Category: Medicine

  • Researcher Harassed,Escapes by Boat Behind Home.

    'Judy A. Mikovits'.
    Judy A. Mikovits, Ph.D., outside the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease in Reno, Nev., on Feb. 28, 2011. Mikovits is the facilities research director. (David Calvert / AP Photo)

    I have often lamented that there is no development in the Theoretical side of Science.

    I blogged some time back that this might be due to lack of passion by Researchers who seem to be more interested in Research Grants and Fame.

    I opined that greedy Corporations and the powers that be are bent on stymieing  Research  if it does not meet with their desired results.

    Hence most of the researches are aborted and Science is at a stand still.

    Never have I imagined that a Researcher can be harassed to an extent that she has to flee by a boat at the back of her house to escape Law which entered her Home under the guise of a patient., though I knew that there was harassment.

    Now read the Story;

    On Nov. 9, 2011, Judy Mikovits, a well-known chronic fatigue syndrome researcher at the center of one of the strangest scientific dramas in recent memory, found herself devising the following plan.

    She would have to escape by boat.

    There was a man in a car in front of her house in Oxnard, Calif., waiting to serve her with a temporary restraining order demanding the return of stolen property to the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Reno, Nev., from which she recently had been fired.

    She took the small boat moored behind her house down into the harbor, where she got onto a friend’s sailboat and hid there for five days.

    By Nov. 14, Mikovits was back at her Ventura County house, having retained a lawyer who assured her that there was no warrant out for her arrest, Mikovits told me last month in her first interview since her legal trouble began. Yet within one week of that phone call, her doorbell rang. Her husband, David Nolde, answered it, and a female voice spoke from the threshold.

    “She said, ‘Is Dr. Judy in? It’s Jaime, I’m a patient, she knows me, she said I could come by any time,’ ” Mikovits recalled. “And I said, ‘It’s okay, David, I’ll take it.’…….

    I went down to the front door. And she said, ‘Remember me?’ And I said ‘No.’ And then everybody jumped out of the bushes. She showed her little badge. The police cars went and surrounded the house.”

    Mikovits’ arrest, for possession of stolen property—her own research notebooks from the lab where she worked—was an unlikely outcome for the 54-year-old. Having spent 20 years at the National Cancer Institute, Mikovits is a seasoned research scientist, an expert on viruses. In 2006 she accepted the position of research director at the brand new Whittemore Peterson Institute, a private lab that had been co-founded by Annette and Harvey Whittemore, one of the most politically connected couples in Nevada. The sometimes-debilitating disease she went to study, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), has long baffled scientists, and sufferers were desperate for information. The Whittemores themselves had founded the institute because their daughter, Andrea, now in her thirties, has struggled with CFS for years.

    What happened there sounds like fiction: a scientific breakthrough, suspicion of contamination, a well-meaning scientist, a nonprofit institute, a fee-for-service diagnostic lab, and a legal battle that is still unfolding. In the process, Mikovits plunged from a leading light in the fight against a mysterious medical condition to an unemployed woman with a mark on her name in the world of science.

    The first years of her stint at the WPI were smooth, Mikovits says. She says she was close to the Whittemores, whom she regards as being “like the Kennedys” in their closeness, charisma, and power. (Annette Whittemore, citing the advice of her lawyer, declined to comment for this article. Harvey Whittemore’s lawyer, Dominic Gentile, said his client was unavailable for comment.)

    In 2009, Mikovits published her breakthrough finding. Testing 101 samples from patients with CFS, Mikovits and her co-investigators reported that 67.5% percent of them were infected with XMRV, a retrovirus never before known to infect humans. It was a discovery with huge implications. Patients might be able to get better by taking the same anti-retroviral drugs that have helped treat HIV/AIDS. Never before had there been such a promising starting point for diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome, much less developing a way to treat it.

    Mikovits submitted the paper to Science, a preeminent scientific journal, where it was peer reviewed. When it came out in the fall of 2009, she was an instant celebrity, traveling the world, meeting patients, presenting data.

    Her research brought luster to the WPI—and cash, too. In 2009, WPI licensed its diagnostic test for chronic fatigue to a clinic next door, VIP Dx. “We structured the licensing contract to be sure that any and all profits that might emerge at VIP Dx from XMRV testing come directly back to WPI to benefit the research program,” Annette Whittemore said in a press release in 2009. Patients were charged somewhere between $400 and $550 per test, and the lab tested at least hundreds of patients between 2009 and 2011, though likely significantly more.

    The move raised eyebrows within the scientific community. “The VIPdx was very problematic,” said John Coffin, a scientist at the National Cancer Institute, whose lab is one of several that has attempted to replicate Mikovits’  XMRV findings, “That they would be offering, commercially, this test on what are basically preliminary research findings from their group … is obviously very questionable.”

    Meanwhile, other research groups around the country were trying to replicate the 2009 results, but in the two years that followed, almost all had failed. The word “contamination” began to surface more and more frequently.

    In the summer of 2011, Mikovits and her young lab assistant, Max Pfost, began poring through their notebooks, trying to find where such a contaminant might have entered their process.

    In July, she says, she found it—an entry from March 2009 indicating that a culture of the XMRV virus had been placed into the same incubatorwith the rest of the lab’s blood samples. Mikovits says she was out of town the day this occurred.

    In July 2011 she told Harvey Whittemore of the potential contamination, she says, and expected that the VIP Dx lab would cease testing patients for the XMRV virus. “I just kept saying, stop it, stop it, stop it. We have to sort this out,” Mikovits says. According to Mikovits, the testing did not stop. And after a tense summer, she was fired in September.

    She says she was back home in California the day after her firing when her cell phone rang at the crack of dawn. It was Pfost, she says, calling to say that her notebooks, flashdrives, and other experimental records at her lab had been rifled through.

    Mikovits was worried most about the notebooks. “I said, ‘Max, secure them. It’s obviously been ransacked.’ … I said, ‘You have to secure them—it’s chaos. Take ’em home, take ’em to your mother’s house.’ ”

    Pfost declined to comment on the substance of this article, but in a signed affadivit, given in November 2011 shortly before Mikovits’ arrest and used by the WPI in its civil case against her, Pfost says he removed the notebooks from the lab at Mikovits’s behest and hid them at his mother’s house until Mikovits returned to Reno the following month.

    According to Mikovits, on Oct. 16 she returned to Reno to gather her remaining possessions. Pfost picked her up at the airport and pointed to a big birthday bag in his backseat of his car. He had just turned 30. The notebooks are in there, she recalls him saying.

    ***

    When I met Mikovits last month, she greeted me in the front yard of her twin sister’s home in a pleasant neighborhood in suburban Virginia. She’d flown in the night before, one day after the criminal charges against her were dropped.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/23/how-research-into-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-turned-into-an-ugly-fight.html

  • Doctors Use Cement in Chest Operation!

    Poor body!

    It puts up with everything.

    This case proves that one does not go up till he is called.

    A man who had a rare melon-sized tumour removed from his ribs has had his chest rebuilt with concrete.

    Three surgeons spent six hours getting the 1.5kg cancerous growth out of Marek Barden, 40.

    They also removed six ribs, the lining of his left lung and part of his diaphragm.

    The medics then replaced his ribs with a 25cm square acrylic cement panel and used muscle from his shoulder to repair the diaphragm.

    The church worker, of Knowle, Bristol, noticed a lump in his side about a year ago but ignored it thinking it was from a cycling accident.

    But a scan last August revealed a rare chondrasarcoma cancerous tumour – and doctors gave him just six months to live without treatment.

    Plastic surgeon Paul Wilson, who helped perform the operation five weeks later, said Marek’s tumour was one of the largest his team had ever seen.

    He spent six days in intensive care before being discharged from hospital and amazingly did not need any further treatment.

    He said: I consider myself the bionic man because of my concrete panel.

    “I went into hospital prepared to die, but I’m a fighter and I’m stubborn.

    “I can feel it and the little lumps and bumps on it. I don’t have sensation on that part of my body at all but I have got used to that now.

    “I was extremely lucky.”

    http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/doctors_use_cement_to_repair_man_s_chest_after_cancer_operation

     

    Doctors use cement in operation
    Doctors Use Cement in Chest Operation

     

  • Meanings of Neurological terms- in Simple English

    One gets confused and at times frightened by the terminology used by Neuro Specialists.

    Neurological disorders are frightening by themselves.

    To help people understand the medical lingo  of some common terms used by Neurologists, I am furnishing simple meanings of these terms.

    PREFIX		MEANING
    ab-		away from
    acou-		hear
    act-		do, act
    ad-, aff-	to
    aden-		gland
    aer-            air, gas
    alg-		pain
    alve-		tough
    ambi-           both sides
    andr-		man
    angi-           blood vessel, duct
    ante-		before
    anti-		against, counter
    arachn-		spider
    arch-		beginning, origin
    arthr-          joint
    articul-        joint
    audi-           hearing
    aur-            ear
    ax-, axon-	axis
    bar-		weight
    bi-             two, double
    blast-		bud
    brachi-		arm
    brady-		slow
    capit-          head
    cata-           down
    caud-		tail
    cell-		cell, room
    centr-		center
    cephal-		head
    cerv-           neck
    chord-		string, cord
    chro-		color
    chron-          time
    contra-		against, counter
    corpus-		body
    crani-		skull
    cry-            cold
    cut-		skin
    dendr-		tree
    dent-           tooth
    derm-           skin
    dors-		back
    dys-		bad, improper
    
    PREFIX		MEANING
    ect-		outside
    electr-		amber
    encephal-       brain
    end-		inside
    epi-		upon, after
    esthe-		feel, perceive
    eu-		good, normal
    exo-		outside
    extra-          outside of, beyond
    fibr-           fibrous, fibers
    glom-           little ball
    gloss-          tongue
    graph-		write, scratch
    hemi-		half
    hyper-		above, beyond, extreme
    hypno-		sleep
    hypo-		below, under
    inflamm-        setting on fire
    infra-		beneath
    inter-		among, between
    intra-		inside
    lingu-          tongue
    medi-		middle
    mega-           large
    meningo-	membrane
    mes-		middle
    meta-		beyond
    micro-		small
    multi-          many
    ophthalm-       eye
    para-		beside, beyond
    peri-		around
    phag-           eat
    phon-           sound
    phot-           light
    poly-		many
    proprio-        self, one's own
    resti-          rope
    retro-		backwards
    somat-		body
    spondyl -       vertebra
    sub-		under, below
    supra-		above
    syringo-        pipe, tube
    tel-		end

    Please send additions to this list to me at:chudler@u.washington.edu.

    [Etymology of Neuroscience Terms] | [Return to Top of E.H. Chudler’s Page]

    http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2qlaXL/:lJl2pqxT:5WBT!MBn/faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neuropre.html/

  • Inside of Medical Reporting,Ignore Newspaper Reports.

    I have been quite sceptical about of the Reports in Newspapers on any thing connected with ‘Cure found’,”genes isolated’ ‘Coffe.tea causes cancer,inhibits(/) cancer’,’Experts say’ and the lot.

    When you go deep you would find that the Story has bo basis except in the imagination of the writer.

    And many atimes the reports quote some one called an Expert whom nobody seems to know!

    And the University/Research facility is still mor difficult to find.

    Even if you are able to find such institutions, you would get a reply that ‘the theory/cure is in experimental stage’

    How many’cures’ have been found for cancer till date!

    As also for AIDS!

    The same trend applies to most of the reports on Life Style,Sex, Behaviour.

    I came across a piece in Craked.com on the subject and I am reproducing here.

    I was busy finishing up the draft of what was to be my latest column, “Everything About Sausages Is Awesome,” when someone pointed out to me that the only research I had done was creating 45 animated gifs of rotating sausages. “Avant garde,” I mumbled, waving my hands around in an authoritative manner. “Daring,” I added, waving my hands in a more daring manner, before concluding with, “you slope-browed idiot.” This, it turned out, is the wrong way to win an argument with an editor, much in the same way that it’s the wrong way to win an argument with everyone else.

    So in order to find some sort of academic support for my deeply held belief that sausages are awesome, I went to the public library. My initial searches were frustrated by the fact that the academic community apparently has greatly neglected sausage-based research, and despite numerous queries — “Excuse me, you slope-browed idiot …” — I was unable to find the sausage section of the library at all. My only promising lead, a helpful elderly gentleman who led me to the washroom, turned out to be talking about something else entirely, and I was forced to leave the washroom empty-handed, though with my honor thankfully intact. (Being empty-handed actually kind of related to the intactness of my honor.)

    Frustrated, I turned to the archived newspapers and periodicals and began reading their health sections to see what the popular media had to say about sausages. Although I found little advice about tubed meats, I did find a lot of other advice, almost all of it dangerously insane. There wasn’t a single article about nutrition or health that didn’t make massive, barely substantiated claims about a new diet or medical treatment. This kind of journalistic malpractice is perfectly acceptable for Cracked (company motto: Journalistic Malpractice Is Perfectly Acceptable Here), but I was surprised to see this kind of ass-grabbery in the grown-up newspapers.

    #8. ____ Is Incredibly Good/Bad for You

    Here’s a headline you’ve probably read a few times already today:

     

    News report on Red Wine.
    News paper Report

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    What these articles usually don’t do is qualify what exactly that “link” means. If you’re missing a discussion of:

    – the cost of a diet/treatment,

    – its side effects,

    – how it compares with other treatments and

    – how it compares with doing nothing at all,

    … then you’re not reading very useful advice. Consider that last item for a second. Does a new diet reduce the risk of getting a disease from 5.4 percent to 5.2 percent? (I don’t know or care what the units could be. Riskometers, let’s say.) That is a potentially interesting finding, and it could certainly serve as a guide for future research, but it’s not the kind of evidence that should inspire you to cram fish oil into your throat until you stop blinking.

    ……

    #5. Lack of Knowledge

    Earlier I talked about choosing proper methodologies, and cost/benefit analysis, and literature review. These are just some of the terribly boring chores that are a sad but necessary part of being an expert in a field. That’s why we can’t expect reporters to be experts in all the areas they’re covering; it’s often the case these days that a new reporter who a month ago was writing the “Tides Update” on page G18 is promoted to covering something actually useful, even if he doesn’t know the first thing about it. And the easiest way for this reporter to write about something he doesn’t know is to find and cite an expert. It’s a safe play for our young reporter; by simply describing the expert’s credentials and then relaying what they’re saying, the reporter’s young, soft ass is covered. It’s the expert telling the story, not the reporter. So it’s up to the audience to figure out if the expert is:

    – actually an expert.

    – a hired stooge.

    – two children atop each other’s shoulders in a long coat.

     

    Ad on Smoking
    Misleading ad on Smoking

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-lies-its-surprisingly-easy-to-tell-as-health-reporter_p2/

     

     

     

  • Clinical Testing of Drugs and Pharma Companies, Patents.

    English: Logo of the .
    Image via Wikipedia

    Recently I came across an article in The Scientist on the Clinical trials of drugs in the US by the Pharma Corporations.

    baby.
    MATT COLLINS (BABY); US GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT, “PEDIATRIC RESEARCH,” MAY 2011

    Drugs ,it is reported that , are not tested on children and are marketed.

    The FDA is of the opinion that Clinical Trials of Drugs conducted on Children give off reliable results,especially the contra-indications.

    I am reproducing a real instance quoted in The Scientist.

    But the story of Paxil also illustrates the power of somewhat obscure laws that have saved children’s lives by changing the way drugmakers test their products.

    Paxil—which increases extracellular levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin by inhibiting its reuptake into presynaptic cells—was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1992, and by 2000 it was making the drug company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) $2 billion per year. But around this time, problems with Paxil began to surface. Adult and adolescent patients were anecdotally reporting side effects, including sexual dysfunction, weight gain, high blood pressure, and increased suicidality—an uptick in thoughts of suicide or self-inflicted injury in some severely depressed patients. These reports of increased suicidality particularly worried pediatricians.

    In 1999 the FDA sent GSK a letter requesting that the company conduct clinical trials of Paxil in children and adolescents. To sweeten the deal, the FDA offered GSK a 6-month marketing exclusivity extension for Paxil in return. This extension, which in effect would buy GSK 6 extra months of patent protection by delaying marketing of generic versions, was an incentive written into the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997.

    GSK eventually agreed to conduct the requested studies and submitted the results to the FDA sometime in early 2002, after FDAMA had expired and been replaced by the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) of 2002. Though GSK’s own reports on preliminary studies of Paxil in adolescents indicated that it was safe and more effective than a placebo—a heavily disputed interpretation contained in the article reporting the results of the now infamous study 3291—the FDA’s analyses of Paxil studies found that suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and episodes of self-harm were almost twice as high in young patients with major depressive disorder taking the drug than among those taking a placebo. To boot, the agency found that the drug was no more effective than placebo in treating major depression in children and adolescents”

    The point to be noted is that the Company doctored the report.

    Imagine a Corporation earning Billions of Dollars, despite getting a undeserved

    6 months  of patent protection, the company thought it fit to doctor the

    report,with scant report for Human Life.

    The Companies dodge testing on Children because of Legal implications and high cost of testing on children.

    Another point I note is that is testing drugs on Children Safe for them?

    I also read an interesting comment  on Patents.

    Featured Comment

    Legislators should remember who pays their salaries and to whom they are responsible. If taxpayers fund any part of a research activity then (a) no patents or copyrights should issue as a result, and (b) all results and unprocessed data should be available freely, similarly funded by the taxpayers. If the researchers and their sponsoring organizations don’t like the bargain, they should seek funding from non-public sources.tddial, Elsevier Abandons Anti-Open Access Bill

    VERY THOUGHTFUL AND VALID.

    http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/01/are-the-kids-alright/#fn-21915-1