Holding in a sneezing can be a literal pain in the neck

( CNN) If you are about to sneeze — even if you are in a quiet place — doctors would advise you to let it rip. A 34 -year-old unnamed man in Britain became aware that lesson the hard way and had to expend 2 week in the hospital due to his resultinginjury. That’s according to a suit report with the cringe-inducing title “Snap, crackle and pop: when sneezing have contributed to crackling in the neck.” The report was published Monday in the medical journal BMJ Case Reports.

According to the report, this “previously fit” human pinched his nose and kept his mouth closed during a “forceful” sneeze. He afterward told physicians he instantly felt a popping sensation in his neck. He didn’t notice any problems right away, but a couple of hours later he felt ache in his throat and neck. When “its become” swollen and his voice changed, he took himself to the hospital.

“This 34 -year-old chap said he was always trying to hold his sneezing because he thinks it is very unhygienic to sneeze into the ambiance or into someone’s face. That entails he’s been holding his sneeze for the last 30 years or so, but this time it was different, ” case report author Dr. Wanding Yang said. She works in the department of ear , snout and throat at at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust.

Bill Gates Calls Detained Saudi Prince Alwaleed an Important Partner

Bill Gates said that Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who was arrested as part of the kingdom’s anti-corruption drive this month, has been an “important partner” in charitable work to improve health conditions around the globe.

” I’m only aware of what I’ve read in the press, and I can’t speculate ,” the Microsoft Corp. co-founder said in an emailed statement.” Prince Alwaleed has been an important partner in my foundation’s work to ensure that children around the world receive life-saving vaccinations. We’ve worked together to help stop the spread of polio, measles, and other preventable diseases. His commitment to philanthropy is inspiring .”

Alwaleed, the billionaire investor whose Kingdom Holding Co . owns stakes in companies such as Citigroup Inc . and Twitter Inc ., is among dozens of princes, ministers and senior officials being held on orders from an anti-corruption committee headed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Alwaleed and Gates’s Cascade Investment LLC teamed up a decade ago to take hotel chain Four Seasons Holdings Inc. private for about $3.8 billion. The Saudi prince has also teamed with Gates’s foundation on health initiatives and joined him on the Breakthrough Energy Coalition — a group of wealthy investors who pledged to aim a large portion of their lucks toward energy technology.

Khloe Kardashian& Lamar Odom ‘Aren’t Talking’ Amid Divorce — Get The Latest On Their Rocky Relationship

Wow. Seems

According to a source, “it was her decision, ” citing her recent annoyances with him since his recovery from a near fatal overdose. The former NBA starring has been spotted drinking, and it’s also been reported friends are worried about his health, urging him to go to rehab.

Well, the same insider continued to dish:

“The days she went to see him lately, he was pretty messed up. She’s sick of it. She feels like she’s done everything she can and it’s just ridiculous at this point.”

It definitely sounds like Khlo is the one putting in all the work here.

It’s only a dishonor that they can’t make things work right now.

What do U guess ???

[ Image via WENN .]

Read more: perezhilton.com

Brain experiments on primates are crucial, say eminent scientists

Two nobel laureates among 400 scientists who sign letter repudiating claims that use of primates is no longer medically useful

More than 400 scientists including two Nobel laureates have signed a letter stating that brain experimentations on primates are crucial to medical advances, in response to claims that they are cruel and no longer useful.

Last week, Sir David Attenborough and the primatologist Dame Jane Goodall called for an objective to the use of non-human primates in certain neuroscience experimentations, saying medical progress in this area could now be made without the use of monkeys.

In a letter to the Guardian, scientists including the Nobel laureates Sir John Gurdon and Sir John Walker, rejected this claim, arguing that primate research was still critical for developing therapies for dementia and other debilitating illnesses.

Neurodegenerative illness are a major and growing scourge of our ageing population, Walker told the Guardian. If we are to find ways for prevention and remedy, continued experimental access to primates under carefully controlled conditions is essential.

The latest round in the long-running debate on animal research was activated by a research paper, which concluded that there was no longer any need for experiments on primates involving motion restraint or fluid deprivation.

The review, by the campaign group Cruelty Free International( formerly the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection ), suggested the need for such experimentations had been superseded by modern brain imaging techniques, such as MRI, and by the ability to construct records from patients brains during surgery.

Speaking in support of the findings, Attenborough told the Independent: The recognition that apes, surely, and to an extent other primates, are so akin to ourselves, and can suffer so much, as we are capable of, has transformed our posture, or should have transformed our stance, to using them for our own benefit.

Goodall, who has analyse wild chimpanzees in Tanzania over fives decades, told: To confine these primate relatives of ours to laboratory enclosures and subject them to experimentations that are often distressing and painful is, in my opinion, morally wrong.

However, scientists conveyed their concern that the importance of primate research had been played down.

Sir Colin Blakemore, an eminent neuroscientist and signatory of the Guardian letter, told: In the past year alone, research on monkeys has helped efforts to create new inoculations and therapies for Ebola, Zika and Aids, to develop new cholesterol-reducing drugs to prevent heart disease, and to design prosthetic devices for seriously disabled people. Somehow, we need to balance moral responsibility to human beings against moral obligations to animals.

Roger Lemon, emeritus prof at University College London, said the CFI review appeared to place animal welfare above that of patients. The newspaper suggests that all the work done in primates could be done in seriously ill patients. It suggests that they dont have that much respect for ill people.

Research on primates accounts for less than 0.1% of all animal research in the UK and this figure has been following a downward trend for the past few decades. In 2015, 3,612 procedures were carried out on primates, out of 4,142, 631 total procedures on all species( figures are given by procedure rather than by animal ).

The US National Institutes of Health announced last year that it would end the use of chimpanzees in medical research. Research on great apes( chimps, gorillas and orangutans) has been banned in the UK since the 1980 s, but other primates, such as marmosets and macaques continue to be used in neuroscience experiments, including in the development of new medications.

For instance, scientists at Kings College London estimate that around 80% of all narcotics for the therapy of Parkinsons were originally tested at the marmoset laboratory there. But some research carried out on primates relates to more basic questions about the organisation of the brain, for instance, how memory or the visual system works.

Vicky Robinson, the chief executive of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research( NC3Rs) said that both sides of the debate had been disingenuous about the value of the work.

One over-exaggerates the state of the available alternatives and the other generalises the medical benefits that research use these animals has delivered, she told. It is time for a great deal more transparency from both sides. Anything else undermines the science as well as downplaying the animal welfare concerns associated with these experiments.

Dr Katy Taylor, the director of science at Cruelty Free International, told: The utilize of non-human primates in neuroscience experimentations is a hugely controversial area of studies with profound ethical and moral fears. An increasing number within the scientific community question the morality and value of subjecting monkeys to such substantial high levels of suffering suffering that can involves invasive brain surgery, water deprivation, physical coercion and physical restraint.

Read more: www.theguardian.com

Health Research Ignores Women, And That Needs To Change ASAP

When the Food and Drug Administration approved Addyi, a prescription drug for women with low libido, this summer, it did so with a major caveat: Absolutely no drinking while taking the narcotic, or risk serious side effects. There was only one problem with this recommendation: The researchers who investigated Addyi’s drug-interaction side effects tested the drug, which is now being designed for women , on men.

The drug-interaction study comprised 23 men and two women, far too small of a female sample size to assess women’s risk of drinking while taking the drug. Since females are both more likely to have adverse drug reactions and to metabolize alcohol differently than humen, the male results from the drug-interaction analyze is mainly worthless. So why didn’t researchers make an effort to recruit female study participants?

As it turns out, this summer’s fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg. Women have been excluded or underrepresented in medical and scientific research for as long as those fields have been studied.

One of the key ways females are left behind is by being excluded from or underrepresented in the clinical trials. Since clinical trial research advances our knowledge about everything from the efficacy of new medications to which therapies work best for certain illnesses and certain groups of people, exclusion or underrepresentation in their own homes means girls are forced to accept second-class health care almost every time they receive health services.

Clinical trials have a gender problem

Women make up 51 percent of the United States’ population, but you wouldn’t is well aware from looking at the demographics of a typical clinical trial.

Forty-eight percent of cancer deaths are among women, but women only make up 40 percent of cancer treatment and prevention trials. And good luck getting appropriate representation in studies if you’re a minority girl: 80 percent of participants in cancer treatment and prevention trials are white.

The disparity is especially stark in HIV research. Women make up a mere 11 percent of participants in trials for potential HIV remedies, despite the fact that half of the world’s HIV suits are in women.

‘One extreme to the other’

Historically, research and government policies were designed to protect women of childbearing age from experimental hazard — a legitimate, if paternalistic, concern.

In practice, however, these policies effectively removed all women from trials. “We moved from one extreme to the other, ” told Carolyn Mazure, director of Women’s Health Research at Yale and the author of an article on the history of gender disparities in biomedical research that was published last month in BMC Women’s Health.

The BMC article chronicles the United States’ progress in including women in clinical trials over the past 20 years, starting with the landmark National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act in 1993, which required that women and minorities be included in federally funded analyzes. Though influential, the law did not require that girls be equally is to be found in trials , nor did it require that study results be analyzed by gender.

“These are large organizations with big histories, ” Mazure said. “Change arrives slowly.”

Indeed, science’s rate of change in response to the gender-research gap has been downright glacial, and plagued by misinformation. Some researchers presumed — incorrectly — that examines done on humen would also apply to women, ignoring the differences between the sexes. Others believed that conditions traditionally thought to affect humen, such as cardiovascular disease, didn’t affect females to the same degree.

In reality, more females succumb of cardiovascular disease per year than humen, a known fact that fewer than 1 out of 5 physicianswere aware of as recently as 2005, according to a study published in the journal Circulation.

That knowledge gap can be deadly for women. A Circulation study published in 2009 analyzed 6,000 people who called 911 reporting cardiac symptoms, and found that women had a 50 percent greater chance of being delayed in an emergency medical services defining. They also arrived at the hospital an average of 2.3 minutes behind men who reported the identical symptoms.

Even female animals are excluded from research

Sex-based bias isn’t exclusive to human research. In animal research, female rodents are similarly excluded from study. That’s important because animal analyses are typically a precursor to testing in humen. If female animals( or female cells, for that matter) aren’t researched from the get-go, scientists wont take medications or therapies that work especially well on female animals to human trial.

And gender disparities in animal research are significant. A 2011 examine published in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews analyzed sex bias in animal research and found that male bias was evident in eight out of nine biological fields. It was especially permeating in neuroscience, where among single-sex analyzes, exclusively male animals analyses outnumbered exclusively female animal analyzes at a rate of 5.5 to 1.

See the graph below for how female animals are excluded from research :

When researchers did include female animals, many didn’t analyze the results by sexuality. Other scientists never reported the sex of the animals they were studying at all.

“We couldnt even find out if they had used males or females, because some papers didnt even bother to tell, ” Annaliese Beery, an assistant professor at Smith College and lead author of the study, told The Huffington Post. “That, to me, is just unconscionable.”

Female mice have smellier urine. An actual justification used for an all-male study.

Part of their own problems is an entrenched( and inaccurate) belief that girls are more variable than humen, and that female rodents are more variable than male rodents, Beery explained.

In other terms, scientists assumed that women’s menstrual and reproductive cycles and female animals’ estrus cycles would construct them more complicated to analyse. If researchers don’t feel like tracking the estrus cycles of female mice, they just avoid analyzing them.

But in 2014, researchers refuted this premise in a meta-analysis of nearly 300 studies that investigated hundreds of traits and found that males and mice were equivalently variable.

“People will come up with weird explanations, ” told Beery, who said she has heard a variety of excuses — from, “I just wishes to do things like everybody else does them, ” to “female mice have smellier urine” — as to why researchers avoid analyse female animals in their labs.

“If you go to publish a study only on females, you always get asked, ‘Why didnt you include males? ‘” she said. “If you go to publish a study on males, most people wouldnt bat an eye.”

The real-world effect of omitting females from health research

The average life expectancy for women in the United States is 80 years, and 76 years for men. Still, that gap has narrowed in recent years, from a seven-year gap in 1985 to a 4.6 -year gap in 2010 — the result of steady life-expectancy gains for men, compared to sluggish ones for women.

Among high school dropouts, the country of women’s health is particularly dire. A 2012 analyse published in the publication Health Affairs found that despite advancements in modern medication over the past few decades, in 2008, women who didn’t finish high school died significantly earlier than female high school dropouts did in 1990 — five years earlier, to be exact.

While there’s no proof that inclusion in health research would reverse these trends, women’s stagnating longevity and premature deaths among female dropouts should at the very least indicate parts of the population whose health is worth studying.

Promising changes on the health research horizon

In the midst of all this gender inequity, there’s a bit of good news from the NIH. Following calls to action by Beery and others in the field, the agency announced last May that it would require scientists to include both males and females in preclinical research.

“We now understand that sex matters in a significant style, ” Dr. Janine Clayton, the NIH’s associate director for research on women’s health, told the podcast Nature last year.

The upgrade in research methods is promoting — but if history has taught us anything, the change will be slow.

“Its still going to be a constant issue when males and females are stated in examines, ” Beery said. “Are the results analyzed by sex? Are there enough females included that we really learn about the females? “

Mazure seems to agree. “We understand what the institutions are like, ” she said. “But we have to keep asking for more change, better the outcome and for science to evolve.”

Read more: www.huffingtonpost.com