Was The Coronavirus Outbreak Preventable?
-Priya Gupta
In the early 2000s, severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, spread around China, killing hundreds of people. The outbreak of SARS prompted many scientists to begin developing a vaccine that would prevent this disease from occurring again. However, the vaccine creation process takes time, and scientists could not develop one before the disease had already run its course.
Years later, Dr. Peter Hotez and his team finally had a vaccine that was ready to be tested on humans. Unfortunately, since their development came so long after the outbreak of SARS, they were unable to find any grants or investors to fund their human trials. Without this funding, they could not continue working on this vaccine.
If the scientists had been able to find funding for their vaccine trials, the coronavirus pandemic facing the world right now may not have become such a serious problem. This is because the SARS virus is actually an earlier version of the current coronavirus. So, if this vaccine had been tested on humans and was approved, it could have been an available option when cases of this new coronavirus first occurred. If the vaccine was administered to everybody, either in China or internationally, the disease would likely not have been able to spread as much.
This situation supports the idea that the strategy for developing vaccines needs to be reworked. Globally, vaccines are typically not worked on until the respective disease is already spreading, at which point it is too late. Then, when the disease stops spreading, the focus shifts away from finding a vaccine. This process prevents an effective vaccine from being developed, so if the disease ever does reoccur, we are unprepared.
One of the reasons why this happens is because pharmaceutical companies are funding many of the vaccine projects rather than the government. These companies are mainly interested in money, so when the disease fades and there is no longer money associated with finding a vaccin, the pharmaceutical companies do not want to fund projects. So, in order to fix this broken system, the government needs to begin funding medical research, specifically vaccine development, and it must be done proactively.
March 10, 2020
Years later, Dr. Peter Hotez and his team finally had a vaccine that was ready to be tested on humans. Unfortunately, since their development came so long after the outbreak of SARS, they were unable to find any grants or investors to fund their human trials. Without this funding, they could not continue working on this vaccine.
If the scientists had been able to find funding for their vaccine trials, the coronavirus pandemic facing the world right now may not have become such a serious problem. This is because the SARS virus is actually an earlier version of the current coronavirus. So, if this vaccine had been tested on humans and was approved, it could have been an available option when cases of this new coronavirus first occurred. If the vaccine was administered to everybody, either in China or internationally, the disease would likely not have been able to spread as much.
This situation supports the idea that the strategy for developing vaccines needs to be reworked. Globally, vaccines are typically not worked on until the respective disease is already spreading, at which point it is too late. Then, when the disease stops spreading, the focus shifts away from finding a vaccine. This process prevents an effective vaccine from being developed, so if the disease ever does reoccur, we are unprepared.
One of the reasons why this happens is because pharmaceutical companies are funding many of the vaccine projects rather than the government. These companies are mainly interested in money, so when the disease fades and there is no longer money associated with finding a vaccin, the pharmaceutical companies do not want to fund projects. So, in order to fix this broken system, the government needs to begin funding medical research, specifically vaccine development, and it must be done proactively.
March 10, 2020
A Coronavirus Vaccine Is Coming!
-James He
Given its recent spread, Coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) sits atop everyone’s health news feeds as it seems to loom closer and closer to us. Most notably, the first case of Coronavirus was reported in Danbury Hospital over the weekend and has circulated a level of urgency from students, professors, and government officials to take caution. Ironically, discussion of recent papers published in Cell, a reputable academic journal, providing evidence for potential vaccines has been minimal, though it is a positive development amidst our state of uncertainty and fear. Making use of a previous strain of Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) that arose in 2003, the researchers identified specific pathogenic properties of the virus and implemented a promising approach to counteract its behavior.
SARS-CoV2, the new strain that we are currently battling, is known as an enveloped RNA virus that stimulates its pathogenic capabilities by entering the body’s cells and tricking them into abnormal behavior that downgrades the health of the individual. Specifically, virus particles must recognize the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) using its outer shell’s spike (S) proteins and an enzyme called TMPRSS2 to enter our cells. The ACE2 protein is the same binding target for SARS-CoV, the first strain we encountered in 2003. Fortunately, antibodies that proved effective then also show therapeutic effects against the SARS-CoV2 strain. Researchers found that administration of the antibody in cell culture as well as an infected rabbit model reduced the infectious capacity of the virus as less cells were infected. Even better, another research team found that antibodies specific to the S proteins of the virus could induce similar antiviral effects.
What does this mean? Quite simply, a vaccine is in the works as we speak. Though further testing is required to confirm these results and determine any negative outcomes, international health agencies and large pharmaceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson are diligently working towards a finished product. If this result eventually snowballs into an efficacious treatment, we may finally be able to take a break from our news feeds.
March 10, 2020
SARS-CoV2, the new strain that we are currently battling, is known as an enveloped RNA virus that stimulates its pathogenic capabilities by entering the body’s cells and tricking them into abnormal behavior that downgrades the health of the individual. Specifically, virus particles must recognize the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) using its outer shell’s spike (S) proteins and an enzyme called TMPRSS2 to enter our cells. The ACE2 protein is the same binding target for SARS-CoV, the first strain we encountered in 2003. Fortunately, antibodies that proved effective then also show therapeutic effects against the SARS-CoV2 strain. Researchers found that administration of the antibody in cell culture as well as an infected rabbit model reduced the infectious capacity of the virus as less cells were infected. Even better, another research team found that antibodies specific to the S proteins of the virus could induce similar antiviral effects.
What does this mean? Quite simply, a vaccine is in the works as we speak. Though further testing is required to confirm these results and determine any negative outcomes, international health agencies and large pharmaceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson are diligently working towards a finished product. If this result eventually snowballs into an efficacious treatment, we may finally be able to take a break from our news feeds.
March 10, 2020
COVID-19 Susceptibility Among Different Age Groups
-Veolette Hanna
Up until now, many reports show that elderly populations seem more susceptible to COVID-19 than those who are young. However, an international team of researchers, mostly from the Shenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention and Peng Cheng Laboratory, both in China, conducted a study that could prove this wrong. The researchers looked at 391 people with confirmed COVID-19 and 1,286 individuals who were in close contact. They wanted to find out if those who were in close contact with people with COVID-19 would test positive for it, even when they presented no symptoms.
The investigators found that children under age 10 who were in close contact with people who had COVID-19 demonstrated a 7.4% infection rate, while the infection rate in adults is 7.9%. Children are just as likely as adults to contract the virus, however, they are less likely to develop symptoms. This has many implications for how COVID-19 will continue to spread globally. Children may spread the coronavirus amongst eachother in schools very easily while they are showing no symptoms. Once children are infected, they can take the virus home with them and spread it among their families. This explains why many schools around the world are shutting down. However, when children are staying at home and not attending school, they are still not immune to COVID-19. In homes, the virus can still spread from adults to children.
Children are found to be more susceptible if they live with infected people, due to the close contact that they have with them. Will this mean that children may have to be quarantined away from infected parents and caregivers? While many conclusions and predictions can be made, it is important to note that this study is preliminary and has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Researchers will seek thorough quality and accuracy assessment from specialists in the field before this information has drastic effects on families and communities around the world.
March 10, 2020
The investigators found that children under age 10 who were in close contact with people who had COVID-19 demonstrated a 7.4% infection rate, while the infection rate in adults is 7.9%. Children are just as likely as adults to contract the virus, however, they are less likely to develop symptoms. This has many implications for how COVID-19 will continue to spread globally. Children may spread the coronavirus amongst eachother in schools very easily while they are showing no symptoms. Once children are infected, they can take the virus home with them and spread it among their families. This explains why many schools around the world are shutting down. However, when children are staying at home and not attending school, they are still not immune to COVID-19. In homes, the virus can still spread from adults to children.
Children are found to be more susceptible if they live with infected people, due to the close contact that they have with them. Will this mean that children may have to be quarantined away from infected parents and caregivers? While many conclusions and predictions can be made, it is important to note that this study is preliminary and has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Researchers will seek thorough quality and accuracy assessment from specialists in the field before this information has drastic effects on families and communities around the world.
March 10, 2020
Artificial Intelligence Treatments
-Priya Gupta
Artificial intelligence: the ability of a computer to perform tasks that traditionally require human intelligence, including decision-making skills. When most people think about artificial intelligence, they think of self-driving cars and devices such as the Amazon Alexa, which responds to vocal commands. However, artificial intelligence has another important, and often overlooked, use in the field of medicine. For decades now, scientists have been experimenting with ways to incorporate artificial intelligence into the process of diagnosing and treating patients with the goal of improving patient outcomes and minimizing errors. Recently, new applications of these “intelligent” machines are being developed.
A new technology designed to combat the superbug problem is currently being utilized. In recent years, a growing number of bacteria have evolved to be resistant to antibiotics. This situation is a significant problem because people with compromised immune systems are now at an increased risk for developing diseases that can no longer be effectively treated by antibiotics, which can be very dangerous or even fatal. This problem is what motivated scientists to begin developing new antibiotics. In order to do this, they essentially need to test trillions of combinations of amino acids in order to see which ones can be effective antibiotics. This is where the super computer comes in - the “electronic brain power” of the computer is necessary in order to find a new potential antibiotic. The scientists started the super computer with a naturally-occurring antibiotic and programmed it to switch out various amino acids using a specific algorithm.
So far, this program has been successful in developing around 15 new compounds. The next step in this project is to see if the compounds are actually able to destroy bacteria. The scientists hope to also use the computer program to do this. They plan to develop an algorithm that would have the computer simulation guide a robotic arm to make the compounds and test them with actual live bacteria. The computer could then determine which of these compounds are successful in treating the bacteria.
Antibiotics are not the only application of these new artificial intelligence technologies. Companies have also been using artificial intelligence to find new ways to diagnose kidney disease. Kidney disease is currently one of the leading causes of death, partially because it is so difficult to diagnose. In many cases, kidney disease is not caught until the person has progressed to stage four. By this point, the only treatment options available to the patient are dialysis and kidney transplant, neither of which is ideal. This explains why this new development is so important - it offers a way to identify kidney disease at earlier stages, when it may still be treatable.
One of these computer programs was developed by the company RenalytixAI. Their computer uses an adaptive algorithm to evaluate both the patient’s medical history and biomarkers from their blood to identify kidney disease. This information can also be used to determine how effective a treatment would be for a specific patient, and how high their risk of transplant rejection is.
These computer programs have the potential to change how diseases are treated and ultimately save people’s lives. However, especially when it comes to medicine, many people do not trust AI. There are concerns that these intelligent robots may someday replace doctors all together, which is a scary thought for most patients. Many people currently do not trust robots with storing their genetic information and making decisions about their health care. So, whether these new technologies will actually be accepted and used is still to be determined.
February 26, 2020
A new technology designed to combat the superbug problem is currently being utilized. In recent years, a growing number of bacteria have evolved to be resistant to antibiotics. This situation is a significant problem because people with compromised immune systems are now at an increased risk for developing diseases that can no longer be effectively treated by antibiotics, which can be very dangerous or even fatal. This problem is what motivated scientists to begin developing new antibiotics. In order to do this, they essentially need to test trillions of combinations of amino acids in order to see which ones can be effective antibiotics. This is where the super computer comes in - the “electronic brain power” of the computer is necessary in order to find a new potential antibiotic. The scientists started the super computer with a naturally-occurring antibiotic and programmed it to switch out various amino acids using a specific algorithm.
So far, this program has been successful in developing around 15 new compounds. The next step in this project is to see if the compounds are actually able to destroy bacteria. The scientists hope to also use the computer program to do this. They plan to develop an algorithm that would have the computer simulation guide a robotic arm to make the compounds and test them with actual live bacteria. The computer could then determine which of these compounds are successful in treating the bacteria.
Antibiotics are not the only application of these new artificial intelligence technologies. Companies have also been using artificial intelligence to find new ways to diagnose kidney disease. Kidney disease is currently one of the leading causes of death, partially because it is so difficult to diagnose. In many cases, kidney disease is not caught until the person has progressed to stage four. By this point, the only treatment options available to the patient are dialysis and kidney transplant, neither of which is ideal. This explains why this new development is so important - it offers a way to identify kidney disease at earlier stages, when it may still be treatable.
One of these computer programs was developed by the company RenalytixAI. Their computer uses an adaptive algorithm to evaluate both the patient’s medical history and biomarkers from their blood to identify kidney disease. This information can also be used to determine how effective a treatment would be for a specific patient, and how high their risk of transplant rejection is.
These computer programs have the potential to change how diseases are treated and ultimately save people’s lives. However, especially when it comes to medicine, many people do not trust AI. There are concerns that these intelligent robots may someday replace doctors all together, which is a scary thought for most patients. Many people currently do not trust robots with storing their genetic information and making decisions about their health care. So, whether these new technologies will actually be accepted and used is still to be determined.
February 26, 2020
New Genomic Tests are Faster and More Accurate
-James He
Since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2006, the development of new sequencing technologies, heralded by Next-Generation Sequencing, has greatly expanded. The effects of such an outburst are most prominent in the field of cancer genomics, where genomic profiling of billions of cancer cells has yielded insights into the DNA mutations in cancer cells. These efforts have translated to the clinical setting as new biomarkers of cancer subtypes has facilitated more accurate diagnoses, and ultimately, more beneficial treatments. However, this improvement is modest as problems with accuracy and cost prevent a ubiquitous acceptance of this technology. Regardless, this is a path worth pursuing, and the new tools in artificial intelligence can help resolve these cradling issues.
A standard approach to treating an infectious disease that presents ambiguous symptoms is to administer broad-spectrum antibiotics and to send out the patient’s cells for culture in a lab. While this seems a logical step in preventing disease progression and working towards a diagnosis, there are consequential drawbacks. Denoted by their name, broad-spectrum antibiotics are designed to attack bacteria defined by general cellular characteristics, but may not be effective at specifically targeting pathogenic bacteria. Any pathogens remaining in the body can develop resistance, making them harder to treat with subsequent medications. Additionally, taking a biopsy or tissue specimen, sending it out to a clinical lab, growing a culture, and analyzing the results is a multi-day process, and may yield inconclusive results in the end.
Negating these detrimental concerns, newly developed genomics tests can quickly parse out the DNA or RNA specific to a pathogen in a patient and identify it across thousands of accessible databases. Using machine learning models can also provide insight into the antibiotic combinations that might be best suited for its treatment. This can prove particularly useful for patients with rare infectious diseases. Currently, the major problems that persist with this line of treatment are the high cost of the test, ranging from $500 to $3000, and the accuracy of the tests, which hover around 80% on average. These issues are slowing the F.D.A. approval, and subsequently, insurance coverage of the expenses. As a result, patients are hesitant to devote precious resources towards a risky alternative to standard treatments. Not to mention, DNA data is also precious from an ethical standpoint.
It will take tremendous efforts to boost the accuracy levels of clinical genomic tests and to reduce patient costs. For now, it seems more a drastic measure than a routine line of treatment. However, it would be foolish to discredit the significant efforts put forth by researchers and physicians to derive the advanced technology that can make this a possibility. If innovation continues at the pace observed over the last two decades, clinical genomic tests may become a staple in medical diagnostic technology.
February 26, 2020
A standard approach to treating an infectious disease that presents ambiguous symptoms is to administer broad-spectrum antibiotics and to send out the patient’s cells for culture in a lab. While this seems a logical step in preventing disease progression and working towards a diagnosis, there are consequential drawbacks. Denoted by their name, broad-spectrum antibiotics are designed to attack bacteria defined by general cellular characteristics, but may not be effective at specifically targeting pathogenic bacteria. Any pathogens remaining in the body can develop resistance, making them harder to treat with subsequent medications. Additionally, taking a biopsy or tissue specimen, sending it out to a clinical lab, growing a culture, and analyzing the results is a multi-day process, and may yield inconclusive results in the end.
Negating these detrimental concerns, newly developed genomics tests can quickly parse out the DNA or RNA specific to a pathogen in a patient and identify it across thousands of accessible databases. Using machine learning models can also provide insight into the antibiotic combinations that might be best suited for its treatment. This can prove particularly useful for patients with rare infectious diseases. Currently, the major problems that persist with this line of treatment are the high cost of the test, ranging from $500 to $3000, and the accuracy of the tests, which hover around 80% on average. These issues are slowing the F.D.A. approval, and subsequently, insurance coverage of the expenses. As a result, patients are hesitant to devote precious resources towards a risky alternative to standard treatments. Not to mention, DNA data is also precious from an ethical standpoint.
It will take tremendous efforts to boost the accuracy levels of clinical genomic tests and to reduce patient costs. For now, it seems more a drastic measure than a routine line of treatment. However, it would be foolish to discredit the significant efforts put forth by researchers and physicians to derive the advanced technology that can make this a possibility. If innovation continues at the pace observed over the last two decades, clinical genomic tests may become a staple in medical diagnostic technology.
February 26, 2020
Will Our Generation Be Able To Kick Nicotine To The Curb?
-Mahima Mehta
As more and more people realize the risks associated with smoking cigarettes, they have been turning to vaping and juuling devices to help ween themselves off of their nicotine addiction. What they overlook, however, is that vapes and juuls actually do contain nicotine. A common misconception is that the liquid inside these electronic smoking devices only contain water and flavoring. Many people are unaware that they actually contain nicotine as well-- in amounts that are the same as, or even more than, how much could be found in cigarettes. These devices were originally designed to help those that smoke cigarettes regularly be able to quit once and for all.
Until recently, we were pretty close to ending a good majority of the world’s nicotine addiction. This was all true until big vaping companies began targeting their products to teenagers through youth-focus websites and even magazines for middle and high school-aged children. The false notion that e-cigarettes contain less or no nicotine is harmful to our youth because this is simply untrue. E-cigarettes do contain nicotine, and no amount of nicotine is safe. Nicotine is addictive and can harm children and teens’ developing brains, causing problems with learning and attention. This can put children on the path to future addictions and essentially function as a gateway drug leading to the exploration of even more dangerous drugs. Studies have shown that kids who vape are more likely to use cigarettes or other tobacco products later in life.
Most children that vape explain that they do so because of one or more of these three reasons: someone in their family does it, the availability of intriguing flavors, and they believe that is less harmful than cigarettes and tobacco products. Though this nicotine addiction is unfortunate, all hope should not be lost. With the support and encouragement from friends and family and the spread of real facts regarding vaping and juuling, ending this generation’s nicotine addiction is possible.
February 26, 2020
Until recently, we were pretty close to ending a good majority of the world’s nicotine addiction. This was all true until big vaping companies began targeting their products to teenagers through youth-focus websites and even magazines for middle and high school-aged children. The false notion that e-cigarettes contain less or no nicotine is harmful to our youth because this is simply untrue. E-cigarettes do contain nicotine, and no amount of nicotine is safe. Nicotine is addictive and can harm children and teens’ developing brains, causing problems with learning and attention. This can put children on the path to future addictions and essentially function as a gateway drug leading to the exploration of even more dangerous drugs. Studies have shown that kids who vape are more likely to use cigarettes or other tobacco products later in life.
Most children that vape explain that they do so because of one or more of these three reasons: someone in their family does it, the availability of intriguing flavors, and they believe that is less harmful than cigarettes and tobacco products. Though this nicotine addiction is unfortunate, all hope should not be lost. With the support and encouragement from friends and family and the spread of real facts regarding vaping and juuling, ending this generation’s nicotine addiction is possible.
February 26, 2020
Could Exercise Information on Food Labels Help Combat Obesity?
-Veolette Hanna
A new scientific study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health has researched the effects of adding PACE (physical activity calorie equivalent) labels to food products. PACE labels would include information about the physical exercise that is required to burn off the food product’s calorie content. For example, while eating a bar of chocolate, you could read on the food label that it contains 230 calories, and it would take 23 minutes of running or 46 minutes of walking to burn those calories off. According to researchers, “PACE labels could, on average, cut calorie consumption by up to 200 calories per person per day.” Proponents of this new labeling system, such as Amanda Daley, the lead researcher, believe that PACE labeling would be more accessible to consumers than the numbers on current labels and be able to reduce obesity levels. The research team looked at data from 14 studies, and found that PACE labeling is more effective than no labeling, but was no more effective than calorie-only labeling. Daley believes PACE labeling in addition to current calorie-only labeling would be more effective than calorie-only labeling alone. She imagines PACE labeling being added to supermarket food packaging as well as restaurant menus.
Nichola Ludlam-Raine, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association, opposes the implementation of PACE labeling. She believes PACE "could be extremely problematic" for those dealing with eating disorders. It also does not encourage good eating habits, but rather, perpetuates the notion that you can eat unhealthy foods as much as you want as long as you exercise and burn them off. Despite these concerns, the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH), an organization of health care professionals in the UK, advocated for the labels. They are hopeful that PACE labeling is a small change that has the potential to make a huge difference. More research will be conducted to analyze the effects of PACE labeling.
February 12, 2020
Nichola Ludlam-Raine, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association, opposes the implementation of PACE labeling. She believes PACE "could be extremely problematic" for those dealing with eating disorders. It also does not encourage good eating habits, but rather, perpetuates the notion that you can eat unhealthy foods as much as you want as long as you exercise and burn them off. Despite these concerns, the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH), an organization of health care professionals in the UK, advocated for the labels. They are hopeful that PACE labeling is a small change that has the potential to make a huge difference. More research will be conducted to analyze the effects of PACE labeling.
February 12, 2020
Does Exposure To Germs Actually Provide Health Benefits?
-Priya Gupta
Leukemia is a type of cancer that causes a person to have an abnormally high amount of white blood cells in their blood. It is known that, broadly, leukemia is caused by genetic mutations in a progenitor cell that causes the white blood cells to divide more rapidly than usual. Recent research, however, shows that there could be an additional cause of this disease. A study conducted at the Institute of Cancer Research suggests that children who grow up in a germ-free environment may be at a greater risk of developing leukemia. This study specifically refers to acute lymphoblastic leukemia, which is the most common cancer in children. According to the author of the study, Mel Greaves, the first factor that puts a child at risk for acute lymphoblastic leukemia is a genetic mutation, developed before birth.
The next step in developing the disease, however, is the one this study really focused on. Greaves found that exposure to certain infections later in childhood led to the development of leukemia. In addition, he found that children who had less exposure to germs during their first year of life were more likely to develop acute lymphoblastic leukemia. So, children who were raised in clean households and who did not have much interaction with other babies were at a higher risk. This is likely because the children had very limited exposure to infection, so their “immune systems have not been properly primed.”
This finding, along with other studies conducted in this area, suggest that children who are enrolled in daycare or who are breastfed may have a lower risk of developing this form of leukemia, since their immune systems are being strengthened early on. However, this study does not suggest that exposure to pathogens is the only cause of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Specifically, it is still believed that genetics play a significant role in this disease. In addition, despite the implications of this study, exposing children to infection has a large amount of risk associated with it.
This finding, while very informative, is not an entirely new concept. For years, there have been medical professionals supporting what is known as the hygiene hypothesis. This idea states that exposing children to germs at an early age helps build their immunity. This practice is thought to decrease the child’s risk of developing certain autoimmune disorders. So, perhaps allowing children to be exposed to pathogens while they are young can help in more ways than one.
These studies are prime examples of how nature and nurture interact with each other. Although there is almost definitely a genetic component to acute lymphoblastic leukemia and autoimmune disease, studies such as this one are now finding that the environment a child is raised in may have just as big of a role. Which aspect is more important - nature or nurture? In diseases such as these, maybe it is both.
February 12, 2020
The next step in developing the disease, however, is the one this study really focused on. Greaves found that exposure to certain infections later in childhood led to the development of leukemia. In addition, he found that children who had less exposure to germs during their first year of life were more likely to develop acute lymphoblastic leukemia. So, children who were raised in clean households and who did not have much interaction with other babies were at a higher risk. This is likely because the children had very limited exposure to infection, so their “immune systems have not been properly primed.”
This finding, along with other studies conducted in this area, suggest that children who are enrolled in daycare or who are breastfed may have a lower risk of developing this form of leukemia, since their immune systems are being strengthened early on. However, this study does not suggest that exposure to pathogens is the only cause of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Specifically, it is still believed that genetics play a significant role in this disease. In addition, despite the implications of this study, exposing children to infection has a large amount of risk associated with it.
This finding, while very informative, is not an entirely new concept. For years, there have been medical professionals supporting what is known as the hygiene hypothesis. This idea states that exposing children to germs at an early age helps build their immunity. This practice is thought to decrease the child’s risk of developing certain autoimmune disorders. So, perhaps allowing children to be exposed to pathogens while they are young can help in more ways than one.
These studies are prime examples of how nature and nurture interact with each other. Although there is almost definitely a genetic component to acute lymphoblastic leukemia and autoimmune disease, studies such as this one are now finding that the environment a child is raised in may have just as big of a role. Which aspect is more important - nature or nurture? In diseases such as these, maybe it is both.
February 12, 2020
Chain Pharmacies Maximize Profits Over Care
-James He
Mr. Lewis, a 47 year old male expecting an antidepressant medication, found himself dizzy and short of breath after being given estrogen. Thirty-one year old Stefanie Davis was forced to pull over on the highway after experiencing difficulty breathing and lightheadedness after taking a higher dose of Adderall than she was meant to receive. Most tragically, Mary Scheuerman passed within 5 days after entering the hospital because she had been taking methotrexate, a powerful immunosuppressive chemotherapy drug, instead of an antidepressant.
In each case, patients were given the wrong prescription and wound up in the hospital, accumulating further physical and financial complications as a result. On the surface, the root of each scenario appears to be a mistake, perhaps a mislabelled bottle or a simple mix-up. These mistakes can easily arise given the workload demanded from pharmacists at big chains like Walgreens and CVS, as their shifts often extend longer than an 8-hour work day with little to no breaks. Additionally, the managers of these companies typically push the pharmacists to persuade customers to obtain a 90-day dose when they might have only been prescribed a 30-day regimen by the doctor. When this discrepancy is called into question, many doctors report false claims by pharmacists that it was the patient who insisted on the 90-day supply. This reflects the pharmacy’s prioritized financial interest, which contributes to the incidence of purposeful overdoses by mental health patients. Altogether, this amounts to at least 1.5 million harmed Americans each year.
However, one thing that shouldn’t be ignored is that the patients ultimately choose to take these medications without inspecting it for changes beforehand. Each individual has the final dictation on what they put in their bodies, and simply looking up the name of the medication written on the bottle can provide a wealth of information. This issue is clearly more complex than it appears on the surface, and only a two-pronged effort from both pharmacy managers and patients can fix it entirely.
February 12, 2020
In each case, patients were given the wrong prescription and wound up in the hospital, accumulating further physical and financial complications as a result. On the surface, the root of each scenario appears to be a mistake, perhaps a mislabelled bottle or a simple mix-up. These mistakes can easily arise given the workload demanded from pharmacists at big chains like Walgreens and CVS, as their shifts often extend longer than an 8-hour work day with little to no breaks. Additionally, the managers of these companies typically push the pharmacists to persuade customers to obtain a 90-day dose when they might have only been prescribed a 30-day regimen by the doctor. When this discrepancy is called into question, many doctors report false claims by pharmacists that it was the patient who insisted on the 90-day supply. This reflects the pharmacy’s prioritized financial interest, which contributes to the incidence of purposeful overdoses by mental health patients. Altogether, this amounts to at least 1.5 million harmed Americans each year.
However, one thing that shouldn’t be ignored is that the patients ultimately choose to take these medications without inspecting it for changes beforehand. Each individual has the final dictation on what they put in their bodies, and simply looking up the name of the medication written on the bottle can provide a wealth of information. This issue is clearly more complex than it appears on the surface, and only a two-pronged effort from both pharmacy managers and patients can fix it entirely.
February 12, 2020