Saturday, 31 January 2015

Stop Writing Sexist Evaluations says Rutgers Law School Dean

Law School Dean Urges Students To Stop Making ‘Wildly Inappropriate’ Sexist Comments About Female Professor

RUTGERS LAW CAMDEN — VICE DEAN ADAM F. SCALES — EMAIL ON STUDENT EVALUATIONS
Throughout my academic career, I’ve displayed an array of sartorial styles. For years, I veered sharply between “Impoverished Graduate Student” and “British Diplomat.” One summer I taught exclusively in khakis and t-shirts. Lately, it’s been a small rotating cast of Banana Republic’s finest (that 40% off sale every weekend always pulls me in).
Of course, one would never know any of this by reading my student evaluations. That’s because I’m a man.
It has come to my attention that a student submitted an evaluation that explored, in some detail, the fashion stylings of one of your professors. It will surprise no one possessing the slightest familiarity with student evaluations that this professor is a woman. Women are frequently targets of evaluative commentary that, in addition to being wildly inappropriate and adolescent, is almost never directed at men. Believe me, I am about the last person on this faculty for whom the “sexism” label falls readily to hand, but after a lifetime of hearing these stories, I know it when I see it. Anyone who doubts this would find it instructive to stop by and ask any one of our female professors about this and similar dynamics.
Student evaluations are an important tool. They are also a public one, and become part of the permanent record of every faculty member. (Not the bit of fashion advice at issue here, which I struck from the evaluation system in a nanosecond.) When you compose comments about faculty – which can be as direct, negative, and harshly detailed as you like – I want you to remember that you’re writing for the personnel file, and for history. If you have any doubts that posterity will somehow muddle through without the benefit of your fashion advice, allow me to dispel them once and for all.
AFS
Adam F. Scales
Vice Dean and Professor of Law
Rutgers School of Law, Camden

Thursday, 29 January 2015

Classic cars? Just throw the stick please




Margaret McCartney: Don’t be bullied into prescribing Tamiflu

Views & Reviews No Holds Barred

Margaret McCartney: Don’t be bullied into prescribing Tamiflu

BMJ 2015; 350 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h417 (Published 22 January 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h417

  1. Margaret McCartney, general practitioner, Glasgow
  1. margaret@margaretmccartney.com
I have recurrent thoughts about times when doctors felt adamant about the benefit of interventions—putting babies to sleep on their front, for example, or giving steroids to people with head injury, or bloodletting—that turned out to be lethal.
Now we have guidelines, hundreds of them. Good guidelines would distil evidence cautiously, making clear what we know and where the gaps are. They would say how many people would get what benefit from a treatment, while identifying the cost in terms of harm. But guidelines are not always applicable to our patients,1 and they are meant to guide practice; rarely should they dictate it.
The medical director and the centre director for the Thames Valley area of NHS England have recently written to GPs about the prophylactic use of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) for flu in nursing homes. They wrote, “It is concerning that doctors may be deterred from prescribing antivirals and this could be putting lives at risk.”
They noted “differing interpretations of the evidence base” but added that the Medical Defence Union has identified an “expectation on the part of the public and the legal profession that NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidance and PHE [Public Health England] advice would be followed.” They also said “it is expected” that GPs “would make a decision to prescribe based on the needs of their patient and the evidence of best practice and guidance from national bodies such as NICE and PHE,” adding, “There is also an expectation defined in the GMC’s [General Medical Council] Good Medical Practice that a doctor will respond to an organisation advising on public health.”
This reads as a veiled threat: if GPs decide not to prescribe oseltamivir for all patients in a nursing home, lawyers and the GMC could dust down their robes and eviscerate the doctor for not following orders. In a no blame, patient centred NHS, things might be different.
Why might doctors hesitate with their prescription pads? It could be because 33 people have to be treated prophylactically to prevent one case of flu.2 One in 20 will vomit, and one in 100 will have neuropsychiatric side effects. Or maybe it’s because NICE didn’t include a negative trial in its calculations.3 And PHE cites serial relative risks, but it remains unclear whether the data apply to multimorbid people in nursing homes.4
All of this leaves us with a drug of uncertain, probably marginal benefit—and difficult choices. The architects of mass public health interventions still don’t grasp that populations are made up of individual patients. Each person offered antivirals needs not just an assessment of dose but also a discussion of risk and harm. Without extra resources what work would PHE suggest that primary care staff stop doing to fit this in?
Doctors must question what they are told to do, speak up, and point out flaws in arguments when asked to prescribe drugs of questionable benefit. Prescribing because of fear is toxic to patient care and safety.

Notes

Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h417

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: I have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: I’m an NHS GP partner, with income partly dependent on Quality and Outcomes Framework points. I’m a part time undergraduate tutor at the University of Glasgow. I’ve written two books and earn from broadcast and written freelance journalism. I’m an unpaid patron of Healthwatch. I make a monthly donation to Keep Our NHS Public. I’m a member of Medact. I’m occasionally paid for time, travel, and accommodation to give talks or have locum fees paid to allow me to give talks but never for any drug or public relations company. I was elected to the national council of the Royal College of General Practitioners in 2013 and am chair of its standing group on overdiagnosis. I have invested a small amount of money in a social enterprise, Who Made Your Pants?
  • thebmj.com Blog: The BMJ Today: Should I prescribe anti-virals to prevent flu for nursing home patients? (http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2015/01/21/the-bmj-today-should-i-prescribe-anti-virals-to-prevent-flu-for-nursing-home-patients/)
  • The BMJ’s readers can buy Margaret’s new book, Living with Dying, for £7.99 (RRP £11.99) including UK delivery from www.pinterandmartin.com with checkout code BMJ799.
  • Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

References


Wednesday, 28 January 2015

Campus Rape Doc ‘The Hunting Ground’ Premieres at Sundance

Campus Rape Doc ‘The Hunting Ground’ Premieres at Sundance http://variety.com/2015/film/news/campus-rape-doc-the-hunting-ground-premieres-at-sundance-1201413558/ via @Variety

Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Study suggests sleeping drugs can increase risk of Alzheimer’s


Study suggests sleeping drugs can increase risk of Alzheimer’s

Nytol, Benadryl, Ditropan and Piriton among the medications identified by scientists as raising likelihood of dementia
 
 http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/27/sleeping-drugs-increased-risk-alzheimers#
Older people's hands
The study adds to existing evidence linking anticholinergic drugs to an increased risk of dementia. Photograph: Boston Globe/Getty Images
Over-the-counter sleeping aids and hayfever treatments can increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, a study has found. The sleeping medication Nytol and anti-allergy pills Benadryl and Piriton all belong to a class of drug highlighted in a warning from researchers.
Each of these drugs has “anticholinergic” blocking effects on the nervous system that are said – at higher doses – to raise the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia significantly over several years.
Other drugs on the risk list include older “tricyclic” antidepressants such as doxepin, and the bladder control treatment Ditropan (oxybutynin). Many of these medicines are taken by vulnerable older people, according to the scientists, who say their findings have public health implications.
Anticholinergic drugs block a nervous system chemical transmitter called acetylcholine, which can lead to side-effects including drowsiness, blurred vision and poor memory. People with Alzheimer’s disease are known to lack acetylcholine.
The leader of the US study, Professor Shelly Gray, director of the geriatric pharmacy programme at the University of Washington School of Pharmacy, said: “Older adults should be aware that many medications – including some available without a prescription, such as over-the-counter sleep aids – have strong anticholinergic effects. And they should tell their healthcare providers.
“Of course, no one should stop taking any therapy without consulting their healthcare provider. Healthcare providers should regularly review their older patients’ drug regimens – including over-the-counter medications – to look for chances to use fewer anticholinergic medications at lower doses.”
Dr Simon Ridley, at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “This large study adds to some existing evidence linking anticholinergic drugs to a small increased risk of dementia, but the results don’t tell us that these drugs cause the condition.
“Continued research to shed light on these links will be important for helping understand the benefits and potential risks of these drugs. In the meantime, anyone who is worried about the medication they are taking should seek advice from a doctor or pharmacist before stopping a course of treatment.”
Dr Doug Brown, director of research and development at the Alzheimer’s Society, said: “There have been concerns that regular use by older people of certain medications with anticholinergic effects, such as sleep aids and hayfever treatments, can increase the risk of dementia in certain circumstances, which this study supports. However, it is still unclear whether this is the case and if so, whether the effects seen are a result of long-term use or several episodes of short-term use.
“More robust research is needed to understand what the potential dangers are, and if some drugs are more likely to have this effect than others.”
Previous research has raised concerns about the use of anticholinergic drugs and mental impairment in the elderly. But the new study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, is the first to show a dose response linking greater use of the medicines with an increasing risk of dementia.
The scientists tracked the health of 3,434 men and women aged 65 and over for around seven years while monitoring their use of anticholinergic drugs. Of those, 637 developed Alzheimer’s and 160 were afflicted by other forms of dementia.
For those taking the highest doses of anticholinergic drugs over the study period, the relative risk of dementia was increased by a statistically significant 54% compared with no use. The risk of Alzheimer’s alone was raised by 63%.
The findings showed that people taking at least 10mg per day of doxepin, 4mg per day of diphenhydramine (Nytol, Benadryl) or 5mg per day of oxybutynin (Ditropan) for more than three years were at an increased risk of developing dementia.Available substitutes that did not have anticholinergic effects included selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants such as Prozac and newer anti-histamine allergy treatments including loratadine (Claritin), said Gray.
She added: “If providers need to prescribe a medication with anticholinergic effects because it is the best therapy for their patient, they should use the lowest effective dose, monitor the therapy regularly to ensure it’s working, and stop the therapy if it’s ineffective.”
In their paper, the researchers pointed out that anticholinergic effects in animals had been shown to increase levels of beta-amyloid protein in the brain, one of the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s.
They concluded: “These findings … have public health implications for the education of older adults about potential safety risks because some anticholinergics are available as over-the-counter products.
“Given the devastating consequences of dementia, informing older adults about this potentially modifiable risk would allow them to choose alternative products and collaborate with their health care professionals to minimise overall anticholinergic use.
“Additional studies are needed to confirm these findings and to understand the underlying mechanisms.”

Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia - Common mullein, pharmacological and chemical aspects

Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia - Common mullein, pharmacological and chemical aspects

Monday, 26 January 2015

NAFTA investor-state claims against Canada are out of control

NAFTA investor-state claims against Canada are "out of control": study http://shar.es/1ble3N via @sharethis


NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015 and its accompanying analysis, Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism, are available on the CCPA website at http://policyalternatives.ca - See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study#sthash.HhUTrPrV.dpuf
NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015 and its accompanying analysis, Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism, are available on the CCPA website at http://policyalternatives.ca - See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study#sthash.HhUTrPrV.dpuf

NAFTA investor-state claims against Canada are "out of control": study




January 14, 2015
OTTAWA— Over the last two decades, Canada has been sued more times than either Mexico or the U.S. under NAFTA's controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, and the problem is getting worse.
A study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) finds over 70% of all NAFTA investor-state claims since 2005 were brought against the Canadian government and the number of challenges against Canada is rising sharply. From 1995-2005, there were 12 claims against Canada, while in the last ten years there have been 23.
"It appears that the federal government's strong ideological commitment to ISDS and its willingness to settle and pay compensation is encouraging investor-state claims against Canada," says Sinclair.
As of January 1, 2015, 45% of NAFTA claims were made against Canada. Canada has been the target of 35 investor-state claims, significantly more than either Mexico (22) or the U.S. (20). "Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement, than any other developed country in the world," Sinclair added.
The study notes that although NAFTA proponents claimed that ISDS was needed to address concerns about corruption in the Mexican court system, most investor-state challenges involve public policy and regulatory matters. Sixty three per cent of claims against Canada involve challenges to environmental protection or resource management measures.
Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over $6 billion in damages from the Canadian government.
These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon).
Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages totaling over $170 million and incurred tens of millions more in legal costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204 million. The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.
The pervasive threat of investor-state challenge under NAFTA chapter 11 puts a chill on public interest regulation, the report argues. Current trends will only worsen unless political and legal action is taken.
"Canadians and their elected officials should be deeply concerned. Unfortunately, compared to other parts of the world, there is surprisingly little political debate about the corrosive influence of ISDS on public policy and democracy in Canada," Sinclair stated.
–30–
NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015 and its accompanying analysis, Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism, are available on the CCPA website at http://policyalternatives.ca
For more information contact Kerri-Anne Finn, CCPA Senior Communications Officer, at 613-563-1341 x306.
Offices: 


- See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study#sthash.HhUTrPrV.dpuf

NAFTA investor-state claims against Canada are "out of control": study




January 14, 2015
OTTAWA— Over the last two decades, Canada has been sued more times than either Mexico or the U.S. under NAFTA's controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, and the problem is getting worse.
A study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) finds over 70% of all NAFTA investor-state claims since 2005 were brought against the Canadian government and the number of challenges against Canada is rising sharply. From 1995-2005, there were 12 claims against Canada, while in the last ten years there have been 23.
"It appears that the federal government's strong ideological commitment to ISDS and its willingness to settle and pay compensation is encouraging investor-state claims against Canada," says Sinclair.
As of January 1, 2015, 45% of NAFTA claims were made against Canada. Canada has been the target of 35 investor-state claims, significantly more than either Mexico (22) or the U.S. (20). "Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement, than any other developed country in the world," Sinclair added.
The study notes that although NAFTA proponents claimed that ISDS was needed to address concerns about corruption in the Mexican court system, most investor-state challenges involve public policy and regulatory matters. Sixty three per cent of claims against Canada involve challenges to environmental protection or resource management measures.
Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over $6 billion in damages from the Canadian government.
These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon).
Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages totaling over $170 million and incurred tens of millions more in legal costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204 million. The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.
The pervasive threat of investor-state challenge under NAFTA chapter 11 puts a chill on public interest regulation, the report argues. Current trends will only worsen unless political and legal action is taken.
"Canadians and their elected officials should be deeply concerned. Unfortunately, compared to other parts of the world, there is surprisingly little political debate about the corrosive influence of ISDS on public policy and democracy in Canada," Sinclair stated.
–30–
NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015 and its accompanying analysis, Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism, are available on the CCPA website at http://policyalternatives.ca
For more information contact Kerri-Anne Finn, CCPA Senior Communications Officer, at 613-563-1341 x306.
Offices: 


- See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study#sthash.HhUTrPrV.dpuf

NAFTA investor-state claims against Canada are "out of control": study




January 14, 2015
OTTAWA— Over the last two decades, Canada has been sued more times than either Mexico or the U.S. under NAFTA's controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, and the problem is getting worse.
A study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) finds over 70% of all NAFTA investor-state claims since 2005 were brought against the Canadian government and the number of challenges against Canada is rising sharply. From 1995-2005, there were 12 claims against Canada, while in the last ten years there have been 23.
"It appears that the federal government's strong ideological commitment to ISDS and its willingness to settle and pay compensation is encouraging investor-state claims against Canada," says Sinclair.
As of January 1, 2015, 45% of NAFTA claims were made against Canada. Canada has been the target of 35 investor-state claims, significantly more than either Mexico (22) or the U.S. (20). "Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement, than any other developed country in the world," Sinclair added.
The study notes that although NAFTA proponents claimed that ISDS was needed to address concerns about corruption in the Mexican court system, most investor-state challenges involve public policy and regulatory matters. Sixty three per cent of claims against Canada involve challenges to environmental protection or resource management measures.
Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over $6 billion in damages from the Canadian government.
These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon).
Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages totaling over $170 million and incurred tens of millions more in legal costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204 million. The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.
The pervasive threat of investor-state challenge under NAFTA chapter 11 puts a chill on public interest regulation, the report argues. Current trends will only worsen unless political and legal action is taken.
"Canadians and their elected officials should be deeply concerned. Unfortunately, compared to other parts of the world, there is surprisingly little political debate about the corrosive influence of ISDS on public policy and democracy in Canada," Sinclair stated.
–30–
NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015 and its accompanying analysis, Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism, are available on the CCPA website at http://policyalternatives.ca
For more information contact Kerri-Anne Finn, CCPA Senior Communications Officer, at 613-563-1341 x306.
Offices: 


- See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study#sthash.HhUTrPrV.dpuf

Sunday, 25 January 2015

Clergy tell Florida police to use them instead of black men for target practice

Florida police used mugshots of black men for target practice. Clergy responded: #UseMeInstead. http://wapo.st/1EIy0ny

Friday, 23 January 2015

NCCIH Clinical Digest. In This Issue -- Weight Control and Complementary and Integrative Approaches

NCCIH Clinical Digest. In This Issue -- Weight Control and Complementary and Integrative Approaches

Food Control Review paper - Natural products as antimicrobial agents

Volume 46, December 2014, Pages 412–429
Review

Natural products as antimicrobial agents


Highlights

Natural antimicrobials could be used as alternatives to synthetic preservatives.
Structural variation in plant compounds alters their antimicrobial activity.
Plant by-products have the potential to be used as natural preservatives.

Abstract

The use of natural antimicrobial compounds in food has gained much attention by the consumers and the food industry. This is due primarily to two major factors. First, the misuse and mishandling of antibiotics has resulted in the dramatic rise of a group of microorganisms including foodborne pathogens that are not only antibiotic resistant but also more tolerant to several food processing and preservation methods. In addition, increasing consumers' awareness of the potential negative impact of synthetic preservatives on health versus the benefits of natural additives has generated interest among researchers in the development and use of natural products in foods. This has prompted the food industry to look for alternative preservatives that can enhance the safety and quality of foods. Compounds derived from natural sources have the potential to be used for food safety due to their antimicrobial properties against a broad range of foodborne pathogens. This article reviews the antibacterial activity of natural components from different sources including plants, animals, bacteria, algae and mushrooms, and their potential use in food systems.

Keywords

  • Natural antimicrobials;
  • Structure-function;
  • Plant by-products;
  • Algae and mushrooms;
  • Foodborne pathogens;
  • Food safety

Thursday, 22 January 2015

Plants used to treat snakebites in Santarém, western Pará, Brazil: An assessment of their effectiveness in inhibiting hemorrhagic activity induced by Bothrops jararaca venom



Volume 161, 23 February 2015, Pages 224–232
Research Paper

Plants used to treat snakebites in Santarém, western Pará, Brazil: An assessment of their effectiveness in inhibiting hemorrhagic activity induced by Bothrops jararaca venom



Abstract

Ethnopharmacological relevance

The poor distribution and limited availability of antivenoms in Brazil have led to greater use of plants to treat snakebites. Very often such plants are the only alternative available to riverside communities.

Materials and methods

Direct questionnaire-based interviews were conducted with members of the Cucurunã, São Pedro and Alter do Chão communities in Santarém, Pará, Brazil. For each of the 12 most frequently mentioned species aqueous extracts were prepared and the phytochemical profiles determined by thin layer chromatography. The concentrations of phenolic compounds (tannins and flavonoids) in the aqueous extracts were determined by colorimetric assays. To assess inhibition of the hemorrhagic activity of Bothrops jararaca venom, solutions containing the venom mixed with aqueous extracts in the ratios 1:12 and 1:48 were tested (w/w). SDS-PAGE and Western blot were used to assess the action of the extracts on Bothrops jararaca venom.

Results

In all, 24 plants belonging to 19 families were mentioned in the survey as being used to treat snakebites. Leaves (84%), seeds (60.9%) and inner bark (53%) were cited as the most frequently used parts in folk remedies, which were usually prepared in the form of a decoction (62.5%), tincture (45%) or maceration (22.5%). Hemorrhage induced by Bothrops jararaca venom was completely inhibited by aqueous extracts of Bellucia dichotoma, Connarus favosus, Plathymenia reticulata and Philodendron megalophyllum, which had a high phenolic content and contained condensed and hydrolyzable tannins. The results of SDS-PAGE showed that some venom protein bands were not visible when the venom was preincubated with the extracts that had completely inhibited hemorrhagic activity of the venom. Western blot showed that the extracts did not have any enzymatic action on the proteins in the venom as it failed to detect low-molecular-weight bands, which are indicative of possible enzymatic cleavage.

Conclusions

Traditional use of plants to treat snakebites is a common practice in the western region of Pará, Brazil. Our findings show that some plant extracts were able to inhibit snake venom-induced hemorrhage in vitro. In vivo studies are being carried out to validate the traditional use of these species to treat snakebites.

Graphical abstract

Full-size image (37 K)

Keywords

  • Ethnobotany;
  • Plant extracts;
  • Snakebite envenomation;
  • Anti-snakebite plants;
  • Hemorrhage

Corresponding author at: Programa Multi-institucional de Pós-graduação em Biotecnologia, Laboratório de Imunologia, Departamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Av. General Octávio Jordão Ramos, 3000, Japiim, CEP 69057-000 Manaus, AM, Brazil. Tel.: +55 9281641596.

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

MONEY IS KING By The Growling Tiger


MONEY IS KING
By The Growling Tiger
http://guanaguanaresingsat.blogspot.ca/2010/10/money-is-king.html

 http://youtu.be/4acONMykrb4


If a man have money today
People do not care if he have cocobay [A skin disease]
If a man have money today
People do not care if he have cocobay
He can commit murder and get off free
And live in the governor’s company
But if you are poor, the people tell you “Shoo!
And a dog is better than you.

If you have money to buy in a store
The boss will shake your hands at the door
Call the clerk to take down everything
Whiskey, cloth, earring and diamond ring
Send them to your home on a motorbike
You can pay the bills whenever you like
And not a soul will ask you a thing
They know very well that money is king

A man with a collar and tie and waistcoat
Ask the Chinee man to trust him accra and float
Me no trus’ am!” bawl out de Chinee man
You better move on from me frying pan.
You’re a college man. Me no know ABC
You want am accra, gi am penny.”
The worms start to jump in the man belly
And he cry out, “A dog is better than me!

A dog can walk about and take up bone
Fowl head, stale bread, fish tail and pone
If it’s a good breed and not too wild
People will take it and mind as a child
But when a hungry man goes out to beg
They set a bulldog behind his leg
Twenty policeman will arrest him too
You see where a dog is better than you.

If you have money and things going nice
Any woman would call you honey and spice
If you can't give her dress or a new pair of shoe
She'll say she have no uses for you
When you try to caress her, she'll tell you stop
"I can't carry love in the grocery shop."
And most of you will agree that it's true
If you ent have money dog is better than you.

BMJ Editorial Firm action needed on predatory journals

 
 
Editorials

Firm action needed on predatory journals

BMJ 2015; 350 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h210 (Published 17 January 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h210


  1. Jocalyn Clark, executive editor and assistant professor of medicine,
  2. Richard Smith, chair
  1. Correspondence to: J Clark j.clark@utoronto.ca
They’re harming researchers in low and middle income countries most, but everyone must fight back
The rapid rise of predatory journals—publications taking large fees without providing robust editorial or publishing services—has created what some have called an age of academic racketeering.1 Predatory journals recruit articles through aggressive marketing and spam emails, promising quick review and open access publication for a price. There is little if any quality control and virtually no transparency about processes and fees. Their motive is financial gain, and they are corrupting the communication of science. Their main victims are institutions and researchers in low and middle income countries, and the time has come to act rather than simply to decry them.
Unfortunately, predatory publishing is often confused with open access publishing, whereby studies are free to all and can be reused for many purposes. Legitimate open access publishing—which has widely benefited scientific communication—uses all the professional and ethical practices associated with the best science publishing. Predatory publishing upholds few if any of the best practices yet demands payment for publishing. Under traditional models of publishing librarians were sophisticated purchasers of subscriptions, but in this new model many individual researchers are unable to distinguish between reputable and predatory …

Sign in

Re: Firm action needed on predatory journals

Thank you so much to the editors for this recent editorial on predatory publishing practices. As you noted, this is a huge problem and getting worse by the minute.
I fully agree with your recommendation that journals and journal editors have a responsibility to raise awareness among their authors, readers, reviewers, and publishers and "should publish something." To this end, the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) has established an initiative on Open Access, Editorial Standards and Predatory Publishing. This came about after our annual meeting last summer, at which Jeffrey Beall was one of the keynote speakers.
Our first step was to create a collaborative document, "Predatory Publishers: What Editors Need to Know." This was published in September in Nurse Author & Editor and can be found here:
http://www.nurseauthoreditor.com/article.asp?id=261
We made this document available to any nursing editor who wanted to use it as a basis for an editorial in his or her journal. So far 7 editorials have been published, as well as a reprint of the paper, and a blog post. More editorials are in the pipeline. We are keeping track of these publications at the INANE website:
http://nursingeditors.com/inane-initiatives/open-access-editorial-standa...
As INANE leaders, we are proud of our efforts in this regard. We are glad that you concur that our approach is appropriate and important in addressing this increasingly problematic issue.
Thank you.
Competing interests: No competing interests

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Efficacy of free and nanoencapsulated Eucalyptus citriodora essential oils on sheep gastrointestinal nematodes and toxicity for mice

Volume 204, Issues 3–4, 29 August 2014, Pages 243–248

Efficacy of free and nanoencapsulated Eucalyptus citriodora essential oils on sheep gastrointestinal nematodes and toxicity for mice


Abstract

Herbal medicines with anthelmintic effects are alternatives for the sustainable control and prevention of disease caused by gastrointestinal parasites. The nanoencapsulation of essential oils has been proposed to enhance the absorption of their constituents and improve their efficacy. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of free and nanoencapsulated Eucalyptus citriodora essential oil (EcEO) on the control of gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants in vitro and in vivo. Chitosan was used as a matrix for the formulation of a nanoemulsion. Chromatographic and physico-chemical analyses of EcEO were performed. Egg hatch (EHT) and larval development (LDT) tests were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of nanoencapsulated and free EcEO on the eggs and larvae of Haemonchus contortus. Acute toxicity of free and nanoencapsulated EcEO was evaluated using mice. Finally, nanoencapsulated EcEO efficacy on the control of gastrointestinal nematodes was calculated by fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) treating 30 sheep naturally infected with 250 mg/kg of free and nanoencapsulated EcEO. In vitro tests were analyzed by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by comparison with the Tukey test. The efficacy of FECRT was calculated by the BootStreet program through arithmetic average, using the formula 100 (1 − XT/XC). To compare the differences between epg, the data were transformed to log (x + 1) and subjected to an ANOVA to compare the significant differences between groups by Tukey's. The level of significance was P < 0.05. The free (4 mg/ml concentration) and nanoencapsulated (2 mg/ml concentration) EcEO inhibited larvae hatching by 97.2% and 92.8%, respectively. Free and nanoencapsulated EcEO at 8 mg/ml inhibited larval development by 99.8% and 98.1%, respectively. In the acute toxicity test, the LD10 and LD50 of free EcEO was 1999 and 2653 mg/kg, respectively, while the LD10 and LD50 of nanoencapsulated EcEO was 1121 and 1681 mg/kg, respectively. Nanoencapsulated and free EcEO reduced FEC similarly by 40.5% and 55.9%, respectively at 10 days post-treatment. Nanoencapsulated EcEO did not obtain the expected efficacy in vivo.

Keywords

  • Chitosan;
  • Nanoemulsion;
  • Nematodes;
  • Haemonchus contortus;
  • Sheep;
  • Eucalyptus citriodora

Corresponding author at: Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências Veterinárias/FAVET/UECE, Av. Silas Munguba, 1700, Campus do Itaperi, CEP 60714-903 Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil. Tel.: +55 85 31019853; fax: +55 85 31019840.