BMJ. News Analysis. Covid-19: Should we be worried about reports of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA vaccines? BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1635 (Published 24 June 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1635
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s personal views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is NOT previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are NOT, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Cancer cells can float in a person’s blood. But finding them, in the past, used to be like “looking for a needle in a haystack”.
But new smart technology promises to detect these cancer cells easily and much early before a person develops symptoms. Detection of cancer cells at an early stage may be helpful for some patients.
A Californian company called Grail has developed a blood test which seems to have a high degree of accuracy for detection of multiple cancers.
Times newspaper reports that “The NHS will begin a pilot scheme of the test with 140,000 people this year. If that is successful it will be used for millions of patients by 2025”
A word of caution though.
Just because something could be diagnosed early does not always mean that it is a good thing.
The most important thing is whether the early diagnosis can lead to better cure rates and a better quality of life.
If a test detects a cancer early but has no meaningful effect on quantity or quality of life, then it is not a good thing.
For example. Up to 80% of men have prostate cancer which can now be detected by a simple blood test called PSA. There is a good reason why we are NOT using the simple PSA test in every 80 year old.
Most 80 year old men die WITH prostate cancer rather than DUE to prostate cancer.
So why diagnose a cancer that is not causing symptoms if it is not going to make person live longer !
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
It is unlikely to become mandatory in most western countries. It almost certainly would not become mandatory in USA, where Vaccination seems to become tangled with highly divisive politics.
But it is not an impossible scenario in European countries.
Also, it does not have to a direct government policy.
If the governments change the law to allow businesses to demand vaccination proof, then indirectly vaccination becomes mandatory for most people.
Private Businesses and Travel industry may decide to make vaccination mandatory for their employees and customers so as to avoid further disruption to their business.
In countries, such as Israel and U.K., where there is already high uptake of vaccination, a change in Law may not be needed at present.
But if the present surge in infections continue, and variants emerge, Governments may change their approach.
References
BMJ. Covid-19: Turkmenistan becomes first country to make vaccination mandatory for all adults BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1766 (Published 12 July 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n1766
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s personal views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is NOT previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are NOT, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
If someone feels they are not having regular refreshing sleep, then it is bad news.
In a very large U.K. study, involving 487,728 people, the following question was asked: Do you have trouble falling asleep at night or do you wake up in the middle of the night?
About a quarter of people in study answered “never/rarely”; just under half answered “sometimes” and less than one-third reported “usually”.
The people in study were followed up for many years (mean follow-up time = 8.9 years)
The people who reported frequent sleep disturbances (“usually” category) were found to be at risk of dying early.
The risk was highest in those with both diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances.
It needs to be seen whether the sleep disturbance by itself led to early death or whether people who are going to die early have medical problems that cause them to have disturbed sleep !
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Yes, it is a possibility that a third booster dose of COVID vaccine would be offered later this year.
Vaccination has been tremendously successful so far. But it is too early to declare victory against the virus.
Data from Israel indicates that the current Pfizer vaccine, although still highly active, offers less protection against delta variant.
In June, the vaccine was found to be just 64 percent effective in preventing coronavirus infection whereas during May, when the delta strain was less prevalent, the vaccine was 94.3% effective.
So if more variants emerge, then vaccine boosters may be particularly needed for the vulnerable people.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
U.K. is on course to lift almost all COVID restrictions in mid July 2021.
A U.K. minister has said that “wearing masks” would become a personal choice.
Just because there is a choice, it does not mean it is always good for you.
Government decisions are often made not only with scientific facts but also with economic and political considerations. Compulsory masks may not be liked by a section of society and Government has to take that into account in a democratic society.
Personally electing to wear masks in crowded public places could be sensible for the following reasons.
– There is some debate about the extent of protection a person gets wearing masks following the Danish mask study. But no robust scientific study has shown significant harm from wearing masks. So it is better to be safe and wear masks even if the extent of protection is debatable.
– Infections are rising now and luckily, vaccines seem to have protected most people from getting severe COVID. But Vaccines are not 100% effective. Moreover, when infection rates go up further and society opens up more, there is a risk of variants emerging that may be partially vaccine resistant. So wearing masks may provide some protection.
– Not all people get poorly when they get COVID. But these people with COVID can still pass infection to other vulnerable family members and people who don’t have the protection from vaccines. So wearing a mask can stop people with mild COVID from spreading the infection to others.
– Some people do not want to wear masks because they think they are not at risk of death or hospitalisation. Remember, COVID related problems affect different people in different ways. Lot of people do recover from COVID without major problems. But some people do develop long-term symptoms from COVID. So it is better to wear masks for COVID protection.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Yes, good masks may help to reduce infections that are spread by airborne particles.
But not all masks are the same.
Cloth masks were promoted during 2020 when the proper surgical masks were in short supply . The effectiveness of cloth masks are not well studied and they are of varying quality depending who made them and how well they were made.
Properly manufactured surgical masks are better than home made cloth masks. But how much protection they can offer is a matter of scientific debate. Surgical masks have been found to give some protection against other respiratory viruses in past. But a recent Danish study found no significant benefit against COVID among the general public.
The high quality FFP3 masks which filter most of the inhaled air is superior to normal surgical masks. A recent study from Cambridge found that Heath care workers who used FFP3 masks had better protection from COVID compared to normal surgical masks in the Hospital.
Overall, clean, well manufactured masks are likely to of some benefit to the public rather than wearing no masks at all. In the hospital setting, FFP3 masks seem to provide superior protection to Health care staff working with COVID patients.
And most importantly people have to understand that masks are not to be used alone. Masks got to be used along with protective measures such as social distancing and Hand-washing.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Yes, we should be cautious after the freedom day on July 19th and this is for the following reasons.
1. Vaccines are highly effective but they are NOT 100% effective.
2. Two doses are needed for full protection. Even though, more than two third of adults have had atleast one vaccine, only about half the U.K. population had double vaccination so far.
3. Vaccine Protection against New COVID variants may NOT be as good as it is now. For instance , vaccines are slightly less effective against the delta variant particularly after first dose.
4. Vaccine protection may decrease over time and Vaccines may not give the same level of protection as months pass by.
4. Being cautious now, may helps us to avoid lockdowns during Autumn and would help to save Christmas !
Public Health England. Press release Vaccines highly effective against hospitalisation from Delta variant New analysis by PHE shows for the first time that 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective against hospitalisation from the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant. Published 14 June 2021
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Yes, even after having both the vaccines, there is still a small risk of dying from COVID-19
Why?
This is because the vaccines are not 100% effective.
People who had both the vaccines can still get COVID-19 infection. A unlucky few of those who get an infection can still die from COVID-19.
Recent reports indicate that about half of deaths in U.K. are in people who had at least one dose of COVID vaccine.
The good thing is that the overall number of deaths is VERY LOW compared to the high number of deaths at the peak of pandemic when vaccines were not available.
Vast majority of infections do still occur in the unvaccinated individuals. ( PHE document- page 13 & 14)
One has to hope that vaccines do NOT lose their effectiveness over time.
We have to hope that more new variants do NOT emerge as there is a possibility that Vaccines may be less effective against new variants emerging in future.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Yes, the Kent variant who got a foothold in December was far more dangerous.
A recent study in BMJ reports that “the risk of hospital admission is higher” for people infected with the Kent variant compared with the original wild-type Wuhan variant of Coronavirus.
This higher severity seems to be specific to adults older than 30 years.
The current variant spreading in U.K. (delta a.k.a Indian variant) may not cause widespread havoc, like the Kent variant, due to the lock down and wide spread vaccination.
One has to hope that we do not get any variants that breaks the protective shield of COVID vaccines.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
It would be a shock for many to hear that “No amount of alcohol is absolutely safe”.
A team at Imperial College London analysed MRI scans of heart, brain and liver of people who drink alcohol. They found that higher alcohol consumption was related to smaller brain, weaker heart and fatty liver.
They reported that “there is no ‘safe threshold’ below which there were no toxic effects of alcohol.
Previously other studies have also reported that there is no safe limit for alcohol!
In 2018, a Lancet study reported that the risk of death and risk of cancers increased substantially with increasing levels of alcohol consumption; and there was no safe limit below which there was no risk.
The message is “Avoid alcohol”
If you can’t, then atleast drink as little as possible.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
But the study also showed what we know already. Vaccination does not give 100% protection.
Everyone, in particular, health care staff need to continue with other COVID precautions such as masks, distancing and regular washing as advised by Government.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Yes, people have died after having COVID-19 vaccines.
Recently, a BBC Radio Newcastle presenter, Lisa Shaw was reported to have died after the Astra Zeneca COVID vaccine. Her family is blaming the COVID vaccine for causing clots and ultimately her death.
In India, a Popular Tamil actor and comedian died within 48 hours of receiving a COVID vaccine. His vaccination was broadcast live on TV to encourage public uptake of vaccination but his unfortunate death after vaccination probably ended up causing vaccine hesitancy in some people.
A news article in BMJ reports that the “Pfizer-covid-19 vaccine is “likely” to have been responsible for at least 10 deaths of frail elderly people in nursing homes in Norway”.
But, the most important thing to remember is that deaths are rare after COVID-19 vaccines.
Yes, there are true distressing accounts of vaccine side effects. But what you do not hear is the benefit most people have from vaccines.
Millions of people received vaccines so far with vast majority having no major side effects.
Consider this for context. Think about plane accidents. Millions of people travel by plane without any problems. If People fly safely and reach their destination, it is not headline news. People do not go around saying that they have traveled safely by plane and that they are alive !
But a aeroplane accident which happens rarely is front page news. It would be all over the 24 hour TV news channels across the world. Plane accidents are utterly and unimaginably devastating for those individuals and families involved. But the rare plane accidents do not make most other people avoid flying. The accidents do not mean that no one should travel by plane. The travel by planes has far more benefits than risks for majority of population.
Same with COVID vaccines. Serous Side effects are headline news even if they are very uncommon and rare. The available data indicate benefits are much greater than risks.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Worries about vaccines are nothing new. Anti_vaccination groups were formed in 1860s when small pox vaccination was made compulsory. Even when small pox was causing untold devastation, some people were opposed to it.
The Vaccine hesitancy of 19th century is somewhat excusable. Some of the worries were real, and not much was known about the safety of small pox vaccine at that time. Lot of people were ill-informed and did not have access to good sources of information. They didn’t know the immense potential of the vaccination to eliminate distressing diseases.
Vaccines have now successfully eradicated small pox. Many other devastating infectious diseases such as polio have been controlled in many countries across the globe due to the vaccines.
Some of the vaccine hesitancy in west is because western people are not fully aware of the devastating power of infectious diseases (at least until COVID-19 came to the world in 2020).
Vaccine hesitancy is also sustained by “confirmation bias” . Confirmation bias is the tendency of human beings to seek information that confirms what they believe in. If you distrust vaccines, you go looking for information that confirms you beliefs and you disregard information that proves vaccines are hugely beneficial.
Some people wish for a 100% safe vaccine. But there is no such thing as completely risk free vaccine. It is true Vaccines can cause serious side effects. It is true that Vaccines can cause long term side effects. It is true that Vaccines can rarely cause life threatening side effects and even deaths.
It is normal to worry about side effects of vaccines. But the potential for side effects should not be the reason to decline vaccination.
One has to look at benefits as well as risks. Some people focus on everything bad that can happen as a result of vaccines.
COVID-19 vaccines had an unusually short development period. This is because of the pandemic. The available evidence indicate that the benefits of the vaccines are far greater than risks. It is true that there is no long term safety data. But in the middle of a pandemic, which has caused untold misery to millions, waiting for perfect long term data is not an option.
If you are sceptical about vaccines, please do focus on benefits as well as risks. Do not focus on risks only.
References
BMJ. Practice Pointer. Covid-19 vaccination hesitancy. BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1138 (Published 20 May 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1138
BMJ. News. Covid-19: Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is “likely” responsible for deaths of some elderly patients, Norwegian review finds. BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1372 (Published 27 May 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1372
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
There is concern whether PTSD is now over-diagnosed. There is a debate at the BMJ journal. Please do read my views and submit your views through the rapid response section.
References:
BMJ Head To Head. Is PTSD overdiagnosed? BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n787 (Published 05 May 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n787
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
UK government wanted as manypeople have “some” degree of protection against the COVID-19 rather a only few people having “full” protection against COVID-19.
A recent paper published in BMJ validates the U.K. approach even though it was initially criticised by WHO ( world health organisation)..
Is it Luck or Foresight that U.K. Govt got it right? Probably both but more foresight than luck. Perhaps a cappuccino cup of foresight sprinkled with chocolate of luck.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
But now comes the Variant from India. (the scientific name is B1.617.2 variant of concern).
The Indian variant appears to be more transmissible but no evidence yet that the Indian variant is inherently more deadly than the Kent variant.
Naturally, we are in a better place now than last year because of the vaccination.
But there is some evidence that spontaneous changes (mutations) in the B.1.617.2 variant virus may make it partially resistant to antibodies produced by vaccines.
So how effective are the current vaccines against this Variant from India?
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation that the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not, in way whatsoever, intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
UK government wanted as many people have “some” degree of protection against the COVID-19 rather a only few people having “full” protection against COVID-19.
Some people have now been offered two vaccines but still there are many people who were yet to have the second dose. They would be wondering how effective a single dose of the vaccine is. How much protection they have now.
With Pfizer vaccine, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% after 4 to 5 weeks of the first dose.
With AstraZeneca vaccine, vaccine effectiveness reached 73% after 5 weeks of first dose.
This data is very reassuring
But the data also stresses the importance of having the second dose for further protection.
Please do make a note that (a) vaccines do take a few weeks to be become effective after the first dose (b) no vaccine is 100% effective and (c) we also do not know how long this protection from vaccine will last.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not necessarily endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with and views are not substitute for professional advice.
Advanced Cervical cancer which has come back after surgery or radiotherpy is usually treated with chemotherapy.
There is a new immunotherapy treatment option for all advanced cervical cancer patients now .
At the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO 2021) virtual conference, an international team of investigators, presented trial data regarding this new immunotherapy drug called cemiplimab.
One group of patients in the trial received the immunotherapy drug cemiplimab every 3 wks and another group of patients received intravenous chemo (pemetrexed, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan or topotecan).
Cemiplimab significantly improved survival of patients and was better than chemotherapy.
This new immunotherapy drug cemiplimab is already being used for skin cancers and vulval skin cancers. Very soon, it would be used in cervical cancer patients.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
How effective is a single dose of Pfizer Vaccine in cancer patients?
Single dose is not very effective in cancer patients.
An UK study has now been peer reviewed and published in the esteemed Lancet oncology journal. The study showed inadequate protection after first dose.
More than half of the cancer patients receiving a single dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine have been left with little protection against the virus.
Two doses are critical and the second booster ideally need to be given on time at 21days.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
The vaccination rates are rapidly going up and understandably many people are hoping for some sort of normality very soon.
But a new variant has been detected across the country. The scientists are worried about this new variant of coronavirus- called India variant. This variant can derail government plans in UK.
The current vaccines seem to offer somewhat less protection against this new variant . If this variant takes a strong foothold in UK , then we have to wait a bit longer for normality.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Yes, there is a risk of serious harm from “unauthorised” COVID treatments that are not officially authorised by competent regulatory authorities such as MHRA in UK or FDA in USA.
India is going to a rough patch. People with COVID are desperate for treatment. There is shortage of oxygen which is a commonly used treatment.
Apart from oxygen for respiratory support, only Two treatments have been proven to be of significant help in COVID-19 pneumonia. (1) Steroids (2) An arthritis drug called Tocilizumab
Many antivirals drugs have not shown any meaningful benefit. Various other drugs are still in trials.
It is rapidly evolving area and the BMJ has a COVID guideline which is being frequently updated during this pandemic.
This is significant risk of harm from drugs which are NOT properly assessed in clinical trials.
Anecdotally there has been lot of sudden deaths in India. Lot of unproven treatments such as Azithromycin, ivermectin, antivirals agents,chloroquine, and other agents widely used in india.
Although there is no definitive proof, One cannot help wondering whether poor outcome in at least some Indian patients is related to combinations of unproven drugs that are used widely in unregulated private healthcare sector.
BMJ. Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2980 (Published 30 July 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;370:m2980
BMJ. A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19 BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3379 (Published 04 September 2020).
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
An apple a day might not keep the doctor away. But a good public health team can keep the doctors away for many people!
Public health is about prevention and promotion of health in the society.
Public health is largely responsible for the significant improvements in life expectancy over the last 150 years.
Providing people with clean drinking water, removal of rubbish from houses and streets, good sewage system, and vaccination has saved many millions of lives over the years.
The recent smoking ban in work-places, public places and indoor venues is a modern example of public health activity.
The one area where public health has not been hugely successful is obesity. It may be because of the reliance on nudging the individual to change rather than dealing with underlying structural problems.
BMJ. Lifestyle and socioeconomic group on health Public health needs to go back to basics, not rely on nudge theory BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1153 (Published 06 May 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1153
BMJ. Short term impact of smoke-free legislation in England: retrospective analysis of hospital admissions for myocardial infarction BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2161 (Published 08 June 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c2161
BMJ. Associations of healthy lifestyle and socioeconomic status with mortality and incident cardiovascular disease: two prospective cohort studies BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n604 (Published 14 April 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n604
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
BMJ. News Analysis. Covid-19: Is the UK heading towards mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers? BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1056 (Published 21 April 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1056
BMJ News. Covid-19: Italy makes vaccination mandatory for healthcare workers BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n905 (Published 06 April 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n905
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
COVID-19 is still raging like wild fire in various parts of world particularly in India now.
But, in U.K, it does look like the “beginning of the end” for the COVID pandemic. Vaccines seem to have greatly aided this end.
On Tuesday, UK reported 1,946 new infections and only four deaths within 28 days of a positive test.
So unless there is a new variant which overcomes the protective shield of the Vaccines, there may be no more lockdowns and life may go back to some sort of normality.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
In the indoor settings, wearing masks can help to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 infection.
But in the outdoor setting, masks may not be very helpful as the risk of getting COVID-19 infection from others, in outdoor settings, is considerably smaller.
Apart from infection prevention, I can see some additional benefits for voluntarily wearing masks in the streets.
The streets of major cities have significant air-pollution. So facial masks can help to reduce inhalation of toxic chemicals.
More and more surveillance street-cameras are now deploying facial-recognition software to deter criminals. But the cameras may also track movements of ordinary law-abiding people for marketing and advertising reasons. So face-masks may also be helpful to those with privacy concerns.
Read the article and submit your views through BMJ rapid response section.
BMJ . Coronavirus Transmission Should masks be worn outdoors? BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1036 (Published 28 April 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1036
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Combination therapy with Hormone therapy and Radiotherapy is used with curative intent for treatment of prostate cancer.
There is some debate which treatment should be started first. At present, the hormone therapy is started first and radiotherpy is started second at a later date.
This is because many previous clinical trials, which found beneficial effects for the combination therapy, involved starting hormones first.
One advantage of starting hormone therapy immediately and delaying the start date of radiotherpy is that hormone therapy shrinks the size of prostate before radiotherpy . This greatly helps when image-guided Radiotherpy is planned later on.
A group of high Calibre researchers and authors from Canada and USA have published paper arguing in favour of radiotherpy starting first and starting hormones afterwards.
Some of the authors behind this paper in Journal of Clinical oncology have previously published seminal, practice changing, papers in field of prostate cancer.
My personal view, is that we have to wait for confirmatory evidence before changing the current practice.
I have to resort to the megaphone of a provocative headline grabbing title so that oncologists won’t uncritically accept the conclusion of the paper
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
CPR or cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a medical procedure that is often misunderstood. It causes lot of anguish and distress to patients and family unnecessarily.
It is sometimes colloquially known as “kiss of life” as “mouth to mouth resuscitation” was previously used in pre-COVID era along with “chest compressions”.
CPR may involve “electric shocks to heart” when needed if machines are available. CPR in hospital may involve “tubes pushed down the throat” to enable air get into lungs. CPR almost always involves someone “pressing hard on the chest repeatedly with both hands” so as to help air get into lungs.
Overall, it can appear a bit brutal but it can be a life saver. That’s why the work places, train stations, airports and some public parks have the automatic defibrillators.
CPR is a wonderful medical first aid, which, delivered promptly, can save lives. It is highly successful in previously fit people with a sudden cardio respiratory arrest due to a “reversible or treatable” illness.
Television serials and Hollywood movies often portray CPR as a highly successful procedure.
But, unfortunately, in routine hospital practice, the success rates are low.
In particular, success rates are very low in “terminally ill” cancer patients and in frail patients with “multiple irreversible medical conditions”.
Because many people believe CPR is hugely successful in “everyone”, patients and families understandably get very upset when the medical team talk about “do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR)“.
When CPR is NOT used appropriately, it prevents peaceful death and stops terminally ill patients from gently fading away surrounded by their loved ones.
In cancer patients, when cancer treatments are not working, death occurs after the body has been overwhelmed by cancer. Trying to re-start the heart and lungs after the organs have stopped working due to cancer is often futile. More importantly, CPR can make death more traumatic for patients and family.
Other than educating people about benefits and limitations of CPR, there is no easy way to make this misconception about resuscitation go away.
Read my BMJ letter on this topic and contribute your views on the rapid response section of BMJ.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
In USA, about 5800 “breakthrough” COVID-19 infections has been reported so far among the roughly 77 million people who had been fully vaccinated. That’s less than 0.008% cases.
A much more smaller minority among this minority group had serious infections. Among the 5800 cases, 396 patients were admitted to hospital and 74 patients died from COVID-19. That’s less than 0.0001% deaths.
1. BMJ News. Covid-19: Infections fell by 65% after first dose of AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine, data show BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1068 (Published 23 April 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1068
2. BMJ news. Covid-19: US reports low rate of new infections in people already vaccinated BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1000 (Published 16 April 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1000
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The views expressed in this blog are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
If someone has recovered from a COVID-19 infection, they would have some protection against getting another COVID-19 infection.
But, even if someone has recovered very well from a previous infection, vaccination is necessary because there is still a significant risk of getting COVID-19 infection again.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Like everything else in medicine, risks and benefits needs to be assessed in each individual case.
For instance, a doctor won’t give toxic treatments for a self limiting flu. But, on the other hand, a doctor will try toxic chemotherapy to control advanced lung cancer.
No vaccine or medicine is ever going to be 100% safe.
For that matter, Life is full of risks. Getting out of bed can be risky. Not getting out of bed everyday is also risky.
Older adults who are at high of COVID related death and COVID related complications should have the vaccine during this pandemic and not worry too much about rare serious side effects.
But young adults, who are a low risk, can avoid Astra Zeneca vaccine based on the available data, if alternatives are available.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Vitamins and Minerals are absolutely essential nutrients for a Healthy body and a Healthy mind. Anyone not eating a healthy balanced should look what nutrients they might be missing.
But on the other hand, taking too much of vitamins and minerals, when they are not needed, could be harmful to the body.
There is widespread use of dietary supplements during cancer treatment, in the hope they can reduce side effects but many do not think about the disadvantages.
An American study of Breast cancer patients undergoing Chemotherapy looked at the effect of taking dietary supplements such as anti-oxidants, iron, vitamin B12, and omega-3 fatty acids.
Breast cancer patients who took the dietary supplements during chemotherapy were found be harmed by them. They had a higher chance of cancer coming back compared to people who did not take these supplements. The supplements also increased risk of death in those the supplements.
Beware supplements when used improperly, can be harmful.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and is likely to change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not necessarily endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with and views are not substitute for professional advice.
A recent study published in the esteemed Lancet Oncology Journal shows that the vaccine is well tolerated in patients having immunotherapy.
Unlike cancer chemotherapy, immunotherapy works differently. It works by releasing the in-built brakes holding down the immune system thereby boosting the body’s immune system against cancer.
There has been some theoretical concerns whether this might lead to COVID vaccine causing more side effects.
Reassuringly, the Vaccine side effects were NO different from those seen in people not having immunotherapy. The Vaccine also did NOT increase the immunotherapy side effects.
So the study is good news for tens of thousands of patients on immunotherapy and any cancer patient who has hesitated before, should seriously consider having the vaccine now
COVID infection could be very nasty in cancer patients and all evidence points to the benefits of vaccine far outweighing any risks from the Vaccine.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
BMJ News. Covid-19: Pfizer reports 100% vaccine efficacy in children aged 12 to 15 BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n881 (Published 01 April 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n881
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Many millions of people have now been vaccinated against COVID-19.
The COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective but the next important question is how long would the vaccines continue to protect.
Some vaccines for other viral diseases offer life long protection but others like flu vaccines need annual boosters. COVID-19 Studies are still ongoing.
A recently released Pfizer vaccine study data indicates that protection with Pfizer vaccine lasts for many months as a minimum. To be precise, so far, Pfizer vaccine was found to have 91% efficacy for up to six months. Ongoing studies would clarify whether booster vaccines are needed in future.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
COVID-19 is not a self limiting illness particularly if you have been poorly enough to be hospitalised the first time around.
Even after recovering from a COVID-19 infection, many people remain at high risk of death.
A recent UK study published in the BMJ found that “ Nearly a third of people who have been in hospital before were readmitted after discharge for further treatment in the following four months”.
“And worryingly one in ten patients died during the follow up period after hospital discharge”.
The increase in risk was not confined to the elderly. So everyone still needs to be careful as the lockdown is being gradually eased.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
A recent study published in BMJ shows increase in heart and lung related deaths due to traffic pollution.
Reference:
BMJ. Short term associations of ambient nitrogen dioxide with daily total, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality: multilocation analysis in 398 cities. BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n534 (Published 24 March 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n534
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you. The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Nutritional supplements are often tried to prevent cancer. But well- designed rigorously conducted clinical trials have NOT shown any benefit in prevention of many cancers.
Selenium was suggested as a preventative supplement for skin cancer.
A clinical trial compared Selenium against placebo in United States. The results were disappointing.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and is likely to change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not necessarily endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with and views are not substitute for professional advice.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not necessarily endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with and views are not substitute for professional advice.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
The study presented at the ASCO ( American Society of Clinical Oncology) virtual scientific symposium in 2020,
“The VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL) was a high quality study. The study randomly assigned patients to Vitamin D3 supplements and/or omega-3 fatty acid supplements and/or both or placebo in 25,871 men and women.
The study found that “vitamin D supplementation decreased risk of developing advanced cancers by 17% compared with placebo ”
“Omega-3 supplementation did not reduce the incidence of advanced cancer.”
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and is likely to change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not necessarily endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with and views are not substitute for professional advice.
More good news on the vaccine front in the fight against the coronavirus.
Two new vaccines have reported positive results.
The NOVAVAX vaccine is first Vaccine to report efficacy against the new variants. It is 95.6% effective against the original strain of coronavirus.
NOVAVAX is 86% effective at protecting against the new UK variant, which is very reassuring. But the Vaccine is only, 60% effective against South African variant of the virus. The efficacy against Brazilian variant is unknown.
The Janssen vaccine, produced by the US giant Johnson & Johnson, is a single-dose vaccine and has proved 66% effective against Covid-19. The vaccine was just 57% effective in the South African part of the trial.
The reduction in efficacy of both vaccines against new variants is a bit worrying and indicates that if further new variants emerge in future, existing vaccines could be less effective and vaccines would need to be updated.
The Janssen vaccine uses a common cold virus and uses a approach similar to the Oxford Astra Zeneca Vaccine.
Novavax vaccine differs from existing vaccines and it uses a artificially produced COVID-19 spike protein, which is then assembled into nanoparticles to make them look like coronavirus.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with. The authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
Read the excellent article in BMJ and contribute your views through the rapid response section of BMJ
Reference
Too little, too late: social media companies’ failure to tackle vaccine misinformation poses a real threat BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n26 (Published 21 January 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n26
Disclaimer: Please note- This blog is NOT medical advice. This blog is NOT a expert medical opinion on various topics. This blog is purely for information only and do check the the sources where cited. Please DO consult your own doctor to discuss concerns and options relevant to you.
The views expressed in this blog represent the author’s views held at the time of drafting the blog and may change overtime, particularly when new evidence comes to light. The blog is not necessarily endorsed by any organisation the author is associated with and the authors views are not in way intended to be a substitute for professional advice.
