November 4th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
Tags: Genetics, News, Research
No Comments »
Harvard researcher, Dr. George Church, is spearheading a project that would make complete personal genome mapping available for a mere $1000. I read his research subject recruitment disclaimer. Here is a choice excerpt:
Volunteers should be aware of the ways in which knowledge of their genome and phenotype might be used against them. For example, in principle, anyone with sufficient knowledge could take a volunteer’s genome and/or open medical records and use them to (1) infer paternity or other features of the volunteer’s genealogy, (2) claim statistical evidence that could affect employment or insurance for the volunteer, (3) claim relatedness of the volunteer to infamous villains, (4) make synthetic DNA corresponding to the volunteer and plant it at a crime scene, (5) revelation of disease lacking a current cure.
I wonder what personal genome mapping means from an ethical and legal perspective? Are we equipped to handle the possible privacy violations and prejudice inspired by DNA coded predispositions? On the one hand, customizing medical treatment to a person’s genes offers some of the best hope for optimal care and cures. On the other hand, having your genes on public display could put you at risk for the five problems described by Dr. Church.
These are exciting and frightening times.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
November 1st, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
Tags: Finance, Neurology, Neurosurgery, News, Quality, Radiology, Research, Technology
No Comments »
A recent research study suggests that as many as 7% of adults over 45 have had a stroke without even realizing it. Researchers performed brain MRI scans of 2000 “normal” (asymptomatic) Dutch men and women between the ages of 45 and 96, and found that 7.2% of them (145 people) had evidence of an infarct (stroke), 1.8% (36 people) had small aneurysms, and 1.6% (32 people) had benign tumors (usually a small malformation of the blood supply to the brain).
Interestingly, they also found one person with a primary brain cancer, one person with a previously undiagnosed lung cancer that had metastasized to the brain, one person with a life-threatening subdural hematoma (brain bleed), and one person with an aneurysm large enough to require surgery. So altogether, they found 4 people out of 2000 who needed urgent medical intervention.
Although the authors of the article emphasized the point that many “normal” people have harmless brain abnormalities – I was a bit surprised by the fact that they found 4 asymptomatic people unaware of a ticking time bomb in their brains.
Keep in mind that the study was conducted on middle class Caucasian adults in the Netherlands – so we cannot generalize these findings to more diverse populations. But I do think it’s a bit of an eye-opener.
MRI scans are quite expensive (well over $1000 in most cases) and are therefore not offered to the general population as a screening test. But it does make you think about saving up for one. Your radiologist may find something unimportant, or she may find something that you hadn’t bargained for. Or maybe one day the technology will be inexpensive enough to offer as a screening test in a primary care setting. But that’s not going to happen any time soon.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
October 18th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News, Opinion
Tags: News, Obstetrics And Gynecology, Parenting, Pediatrics, Pharmaceuticals, Reproductive Endocrinology
5 Comments »
You might have seen the recent news about the middle school in Maine – King Middle School, in the Portland school district – that is planning to provide birth control to pre-teens, without requiring explicit parental consent. School officials argue that this will help to prevent pre-teen pregnancies, and estimate that at least 5 out of 135 of their 11- to 13-year-old female students are sexually active already.
While I absolutely sympathize with the desire to avoid pre-teen pregnancies, and I do understand that there is a reality here that some very young children will become sexually active at the tender age of 11, I personally do not support giving pre-pubescent girls hormone-altering tablets. We do not have good studies demonstrating the safety of such therapies in children, and until we do it’s just not medically sound to be offering this treatment. (For example, we don’t know what extra estrogen does to early breast buds, or whether there’s an increased risk for developing breast cancer later on.)
I also think that 11 year olds are not physically and emotionally prepared for sexual intimacy – and the prematurity of this event could be quite harmful for their psyche. We know that 11- and 12-year-old brains are not fully developed to think the way adults do, so there’s really no telling what impact it could have or what long term psychological effects might result.
Apparently sex before the age of 14 is illegal in Maine, so (although there’s no doubt that it may happen prior to that age) it seems that the state’s legal system is not in step with their school system, and that needs to be looked at. It is inconsistent to claim that an activity is illegal for children and then enable it with tax dollars.
I suppose that education about the use of condoms and access to them (without aggressive promotion of them) may be acceptable at this age. After all, condoms can prevent STDs and don’t have medical effects on the body as a whole. But my plea is that parents take the lead here – and educate your children about the risks of STDs, pregnancy, and the emotional damage that premature sex can have on a young person. Advocate for abstinence as a first choice, explain that condoms are non-negotiable, and try to help them turn their focus away from sex and towards more age-appropriate endeavors.
A new Dove advertising campaign asks parents to talk to their kids before the beauty industry does, and I think the same goes for sex and the media. Today’s parent must launch a preemptive strike against the over-sexualization of children, or risk having their 11 year olds taking estrogen patches from a school nurse without their consent.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
October 16th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
Tags: Food and Nutrition, Infectious Disease, News
1 Comment »
Several frozen hamburger meat recalls have been issued in the past month. First it was the Cargill. Inc. plant in Butler, Wisconsin (supplying Sam’s Club) recall and now it’s the J&B Meats, Coal Valley, Illinois (supplying Tops and Sam’s Choice Brands).
So how does this meat get contaminated? As I mentioned in an earlier blog post about cows, they are kind of dirty creatures. They tend to stand around in manure and flick it all over themselves. In addition, there are certain intestinal bacteria that colonize them (including a certain type of E. coli, called 0157:H7) that are harmless to them, but are very harmful to humans. If their manure is used to fertilize veggies (or gets into the veggie’s water irrigation supply) – spinach poisoning can result. If the bacteria get into hamburger meat (as can happen during the butchering process and meat grinding) beef recalls may be in order.
E. coli 0157:H7 poisoning is scary because it can cause life-threatening illness (bloody diarrhea and kidney damage), especially in the young and immunocompromised. There are no antibiotics to treat it, and so the best “treatment” is prevention.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of meat is not contaminated with this bacteria, and that the small risk is usually associated with hamburger meat in particular. Ground beef (as you can imagine, though it’s a little disgusting to think about it) is more likely to have been in contact with the bacteria-laden intestines of the cow, since many different parts of the animal are used and ground into hamburger. It is much less likely for a whole steak, for example, to be contaminated with E. coli.
According to the USDA, one cannot rely on meat color to be sure that a sufficiently high temperature has been achieved in the cooking process. The best way to be sure that your hamburgers have been hot enough to kill any potential bacteria lurking therein is to use a thermometer and to make sure that the center of the meat reaches 160 degrees Fahrenheit.
So the take home message is this:
- Ground beef may be contaminated with E. coli bacteria, especially if it’s purchased at Sam’s Club or Tops.
- Regular beef is less likely to be contaminated.
- Don’t rely on meat color to ensure that it’s safe to eat.
- Cook all red meat to 160 degrees Fahrenheit to be sure that any bacterial contaminants are killed.
- See your doctor immediately if you have bloody diarrhea, fever, or other symptoms of E. coli poisoning.
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
October 15th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
Tags: Infectious Disease, News, Relationships, Reproductive Endocrinology, Research, Urology
2 Comments »
I was always taught that chlamydia (a bacterial sexually transmitted infection) could cause infertility in women but didn’t affect men at all. Now it seems that male fertility may also be affected by chlamydial infections.
New research from Spain suggests that chlamydia can damage sperm DNA as well as their swimming ability. In fact, DNA damage in sperm from men infected with chlamydia is 3 times higher than in uninfected sperm. Also, fertility rates my be reduced by as much as 73% in couples infected with chlamydia.
Fortunately for men, their new sperm (produced after antibiotic treatment for chlamydia) appears to be normal/unaffected. For women, the damage is permanent. The crafty chlamydia bacteria crawl up into the fallopian tubes and create such an inflammatory reaction that the tubes are often scarred for life. Eggs released by the ovaries may be blocked from entering the uterus from narrowed and scarred fallopian tubes. This is why one chlamydial infection can put a woman at increased risk for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, infertility, and chronic pelvic pain.
It is estimated that as many as 1 in 10 people ages 18-25 are actively infected with chlamydia (in the US and Britain). The treatment can be as simple as one dose of oral antibiotics (1g of Azithromycin). Since chlamydia can be asymptomatic in men and women, and hard to diagnose in men in particular – I personally would recommend having both partners take a dose of Azithromycin before having unprotected sex in a monogamous relationship. Obviously, it’s always far better to have protected sex – but since 1 in 10 people have this infection, it seems pretty clear that people are not using condoms all the time. If you want to preserve your fertility – be vigilant about this infection. The good news here is that it’s easy to treat and can be prevented.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
