participants could, with one fairly simple intervention, get on a treadmill and run 212 meters further in 30 minutes, increasing their speed by an average of 4.4%. Not only that, but “feelings of pleasure were also enhanced, meaning participants found running more enjoyable,” according to a statement from the university.
Is this amazing intervention a new wonder drug? No. Is it a super special nutritional supplement? Negatory. An energy drink that “gives you wiiings”? Nope. The latest designer steroid? Nyet.
Like we said, it’s simple, and it’s pink. Literally, the color pink. We will explain.
Each of the 10 study subjects completed two 30-minute trials on the treadmill. For one, they were given a clear, artificially sweetened drink while they were running. For the other, they received the exact same drink colored pink with food dye. Pink did better. So to recap the last month in our column, faster looks pink, and skinny smells like lemons.
Once again, science demonstrates that you can’t go wrong by fooling a brain. Next week, LOTME tries to find out if purple makes you funnier.
Hey … I’m singing here!
Noise pollution has been linked to plenty of negative outcomes, but the latest target is the poor baby zebra finch.
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Ornithology in Germany say traffic noise disrupts the timing of vocal development and impairs learning in the flying finches. The noise was also shown to suppress their immune systems, because of lingering stress.
The good news is that the birds with noise-induced stress sang as much as their peers in a control group, so the delay in development “was not due to a lack of vocal practice,” according to researchers. However, one long-term effect could be that zebra finch birdsongs could change over time due to noise-induced copying errors. Imagine a really long game of birdsong telephone – the song at the beginning is unlikely to be the song years from now.
While not mentioned in the study, one could also imagine that due to all that exposure to traffic, young zebra finches could be developing a salty dialect and impatience with fellow finches taking up too much space on the same tree branch. Hopefully, they don’t give others “the bird.”
Slimy soap
Remember at the beginning of the pandemic when it was almost impossible to find sufficient hand-washing supplies? Just when you thought you’d tried everything, there is soap made from snail slime.
Snail slime, surprisingly, has many beneficial properties for humans. The slime has antiaging and skin healing properties and is actually used in some Korean beauty supplies. The snails even use the slime to help fix their shells if they become damaged.
Happily, no snails are harmed in the slime extraction and making of the soap. Snail farmer Damien Desrochers says, “I only touch it with my finger, you see it’s not violent, it’s simple.”
As you can probably imagine, a lot of slime is needed to have a steady supply of this soap, so Mr. Desrochers has systems in place to get enough slime. Approximately 40 snails are needed to make 15 bars of soap, and he hopes to produce about 3,000 bars in the first year.
Nothing really surprises us anymore in the beauty world: People put eggs in their hair and bee venom on their skin, so what’s wrong with a little snail slime?