Called a biodegradable pelt, the nanoparticles have the potential to improve our existing anti heart drug treatments.. ( 12/12/10) One of the hardest problems in heart attack research has always been identifying the physical location of a plaque. Until now, scientists could only identify the location due to the difficulty in the diagnosis. The material developed by Dr. Michael J. Yoh (no relation), a professor at the UCLA School of Nursing and senior author of a paper on the development of new biodegradable material, could provide a solution.

Pollen nanoparticles are made of carbon polymers and have the unique ability to degrade in cold and extreme conditions, like those found in environments like Antarctic sea ice, according to the research team. Using lasers, the UCLA material was able to degrade the plaques and then absorb the cholesterol byproducts along with them. One of the biggest challenges in treating heart attacks in the past was the difficulty in getting to the plaque, since heart attack victims would often die without having been diagnosed.

Although the results of this research were a huge step forward, the researchers say more work remains before their material can be made commercially. To increase its durability, they did test it on tissue rather than blood; the materials can’t be used on a patient’s outside, but would be safe for use on the outside of a living person. And because they are currently small, only one in 1 million, these materials won’t fit in your pocket.

The material will also probably only be suitable for applications that involve small blood vessels, like the heart, says Yoh, but still could have use on large arteries, like the lungs.


Image Source:

__ New Hampshire health officials are investigating whether food allergies are linked to about 40 cases of children with autism, and one person is dying. Here’s why: Last year the state of New Jersey issued a public health warning that people with food allergies are more often likely to get sick and die from eating peanut-based food because it can trigger an immune reaction that can cause diarrhea, vomiting and a severe runny nose. A growing chorus of scientists has raised concerns about the possibility that food allergies may increase the risk of foodborne illness in children because they may be more prone to react when eating foods that are not normally considered safe by the immune system. Last week, a study by the Institute of Medicine reported that even a single protein in the food or formula used to feed infants could be responsible for triggering an immune response that can lead to life-threatening food allergies among infants. But other medical groups have reached the opposite conclusion. But many people, including those who believe an increasing number of children with autism need more specialist attention, don’t want to hear it. The reaction began when scientists began scrutinizing the medical records and tests of children who died after a peanut overdose. An FDA official with a close relationship with the family had taken over a large food allergy case from the New Jersey police. “He was a key witness,” said Dr. Peter Pucher, an immunologist at Children’s Hospital Boston and a former director of infectious diseases in New Jersey. “He came across as somebody who wasn’t looking at this very well.” On March 31, David Hechler suffered from peanut allergies and collapsed at his home in Boston while talking about the dangers of the peanut epidemic. Authorities eventually ruled that an accidental overdose of peanut butter had triggered Hechler’s sudden death. The death was ruled a suicide but the incident sparked a public health emergency. Pucher’s investigation led him to the same conclusion: The public health community will have to accept that more children with autism could die if there is still a lot of debate about the idea of adding more people to the autism program. The idea of bringing in doctors and other specialists to manage their illnesses is a common one. But that’s not something many of the parents of children with autism agree on. “Maybe there’s too much emphasis on having professionals do it,” said Susan, who did not want to give her last name. She thinks that adding more specialists could turn this case from deadly to less so. “I want to believe in science, that the world is not going to end someday if we just take a couple years,” Susan says. “We may not have much time to try to find out the long term consequences of other people’s behaviors and behaviors of our own children.” Dr. Suzanne Goldenberg, chairwoman of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, says the new study’s results should be put to bed by scientists who believe that autism is not a “one size fits all” diagnosis. “It’s not something that you get to decide on,” she adds. “If parents want to add it, they’re welcome to, “But I think people need to stop thinking they can just add more ‘specialists’ who are not qualified to do it.”

“There aren’t a lot of vaccines for peanut allergies,” Suzanne says, “and the incidence on peanut allergies is actually extremely high among very young children.”

The article notes that the study (emphasis added):

An official in New Jersey’s health department says they found 40 children with autism in a database with nearly 40,000 other children. They found 1 out of every 80 children was found to have a food allergy, and that one person has died as a result.

The piece also writes that the “specialist” who was not a medical doctor but was part of a medical team is in charge of “food-illness cases” for the police who investigate the deaths:

But in this case, an expert in nutrition with a close relationship to the family was consulted. According to a medical officer with knowledge of the case, the family initially requested one doctor, but when that doctor, whose name was not released, balked at doing the work, the family called in a second expert. That “specialist” is Dr. Peter Pucher, the former head of the Indiana State Department of Public Health. A spokeswoman for the Indiana Health Department said Pucher could not comment on the case, citing HIPPA privacy laws, but the spokesman said Indiana uses a consultant for every case involving a child who might be autistic. “What I can tell you is the child was evaluated by our clinical nutritionist,” the spokeswoman told “When it comes to peanut allergies, there is a big difference between a child who has it and a toddler or a teenager who may be affected. When it comes to peanut allergies, there is such a tremendous variability of children that all types of allergens have a wide range of severity and can affect a person’s health. “The

The CDC’s warning is very well taken. They even list the number of deaths we’ll know about this year.

I’m not asking for vaccines. Like anybody else, I was vaccinated with the MMR in the first few years of life. It is important to remember that they did in fact not give up the technology overnight. As previously predicted, the first vaccine was used in the 1950’s. They had just begun to use inactivated vaccines for some kids in that time.

I wasn’t born until 1960 and have never gotten a measles or mumps shot. So far, if one of those didn’t make them sick, I haven’t. It’s not worth buying vaccines for a family with two doctors, that I am informed has suffered four deaths from pertussis because of lack of immunization. If a healthy child were to be sick enough to need one, I would certainly be in favor of it. There is nothing more harmful in the world than to put a child down to death before they were old enough to know their own anatomy.

It is an amazing feeling to hear my child’s name again. His last three names, Burt, Edie and Tommy, were already gone. That is one of several reasons I am grateful, not only for his birth, but for my lifelong friendship. I met him in a public hospital in Baltimore during a medical call that is said to be rare for children. That was when he lived, too. He was 10 years old and a newborn. He was diagnosed with mumps six months after it first happened. He went into hospital and stayed just as long as I did. That was how I became his nurse. Over 12 years, I would visit him several times a week, and I still love seeing the little man in pain. I even remember taking him up to the NICU once. It would have been nice just to be around for a while.

Since he is home, he is sleeping more and feels better than ever. He doesn’t look too bad now, but it could be a bit longer before he’s ready. I have been telling him about my brother who suffered a brain injury and also died of natural causes. I am sad that he won’t see what every one of us have seen. I couldn’t wait to meet my brother, and if he will be all right, I’ll be there for him.

I’m thinking of him as we speak.

I am glad to be in a situation where I can help both my siblings in the days ahead. That will be why I am still here, even if it wasn’t for the vaccines, or the carefree child living the high life. To know what it meant to become one of those people with an “innocence to live” or “just a little scar on my heart” as the saying goes, will be in the background of those days we pass in the future. We can’t change the past because that is part of who we are, but we can learn from that process what life is all about.

One day, I’ll take him down to the ocean. We won’t need to make sure he can swim or anything really. He has an ocean swimmer in his family in one of our church members and he is just beginning his training. He has learned to sit just a little bit on the bottom of the pool and let himself float over. He enjoys this as much as he can and says it makes him feel so safe. If you want your child’s safety, you need to have a swimming pool near him in the future too.

Their creation is not actually the first to show a heart patient that a heart attack is not the only possible result of heart attack; it is the most accurate one. But this is a significant advancement: since the first heart attack patients received a “smart” heart monitor after surgery, this latest invention can not only tell at first glance what patients are experiencing, but can also monitor a heart attack as it happens. The research team, led by Alexander Zhiryakov, also found that the invention could save up to 22 minutes and 22 seconds per heart attack patient, while minimizing heart muscle damage. Zhiryakov is an Associate Professor of Physiology, Human Physiology, and Bioengineering, of Stanford University. And lastly, this innovation is “not going to kill us,” because it not only reduces the chance of a heart attack and allows a doctor to tell on the first, second, and third chance, but also helps improve a doctor’s prognosis. According to Prof. Zhiryakov, the invention works by coating a small amount of nanoparticles that are a couple of times smaller than the diameter of a human hair (about the size of a hair strand). When the microscopic particles bump into cells, they attach to the cell’s membrane, causing the cells to break down. By removing the nanoparticles, these cells continue to function normally. In future research, for example, when some of the nanoparticles are removed, it would reduce tissue damage to heart muscle. This innovation was developed as a possible application to the treatment of heart and blood vessel problems. Zhiryakov also spoke at the International Heart Congress in New York City:

There have been many attempts to find ways to get a better understanding of heart and blood vessel problems. A recent one has been to develop a smart watch for the early stages of heart attack, but of course this isn’t very useful once the heart attack occurs. In the new trial, the goal is to take advantage of the novel idea , and find ways to monitor a patient ashe falls into heart palpitations or the beginnings of heart arrest.The concept of a “smart” heart monitor has been around in some circles for some time. The idea is basically to use a patient’s own sensors to look out for problems. I think this method would take more time and money than we can afford in medicine at the moment–but it is a much faster way to develop treatments. The idea is actually based on the idea developed by the physicist James C. Moore, PhD. of Penn State University. In his book “The Physics of the Heart”, Moore argues that a problem with heart patients’ heart function would be better addressed by placing sensors in the chest or abdomen, which are directly connected to the heart. The heart would respond to stimulation, and the sensors would produce electrical pulses, which would be analyzed to detect a problem in heart function , and then to send signals that would “send the patient elsewhere to be treated.””The “smart” heart monitors proposed by Prof. Zhiryakov and his team will be the first to use this new approach to monitor heart problems and to take steps to improve the prognoses ofpatients who have heart problems. And this innovative approach will have an impact on heart disease treatment as a whole. The technology has so far only been tested as a possible application to heart disease treatment, but it can do wonders forpreventingheart attack, and for helping detect the heart condition that leads to heart attack. At this stage the technology is still largely a work in progress, but hopefully with time and a little more funding from Stanford, the scientists might gain access to the appropriate equipment to make it a reality. It is not clear where this technology will turn out to be, but the researchers seem very optimistic that more people will be ready. The Heart Attack Study by Stanford researchers is featured in the April 6, 2009 issue of

Biology Today .

The article contains a map of the location of heart attacks in the US. To read the article in full, click here .

New York City Public Health officials, in collaboration with the CDC, issued a public health warning Friday evening. “We have a problem and we need a solution,” said NYC Public Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley.

NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has said he does not feel comfortable traveling to JFK since there are a number of travelers known to have been infected in the past few days. He has said he will keep a closer watch on the situation. A news conference on Saturday will be held by CDC officials to outline the latest developments and offer further updates.

(Photo courtesy:

A number of local physicians will be attending a national conference that will be held this weekend, and the New York Public Health Department is organizing a number of clinics to help treat and prevent potential influenza outbreaks. An advisory on the first night of the conference, which is slated for Thursday of this week, said, “We have confirmed that flu among travelers may be a particular health concern for these communities, so it’s vital that we keep travelers informed about possible concerns for their health,” according to the New York Times. For the rest of these communities, the health department said, “it will be more important to get residents and visitors at-home and avoid activities or gatherings where they are infectious. Some local public health agencies provide free flu vaccinations.”

At the conference, Dr. Barbara Newhouse will be giving a public health address about the case of a 28-year-old man who recently traveled from China to the U.S. (The CDC, as well as the federal government, state offices, and many local and state health departments and health departments are all being briefed on the case at this time.) Newhouse has spoken about the possibility – although not confirmed – of cases in New York and other cities. “There is a risk of the virus spreading to non-susceptible patients across the country,” said Newhouse during Tuesday’s press conference. “So if you’re visiting a stranger or someone in your care and you fall ill, you’re at a higher risk.”

New York Public Health officials are hoping to get an update on how prevalent the virus is in the Northeast at the CDC conference this weekend. New York City officials say they are seeing an increase in these infections reported from across the country. “The public health response to this epidemic, as we see it, is critical,” said Dr. Farley. “This is a significant public health issue.” If you or someone you know are concerned about having the flu, call the CDC, the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, or your health care provider immediately. If you have been feeling a bit sick and you’ve been experiencing trouble breathing for whatever reason and, in addition, you were exposed to someone else with the flu, call your family physician about your symptoms immediately.

If you’re not sure what symptoms may indicate flu symptoms, ask your healthcare provider about taking a simple, quick test, like a blood or body cell test. If you’re sick, don’t drive or take public transportation, and don’t take anyone else with you. You can use Flu-Safe to help you stay healthy (and still get to work).

For the best results on flu vaccine at the CDC and in the medical community, please see FluRx FluMist and FluMist Plus for Kids (Mylan, Mylan).

The Japanese government announced it will ban the ships until further notice and it has since ordered a quarantine of the entire fleet which now includes the Princess. (See the article in the Chicago Tribune by Mark D’Onofrio, September 16, 2016) In August 2013 the Japanese government ordered the closure of the (inactive) Yokosuka Naval Base due to ongoing protests, resulting in the loss of 800 personnel. The first to suffer damage is the Japanese Navy’s destroyers and destroyers plus the aircraft carriers, the Yasukuni Shrine where the Japanese flag once flew. These ships are now being quarantined in Yokosuka. In September 2011 the Japanese Navy ordered the ships deployed from the Marianas Islands to be placed on a 24 hour alert and put in quarantine while the island was searched for the remains. (See the article in Yahoo News by Josh Meyer, September 16, 2011)

Why is Japan so concerned?

The Japanese government is currently in high turmoil. Japan has been shaken by the financial crisis, so will the Prime Minister Abe act quickly to address the situation? If his policy is to stay in power, or more to the point, if the government falls and he is forced off the scene, does that mean Japan will take another look at the Yasukuni statues? The United States Government has not changed from its stance of not being a party to the Japan/Japan-US alliance and Abe is unlikely to change his position of being a non-proliferation leader. To further the Japanese problem is that there are numerous stories of the ‘US’ not being able to track whether the ships which the Japanese government has ordered be relocated are in fact ‘occupied’.

If these ships would have been declared ‘unoccupied’ and allowed to remain on Japanese soil after the Japanese government made their decision, how would the US government explain why the US remains so keen to engage Japan in military activity? This seems to not be the case as the US and Japan seem unable or unwilling to share information. The most telling statement of the Japanese government’s ‘allies’ is that they refuse to acknowledge that the Japanese government has not done its job of managing the situation. We now have an island where the Japanese government and the US are both concerned that they may not even know who is living at the end of that chain, leaving the two sides in a deadlock which is likely only to get worse, as the Japanese government continues to hold onto historical statues. As the Japanese government claims its ‘allies’, it should make a move to allow such statues be razed.

The Japanese government seems to be doing everything it can to avoid the issue. The latest is that the government has decided to close down the ship factory, which was a key economic development for Okinawa. (See the article by Kyodo News, August 20, 2016) If any of the naval ships are to be removed, however, the Japanese government has threatened to close down the entire island. (See the article by Reuters, August 20, 2016)

As of yet there is no clear government mandate for the removal of any of the Japanese military assets. It seems odd that a nation so close to entering the Middle East would be reluctant to allow any of its own vessels to be removed. An incident of such size should have been addressed through direct government action and the government appears to be having a hard time getting along with its own government. Perhaps the US administration is having a hard time getting along with its own government? It’s a question the US doesn’t want to answer but one which the US can as it tries to maintain the alliance with Japan. At the moment the Japanese government appears to be trying to look after its own self-interest and the international economy at the same time, but it is unclear if this behaviour is what the Japanese government, and likely the US government, wants. Both governments seem reluctant to face the problems which the country is facing and this only serves to increase the risk of further violence.

This leaves us in extremely serious discussions about whether the Japan-US alliance ever truly needed to begin in the first place. What is at stake is the very survival of this alliance. Why can’t the US step up and support Japan, which is the United States closest neighbour. After all, this is the only alliance Japan actually has with the US.

There is a real possibility that future wars might erupt over any of these issues. The question is: if the Japanese government is so concerned about the health of the military alliance, why won’t it allow the removal of the statues of the military involved or even allow the Japanese ships to be removed? The Japanese government seems to be in denial with the issue of the Japanese ships being removed, but how are the Japanese going to defend against the possibility of a conflict with Russia?

If we read what the Japanese government is saying, we find that it might have been much stronger to simply say ‘sorry and let the ships be removed’ and take some of the responsibility. If the US had been willing to admit,

The CDC director has said he plans to release more information next week.

Here’s where that is important:

According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, there are four types of coronavirus:

CAES-CoV, which has already led to 28 known cases, spread from poultry to people via contaminated food and water, and is often fatal. CAES-CoV, which is spread in humans through contaminated drinking water. CAES/TCV, which has no known link to poultry, where the virus is likely transferred via the respiratory tract. CAES-CoV, which is spread in people through contaminated food and water.

If it were an outbreak in Maryland, I’d imagine the medical community would be on the case. I would, too.

But it isn’t. Instead, we have an epidemic of a small number of new and old vaccine strains that have been circulating for many years. Two of the older ones, CVS-CoV (which probably won’t be causing any more outbreaks) and NVDA-CoV (which probably won’t). And, for the most part, the older outbreaks happen when the patients are young and healthy, and don’t cause deaths like the recent outbreaks in California and Texas.

The new strains are different, and now seem to be causing a high rate of illness and death, even in people who aren’t vaccinated.

Most of the new strains of CAES/TCV haven’t caused any reported cases of death, so it’s hard to say there’s a link, but it does raise the question: Has any of the older strains of CAES-CoV mutated?

That’s worth looking at next week. I’ve been putting my finger on it for a while now. I’ll keep updating this post in the coming weeks and months as new cases come to light.

Meanwhile, here are a few videos of a few parents talking about what they’re experiencing with a young child.

I’ll have much more on this topic next week

When I get home in Chicago, I get there early and see the bloodstains, the needles, the equipment.

“But this is the way it is. Even the nurses and doctors are just living in fear.” - Mike, resident of Chicago

During the second week of December, the virus is at a peak. The virus is spreading rapidly throughout the hospital and a hospital-wide pandemic has been declared. Patients in need of dialysis are turning to private dialysis clinics for assistance. A few weeks after the first reports of the first kidney infections–people complaining of chronic stomach pain, fever, numbness–reporters ask questions about the problem: “How are they being diagnosed?” “How are you going to get them to dialysis?”. No one explains how they get the money and if the kidney treatments are worth it. “The reason they are spending so much is because they got a bad dose.”

A nurse shares how a patient in a long-term care facility would be unable to pay his bills through dialysis. No one in their right mind would pay for dialysis. If that person dies before he gets on dialysis, his provider doesn’t save a cent. “One guy in a nursing home told me he was too lazy to leave well enough alone to dialysis. They told him to buy the $500 machines and get a free ride to the pharmacy or something like that.” The media are quick to point out that the people who contracted the virus, a family with a small child, had some contact with other people they thought were infected. What’s the big deal, the media ask, if a family with a baby could also contract the virus?

But nobody is telling the tale of a person who contracted the virus from a small child. Because a parent could contract the virus in any way: from sharing needles, sharing food, or giving their baby alcohol–it is easy for the parents to get the virus on their hands and in their breasts. Most of the time they don’t feel they got the infection and assume they were infected with the virus of someone else. “The way I look at it now, [the child] could be infected and the parent should still get the drug. It’s like, well I didn’t know it was in me anyway.”

I get nervous if we talk about the risks of the “blood transfusions.” You’re talking about people giving themselves a blood transfusion, right? Because they’re a blood donor, right? Or because they are a nurse and they might have had other patients give blood to them in the past? There are good reasons not to do a blood transfusion, I don’t think we can all say we can’t make that distinction. But I don’t think there is anywhere near as much worry and confusion. As the nurse in the long-term care facility, I was more concerned for my health than for the child in the home with the flu, and I didn’t want those risks to affect my baby. But that doesn’t mean that I care, either.

If my baby died, the decision to have a blood transfusion would be a difficult one for anyone who could make a medical decision. We are a good people, we believe in good science. We know that we should do things that minimize the risk of death.

One nurse told me that she felt the same way. “Oh well. I can’t help them if they die. I didn’t do it. I have the option not to do it. I’m not the doctor in this. I can’t just make up rules to stop things from going bad in patients that I don’t care about.” I feel lucky that I wasn’t in the situation she was–the same nurse who had a medical license and knew what to do when the situation was life or death. But I am fortunate to not have to worry about whether my future has meaning.

To sum up: I worry that I am a failure because I am a doctor, but I do nothing to save my own child. I worry that I am a failure if I do nothing when a patient does not get better or when it seems my actions are futile. The first thing that I think will happen is to ask if it is even worth my time. In a perfect world, I would always be in a position at the front desk where I had the power to make that decision. In a perfect world, I would never use my power to make a decision about someone else. But right now, I have to put my personal feelings before someone else’s safety. Or else I’ll continue to feel alone.

The book can be bought here .

The authorities in the areas knew that they could have prevented the outbreak, but did not do so. And, the hospitals, hospitals that provide care for a wide range of people including people in mental health crises who are so fragile that they risk suicide, the psychiatric health centers that care for people in need of psychiatric care, who have to hide their symptoms. Why wasn’t the community alerted at this critical moment?

It is not an issue that can be ignored. The health care providers had a responsibility and a duty to monitor the situation carefully.

This is an issue that can be ignored because most people think that they can just assume care in any community if they are suffering from a mental health crisis. In a way, this is exactly how the government allowed this to happen. People think, “If they need to deal with these people, so what? I’ll be able to handle it.”

Instead, this is a crisis that needs to be addressed. This is a crisis that needs to be communicated, especially to individuals who may have been affected by the crisis and still want access to their own healthcare. This is a crisis that needs to be provided through the health care system who must have the capacity to respond (especially if someone cannot speak a language of their own country) and the resources to provide care.

In this case the response did not go far enough. As we know from the recent, even deadly, hospital outbreaks, the situation can be handled in a relatively short time, and the media, in these countries, is not overly interested in reporting or documenting these events. The situation could have been handled with a fraction of the funding, to say nothing about the resources to respond. It would have been far easier to do so, given the very limited resources available to the country.

This is not an issue that can be ignored. The health care providers had a responsibility and a duty to monitor the situation carefully. It is not an issue that needs to be ignored because most people assume that they can just assume care in any community if they are suffering from a mental health crisis. In a way, this is exactly how the government allowed this to happen. People think, “If they need to deal with these people, so what? I’ll be able to handle it.” This is not an issue that can be ignored. The health care providers had a responsibility and a duty to monitor the situation carefully. It is not an issue that needs to be ignored because most people think that they can just assume care in any community if they are suffering from a mental health crisis. In a way this is exactly how the government allowed this to happen. People think, “If they need to deal with these people, so what? I’ll be able to handle it.”

In this case the response has taken a rather long time, and has clearly not done something to help. The treatment and treatment plans are there. What is needed, however, is for the health care system to acknowledge the situation. What is the treatment plan for these individuals? What should the local officials have done differently to prevent this?

My colleague, Dr. Alan Cooperman, is very well known for his work on autism in the general population, particularly in the context of early intervention. In the past three years, Dr. Cooperman has written the best known book about autism in kids. It is important to note that the current trend of focusing more and more on early diagnosis and early intervention has been the wrong approach to a crisis situation. Dr. Cooperman argues (and I agree) that when a problem is not addressed by early diagnosis, the problem is likely to only grow worse. And his book was written in order to make the point that early intervention is not the answer to autism, that there are other ways of dealing with the problem, and these strategies do not need to wait until the crisis is over to be effective. As Dr. Cooperman demonstrates this is not necessarily a case of “they didn’t know, they were not alerted.” When this is proven to be the case, then the first action is to raise awareness.

Dr. Alan Cooperman is a professor in the Department of Developmental Psychology at the University of Amsterdam. He has worked on a number of issues that have been relevant to the care of people with autism, including children, adolescents and adults: diagnosis, therapy and screening. His work on pediatric autism in children will be soon published in the American Journal of Developmental Psychology. His book is The Antipsychotics: A Child-Friendly Introduction to Antipsychotics for Children and Adolescents.

He is also a clinical assistant professor in the department of developmental psychology at the University of Amsterdam and a member of a working group on autism and mental health.

Here is Dr. Coop

What is the reality, and how is it getting to kids?

Here in the USA, for more than a decade, the makers of Purell hand sanitizer have been touting that regular use of their product really does eliminate flu and germs with absolutely no adverse effects. They even tell me so publicly (you can read it here ). This is in clear violation of the FDA guidelines for medical devices (click here to read). This blog post is going to explain their blatant disregard for those guidelines and their disregard for the public; and I’m sure in the past I’ve said things that got both of us in trouble and ultimately forced us to change what we were saying publicly and what we were doing. The current guidelines: From the FDA:

All claims about the efficacy and safety of a medical product or procedure (i.e. any product, procedure, or drugfor the purpose of preventing, treating, or preventing infection) (i.e., the fact that a medicine, device, or other intervention is able to prevent, treat, or manage infection) are not scientific statements and should not be used to indicate the strength or absence of effect of a medicine, device, or other intervention during any circumstance. The word”proving” does notmeanthat the product hasn’t been evaluated. The product needs to be evaluated to determine if it has the ability to prevent, treat, or prevent infection. Testing can occur even if a product does not demonstrate resistance to a medication(for example, because an individual doesn’t have the specific genetic mutation that makes a particular drug effective in someone who has the condition). Testing doesn’t have to happen if the product does not demonstrate resistance against the same medication in an uncontrolled setting. So why are the makers of Purell marketing their products as preventing and preventing influenza? It is quite simple in fact.. Purell is not antibacterial as advertised - it is probably a “bactericide” and a chemical that kills bacteria. When Purell is used on your skin, the surface layer is actually a chemical that kills any bacteria with it. The chemical is called benzalkonium chloride. Why is that a problem? Because at some point in the natural world, bacteria develop ways of using benzalkonium chloride instead of their natural antimicrobial agents. Most people have never encountered benzalkonium chloride (and it is highly toxic in large concentrations), because it is almost never on store shelves. Purell is not antibacterial - it is probably a “bactericide” and a chemical that kills bacteria. We know this because you will never see this product at your local pharmacy but the most current information is out there on Google and on some websites I just linked above (we aren’t using the word “imitative” to talk about the information the manufacturers have given us.) When I was a kid there was nothing I could do about hand sanitizers containing benzalkonium chloride which I found out was something called benzuridine, which is an ingredient in a number of antibiotics and it causes a very strange kind of liver failure. I have this link to a paper that explains it - The paper goes on to say - This appears to be a new, unique mechanism for benzuridine’s action which means, if you use this substance, it most likely causes a variety of side effects that have not previously been observed. And yes they do say it is a carcinogen and mutagenic! To prove that a product works and a product doesn’t would be difficult. The actual testing of such claims is still a secret even now; The FDA hasn’t done any testing on how harmful they actually are to children and not doing that means that the manufacturers of such products are using the same kind of scare tactics that most people were exposed to as children and are hoping we’ll all be so dumb that we will think they are good for us. The FDA has also taken several steps to prevent the marketing of these products to children by banning them from being sold in pharmacies. Purell does make it much more difficult and expensive for kids who want to learn how to use it. It’s more difficult for kids who are starting on a daily course, in which we want them to learn how to stay on track to succeed. It’s not as simple as a drop-in. You have to go to the kids to learn how to use something that should be fun and easy. And then there is still the fact that no one should feel guilty when their kids learn that they can’t use a health product in a dangerous fashion and, they’re also putting themselves or, more importantly, young adults and the rest of our whole population at risk. How does a child know they might use it?

Most kids haven’t thought about it at all. No one really has any idea all of the ways it can go wrong. And when a child does learn to use the product,

Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now