विज्ञान

The long-debunked theory that childhood vaccines cause autism has returned to the spotlight, fueled by the rise of prominent anti-vaccine activists nearly three decades after its initial spread. Where did the “vaccines cause autism” theory come from? Dallas (tca/dpa) – In the late 1990s, a theory gripped parents around the world: What if childhood vaccines — particularly the combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine — cause autism? Nearly three decades later, the debunked theory has gained renewed prominence in parallel with the rise of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-time anti-vaccine activist who now serves as the US health secretary. Scientists, medical providers and medical researchers are clear on this: Vaccines do not cause autism. To those tuning into the vaccine debate now, it can feel like scientists are dismissing the theory without considering it. But there’s a reason. There has already been a mountain of research investigating vaccines and debunking any connection with autism. Scientists have reached a consensus on this one. Here’s how. Where did the “vaccines cause autism” theory come from? The idea that vaccines cause autism, or at least the popularity of that idea, can be traced to a 1998 research paper. In that paper, then-physician Andrew Wakefield and his co-authors hypothesized that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine could trigger a combination of gastrointestinal problems and neurodevelopmental “regression” consistent with autism. Wakefield, who is British, published the article in the well-respected scientific journal The Lancet. The paper had a dozen co-authors. (That paper, and Wakefield himself, have since been resoundingly discredited. But let’s take this in chronological order.) The paper, in its initial form, had numerous red flags, including a small sample size of 12 children. Additionally, the paper itself did not claim to actually prove the connection. “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described,” the article says. “Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.” Even with the original paper’s caveats and limitations, the theory captured the public attention and was simplified to the idea that vaccines cause autism. Researchers and medical professionals have pointed to the paper as one major cause of dropping childhood vaccination rates. The scientific community took note of the paper, too, and responded in the way that science should: By testing the hypothesis again and again. Did other scientists *really* look into Wakefield’s idea? In the years after the Wakefield paper, researchers around the world embarked on studies to look for any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. David Amaral — the founding research director at the MIND Institute at UC Davis, an autism research center — has worked in autism research since the late 1990s, around the same time as the Wakefield paper’s publication. He remembers the flurry of research triggered by the vaccine theory. There was a 1999 epidemiological study in the U.K., published in the same journal that published Wakefield’s paper the year before. There was a 2001 study in California. There was a 2002 study of more than half a million children in Denmark. There was another 2002 study of more than half a million children, this time in Finland. These four examples are just a sampling of the studies on vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. There have been many other studies, too. The Autism and Science Foundation has compiled a lengthy list that includes at least 11 additional research studies and analyses related to vaccines and autism. Dr. Jake Scott, a Stanford Medicine professor and an infectious disease specialist, has spearheaded a compilation of randomized controlled trials — which are often cited as the gold standard of research — related to vaccines and vaccine safety. That spreadsheet, Scott wrote in early September federal testimony, has catalogued more than 1,700 studies. “If vaccines caused a wave of chronic disease, our safety systems – which can detect 1-in-a-million events – would have seen it,” Scott wrote in his testimony. “They haven’t.” What did those other studies find? A number of the studies conducted after the Wakefield paper focused on rates of autism among children who had been vaccinated and children who hadn’t. If the MMR vaccine — or another vaccine — did cause or increase the risk of autism, then there should be higher rates of autism among vaccinated children. This was a reality that Wakefield and his co-authors directly addressed in their original paper. “If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome,” the paper says, “a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988.” Scientists and researchers had the same thought. “If there was a link between the vaccines, you should at least see some signal,” Amaral said. “You should see some evidence of it.” But, in follow-up study after follow-up study, researchers found no such evidence. The 1999 UK study authors wrote that their “analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism.” “This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism,” said the authors of the massive Denmark study. And on and on. The studies repeatedly came back with the same conclusion: No evidence of a link between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. That matters because, in the scientific world, a single study cannot prove anything. When a researcher finds a new or important link, other researchers set off on the task of replicating that finding. This is to ensure that the link really does exist, that it wasn’t a mistake by the original researcher, a poorly designed study or simply a fluke. (Spoiler alert: That scientific process also aims to root out deliberate research fraud.) It is only when a finding can be repeated by other researchers that the scientific community reaches “consensus” and agrees that a hypothesis does, indeed, appear to be true. When other researchers set out to validate — or replicate — Wakefield’s study, they couldn’t. It was a death knell for Wakefield’s hypothesis. Dr. Jason Terk, a pediatrician in North Texas, started practicing in 1998, the same year the Wakefield paper was published. “In good faith, the medical community tried to answer the question and it was a very clear answer,” Terk said, “that there was no evidence to support the connection that was raised by this paper.” Even after extensive research, scientists tend to be hesitant to frame anything as an absolute. If there’s a hair’s width opening for a possible other explanation, researchers tend to hedge their statements, to leave room for that extraordinarily unlikely other explanation. In the case of vaccines and autism, though, researchers have come as close to absolute proof as they can. “There is literally no evidence that vaccines cause autism,” said Katherine Meltzoff, a University of California, Riverside professor and autism researcher. “It’s been studied and restudied and restudied almost infinite times since the initial, fraudulent 1998 paper came out.” What happened to Wakefield and his paper? As evidence mounted against Wakefield’s hypothesis and his 1998 paper, The Lancet investigated allegations that the paper’s results may have been fabricated or otherwise manipulated. In 2004, 10 of the 12 co-authors retracted the interpretation of the original data in the paper. Six years after that, the journal retracted the entire article, citing “false” statements in the study, including in how the authors recruited patients. The British medical board, called the General Medical Council, looked into the situation, too. In a report, the council detailed numerous instanc…

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Amsterdam (dpa) – Getting a good night's rest may not be the highest priority on your checklist before a run, with many hoping a good diet and proper stretching will help them reach a new personal best. But new research shows that for elite runners and any of the millions of people worldwide who jog regularly, the standard eight hours not only boosts performance but could also be key to preventing the sprains and strains and tears that running can lead to. A new survey of 425 runners found that those reporting shorter sleep times or broken sleep "were nearly twice as likely to sustain an injury" as those who had a restful night between the sheets. The study offers "compelling evidence that sleep is a critical yet often overlooked component of injury prevention," according to Jan de Jonge of Eindhoven University of Technology and the University of South Australia, who carried out the research with Toon Taris of Utrecht University. Published in the journal Applied Sciences, the results should put to bed what de Jonge said is the tendency for runners to place sleep at "the bottom of the list" below preparation such as nutrition and stretching. "Our research shows that poor sleepers were 1.78 times more likely to report injuries than those with stable, good quality sleep, with a 68% likelihood of sustaining an injury over a 12-month period," de Jonge said, describing the findings as "a strong reminder that how well you rest is just as important as how hard you train." "When sleep is disrupted or insufficient, the body's ability to repair tissues, regulate hormones and maintain focus diminishes, all of which can increase injury risk," de Jonge explained. "Sleep quality and sleep duration are both important, but quantity often provides the bedrock," de Jonge and Taris concluded in their paper, calling for a good night's rest to be "recognized not only as a recovery tool, but also as a potential predictor of injury vulnerability in recreational sports." According to the University of South Australia, while more than 600 million worldwide are recreational runners and likely are healthier for it, 90% of them are likely to get injured at some point. The ensuing downtime ends up "costing the world economy millions of dollars each year in work absences and medical expenses," the university said. The following information is not intended for publication dpa spr coh

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Could your diet be increasing your cancer risk? New research has linked ultra-processed foods like pre-packaged sandwiches, crisps, soft drinks, frozen pizzas and oven chips to early bowel changes in women. London (PA Media/dpa) – Women who consume high amounts of ultra processed food (UPFs) are at higher risk of developing a potential precursor to bowel cancer, a new study suggests. Experts said that the study provides insight on how diet can influence early changes in the bowel. Writing in the journal Jama Oncology, experts said that women who regularly eat more servings of UPFs – such as processed sauces, crisps, processed meats and many ready meals – are at a significantly higher risk of developing a growth in the bowel called an adenoma. These growths are a type of polyp and are not cancerous, but they can develop into cancer over a long period of time. Most bowel cancers develop from an adenoma. Researchers have been trying to discover the reason behind a rise in bowel cancer cases among younger adults. According to Cancer Research UK (CRUK), incidence rates of bowel cancer among people aged 25-49 have increased by 62% since the early 1990s. The new study examined information on thousands of nurses in the US who were tracked from 1991 through to 2015. Information on UPF intake was gathered using food surveys taken every four years. Researchers studied 29,105 women with an average age of 45. Among these women, 1,189 cases of early-onset adenomas were identified, according to the study, which was funded by Cancer Grand Challenges – a global research initiative founded by Cancer Research UK and the National Cancer Institute in the US. Those with the highest consumption of UPFs were 45% more likely to have these early-onset adenomas, compared to those with the lowest consumption of UPFs. Those who ate the highest proportion of UPFs ate around 9.9 portions a day. CRUK said a typical diet of this many servings of UPFs could include: one bowl of sweetened breakfast cereal, one slice of white toast with margarine or jam, a flavoured yoghurt cup or breakfast bar for breakfast; a pre-packaged supermarket sandwich, a packet of crisps and a can of coke or flavoured drink for lunch; a frozen pizza or oven chips and chicken nuggets with ketchup and mayonnaise on the side for supper and an evening treat of ice cream or biscuits. Those who ate the fewest UPFs consumed an average of 3.3 servings each day. “These data highlight the important role of UPFs in early-onset colorectal tumorigenesis and support improving dietary quality as a strategy to mitigate the increasing burden of early-onset colorectal cancer,” the authors wrote. Dr Andrew Chan, lead author of the study, from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in the US, said: “We’re seeing more cases of bowel cancer in younger adults, and we still don’t understand why. “Our research is exploring possible factors such as diet, lack of exercise and disruption to the gut microbiome, which may all play a role. “Our study suggests these foods could be linked to a higher risk of developing polyps. However, more research is needed to confirm this link. “This means looking at larger and more diverse groups of people and investigating how the body responds to these foods to understand their role in early changes in the bowel.” Cancer Grand Challenges scientific committee chairman and Cancer Research UK’s chief clinician, Professor Charles Swanton, said the study helps “shed light on how diet and other factors are associated with gut health and changes in the bowel linked to cancer risk”. Fiona Osgun, head of health information at Cancer Research UK, added: “While this study doesn’t directly measure cancer risk, it offers useful insight into how diet might influence early changes in the bowel that sometimes lead to cancer. “Our diets are shaped by the world around us, from food prices, marketing and local availability. “This can make healthy choices harder. We need broader changes – from food policy to public health initiatives – to make healthier diets more accessible for everyone. “Our overall diet matters more for cancer risk than any single food type.” The following information is not intended for publication pa dpa coh

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Many of us cross our legs when we sit on the floor – but this position isn't completely without risks, especially for people with back trouble, say orthopaedic surgeons. Berlin (dpa) – Sitting cross-legged can benefit the hips by stretching muscles and ligaments, but it can also strain the spine and it's not suitable for people with back problems, say orthopaedic doctors. The posture is often the first choice for sitting on the floor at a picnic or when sitting down to play with a child, and certainly brings benefits for the hip joints. Done from time to time and without overdoing it, the cross-legged posture can do the body good, says orthopaedic specialist Martin Rinio. The muscles in the hips and thighs are stretched. The external rotation of the hip stretches the ligaments around the joint capsule, which can help maintain cartilage health. It's not free of drawbacks, however. The problem is that people tend to let their shoulders fall forward, which is bad for the spine. Anyone with back trouble should avoid sitting cross-legged entirely, Rinio advises. That applies in particular to people with spondylolisthesis, where a vertebra moves out of its normal position in the spine, causing pain, tingling and numbness. Everyone else should keep checking their posture while sitting cross-legged. If you catch yourself in a curled-up posture, sit up straight. People should adjust their posture every 10 to 15 minutes. "It's good to alternate continuously between upright, leaning forward and leaning back, and to shift weight frequently from one side of your bum to the other," Rinio says. If you start to feel pain, change to a different position. Similar yet different: the lotus position The lotus position, well known in yoga and meditation, is far more demanding than sitting cross-legged. Instead of one leg lying loosely in front of the other, the feet rest on the opposite thighs. Compared with sitting cross-legged, the lotus position is easier on the back because the pelvis tilts forward. That allows the spine to straighten, Rinio said. For the joints, especially the knees, however, the lotus position places more strain than the classic cross-legged posture. Anyone with meniscus problems should avoid it. You also shouldn't overdo the lotus position either. Anyone who wants to spend longer periods sitting like this, for example during meditation, should work up to it with exercises that improve hip mobility. One example is the butterfly pose: Place the soles of your feet together with the knees pointing outward, grip your feet with your hands and pull them as close to your bum as possible. You can then gently bounce the knees to imitate the fluttering of a butterfly. The following information is not intended for publication dpa/tmn rid yyzz n1 tsn

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Better sleep without addiction to sleeping pills: that's what melatonin supplements promise. However, research shows that this comes with risks. Almost all supplements failed in a recent product test. Washington (dpa) – Sleep aids containing melatonin are booming, but new research points to an association between longer-term use and a risk of heart failure. According to an analysis presented at an American Heart Association congress in New Orleans, there is no causal link, and yet there is reason for concern about the use of melatonin and a need for further investigation. "Melatonin supplements may not be as harmless as commonly assumed. If our study is confirmed, this could affect how doctors counsel patients about sleep aids," said Ekenedilichukwu Nnadi, lead author of the study. The study, published in November, reported that participants in the melatonin group were nearly twice as likely to die from any cause than those in the non-melatonin group. “Melatonin supplements are widely thought of as a safe and ‘natural’ option to support better sleep, so it was striking to see such consistent and significant increases in serious health outcomes, even after balancing for many other risk factors,” Nnadi said. Before the study's publication, product testers in Germany analysed 19 over-the-counter melatonin sprays available in Europe and found that the benefit may be very small yet potentially risky. Sixteen of the products tested by Öko-Test magazine were rated “poor” or “inadequate”, with only three earning a “sufficient” rating, in findings published in October. Melatonin is a hormone produced by the body to regulate the sleep-wake cycle. As a medicine, it is prescribed for people over 55 with problems falling and staying asleep, or for children with specific conditions, albeit for a limited time only. Food supplements in Europe, meanwhile, can be marketed with a daily dose of up to 1 milligram without being classed as a medicinal product. Limited benefit for healthy users A scientific opinion commissioned by Öko-Test found that the benefit for healthy users is small, with time to fall asleep reduced by an average of only seven minutes. At the same time, health experts have warned of possible side effects such as drowsiness, reduced alertness or unsteadiness, even with short-term use and doses below 1 milligram. Long-term risks, for example for children or people at risk of diabetes, have not yet been the subject of enough research. On the European market, more than half of the sprays tested contained melatonin amounts that deviated significantly from their labels. In the view of some control authorities, this means certain products cross the line into being medicinal products. In addition, many providers fail to include important warnings, for example for risk groups such as children, pregnant women or people with autoimmune diseases, or they include them only incompletely. Throwing your body clock out of rhythm Doctors have also warned about the casual use of melatonin products for children, as these can disrupt an otherwise stable internal clock and influence other endogenous hormones. n their ratings of 19 melatonin sprays from drugstores, the testers awarded only three a rating of “sufficient”, while 12 were “poor” and four “inadequate”. Overall, the testers did not recommend the sprays. If you have trouble sleeping, it's best not to immediately try melatonin, the testers wrote. Instead, "check your own sleep hygiene." That includes regular sleep times, dark bedrooms and avoiding screens before bed. Melatonin sprays should also only be used after medical consultation and at most for a short period. The following information is not intended for publication dpa/tmn lue yyzz n1 av

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Are you perhaps overdue for your first visit to a urologist? And how uncomfortable is a prostate examination really? Berlin (dpa) – Many a man may feel anxious before seeing a urologist for the first time, perhaps even to the point of getting sweaty palms and going weak at the knees. A digital rectal exam can be a particular object of dread. When should you make an appointment? And what can you expect during your visit? Two urologists have answers: According to Dr Axel Merseburger, spokesman for the German Society for Urology (DGU), a man should see a urologist in cases of frequent or painful urination, blood in urine, recurrent urinary tract infections, kidney stones, erectile dysfunction, testicular pain or unexplained lower abdominal pain. External signs of inflammation in the genital region or lumps in or around the testicles are also cause for an examination by a urologist, says Dr Robert Frese, executive board chairman of the Association of Urologists in Private Practice in Hamburg (VUHH). In addition, urologists can provide consultation on matters relating to fertility, sexual problems or sexually transmitted diseases. "But you should always see your GP first, who can refer you to the proper specialists," Merseburger says. If for nothing else, every man should see a urologist for cancer screening. "Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, as breast cancer is in women," points out Frese. Worldwide, there were an estimated 1,414,259 cases in 2020, according to the Global Cancer Observatory, a specialized agency platform of the World Health Organization. At what age should a man be screened for prostate cancer? Annual screening is recommended for men aged 45 and over. However, even though the procedure may be covered by their health insurance, a large percentage of men typically don't get screened regularly, and many don't at all. How does the initial appointment generally go? Whether it's a cancer screening or you want to have acute symptoms checked, a proper visit with a urologist should begin with a thorough conversation about your medical history, touching on such things as any cancer cases in your family, pre-existing conditions you may have, and your use of medicines. "Your sexual function shouldn't be left out for fear of embarrassment either," Frese says. Depending on any symptoms you may have, a physical examination then follows, perhaps complemented by a urinalysis and/or blood test. What exactly is done during a cancer screening exam? Along with examining and palpating – or feeling – the penis and scrotum for any abnormal areas, the urologist palpates the prostate gland and checks the lymph nodes, Frese says. Prostate palpation, also known as a digital rectal exam (DRE), is somewhat controversial because "not every small, early tumour can be adequately felt."  For this reason, professional medical associations such as the DGU recommend prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening too. PSA is protein produced by cells of the prostate gland, and men with prostate cancer often have an elevated level in their blood. Some non-cancerous conditions can also raise the level, however. Merseburger advises men to consult their urologist about the suitability of having both a DRE and PSA test. Frese, for his part, discourages leaving out a DRE, as "it can provide essential information on the size and shape of the prostate gland as well as palpable abnormalities that could indicate colon cancer." Is the dreaded DRE really so bad? How uncomfortable it's felt to be depends on the individual. In any case, it's not painful and generally takes only a few seconds. You typically lie on your side, knees bent, and the doctor inserts a gloved, lubricated finger into your rectum and palpates the prostate – located just below the urinary bladder – for any hard, lumpy or abnormal areas. "It's a bit unpleasant, but a blood test is worse," remarks Frese. "When you explain its purpose to the patient, they all agree to have it." Along with background information, a little humour can help to ease any embarrassment, he says. Merseburger advises his patients to simply relax and breathe calmly. He also thoroughly explains the importance of a DRE to allay any anxiety or embarrassment. As Frese sees it, the reason that men often neglect to get screened for prostate cancer lies in their psyche: "Men don't like going to a doctor. They tend to regard their body as a machine, and a doctor as a mechanic that you call on only when something isn't working properly." Do only men go to a urologist? No. "Roughly 40% of my patients are women," Frese says, noting that recurrent urinary tract infections, kidney stones or incontinence are the main causes of their visits. "Women can also develop tumours that are treated by a urologist, such as bladder cancer or a kidney tumour." Children, too, get urological treatment. Common causes, according to Merseburger, are congenital anomalies or an undescended testicle. The following information is not intended for publication dpa/tmn ada yyzz a3 bzl rid cja ob

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

London (PA Media/dpa) – Scientists have created the first new anti-malaria drug in quarter of a century in a bid to cut out resistance to existing treatments. Researchers found their new treatment has a “very high cure rate” of more than 97.4% – and in some assessments over 99.2%. Experts said that they were “very excited” by the findings. “This has a potential to not just treat the disease, but also to work against the resistant parasites, [and] additionally, block the transmission of the disease,” said Dr Sujata Vaidyanathan, head of global health development at Novartis, which created the new drug. The treatment, known as GanLum, works by disrupting the internal protein transport system in the malaria parasite – which is essential for the parasite to survive in the blood. Experts said that they have been sounding the alert about resistance to anti-malaria treatments and the GanLum will help stem the concern. Dr Vaidyanathan went on: “We are starting to see emergence of resistance. “In order to address this, we set about to create a totally new kind of compound. “There has not been major innovation in the treatment of malaria in the past 25 years, because the ACT’s (artemisinin-based combination therapies) have worked so well. “But now, resulting in the resistance that is arising, we have set up to develop a completely new treatment for malaria.” She added: “In addition to treating malaria, [it] has the potential to kill the resistant parasites. “The way the drug works is by disrupting the parasite’s internal protein transport system and which then is essential for these parasites to survive inside the red blood cells. “So this way, it’s able to address the disease, as well as able to work across the different parasite spectrum.” Scientists have now reported back on their large clinical trial assessing the treatment in the real world, presenting their findings to the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene annual meeting in Toronto. The trial ran across 34 sites in 12 countries in Sub Saharan Africa involving 1,700 adults and children who weighed more than 10kg. “It had a very high cure rate,” Dr Vaidyanathan said. Commenting on the findings, Professor Abdoulaye Djimde – co-ordinator of the West African Network for Clinical Trials of Antimalarial Drugs, said: “I must say that I’m very, very excited and very pleased to see the results of GanLum. “Despite the progress that has been made recently, malaria is actually becoming more of a challenge because of many factors: climate change; funding cuts and others. “The numbers are going in the wrong direction, added to that, the looming development of resistance. “So having a new compound that is that effective and that safe is music to my ears.” He added: “GanLum could represent the biggest advance in malaria treatment for decades, with high efficacy against multiple forms of the parasite as well as the ability to kill mutant strains that are showing signs of resistance to current medicines.” Novartis said that the novel ingredient in GanLum, ganaplacide, was discovered after screening 2.3 million molecules. GanLum is made up of ganaplacide and a new formulation of existing antimalarial lumefantrine, a longer-acting treatment. The treatment is given as a sachet of granules once a day for three days. Novartis said it plans to seek regulatory approvals from health authorities for GanLum as soon as possible. The following information is not intended for publication pa dpa coh

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Berlin (dpa) – People aged 50 and over can help prevent heart disease and gain years of life by having key health values checked regularly, health experts say. A cardiovascular health check should become a regular part of preventive care no later than age 50, and preferably from 35, according to the German Heart Foundation. In the UK, meanwhile, doctors recommend patients have their heart checked every five years from the age of 40. For timely cardiovascular care, here is what heart specialists recommend: Measure your blood pressure regularly:High blood pressure is the most common modifiable risk factor for conditions such as atrial fibrillation or heart failure, often going unnoticed for a long time. Regularly check your blood pressure and have it managed if necessary. Quit smoking, ideally with help:About one in five cardiovascular deaths worldwide is attributable to smoking, according to the WHO. Doctors recommend health programmes designed to help people quit for a higher chance at success. Keep an eye on your body weight: Fat tissue in the abdominal area or around the heart can promote inflammation. A simple way to assess risk is to measure your waist or calculate your body mass index (BMI). Take action with medical support if needed. Check your heart rhythm with an ECG: An ECG can reveal rhythm disorders such as atrial fibrillation. If detected and treated in time, the risk of stroke falls significantly, by up to 70%, the Heart Foundation says. Some smartwatches come with ECG sensors and can alert you to possible problems, but may also create false alarms. Know your cholesterol levels:An elevated LDL cholesterol level is a key risk factor for atherosclerosis and therefore heart attacks. Experts also advise measuring the blood fat Lp(a) at least once in your lifetime. Monitor your long-term blood sugar:An elevated level of glycohemoglobin can indicate diabetes or a precursor, and it is also a warning sign for cardiovascular risk. Regular measurements help with early intervention. Test your kidney function:Kidney disease often occurs together with heart problems. Blood and urine tests can provide early indications and enable targeted treatment. The following information is not intended for publication dpa/tmn lue yyzz n1 amc coh

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Washington (dpa) – Engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) say they have developed tiny electronic devices, one-billionth the size of a grain of rice, that can be injected into an arm, travel through the bloodstream and attach to the brain. The "microscopic, wireless bioelectronics" are designed to "autonomously self-implant in a target region of the brain," according to MIT, which said the researchers have spent six years working on the project. The idea is that these tiny chips deliver "focused treatment" by electronically stimulating the targeted area of the brain – a development that could lead to new treatments for brain diseases and eliminate the need for risky and complex surgeries to implant devices. The team’s paper was published by the journal Nature Biotechnology and was based on tests on mice that showed the "miniscule implants" as capable of identifying and travelling "to a specific brain region without the need for human guidance." After that the chips can be "wirelessly powered to provide electrical stimulation to the precise area" in a form of stimulation known as "neuromodulation." The human immune system does not reject the robot invaders, as they are "integrated with living, biological cells before being injected," allowing them to cross the blood-brain barrier without causing damage. "We have demonstrated that a bioelectronic implant for the brain … can autonomously implant without external intervention and enables wirelessly controlled, focal brain stimulation," the authors wrote. The researchers say they hope to start clinical trials within three years. The following information is not intended for publication dpa spr coh

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

Chronic fatigue and lack of stamina are common symptoms among those suffering from long Covid. Researchers are now hopeful that a programme of resistance exercise can help. London (PA Media/dpa) – A programme of resistance exercise can help improve the physical and mental well-being of people with long Covid, new research suggests. The study involved 233 people who had developed long Covid after being diagnosed with Covid-19, either in hospital or a community healthcare setting. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two arms of the trial – one which included resistance training such as chest presses, lunges and squats, and one which did not. At the start of the study, researchers assessed each participant using a shuttle walk test and repeated it three months later. They found that after three months, those who had done resistance training were able to go notably further in the shuttle walk test than those who had received only standard healthcare. Researchers say the study, which was led by the University of Glasgow in collaboration with NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, the University of Dundee and NHS Tayside in the UK, highlights the importance of manageable exercise after a serious Covid-19 infection. Professor Colin Berry, principal investigator of the study and professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow, said: “Our study demonstrates the benefits of resistance training on Covid-19 recovery, and suggests that people affected by persisting symptoms after Covid-19 could benefit by adopting this kind of exercise. “Since 2020, research from our group and by others has shown that, for some people, long Covid can have a significant impact on their quality of life, including both mental and physical health. “Our results are another encouraging step forward, adding to our collective understanding of how to better treat this condition.” Long Covid is defined as happening when symptoms of Covid-19 last longer than 12 weeks, and can include fatigue, breathlessness, brain fog and joint pain. Those taking part in the study were given exercises tailored to their level of well-being. Participants who were bedbound were given movements such as lying chest presses, lying leg presses and bridging, while those able to sit up were given seated chest-presses and seated leg extensions. Those who were more mobile were assigned exercises such as press-ups, lunges, calf-raises and squats. The researchers also assessed the wider physical and mental health impacts of the resistance training. They found that participants who were on the exercise arm of the study had a higher grip strength after three months, while exercise also appeared to improve people’s quality of life with less anxiety and depression. Jesse Dawson, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Glasgow and director of research and innovation NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, said: “It is exciting that this resistance training intervention, that could be widely implemented, improved physical measures and also anxiety and quality of life.” The latest research is part of the wider Cardiac Imaging in SARS Coronavirus disease study programme was funded in 2020 as part of the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office Rapid Research Response which aimed to increasing understanding about the pandemic. The research is published in JAMA Network. The following information is not intended for publication pa dpa coh

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)