DHADING: More than 20,000 chickens have died of unidentified disease in Naubise VDC’s Dharke and surrounding areas in the past one week.
Livestock Development Officer Dr Shivaji Prasad Das of District Livestock Service Office said chickens had been dying but since the farmers kept mum more chickens could not be prevented from dying. It was only yesterday that a team including Dr Das went to the incident site. It sent dead chickens for tests to Kathmandu’s Central Livestock Disease Control Laboratory today. According to Dr Das, test report will be out in three days.
In the poultry farm owned by Ram Koirala of Dharke 3,500 died within two weeks. In Salikgram’s farm 3,000 fowls have died. Thousands of chickens have died in other farms as well. Farmers estimate that they have lost more than Rs 50 lakhs.
Ram Koirala, Proprietor of Dharke-based Ram Laxman Poultry Farm, said, “We had taken the chickens to Kathmandu’s Gauri Shankar Vet Farm as soon as we found out they were suffering from some disease. The vets there said chickens suffered from Ranikhet disease.” Farmers are worried that chickens are dying even after treatment of Ranikhet disease.
Meanwhile, the Cabinet decided today to declare three districts of eastern region — Ilam, Sunsari and Jhapa — as bird flu affected areas and directed the government agencies to adopt effective measures to control the disease.
http://newsessentials.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/20000-chickens-have-died-of-unidentified-disease-in-naubise/
ChanneledKnowledgeTV
Showing posts with label disease. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disease. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Hundreds of livestock Dead in Tennesse
MAURY COUNTY, Tenn. -- Horses are dying and now cattle as well and detectives in Maury County have been at a loss to explain how or why it is happening.
First, seven seemingly healthy horses turned up dead last week at a Hampshire farm in Maury County. The state performed a necropsy and released the results.
"They ruled that it's undetermined. The cause of death cannot be determined at this time. It is a mystery. We don't know what happened," said Detective Terry Chandler with the Maury County Sheriff's Department.
Now Detective Chandler is investigating more deaths: Two dead cows at a farm across from the one where the seven horses were found. And he's consulting with police looking into more mysterious horse deaths in Dickson and Giles county.
Chandler said there is no evidence anyone is intentionally harming the animals.
He said they have not ruled out the possibility the livestock died from eating contaminated hay or a poison plant. It's possible the toxins were not detected by the state testing.
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/17005844/mystery-grows-as-more-livestock-dies-in-maury-county
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/17005844/mystery-grows-as-more-livestock-dies-in-maury-county
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Flesh Eating Disease Spread by sneezing Plagues Britain
Britain is in the grip of a new “flesh-eating bug spread by sneezes and coughs”, according to the front page of today’s Metro. The newspaper says that the bacteria are spreading across Britain, as they can be caught through people coughing and sneezing on crowded trains and buses.
This unsettling news put some of the Behind the Headlines team off grabbing their free copy of the Metro at the station this morning, not because of the fear of catching deadly germs from the paper, but because its report was alarmist and overblown. The basis of this news was a laboratory study that investigated why healthcare-acquired meticillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria rarely cause infections in healthy individuals. The study found that healthcare-acquired MRSA has a high level of antibiotic resistance, but that this property comes at a cost of reduced virulence (being less able to cause infection). Conversely, the study found that the type of MRSA that is usually caught in a community setting is more virulent, but weaker against treatment with antibiotics.
This study has not investigated the transmission, effects or number of cases of community-acquired MRSA in the UK, the discussion of which formed the basis of many news reports on the research. The researchers state that MRSA outside the healthcare system and in the community is a growing concern, but cases are still very rare. This interesting research contributes to our knowledge of MRSA, rather than warning us of an invasion of airborne superbugs.
This story was widely covered. Most reports were alarmist, concentrating on the supposed emergence of a dangerous, highly infectious new form of community-acquired MRSA. Many newspapers suggested that transmission is easy, that it can lead to a “flesh-eating form of pneumonia”, and that cases are on the increase. These claims seem to be based on the press release for the research rather than the research paper itself. The study was actually laboratory-based research that had investigated why healthcare-acquired MRSA bacteria rarely cause infections in healthy individuals. Although there was some investigation of community-acquired MRSA, the results do not justify the news coverage.
The researchers initially covered the nature of MRSA and how it resists certain types of antibiotics. It is already known that MRSA is resistant to the antibiotics meticillin and oxacillin because it has acquired a piece of DNA called a ‘mobile genetic element’. Meticillin is an old antibiotic that is now no longer used and has been replaced by flucloxacillin.
Many staphylococcus aureus bacteria have now also developed resistance to the penicillin group of antibiotics (because they produce enzymes that can make penicillin inactive), but they are usually still susceptible to the antibiotic flucloxacillin. MRSA, however, does not have this susceptibility to flucloxacillin, and is, therefore, harder to treat than most staphylococci bacteria, needing stronger antibiotics still.
One particular genetic element that is key for deciding the properties of MRSA is called the ‘staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec’ (SCCmec). There are several different versions of this cassette, which each provide bacteria with slightly different properties. The researchers state that healthcare-acquired MRSA have type I, II or III SCCmec elements, whereas community-acquired MRSA have type IV and V elements. These different cassettes all contain a gene (mecA) that codes for a protein called PBP2a, located in the cell wall of the bacteria. PBPs (penicillin binding proteins) are a normal part of the cell wall of many bacteria. Many antibiotics work by inactivating PBPs, which cause the bacteria to die. However, the version of PBP encoded by mecA, PBP2a, is less sensitive to antibiotics, allowing the bacteria to survive.
The researchers then investigated the ability of the different strains to respond to ‘signalling molecules’, which normally cause the bacteria to activate their production of toxins. The virulence of these strains was confirmed using mouse experiments.
The researchers then compared the production of the PBP2a cell wall protein, T-cell toxicity and the resistance of healthcare-acquired MRSA to antibiotics, compared with community-acquired MRSA.
The researchers then compared MRSA strains with different SCCmec elements: those with type II elements (typical of healthcare-acquired MRSA) and those with type IV elements (typical of community-acquired MRSA). They found that typical community-acquired MRSAs had lower resistance to the antibiotic oxacillin, were more toxic to the immune system’s T-cells and expressed less PBP2a.
http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/health/new_flesh_eating_bug_papers_claim_1_3490095
This unsettling news put some of the Behind the Headlines team off grabbing their free copy of the Metro at the station this morning, not because of the fear of catching deadly germs from the paper, but because its report was alarmist and overblown. The basis of this news was a laboratory study that investigated why healthcare-acquired meticillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria rarely cause infections in healthy individuals. The study found that healthcare-acquired MRSA has a high level of antibiotic resistance, but that this property comes at a cost of reduced virulence (being less able to cause infection). Conversely, the study found that the type of MRSA that is usually caught in a community setting is more virulent, but weaker against treatment with antibiotics.
This study has not investigated the transmission, effects or number of cases of community-acquired MRSA in the UK, the discussion of which formed the basis of many news reports on the research. The researchers state that MRSA outside the healthcare system and in the community is a growing concern, but cases are still very rare. This interesting research contributes to our knowledge of MRSA, rather than warning us of an invasion of airborne superbugs.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Bath and the University of Nottingham in the UK; University College Dublin in Ireland; and Texas A&M Health Science Centre and the University of Texas in the US. It was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Studentship. The study was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Infectious Diseases.This story was widely covered. Most reports were alarmist, concentrating on the supposed emergence of a dangerous, highly infectious new form of community-acquired MRSA. Many newspapers suggested that transmission is easy, that it can lead to a “flesh-eating form of pneumonia”, and that cases are on the increase. These claims seem to be based on the press release for the research rather than the research paper itself. The study was actually laboratory-based research that had investigated why healthcare-acquired MRSA bacteria rarely cause infections in healthy individuals. Although there was some investigation of community-acquired MRSA, the results do not justify the news coverage.
What kind of research was this?
This was a laboratory-based study. It aimed to examine why healthcare-acquired MRSA bacteria rarely cause infections in healthy individuals. Healthcare-acquired, or hospital-acquired, means that the bacteria cause infections that mostly occur in healthcare environments.The researchers initially covered the nature of MRSA and how it resists certain types of antibiotics. It is already known that MRSA is resistant to the antibiotics meticillin and oxacillin because it has acquired a piece of DNA called a ‘mobile genetic element’. Meticillin is an old antibiotic that is now no longer used and has been replaced by flucloxacillin.
Many staphylococcus aureus bacteria have now also developed resistance to the penicillin group of antibiotics (because they produce enzymes that can make penicillin inactive), but they are usually still susceptible to the antibiotic flucloxacillin. MRSA, however, does not have this susceptibility to flucloxacillin, and is, therefore, harder to treat than most staphylococci bacteria, needing stronger antibiotics still.
One particular genetic element that is key for deciding the properties of MRSA is called the ‘staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec’ (SCCmec). There are several different versions of this cassette, which each provide bacteria with slightly different properties. The researchers state that healthcare-acquired MRSA have type I, II or III SCCmec elements, whereas community-acquired MRSA have type IV and V elements. These different cassettes all contain a gene (mecA) that codes for a protein called PBP2a, located in the cell wall of the bacteria. PBPs (penicillin binding proteins) are a normal part of the cell wall of many bacteria. Many antibiotics work by inactivating PBPs, which cause the bacteria to die. However, the version of PBP encoded by mecA, PBP2a, is less sensitive to antibiotics, allowing the bacteria to survive.
What did the research involve?
The researchers initially determined whether deleting the mecA gene, which encodes the PBP2a cell wall protein, affects the toxicity of MRSA. They then took a healthcare-acquired MRSA strain and a version of this strain that they genetically modified to delete the mecA gene, and performed tests to see how each was able to break up a type of immune cell called a T cell in the laboratory.The researchers then investigated the ability of the different strains to respond to ‘signalling molecules’, which normally cause the bacteria to activate their production of toxins. The virulence of these strains was confirmed using mouse experiments.
The researchers then compared the production of the PBP2a cell wall protein, T-cell toxicity and the resistance of healthcare-acquired MRSA to antibiotics, compared with community-acquired MRSA.
What were the basic results?
The researchers found that deleting the mecA gene caused the MRSA to become more toxic. This was because the expression of mecA results in cell wall changes that interfere with MRSA’s ability to detect or respond to signals to switch on toxin expression. MRSA with mecA deleted was also more virulent in a mouse model, causing mice to lose weight or die.The researchers then compared MRSA strains with different SCCmec elements: those with type II elements (typical of healthcare-acquired MRSA) and those with type IV elements (typical of community-acquired MRSA). They found that typical community-acquired MRSAs had lower resistance to the antibiotic oxacillin, were more toxic to the immune system’s T-cells and expressed less PBP2a.
http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/health/new_flesh_eating_bug_papers_claim_1_3490095
Monday, January 9, 2012
FDA says Walnuts are Drugs After seller says they reduce Heart Disease
Walnuts are DRUGS! FDA makes bizarre claim after seller says they 'reduce risk of heart disease and cancer'
By PAUL BENTLEY
Last updated at 6:53 AM on 26th July 2011
Hard drugs? The FDA allegedly classed walnuts as a drug because of claims they are good for your health
They may just be the hardest drugs on the market, if the FDA are to be believed.
A company which sells walnuts has been told they are dealing in drugs because their packaging suggests health benefits which the Food and Drug Administration has not approved, it has been reported.
A fiercely-worded letter from the agency allegedly insisted Diamond Foods, from Stockton, California, remove the health claims or send off for a new drug application if it did not wish to be closed down.
The nut company has been selling its products with packaging which states the omega-3 fatty acids in walnuts have been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease and some types of cancer.
But while the claims are backed up by research, including 35 published medical papers supporting assertions that eating walnuts improves vascular health and may reduce risk of heart attacks, the FDA is said to have insisted the company is 'misbranding' its foods because the 'product bears health claims that are not authorised by the FDA'.
The letter from the FDA reportedly stated: 'We have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.'
It went on to emphasise that the nuts are 'misbranded' because they 'are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners.
'Therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes.'
Critics have slammed the FDA for the supposedly 'tyrannical' manner in which they have accused the walnut sellers of dealing in drugs.
William Faloon, from Life Extension Magazine, said: 'The FDA’s language resembles that of an out-of-control police state where tyranny [reigns] over rationality.
'This kind of bureaucratic tyranny sends a strong signal to the food industry not to innovate in a way that informs the public about foods that protect against disease.
'While consumers increasingly reach for healthier dietary choices, the federal government wants to deny food companies the ability to convey findings from scientific studies about their products.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018807/Walnuts-DRUGS-FDA-makes-bizarre-claim-seller-says-reduce-risk-heart-disease-cancer.html#ixzz1iwo5wM1Z
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)