- post-mortem specimen showing bilirubin deposition in the basal ganglia (yellow deposits)
- a complication of neonatal jaundice, long term complications include learning disability, hearing loss, movement disorders
- avoided through the use of phototherapy and exchange transfusion to reduce hyperbilirubinaemia
Klebsiella pneumoniae Bacterium
Colorized scanning electron micrograph showing carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae interacting with a human neutrophil.
Mouse skeletal muscle fibers, 600x
Connective tissue and extracellular components (white) surround the muscle, which consists of individual muscle fibres of different types (red). Skeletal muscles responsible for body movement are voluntary controlled. Skeletal muscles comprise approximately 50% of the body’s weight. During the aging process, mammals lose up to a third of their mass and strength.Raster-Elektronen-Mikroskop, Vergrößerung 600:1Found on LifeSciences Calendar
I don’t think so, as far as I’m aware. An amygdala hijack would come about as a result of strong emotional memory. I think you can re-train your brain with a bit of work to control them though.
(It’s funny you ask that question if you weren’t aware already that my other Tumblr blog is amygdala-hijack )
While IBD and coeliac disease are similar in the fact that they are caused by an autoimmune disease, that’s where the similarity ends.
IBD (of which ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s are the two most common types) occur when the immune system attacks certain tissues in the digestive system. The location along the GIT and the tissue types affected vary with each of the diseases.
Coeliac’s disease is caused when the immune system attacks the small intestine when the gliadin protein found in wheat and some other grains is present in the diet.
IBD can be treated through the use of drugs, antibiotics or surgery. Coeliac’s disease is just treated by removing gluten-containing products from the diet.
Hope it clarified what you were asking.
The need for needles: Vaccines and rising infection rates
Measles was once a rite of passage during childhood. Nearly every American kid was infected by age 15, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And each year, on average, 48,000 children were hospitalized, 7,000 experienced seizures, 1,000 suffered permanent brain damage or deafness and 450 to 500 children died.
These numbers dropped precipitously, virtually disappearing, after the first effective measles vaccine debuted in the early 1960s. In the United States, a routine and required vaccine regimen has almost eradicated the infectious disease.
But not entirely. Indeed, measles are making something of a comeback, in no small part, say health experts, due to declining vaccination rates. Last year, for example, the National Committee on Quality Assurance, said the number of children in private health plans who were properly immunized declined by as much as 3.5 percent. The phenomenon is not unique to measles. It’s happening too with other infectious childhood diseases, such as whooping cough and mumps.
Question: It seems significant numbers of people these days are refusing or avoiding vaccinations that were, in the past, routine and commonplace. From your perspective, what’s the explanation?
Answer: This is a complex phenomenon that boils down to people getting partial, and in some cases, inaccurate information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent. Much of the misinformation is found on the Internet, where it can be difficult to separate accurate from inaccurate information.
In all cases, the risk of being exposed to and developing a disease – even among conditions that are now rare – is much greater than the potential health risks of the vaccine designed to prevent that disease. When people are given accurate information, they choose to get immunized. People should find a provider they trust to discuss their concerns and help them sift through whatever information they have heard.
Q: One complaint among parents is the concentration and number of vaccinations mandated during their children’s first years of life. What are the prospects for effectively spreading vaccinations over a longer period or reducing the number of shots required?
A: I don’t see that happening because the basic approach to the recommendations for when vaccines are given is to protect children as soon as they can be protected. By spreading out vaccines, you leave children unprotected. Why would we want to do that? There is no evidence that giving vaccines together the way we do causes any ill effects. In fact, some argue that by spreading out shots so that every time a child comes to their doctor they get another shot is more traumatic than giving them all at once.
Q: What are the consequences of diminishing numbers of people getting vaccinated?
A: The short answer is simple: We are seeing more disease. Measles cases are increasing. Pertussis is increasing. Other diseases will increase. All of the infections we immunize to prevent are still around, and they know no borders.
The protective value of vaccinations lies in part in a concept called “herd immunity,” which means that when a significant percentage of a population is vaccinated – the herd, so to speak – it provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity. In other words, chains of infection are disrupted because large segments of the population are immune. The greater the number of people vaccinated, the less likely someone without immunity will come into contact with an infectious individual.
Conversely, if the number of individuals vaccinated declines, the chance of an infection spreading in the herd rises.
Q: Do you think the rising numbers of cases of measles, whooping cough and other diseases routinely prevent through vaccination is evidence that we’re approaching some sort of tipping point?
A: Yes. Just look at the countries of Europe who have major measles epidemics because they let their level of vaccination drop. The US will be there soon.
Is colorectal cancer getting its butt kicked?
Among those over 50, the number of people with colon or rectal cancer plummeted 30 percent from 2001 to 2010, due to screening and removal of precancerous polyps, according to data published this week.
For those 65 and older, the decline in new colon cancer incidents was even more dramatic, dropping 7 percent a year during the three-year period from 2008 to 2010.
A national coalition of cancer groups, organized by the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable, now hopes to eliminate colorectal cancer as a major public health problem through an “80 percent by 2018” campaign, launched this week. The goal is to screen 80 percent of people over 50 by 2018.
“It is realistic for us to achieve this goal at UC San Diego,” said Samir Gupta, MD, an associate professor of clinical medicine and gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System. “We are in the midst of a coordinated effort between primary care physicians and gastroenterologists to optimize screening rates.
“To increase screening rates, we are reminding patients, who are not up to date, to get screened. This effort includes mailing patients invitations. Our main challenges are awareness and making sure patients are talking to their doctors about screening and when to get screened. The ‘ick factor’ is also probably significant.”
Colonoscopies are the primary means for detecting precancerous tumors early. For those who prefer non-invasive options, patients may request the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or guaiac fecal occult blood test, both of which have the endorsement of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Virtual colonoscopy or CT colonoscopy has been endorsed by the American Cancer Society, but not all insurers cover the procedure and it still requires a bowel preparation.