Science

Contemplating a COVID party for your kids? It’s still a bad idea

Published

3 years ago

March 8, 2022

Contemplating a COVID party for your kids? It’s still a bad idea

Within the days earlier than a vaccine for rooster pox turned extensively out there, some mother and father would host “rooster pox events” amidst an outbreak to strive to make sure that their youngsters wouldn’t be disregarded of the wave of infections. The considering was that rooster pox was a gentle illness for teenagers however worse for adults, and catching it early would offer a lifetime of pure immunity.

Now the thought of “rooster pox events” is again — however this time, it’s for COVID-19. The Omicron variant appears much less harmful than earlier variations of the coronavirus and more durable for teenagers to keep away from now that they’re again in class, so why not get it out of the way in which?

The Occasions posed this query to 4 COVID-19 consultants, three of whom are additionally pediatricians who specialise in infectious ailments.

Whereas they expressed sympathy for folks frazzled by the seemingly countless pandemic, all of them stated there’s no actual upside to exposing your youngster to the Omicron variant — and loads of potential downsides.

The notion of intentionally making an attempt to catch an infectious illness “just isn’t twenty first century considering, it’s not twentieth century considering, it’s nineteenth century considering,” stated Dr. James T. McDeavitt, dean of scientific affairs at Baylor Faculty of Medication in Houston.

There was some knowledge within the technique of yore, and that helps clarify why folks may need to go that route once more with the coronavirus (particularly mother and father who bear in mind attending rooster pox events as kids). However the parallels between then and now are weak, as are the potential rationales for in search of out the Omicron variant.

Is the Omicron variant gentle?

McDeavitt stated Omicron tends to be gentle in kids, “however typically it’s not.”

Dr. Dean A. Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious ailments at UC Davis Kids’s Hospital, stated that of the greater than 7 million pediatric circumstances of COVID-19 in america because the begin of the pandemic, greater than 29,000 have resulted in hospitalizations and greater than 1,000 had been deadly. So whereas damaging problems aren’t frequent, he stated, “you’re principally rolling the cube and hoping your youngster doesn’t have one in all these extreme outcomes.”

Dr. Aaron M. Milstone, a pediatric infectious ailments specialist at Johns Hopkins Kids’s Middle, famous that infections are particularly dangerous for kids who haven’t gotten their COVID-19 pictures.

“We’re seeing youngsters who’re getting admitted to intensive care with acute COVID,” Milstone stated, “and it’s taking place extra often to unvaccinated youngsters than vaccinated youngsters.”

One factor we don’t but learn about Omicron, he added, is whether or not it is going to be related to multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a situation that confirmed up in some kids (and adults) 4 to 6 weeks after that they had COVID-19. MIS-C is a doubtlessly deadly illness that will trigger lingering coronary heart injury.

“We noticed our first circumstances of Omicron after Thanksgiving,” he stated. “We’re proper at that place the place we don’t know whether or not we’re going to have an enormous surge of MIS-C because of Omicron. We didn’t see that with Delta; we don’t know with Omicron.”

Virologist Paula Cannon, an affiliate professor of microbiology at USC’s Keck Faculty of Medication, stated Omicron could grow to be milder total, however we don’t know whether or not it is going to be milder for kids. It’s simple to think about a variant that has completely different results on sufferers in several age teams, she stated.

And even when an an infection doesn’t have a lot impact on a person youngster, Cannon stated, the kid could unfold the coronavirus to oldsters, grandparents, buddies and “the entire universe the kid will work together with.” And you may’t know if the consequence will likely be as benign for everybody “within the ripple of people that may very well be contaminated as a consequence of your youngster being contaminated,” she stated.

As McDeavitt put it, likelihood is that when you catch the Omicron variant, your signs received’t be extreme, however “when you don’t get it, you received’t get sick in any respect.”

Is an infection inevitable?

A part of the enchantment of a COVID-19 get together is the thought of getting some aid from the relentless nervousness about staying one step forward of the virus, Cannon stated. It’s a “let’s simply rip off the Band-Assist” method, fed by the idea that the coronavirus is in the end inescapable.

However McDeavitt argued that getting contaminated isn’t inevitable, particularly if folks put on masks, keep social distance and get vaccinated and boosted.

Though coronavirus vaccines aren’t as efficient in opposition to Omicron as they’re in opposition to earlier variants, they’re “low cost, efficient and extensively out there,” he stated. There’s no purpose to intentionally tackle the danger of an an infection “when there are higher alternate options.”

Granted, there’s no vaccine out there but for kids underneath age 5. However Cannon stated these youngsters will qualify quickly sufficient. “There’s positively a purpose to maintain your youngster not contaminated till they’re eligible for vaccination,” she stated.

Milstone stated Omicron could seem omnipresent in locations the place 30% to 40% of the COVID-19 assessments are coming again constructive. However that doesn’t imply 30% to 40% of the final inhabitants is contaminated. And apart from, this wave will fade, simply because the earlier ones have, and the danger of publicity will shrink.

“Not everybody will get flu yearly,” Milstone stated. “Not everybody will get a chilly yearly.”

Will pure immunity defend me longer than a vaccination?

Cannon stated it’s exhausting to tease out the immunity variations between individuals who’ve been contaminated however not vaccinated, individuals who’ve been vaccinated however not contaminated, and individuals who’ve been each contaminated and vaccinated.

However, Blumberg stated, when you have a look at all of the analysis, the overwhelming majority of research present that individuals have increased, extra constant and longer-lasting immunity because of vaccination than from an an infection. And even when your youngster catches COVID-19, he stated, you’d nonetheless need them to be vaccinated to cut back the danger of reinfection.

“We all know that individuals can get reinfected with COVID,” Blumberg stated.

As a result of Omicron is so infectious, Cannon stated, the hope is that we’ll find yourself with a inhabitants that’s largely resistant to the variant. However we don’t know whether or not that immunity could be sufficient to cease one other wave, or whether or not a brand new variant will come alongside that may get previous the defenses constructed up in response to Omicron, she stated.

One purpose some mother and father don’t need to vaccinate their kids, Blumberg stated, is their concern about uncommon but doubtlessly severe uncomfortable side effects equivalent to myocarditis, an irritation of the guts. However federal well being officers discovered that the speed of myocarditis was 100 occasions increased for kids who had COVID-19 than for kids who had been vaccinated, he stated. And the danger of myocarditis mixed with MIS-C was 1,000 occasions increased.

Can I isolate Omicron as soon as my youngster has it?

That is maybe the most important downside with a COVID-19 get together, consultants stated.

“Clearly, if youngsters get sick, they’re going to unfold it to folks round them,” Milstone stated. Even when the mother and father are vaccinated, if their youngsters carry the Omicron variant house, “it simply flies by the home.”

Added McDeavitt: “It’s a nasty concept within the absence of vaccines. I believe it’s a silly concept within the presence of vaccines. … It is going to trigger folks to get sick unnecessarily, and a few folks will get very sick unnecessarily.”

Dad and mom have to consider the disruption and danger this may pose not solely to their lives, however to the lives of everybody else their youngsters could are available contact with, Milstone stated. “Individuals must determine whether or not they’re going to only take into consideration their very own well-being or take into consideration their neighborhood well-being,” he stated.

That features the impact all these additional circumstances can have on the native healthcare system. If hospitals grow to be overwhelmed with COVID sufferers, Milstone stated, they received’t be capable of look after different significantly ailing and dying folks.

“Quite a lot of us in medication and public well being are form of pleading with folks to consider the neighborhood perspective,” he stated.

Science

U.S. Surgeon General Calls for Cancer Warnings on Alcohol

Published

8 hours ago

January 3, 2025

Press Room

U.S. Surgeon General Calls for Cancer Warnings on Alcohol

Alcohol is a leading preventable cause of cancer, and alcoholic beverages should carry a warning label as packs of cigarettes do, the U.S. surgeon general said on Friday.

It is the latest salvo in a fierce debate about the risks and benefits of moderate drinking as the influential U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans are about to be updated. For decades, moderate drinking was said to help prevent heart attacks and strokes.

That perception has been embedded in the dietary advice given to Americans. But growing research has linked drinking, sometimes even within the recommended limits, to various types of cancer.

Labels currently affixed to bottles and cans of alcoholic beverages warn about drinking while pregnant or before driving and operating other machinery, and about general “health risks.”

But alcohol directly contributes to 100,000 cancer cases and 20,000 related deaths each year, the surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, said.

He called for updating the labels to include a heightened risk of breast cancer, colon cancer and at least five other malignancies now linked by scientific studies to alcohol consumption.

“Many people out there assume that as long as they’re drinking at the limits or below the limits of current guidelines of one a day for women and two for men, that there is no risk to their health or well-being,” Dr. Murthy said in an interview.

“The data does not bear that out for cancer risk.”

Only Congress can mandate new warning labels of the sort Dr. Murthy recommended, and it’s not clear that the incoming administration would support the change.

Still, President-elect Donald J. Trump does not drink, and his choice to head the Health and Human Services Department, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., swore off alcohol and drugs decades ago, and says he regularly attends AA meetings.

There is no question that heavy consumption is harmful. But supporters of moderate drinking — including makers of wine, beer and spirits, and some physicians and scientists — argue that a little alcohol each day may reduce cardiovascular disease, the No. 1 killer in the United States.

Newer scientific studies have criticized the methodology of earlier studies, however, and have challenged that view, which was once a consensus.

While most cancer deaths occur at drinking levels that exceed the current recommended dietary guidelines, the risk for cancers of the breast, the mouth and the throat may rise with consumption of as little as one drink a day, or even less, Dr. Murthy said on Friday.

Overall, one of every six breast cancer cases is attributable to alcohol consumption, Dr. Murthy said. More recent studies have also linked moderate alcohol consumption to certain forms of heart disease, including atrial fibrillation, a heart arrhythmia.

Two scientific reviews will be used to inform the updated recommendations about alcohol consumption in the federal dietary guidelines.

Five years ago, the scientific report that informed the writing of the 2020-2025 dietary guidelines acknowledged that alcohol is a carcinogen and generally unhealthy and suggested “tightening guidelines” by capping the recommendation for men at one standard drink, or 14 grams of alcohol a day.

When the final guidelines were drafted, however, there was no change in the advice that moderate drinking of up to two drinks a day for men was acceptable.

But the government acknowledged emerging evidence indicating that “even drinking within the recommended limits may increase the overall risk of death from various causes, such as from several types of cancer and some forms of cardiovascular disease.”

Since then, even more studies have linked alcoholic beverages to cancer. Yet any attempt to change the warning labels on alcoholic beverages is likely to face an uphill battle.

The current warning label has not been changed since it was adopted in 1988, even though the link between alcohol and breast cancer has been known for decades.

It was first mentioned in the 2000 U.S. Dietary Guidelines. In 2016, the surgeon general’s report on alcohol, drugs and health linked alcohol misuse to seven different types of cancer.

More recently, a scientific review of the research on moderate drinking, carried out under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, was commissioned by Congress.

That analysis found a link between alcohol consumption and a slight increase in breast cancer, but no clear link to any other cancers. The report also revived the theory that moderate drinking is linked to fewer heart attack and stroke deaths, and fewer deaths overall, compared with never drinking.

The World Health Organization says there is no safe limit for alcohol consumption, however, and 47 nations require warnings on alcoholic beverages. But cancer is rarely mentioned.

To date, only South Korea has a label warning about liver cancer, though manufacturers can choose alternative labels that don’t mention cancer. Ireland is currently slated to introduce labels that say there is a “direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers” in 2026.

The industry has a strong history of fighting warning labels that mention cancer, and alcohol-producing nations have also challenged warning labels under international trade law.

Industry opposition led to the premature termination of a federally funded Canadian study of the impact of warning labels that mentioned cancer.

The surgeon general’s advisory provided a brief overview of research studies and reviews published in the past two decades, including a global study of 195 countries and territories involving 28 million people.

They all found that higher levels of alcohol consumption were associated with a greater risk of cancer.

Other studies looked at specific cancers, like breast cancer and mouth cancer, finding the risks increased by 10 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for those who had just one drink a day, when compared with those who did not drink.

The report described the biological mechanisms by which alcohol is known to induce cancerous changes at the cellular level.

The most widely accepted theory is that inside the body, alcohol breaks down into acetaldehyde, a metabolite that binds to DNA and damages it, allowing a cell to start growing uncontrollably and creating a malignant tumor.

Animal experiments have shown that rodents whose drinking water was spiked with either ethanol, the alcohol used in alcoholic beverages, or with acetaldehyde developed large numbers of tumors all over their bodies.

Research has shown that alcohol generates oxidative stress, which increases inflammation and can damage DNA.

It also alters levels of hormones like estrogen, which can play a role in breast cancer development, and makes it easier for carcinogens like tobacco smoke particles to be absorbed into the body, increasing susceptibility to cancers of the mouth and the throat.

The surgeon general’s report also goes into detail about the increase in risk associated with drinking, differentiating between the increases in absolute risk and in relative risk.

For example, the absolute risk of breast cancer over a woman’s life span is about 11.3 percent (11 out of 100) for those who have less than a drink a week.

The risk increases to 13.1 percent (13 of 100 individuals) at one drink a day, and up to 15.3 percent (15 of 100) at two drinks per day.

For men, the absolute risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer increases from about 10 percent (10 of every 100 individuals) for those who consume less than one drink a week to 11.4 percent (11 per 100) for those who have a drink every day on average. It rises to 13 percent (13 of 100 individuals) for those who have two drinks a day on average.

Many Americans don’t know there is a link between alcohol and cancer.

Fewer than half of Americans identified alcohol use as a risk factor for cancer, compared with 89 percent who recognized tobacco as a carcinogen, according to a 2019 survey of U.S. adults aged 18 and older carried out by the American Institute for Cancer Research.

Yet alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of cancer, after tobacco and obesity, according to the surgeon general’s report.

Dr. Murthy said it was important to know that the risk rises as alcohol consumption increases. But each individual’s risk of cancer is different, depending on family history, genetic makeup and environmental exposures.

“I wish we had a magic cutoff we could tell people is safe,” he said. “What we do know is that less is better when it comes to reducing your cancer risk.”

“If an individual drinks occasionally for special events, or if you’re drinking a drink or two a week, your risk is likely to be significantly less than if you’re drinking every day,” he added.

Science

107 more women accuse former Cedars-Sinai physician of sexual misconduct

Published

9 hours ago

January 3, 2025

Press Room

107 more women accuse former Cedars-Sinai physician of sexual misconduct

More than 100 women have filed a new lawsuit against obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. Barry J. Brock and the facilities where he worked, claiming that Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and other medical practices knowingly concealed his alleged sexual abuses and medical misconduct.

The 107 new plaintiffs join 60 other former patients who have accused Brock in lawsuits last year of inappropriate and medically unjustifiable behavior that at times resulted in lasting physical complications.

Brock didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Brock, 74, has previously denied all allegations of impropriety. The longtime OB-GYN was a member of the Cedars-Sinai physician network until 2018 and retained his clinical privileges there until mid-2024.

Cedars-Sinai “received numerous complaints regarding [his] sexually exploitative and abusive behavior, dating back several decades,” the lawsuit alleges. Nevertheless, “Brock has been allowed to continue injuring, exploiting, and abusing patients under the guise of medical care at Cedars-Sinai from 1979 through August of 2024,” the suit says.

A Cedars-Sinai spokesperson said that “the type of behavior alleged about Dr. Barry Brock is counter to Cedars-Sinai’s core values and the trust we strive to earn every day with our patients.”

“Dr. Brock no longer has privileges to practice medicine at Cedars-Sinai, and we have reported this matter to the California Medical Board,” the spokesperson said.

In July, Cedars-Sinai said it suspended Brock’s hospital privileges after receiving “concerning complaints” from former patients. His hospital privileges were terminated a few months later.

In the most recent suit, filed Dec. 27 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, former patients accuse Brock of groping their breasts and genitals unnecessarily under the pretense of legitimate medical examinations.

More than a dozen women say in the suit that Brock fondled their clitorises during exams and procedures. Three women alleged that Brock used examination instruments in inappropriate and violating ways, thrusting them in their bodies while at times making lewd comments.

Several said that he conducted vaginal examinations without wearing gloves, which the Federation of State Medical Boards lists as an example of sexual impropriety.

A woman who saw Brock once in 2015 when her regular doctor was unavailable asked why he wasn’t wearing gloves, the lawsuit states. Brock allegedly responded: “Your down there is much dirtier than my hands.”

Former patients allege in the latest suit that Brock’s frequent comments about their bodies or sexual desirability, often made during the middle of sensitive physical examinations, left them deeply uncomfortable. When one patient disclosed during a visit that she was a lesbian, the suit alleges, Brock replied, “Well, I can change that.”

Another woman said that she noticed photographs she had taken as a model on an exam room computer during one of her visits. “I was looking at your modeling pictures and take a look at this one. You can see your [vulva] right through the outfit,” Brock allegedly told her, using a crude term for female genitalia.

Multiple patients say in the lawsuit that Brock dismissed complaints of pain or medical concerns with sexually inappropriate comments. To a patient who told him that a pap smear was causing her pain, the lawsuit alleges, Brock made a comment about her sexual history and replied that she “should like it.”

Others said Brock’s care left them with lasting physical complications.

One woman said Brock delivered her baby in 2005 as the on-call doctor at Cedars-Sinai and proceeded to suture her perineal area after birth, a procedure he told her husband would leave the patient “like a virgin.” Two decades later, the woman still finds sexual intercourse painful as a result of the suturing, the suit alleges. Four other plaintiffs also reported lasting pain as a result of post-birth stitches Brock inserted after delivery.

Several patients allege in the suit that they reported their discomfort to office staff, nurses or other doctors, and received responses that suggested that his behavior was known to staff.

When one woman who saw Brock from 2002 to 2012 “would express to the nurses or other doctors that his behavior was rough and rude,” the lawsuit states, she “would be told, ‘That’s just how he is’ and ‘Don’t put much on it.’”

Another disclosed to a labor and delivery nurse that Brock had called her a crude name during one of her visits, the suit alleges.

The nurse responded “that she was not surprised, and implied that Brock had a reputation for making off colored remarks,” the suit states.

The lawsuit also names Beverly Hills OB-GYN and Rodeo Drive Women’s Health Center, where Brock worked after leaving the Cedars-Sinai physician network. Neither responded immediately to requests for comment on Thursday.

At the time Cedars suspended Brock’s privileges, a spokesperson for the medical center said that privacy laws prohibited it from confirming the existence of any patient complaints or disciplinary action taken against Brock before 2024.

Brock, who retired from medicine in August, said previously that he surrendered his privileges without any “hearing on the merits” of the allegations under investigation.

The plaintiffs who have brought suit against Brock so far are represented by a legal team that includes Anthony T. DiPietro, who has also represented patients of convicted sex offender and former Columbia University gynecologist Robert Hadden, and Mike Arias, who like DiPietro has represented patients of former USC gynecologist George Tyndall.

Brock, they allege, “has only recently ‘retired’ so that Cedars-Sinai can continue trying to conceal from plaintiffs, and the public at large, that Brock is a known serial predator, who has sexually exploited and abused hundreds, if not thousands, of unsuspecting female patients.”

Science

The Quadrantids meteor shower is here! Here's the peak viewing time for SoCal

Published

18 hours ago

January 3, 2025

Press Room

The Quadrantids meteor shower is here! Here's the peak viewing time for SoCal

Shooting stars darting across the darkened Southern California skies from an annual meteor shower will appear strongest over the next two days. Prime viewing starts Friday morning and continuing into Saturday, according to astronomical observers.

The annual Quadrantids meteor shower will hit peak visibility, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere with around 25 meteors per hour, according to Ed Krupp, director of Griffith Observatory.

“What you’re going to need is a little bit of patience because that translates into one every couple of minutes,” Krupp said. “They aren’t systematic and don’t run on a clock, but when they appear overhead, people do enjoy them.”

When the meteor shower will be most visible varies according to region.

Krupp said peak visibility for Southern California will take place Friday night heading into Saturday morning, from roughly midnight to 5:30 a.m., possibly 6 a.m.

Around 10 p.m., you can find the meteor shower by locating the constellation Boötes, which Krupp said can be seen by looking in a northeastern direction.

By 3 a.m. the showers will be nearly overhead, Krupp said.

The director said that binoculars or a telescope are unnecessary and a potential hindrance because they narrow a stargazer’s field of view.

“The best observations are made with just your eyes, which offer great CinemaScope viewing,” Krupp said.

What is recommended for best viewing is finding a dark area away from cities and light pollution. NASA is suggesting those heading outdoors should pack winter weather gear along with a sleeping bag, blanket or lawn chair.

Krupp suggested desert viewing would be ideal.

The American Meteor Society predicts the shower to be strongest at 9:45 a.m. Friday, which means Pacific island communities probably would enjoy the best show.

The source of the meteor shower is a bit ambiguous, according to Krupp.

The asteroid 2003 EH1, discovered in 2003 by research scientist Peter Jenniskens, is believed to be behind the shooting stars.

Krupp said it’s not certain whether 2003 EH1 is indeed a meteor or a “dead comet,” which means the celestial body has lost its volatile ice and gas that create the glowing tail.

Since best viewing is away from cities and light, Krupp said the observatory is not hosting any special viewing events.