(Reuters Health) - Using an ultrasensitive scanning technique, researchers can detect signs of Alzheimer's disease in the tiny blood vessels at the back of the eye, according to a new report.
Duke University researchers found that these small retinal blood vessels were altered in patients with Alzheimer's disease, but in not in those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or those with no signs of mental decline.
"Among the folks who had Alzheimer's there was a significant reduction in the density of the blood vessels in the superficial layer of the retina compared to controls and those with mild cognitive impairment," said Dr. Dilraj Grewal, an associate professor of ophthalmology at the Duke Eye Center. "We also found a reduction in the thickness of (of a specific layer of the retina) in Alzheimer's patients compared to controls and those with mild cognitive impairment."
The findings were reported March 11 online in Ophthalmology Retina, a publication of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
wouldnt you heart rate and blood pressure vary according to whether you are having a hard time or an easy time? walked or ran to the bathroom? how smart is this toilet? can it be hacked? inquiring minds want to know. and so do i.
Nope. Nada. No Way. Don't need to find me pucker on celebrityanuses.com
If only Elvis were still alive. He coulda been saved!
This is very cool but I'm not sure that as this therapy in current form will ever offer affordable treatment to the general population. This therapy as I understand it requires analysis of a tumor's genetic code and pinpointing genetic vulnerabilities that, if attacked by T-cells or other agents of the immune system, would cause tumor cells to die. You also have to genetically modify T-cells to attack the tumor's genetic vulnerabilities—and you have to do that on a massive scale. From what I've read, you have to create a replacement number of modified T-cells and then wipe out the patient's immune system through chemo or radiation. You then introduce the modified T-cells so that they can attack the tumor cells. Even then this approach is applicable in about 30-40% of cancer cases.
Right now AFAIK this approach still cannot be used on solid tumors although researchers are trying to adapt it for such cases. I came across an article about this treatment in technologyreview.com around 3:30 am one night and spent the next 90 minutes trying to get a quick grasp of it with links to more technical articles for an email to send to my brother, whose wife was dealing with a rare and aggressive solid-tumor cancer in advanced stage. He talked to his wife's oncologist, who felt that the treatment couldn't help Catherine in part because solid tumors often have more than one genetic code in their mass, thus requiring a search for more than one set of vulnerabilities. Solid tumors also are effective at resisting penetration by therapeutic agents.
This therapy is very expensive and dangerous even if the patient is a good candidate. I don't know how you can create a relatively inexpensive and safe way of wiping out people's immune systems. Hopefully cancer research can find a less destructive and dangerous way of genetically altering people's T-cells.
wouldnt you heart rate and blood pressure vary according to whether you are having a hard time or an easy time? walked or ran to the bathroom? how smart is this toilet? can it be hacked? inquiring minds want to know. and so do i.
Nope. Nada. No Way. Don't need to find me pucker on celebrityanuses.com
wouldnt you heart rate and blood pressure vary according to whether you are having a hard time or an easy time? walked or ran to the bathroom? how smart is this toilet? can it be hacked? inquiring minds want to know. and so do i.
Nope. Nada. No Way. Don't need to find me pucker on celebrityanuses.com
This smart seat keeps tabs on your heart while you take care of business
Time and again, studies show that people are not good at consistently taking medication, following health care plans, or regularly recording health information, even when our doctor tells us to.
Now, a team at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in New York has come up with a clever way to get patients with heart failure to track their heart health—let a toilet do it for them.
Sensors in a new battery-powered, cloud-connected toilet seat track blood pressure, blood oxygen levels, and other heart data as accurately as hospital-grade monitoring equipment in a small group of patients, according to a study in the January issue of the journal JMIR mHealth and uHealth.
The idea of a “smart toilet” isn’t new—Google has a patent on a health-tracking toilet and Japanese manufacturers Toto and Matsushita (now part of Panasonic) have each developed Wi-Fi–connected toilets—but most health-related toilet technologies focus on urine and stool analysis inside the bowl, rather than tracking vital signs using sensors in the seat.
wouldnt you heart rate and blood pressure vary according to whether you are having a hard time or an easy time? walked or ran to the bathroom? how smart is this toilet? can it be hacked? inquiring minds want to know. and so do i.
This smart seat keeps tabs on your heart while you take care of business
Time and again, studies show that people are not good at consistently taking medication, following health care plans, or regularly recording health information, even when our doctor tells us to.
Now, a team at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in New York has come up with a clever way to get patients with heart failure to track their heart health—let a toilet do it for them.
Sensors in a new battery-powered, cloud-connected toilet seat track blood pressure, blood oxygen levels, and other heart data as accurately as hospital-grade monitoring equipment in a small group of patients, according to a study in the January issue of the journal JMIR mHealth and uHealth.
The idea of a “smart toilet” isn’t new—Google has a patent on a health-tracking toilet and Japanese manufacturers Toto and Matsushita (now part of Panasonic) have each developed Wi-Fi–connected toilets—but most health-related toilet technologies focus on urine and stool analysis inside the bowl, rather than tracking vital signs using sensors in the seat.
I think the next healthcare giant begins their care with "Everyone gets their healthcare through video visits or telephone appointments by default - and now let's define those situations that are exceptions to that baseline."
So many people just have a quick question about a rash or a swelling or a medication or a lab result. In antiquated Fee-for-service medicine, the doctor made money every time the patient had to come in.
In future, the docs should be salaried like at Kaiser Permanente, and then their goal isn't to drive revenue via labs or visits, but to simply deliver high quality health care. That's done with a national health insurance system (which eliminates the separate VA, Occ Med, and the County systems - think of the savings) that covers all citizens.
That decreases unnecessary ER visits for non-emergent problems, encourages people to get help sooner rather than later - returning them to or keeping them on the job better.
Folks ask me how to fix the system. I'm not kidding when I say nuke it from orbit. So, although I don't care much for Kamala Harris yet, I appreciate her willingness to say the same. Healthcare for all? That would ruin the insurance system! Her response was basically: "so?"
there's the science, which is really making great strides (digitizing biology is very exciting to say the least)
also according to SU Exponential Medicine, some of the government/FDA are finally coming around
they realize that other countries are science friendly and that development and capture, esp IP will happen elsewhere
my concern is that the distribution/availability will be leveraged by double-speak politicians for special interests/groups
i don't have a lot of faith in harris, she seems very willing to change positions if it benefits her brand
Kaiser and the HMO model was an initial failure in many regards, as patients were denied or delayed life saving care.
————
I think it takes people a while to figure out that giving bad care and getting bad press and even getting sued is ultimately more expensive than just doing it right. Despite that bit of common sense, I've met a lot of lazy, shiftless docs and I'm sure there are similar folks in all levels of administration and patient care.
And, some people just have rotten ideas that nearly bankrupt the company, like the guy that was running the doc portion of KP in the late 80s. Showing him the door and bringing in the brilliant Dr. Robbie Pearl literally saved the company. Those next three decades were the Golden Years.
It took a while to figure out the right business model as KP blazed a new trail. For instance: referring people out for sleep studies was costing the company a lot of money. So they bought the sleep lab and brought all the costs internally. Or, KP owns a bunch of MRI machines, so lets run them 6am-10pm 365 days and prevent delays in diagnosis or unnecessary hospitals stays.
What medical groups haven't learned fully yet (but KP is moving that way, intentionally) is that hospitals have to fully work, doing everything, seven days a week - not just M-F. If someone's admitted on Saturday morning, letting them sit in a hospital bed until Monday to see the specialist or get the nuclear study done is an extremely expensive and completely unnecessary waste of time (as well as a massive inconvenience to the patient and their family).
So, things change. You learn from the past, shuffle things around, and see if it's getting better. It's good to know the past - but better to know how things stand right now.
I think the next healthcare giant begins their care with "Everyone gets their healthcare through video visits or telephone appointments by default - and now let's define those situations that are exceptions to that baseline."
So many people just have a quick question about a rash or a swelling or a medication or a lab result. In antiquated Fee-for-service medicine, the doctor made money every time the patient had to come in.
In future, the docs should be salaried like at Kaiser Permanente, and then their goal isn't to drive revenue via labs or visits, but to simply deliver high quality health care. That's done with a national health insurance system (which eliminates the separate VA, Occ Med, and the County systems - think of the savings) that covers all citizens.
That decreases unnecessary ER visits for non-emergent problems, encourages people to get help sooner rather than later - returning them to or keeping them on the job better.
Folks ask me how to fix the system. I'm not kidding when I say nuke it from orbit. So, although I don't care much for Kamala Harris yet, I appreciate her willingness to say the same. Healthcare for all? That would ruin the insurance system! Her response was basically: "so?"
Kaiser and the HMO model was an initial failure in many regards, as patients were denied or delayed life saving care. They have come a long way over the past 20-30 years, and the model could be just what our system needs. Create a single payer model, with care provided by private HMO style organizations. We already spend 18%-19% of GDP on healthcare, so we know the costs. Provide vouchers to all citizens for them to obtain coverage from an HMO style organization. And you are right, having everyone in the insured pool will help lower costs, by avoiding unnecessary expensive emergency procedures, that could be handled effectively with pharmaceuticals, the cheapest and most effective form of healthcare (contrary to popular belief, drug spending is not rising exponentially, in fact only in the low single digits). Improved drug adherence overall will lower costs, as will new tech.
I think the next healthcare giant begins their care with "Everyone gets their healthcare through video visits or telephone appointments by default - and now let's define those situations that are exceptions to that baseline."
So many people just have a quick question about a rash or a swelling or a medication or a lab result. In antiquated Fee-for-service medicine, the doctor made money every time the patient had to come in.
In future, the docs should be salaried like at Kaiser Permanente, and then their goal isn't to drive revenue via labs or visits, but to simply deliver high quality health care. That's done with a national health insurance system (which eliminates the separate VA, Occ Med, and the County systems - think of the savings) that covers all citizens.
That decreases unnecessary ER visits for non-emergent problems, encourages people to get help sooner rather than later - returning them to or keeping them on the job better.
Folks ask me how to fix the system. I'm not kidding when I say nuke it from orbit. So, although I don't care much for Kamala Harris yet, I appreciate her willingness to say the same. Healthcare for all? That would ruin the insurance system! Her response was basically: "so?"
I think the next healthcare giant begins their care with "Everyone gets their healthcare through video visits or telephone appointments by default - and now let's define those situations that are exceptions to that baseline."
So many people just have a quick question about a rash or a swelling or a medication or a lab result. In antiquated Fee-for-service medicine, the doctor made money every time the patient had to come in.
In future, the docs should be salaried like at Kaiser Permanente, and then their goal isn't to drive revenue via labs or visits, but to simply deliver high quality health care. That's done with a national health insurance system (which eliminates the separate VA, Occ Med, and the County systems - think of the savings) that covers all citizens.
That decreases unnecessary ER visits for non-emergent problems, encourages people to get help sooner rather than later - returning them to or keeping them on the job better.
Folks ask me how to fix the system. I'm not kidding when I say nuke it from orbit. So, although I don't care much for Kamala Harris yet, I appreciate her willingness to say the same. Healthcare for all? That would ruin the insurance system! Her response was basically: "so?"
On a trip together to California in 2006, we went down to TJ for a meal and to buy albuterol inhalers for the wife. Yes pharmacies were everywhere. The price was pretty decent, too. We bought a half a dozen. Going back across the border, one of the agents noted all the inhalers buried in her purse but his partner said give her a break. It is now nearly impossible to bring anything as innocuous as inhalers back let alone anything more serious.
That has little to do with Americans going down there for dental care and things like that which you can still do. You just cannot bring anything back with you. Americans / Californians have been going south of the border for cheap medical care since I can remember and I'm pretty damn old now. This is hardly breaking news.
remember Laetrile ? When that was 'discovered' as a cancer treatment is when people first started going south of the border for medical treatment when it was banned in the States. Since then they discovered that other services were inexpensive and kept on going back for more medical care.
I was there in the late 90's when I noticed, but didn't give it much thought at the time. I actually remembered seeing that and sort of "connected the dots" when I was reading this article about healthcare. As I mentioned somewhere earlier, I know Canadians that had (usually expensive) dental work done in Cuba cheaply.
On a trip together to California in 2006, we went down to TJ for a meal and to buy albuterol inhalers for the wife. Yes pharmacies were everywhere. The price was pretty decent, too. We bought a half a dozen. Going back across the border, one of the agents noted all the inhalers buried in her purse but his partner said give her a break. It is now nearly impossible to bring anything as innocuous as inhalers back let alone anything more serious.
That has little to do with Americans going down there for dental care and things like that which you can still do. You just cannot bring anything back with you. Americans / Californians have been going south of the border for cheap medical care since I can remember and I'm pretty damn old now. This is hardly breaking news.
remember Laetrile ? When that was 'discovered' as a cancer treatment is when people first started going south of the border for medical treatment when it was banned in the States. Since then they discovered that other services were inexpensive and kept on going back for more medical care.
