BMI (Body Mass Index): In today's time when our lives have to a large extent become fodder for other people's consumption and judgement, body image issues and eating disorders have unfortunately become a huge part of our reality.&nbsp;

As per the study by the Lancet medical journal done in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) and released ahead of World Obesity Day (Mar&nbsp;4), more than one billion people across the world suffer from obesity. This conclusion was based on data measured on the BMI index.

<h2>What is obesity?&nbsp;</h2>

Many of us falsely believe anything that doesn't fit the societal norm is obese. We have got so used to comparing our bodies with others that searches like 'what is the ideal weight for someone of XYZ height' are common.&nbsp;

<img alt="Google search " data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="dde3fc7f-8ce2-4bf5-9aba-14f97f541e4b" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/New%20wion%20%286%29.jpg" />

The internet's answer to such a question? The BMI index, which lumps you into brackets like underweight, healthy, overweight, and obese. But, how valid is the BMI index? Is it an apt scale for measuring obesity?&nbsp;

To answer these questions&nbsp;and more, WION connected with a senior dietitian with more than a decade's experience.

<h2>What is the BMI index?</h2>

The Body Mass Index (BMI) has long been used as a standard measure to categorise an individual's weight status.&nbsp;

It traces its origins back to between 1830 and 1850, when Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised its basis. Then called the Quetelet Index, it was a means of discovering the socially ideal human person. Now, it is used to devise the ideal weight.

However, its validity and effectiveness have been a subject of debate among health professionals and researchers.

While BMI provides a simple and quick way to assess weight-related health risks, it comes with many limitations.

One major criticism of BMI is its reliance solely on weight and height, without considering other important factors, such as muscle mass, bone density, and distribution of fat.&nbsp;

This means that individuals with a high muscle mass, such as athletes, may be classified as overweight or obese, despite being in excellent health. Similarly, older adults and those with different ethnic backgrounds may not be accurately assessed by BMI due to variations in body composition.

As per Veena V, Chief Clinical Dietitian at Aster Whitefield Hospital, even those with the appropriate BMI measurement can have health problems like fatty liver.&nbsp;

She notes that BMI can also vary between different ethnicities. Comparing the diet in India and abroad, she said that in India, several people consume food that can lead to added fat around the waist. This is often considered unhealthy, but that isn't always the case.

<h2>The psychological effects</h2>

BMI fails to account for the psychological effects it can have on individuals. Being told that you are overweight or obese based on a numerical value can lead to feelings of shame, guilt, and low self-esteem. This can be particularly harmful to vulnerable populations, such as teenagers, who are already facing immense pressure to conform to societal beauty standards.

"Sometimes, if people focus too much on their BMI, they might start doing unhealthy things like extreme dieting or exercising too much. This can hurt their bodies and their&nbsp;minds,"&nbsp;said&nbsp;Psychotherapist Ekta Khurana.

"We should recognise that health is multifaceted, and weight alone doesn’t define well-being," she adds.

Despite its limitations, BMI can still be a useful screening tool, but only when used in conjunction with other assessments, such as waist circumference and body fat percentage. However, its validity and effectiveness as a standalone measure are questionable. Health professionals and individuals alike should be aware of its limitations and use it as part of a comprehensive assessment of health status and not as a final verdict on how healthy or unhealthy one is.&nbsp;

BMI (Body Mass Index): In today's time when our lives have to a large extent become fodder for other people's consumption and judgement, body image issues and eating disorders have unfortunately become a huge part of our reality.

BMI (Body Mass Index): In today's time when our lives have to a large extent become fodder for other people's consumption and judgement, body image issues and eating disorders have unfortunately become a huge part of our reality. As per the study by the Lancet medical journal done in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) and released ahead of World Obesity Day (Mar 4), more than one billion people across the world suffer from obesity. This conclusion was based on data measured on the BMI index. What is obesity? Many of us falsely believe anything that doesn't fit the societal norm is obese. We have got so used to comparing our bodies with others that searches like 'what is the ideal weight for someone of XYZ height' are common. The internet's answer to such a question? The BMI index, which lumps you into brackets like underweight, healthy, overweight, and obese. But, how valid is the BMI index? Is it an apt scale for measuring obesity? To answer these questions and more, WION connected with a senior dietitian with more than a decade's experience. What is the BMI index? The Body Mass Index (BMI) has long been used as a standard measure to categorise an individual's weight status. It traces its origins back to between 1830 and 1850, when Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised its basis. Then called the Quetelet Index, it was a means of discovering the socially ideal human person. Now, it is used to devise the ideal weight. However, its validity and effectiveness have been a subject of debate among health professionals and researchers. While BMI provides a simple and quick way to assess weight-related health risks, it comes with many limitations. One major criticism of BMI is its reliance solely on weight and height, without considering other important factors, such as muscle mass, bone density, and distribution of fat. This means that individuals with a high muscle mass, such as athletes, may be classified as overweight or obese, despite being in excellent health. Similarly, older adults and those with different ethnic backgrounds may not be accurately assessed by BMI due to variations in body composition. As per Veena V, Chief Clinical Dietitian at Aster Whitefield Hospital, even those with the appropriate BMI measurement can have health problems like fatty liver. She notes that BMI can also vary between different ethnicities. Comparing the diet in India and abroad, she said that in India, several people consume food that can lead to added fat around the waist. This is often considered unhealthy, but that isn't always the case. The psychological effects BMI fails to account for the psychological effects it can have on individuals. Being told that you are overweight or obese based on a numerical value can lead to feelings of shame, guilt, and low self-esteem. This can be particularly harmful to vulnerable populations, such as teenagers, who are already facing immense pressure to conform to societal beauty standards. "Sometimes, if people focus too much on their BMI, they might start doing unhealthy things like extreme dieting or exercising too much. This can hurt their bodies and their minds," said Psychotherapist Ekta Khurana. "We should recognise that health is multifaceted, and weight alone doesn’t define well-being," she adds. Despite its limitations, BMI can still be a useful screening tool, but only when used in conjunction with other assessments, such as waist circumference and body fat percentage. However, its validity and effectiveness as a standalone measure are questionable. Health professionals and individuals alike should be aware of its limitations and use it as part of a comprehensive assessment of health status and not as a final verdict on how healthy or unhealthy one is.

Body image battles: Break free of BMI stereotypes. Your weight isn't the whole story

Official US documents have disclosed that a popular anti-stroke medicine may have used fictitious data while concealing research on its fatal effects. In 2009, the acclaimed British medical journal, The Lancet, published a prime story on rivaroxaban, a blood thinner medicine, which showed that the treatment was safe and efficient. But recently, the same journal warned of defaults in the trial data and claimed to initiate an investigation over it.

Lancet opens probe into ‘unreliable’ anti-stroke medicine

According to a new global study published by medical journal The Lancet, it has been revealed that young people under 40 are at more significant risk of health problems than their older counterparts when drinking alcohol. The report mentions that young adults in the 15-39 age bracket do not have any health benefits when gulping alcoholic drinks.

0.136 standard drinks per day is the recommended amount of alcohol for people in the aforementioned age group, according to the journal.&nbsp;As for the age group above 40, it was advised that individuals having no underlying health complications could benefit from moderate drinking.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
New <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GBDStudy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GBDStudy</a> suggests alcohol consumption carries significant health risks and no benefits for young people; some older adults may benefit from drinking a small amount. 
 
Find out more: <a href="https://t.co/nn3V68KNIX">https://t.co/nn3V68KNIX</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/IHME_UW?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@IHME_UW</a> <a href="https://t.co/i5wz2AR94w">pic.twitter.com/i5wz2AR94w</a>
— The Lancet (@TheLancet) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheLancet/status/1547711042901254145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 14, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The safe alcohol consumption levels for individuals aged 40-64 ranged from 0.527 drinks for males to 0.562 standard drinks per day for females. However, the range could be extended to almost two standard drinks i.e 1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females as it&nbsp;reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke and diabetes.

Reportedly, alcohol alone was the cause of over 1.78 million deaths in 2020. It was attributed to being the leading cause of mortality in the 15-49 age group.&nbsp;Therefore, the journal recommended that stronger interventions were required for this particular age demographic to reduce global health loss.&nbsp;

The study was based on alcohol consumption data collated from 204 countries, with individuals, both males and females, aged between 15-95 years, segregated into five-year age groups. The research revealed that in the year 2020 alone,1.34 billion people consumed harmful amounts of alcohol.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

According to a new global study published by medical journal The Lancet, it has been revealed that young people under 40 are at more significant risk of health problems than their older counterparts when drinking alcohol.

According to a new global study published by medical journal The Lancet, it has been revealed that young people under 40 are at more significant risk of health problems than their older counterparts when drinking alcohol. The report mentions that young adults in the 15-39 age bracket do not have any health benefits when gulping alcoholic drinks. 0.136 standard drinks per day is the recommended amount of alcohol for people in the aforementioned age group, according to the journal. As for the age group above 40, it was advised that individuals having no underlying health complications could benefit from moderate drinking. New #GBDStudy suggests alcohol consumption carries significant health risks and no benefits for young people; some older adults may benefit from drinking a small amount. Find out more: https://t.co/nn3V68KNIX @IHME_UW pic.twitter.com/i5wz2AR94w — The Lancet (@TheLancet) July 14, 2022 × The safe alcohol consumption levels for individuals aged 40-64 ranged from 0.527 drinks for males to 0.562 standard drinks per day for females. However, the range could be extended to almost two standard drinks i.e 1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females as it reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke and diabetes. Reportedly, alcohol alone was the cause of over 1.78 million deaths in 2020. It was attributed to being the leading cause of mortality in the 15-49 age group. Therefore, the journal recommended that stronger interventions were required for this particular age demographic to reduce global health loss. The study was based on alcohol consumption data collated from 204 countries, with individuals, both males and females, aged between 15-95 years, segregated into five-year age groups. The research revealed that in the year 2020 alone,1.34 billion people consumed harmful amounts of alcohol.

How much alcohol to drink at what age? The Lancet study reveals

More than 500 million instances of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been documented worldwide as of April 2022. Do you remember the initial days of the pandemic? The panic, the deaths, the loss? Even after battling COVID-19 for more than two years, we are yet to be rid of it.

As per a new study, the coronavirus may be here to stay and like so many other things that are just a little bit more problematic for women, this virus seems to affect the fairer gender worse.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/traditional-chinese-medicine-to-fight-covid-chinas-health-platform-disagrees-472325" hreflang="en">Traditional Chinese medicine to fight COVID-19? China's health platform disagrees</a>

The study says that for patients with long COVID, there are no effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies.&nbsp;

Even after a year of infection and subsequent hospitalisation, not even one in four people can report a full recovery. This indicates that the virus is here to stay and it is on its way to becoming a common condition.

"Without effective treatments, long Covid could become a highly prevalent new long-term condition," said Christopher Brightling of the University of Leicester, one of the study's co-leads.

Watch |&nbsp;COVID-19 case spike in South Africa: One new death reported

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/covid-19-case-spike-in-south-africa-one-new-death-reported-473265/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The study of over 2,300 persons also discovered that women were 33 per cent less likely than men to fully recover.

The research looked at the health of 807 persons who were discharged with Covid from 39 British hospitals between March 2020 and April 2021 and then assessed their recovery five months and one year later.

According to the study published in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine journal, only 26 per cent of patients reported complete recovery after five months, and that figure rose only marginally to 28.9 per cent after a year.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-reopens-venues-extends-dining-hours-as-covid-cases-fall-472654" hreflang="en">Hong Kong reopens venues, extends dining hours as covid cases fall</a>

"The limited recovery from five months to one year after hospitalisation in our study across symptoms, mental health, exercise capacity, organ impairment and quality-of-life is striking," said Rachel Evans of the National Institute for Health and Care Research, study co-leader.

Fatigue, muscle ache, poor sleep, physical slowdown, and breathlessness were the most prevalent long-Covid effects.

(With inputs from agencies)

More than 500 million instances of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been documented worldwide as of April 2022. Do you remember the initial days of the pandemic? The panic, the deaths, the loss?

More than 500 million instances of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been documented worldwide as of April 2022. Do you remember the initial days of the pandemic? The panic, the deaths, the loss? Even after battling COVID-19 for more than two years, we are yet to be rid of it. As per a new study, the coronavirus may be here to stay and like so many other things that are just a little bit more problematic for women, this virus seems to affect the fairer gender worse. Also read | Traditional Chinese medicine to fight COVID-19? China's health platform disagrees The study says that for patients with long COVID, there are no effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies. Even after a year of infection and subsequent hospitalisation, not even one in four people can report a full recovery. This indicates that the virus is here to stay and it is on its way to becoming a common condition. "Without effective treatments, long Covid could become a highly prevalent new long-term condition," said Christopher Brightling of the University of Leicester, one of the study's co-leads. Watch | COVID-19 case spike in South Africa: One new death reported The study of over 2,300 persons also discovered that women were 33 per cent less likely than men to fully recover. The research looked at the health of 807 persons who were discharged with Covid from 39 British hospitals between March 2020 and April 2021 and then assessed their recovery five months and one year later. According to the study published in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine journal, only 26 per cent of patients reported complete recovery after five months, and that figure rose only marginally to 28.9 per cent after a year. Also read | Hong Kong reopens venues, extends dining hours as covid cases fall "The limited recovery from five months to one year after hospitalisation in our study across symptoms, mental health, exercise capacity, organ impairment and quality-of-life is striking," said Rachel Evans of the National Institute for Health and Care Research, study co-leader. Fatigue, muscle ache, poor sleep, physical slowdown, and breathlessness were the most prevalent long-Covid effects. (With inputs from agencies)

Covid is here to stay and it affects women worse than men, says study

As voters turn out in huge numbers in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/us-election">US elections</a>, medical journal Lancet said: "with so much loss and still more at stake, the 2020 presidential election is the opportune moment for the American electorate to embrace change for the better, to reject the stagnancy of complacency, to exchange a view bereft of intention with a vision of progress."

Watch:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/living-statues-paint-trump-as-racist-relic-339106/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Lancet stated that "under the banner of making America great again, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-hard-line-immigration-policies-go-before-voters-339028">Trump</a> administration has pursued regressive nationalist policies" while rolling back protection for individuals and the environment.

The journal also slammed the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-president-donald-trumps-wildest-prediction-till-date-338554">Trump</a> administration for "withdrawing from international agreements and multilateral organisations, such as WHO".

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/white-house-backtracks-on-listing-ending-coronavirus-as-donald-trumps-achievement-338920">Also Read:&nbsp;White House backtracks on listing 'ending coronavirus' as Donald Trump's achievement</a>

"Led by a relentless agenda of deregulation and dysregulation, America has retreated from its once prominent position of leadership and abandoned its beneficence," it said, adding, "With the election, Americans have the power to address these issues, both at home and around the world, by eschewing the falsehood of nostalgia."

Lancet said the US leads &nbsp;the world in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-records-more-than-90000-coronavirus-cases-in-24-hours-338894">COVID-19</a> infections with over 9 million cases and 225 000 deaths, stating that "23 million Americans have filed for unemployment, while an estimated 14 million Americans and their dependents have lost employer-sponsored health coverage during the greatest public health crisis in a century."

The health journal stated that there was "perceived diminished responsibility of the federal government, and political interference with crucial public health apparatus (most markedly the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) have culminated in the disastrous US response to the coronavirus pandemic."

It said there was an absence of "comprehensive health infrastructure" in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-the-controversy-behind-early-voting-338288">United States</a>.

"Conservatives continue to attempt, out of ideology and opposition, to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Americans need equitable individual access to quality health care that is supported by efficient and autonomous public health governance, both as a matter of health security and as a matter of human rights."

Lancet said: "The USA in 2020 continues to experience unrest borne out of these still-open wounds: violence against people of colour, vast income inequality, immigration restrictions, and gender barriers, as well as a continuing devaluation of science."&nbsp;

As voters turn out in huge numbers in the US elections, medical journal Lancet said: "with so much loss and still more at stake, the 2020 presidential election is the opportune moment for the American electorate to embrace change for the better, to reject the stagnancy of complacency, to exchange a view bereft of intention with a vision of progress.

As voters turn out in huge numbers in the US elections, medical journal Lancet said: "with so much loss and still more at stake, the 2020 presidential election is the opportune moment for the American electorate to embrace change for the better, to reject the stagnancy of complacency, to exchange a view bereft of intention with a vision of progress." Watch: Lancet stated that "under the banner of making America great again, the Trump administration has pursued regressive nationalist policies" while rolling back protection for individuals and the environment. The journal also slammed the Trump administration for "withdrawing from international agreements and multilateral organisations, such as WHO". Also Read: White House backtracks on listing 'ending coronavirus' as Donald Trump's achievement "Led by a relentless agenda of deregulation and dysregulation, America has retreated from its once prominent position of leadership and abandoned its beneficence," it said, adding, "With the election, Americans have the power to address these issues, both at home and around the world, by eschewing the falsehood of nostalgia." Lancet said the US leads the world in COVID-19 infections with over 9 million cases and 225 000 deaths, stating that "23 million Americans have filed for unemployment, while an estimated 14 million Americans and their dependents have lost employer-sponsored health coverage during the greatest public health crisis in a century." The health journal stated that there was "perceived diminished responsibility of the federal government, and political interference with crucial public health apparatus (most markedly the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) have culminated in the disastrous US response to the coronavirus pandemic." It said there was an absence of "comprehensive health infrastructure" in the United States. "Conservatives continue to attempt, out of ideology and opposition, to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Americans need equitable individual access to quality health care that is supported by efficient and autonomous public health governance, both as a matter of health security and as a matter of human rights." Lancet said: "The USA in 2020 continues to experience unrest borne out of these still-open wounds: violence against people of colour, vast income inequality, immigration restrictions, and gender barriers, as well as a continuing devaluation of science."

'Embrace change for the better': Medical journal Lancet slams Trump's policies

Over 100 scientists have slammed Lancet Medical Journal over its study on using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat Covid-19. The authenticity of the study is under question. WION's Palki Sharma gets you a report.

Gravitas: Was Lancet study on Hydroxychloroquine fabricated?

British medical journal the Lancet has concerns about the data behind an influential article that found hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of death in COVID-19 patients.

This conclusion had then undercut scientific interest in the medicine championed by US President Donald Trump.

Hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug, inhibited the coronavirus in laboratory experiments but has not been proven effective in humans, particularly in placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trials.

Nearly 150 doctors signed an open letter to the Lancet last week calling the article's conclusions into question and asking to make public the peer review comments that preceded publication.

The observational study published in the Lancet on May 22 looked at 96,000 hospitalised COVID-19 patients, some treated with the decades-old malaria drug that Trump said he took and has urged others to use.

Several clinical trials were put on hold after the study was published.

The study, using data provided by healthcare data analytics firm Surgisphere, was not a traditional clinical trial that would have compared hydroxychloroquine to a placebo or other medicine.

The Lancet's editors, to this end, said in a note that serious scientific questions about the study were brought to their attention and an independent audit of the data has already been commissioned.

Earlier on Tuesday, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) said it was concerned about the quality of the data behind a different study it published in May that also used data from Surgisphere and had the same lead author.

Dr Mandeep Mehra, the lead author and a professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, defended the use of the Surgisphere dataset as an intermediary step until clinical data is available.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) suspended hydroxychloroquine's use in a large trial on COVID-19 patients after the Lancet study. Following the WHO trial suspension, the governments of France, Italy and Belgium halted the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients.

Among the critics of the study to sign the letter last week were several academics from the University of Oxford and Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Bangkok, which had been conducting the global "COPCOV" trial of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment of COVID-19.

The trial was paused last week, after the Lancet article.

In March, Trump, with little scientific evidence, said hydroxychloroquine used in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin had "a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine." He later said he took the drugs preventively after two people who worked at the White House were diagnosed with COVID-19.

Trump and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro discussed a joint research effort on using hydroxychloroquine as both a prophylaxis and treatment for the coronavirus, the White House said on Tuesday.

British medical journal the Lancet has concerns about the data behind an influential article that found hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of death in COVID-19 patients.

British medical journal the Lancet has concerns about the data behind an influential article that found hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of death in COVID-19 patients. This conclusion had then undercut scientific interest in the medicine championed by US President Donald Trump. Hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug, inhibited the coronavirus in laboratory experiments but has not been proven effective in humans, particularly in placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trials. Nearly 150 doctors signed an open letter to the Lancet last week calling the article's conclusions into question and asking to make public the peer review comments that preceded publication. The observational study published in the Lancet on May 22 looked at 96,000 hospitalised COVID-19 patients, some treated with the decades-old malaria drug that Trump said he took and has urged others to use. Several clinical trials were put on hold after the study was published. The study, using data provided by healthcare data analytics firm Surgisphere, was not a traditional clinical trial that would have compared hydroxychloroquine to a placebo or other medicine. The Lancet's editors, to this end, said in a note that serious scientific questions about the study were brought to their attention and an independent audit of the data has already been commissioned. Earlier on Tuesday, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) said it was concerned about the quality of the data behind a different study it published in May that also used data from Surgisphere and had the same lead author. Dr Mandeep Mehra, the lead author and a professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, defended the use of the Surgisphere dataset as an intermediary step until clinical data is available. The World Health Organisation (WHO) suspended hydroxychloroquine's use in a large trial on COVID-19 patients after the Lancet study. Following the WHO trial suspension, the governments of France, Italy and Belgium halted the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients. Among the critics of the study to sign the letter last week were several academics from the University of Oxford and Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Bangkok, which had been conducting the global "COPCOV" trial of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment of COVID-19. The trial was paused last week, after the Lancet article. In March, Trump, with little scientific evidence, said hydroxychloroquine used in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin had "a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine." He later said he took the drugs preventively after two people who worked at the White House were diagnosed with COVID-19. Trump and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro discussed a joint research effort on using hydroxychloroquine as both a prophylaxis and treatment for the coronavirus, the White House said on Tuesday.

Study panning use of hydroxychloroquine against coronavirus faces new questions

In a recent study published in The Lancet experts have projected the demand for ventilators at the peak of the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/states-advised-not-to-use-rapid-testing-kits-for-two-days-need-to-be-validated-government-293806"> coronavirus</a> outbreak in the USA. ''

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/explained-can-mobile-apps-aid-the-fight-against-coronavirus-293804">Explained: Can mobile apps aid the fight against coronavirus?</a>

According to the report, at a basic reproduction rate of 2.5, 1,15,001 (ranging between 101 006–131 770) invasive ventilators and 89,788 (ranging between 78 861–102 880) non-invasive ventilators would be needed, on average at the outbreak peak.

The estimates used to project the numbers include recent evaluations of coronavirus patient’s hospitalization and data of patients in ICU requiring ventilation.&nbsp;

The study further elaborates that 69,660 out of 98,105 invasive ventilators in the USA are already deployed for non-coronavirus patients, before the spread of the pandemic. It essentially means that only 28,445 invasive ventilators would be left for coronavirus patients.

Consequently, at least 45 341 (IQR 31 346–62 110) additional units would be needed for the surge at the peak. Similarly, of the 22,976 non-invasive devices, an estimated 12,499 units would be available for COVID-19 patients. As a result, a minimum of 77,289 additional units would be needed at the peak in the USA.&nbsp;

The startling numbers projected in the report reveals how ill-prepared the USA really is, once coronavirus peaks in the country. A point worth being noted here is that these available ventilators include additional units in stockpile or storage.

The USA is not alone in facing the crisis. As the pandemic spread, countries around the world started to push to get more ventilators to treat coronavirus patients.&nbsp;

According to an estimate projected by in a report by Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics and Policy on March 24, India will need an estimated 1 million ventilators to address the peak of coronavirus.

The shortfall has resulted in a race to develop low-cost ventilators in the country. India is also looking to import ventilators from countries like China, South Korea to meet the required numbers of units.

But, with growing concerns among health experts on the usage of ventilators and data suggesting higher mortality rate among patients on ventilators than the normal mortality rate, leaves a big question unanswered. Are ventilators saving lives or killing more people?

As health officials around the world are working day and night for a possible vaccination to cure COVID-19 responsible for the death of more than 171,652 around the world, some doctors are moving away from using ventilators when they can.

High death rates on most advanced breathing support in the UK, New York, etc. raises questions on the effectiveness of critical care for patients in ICU who are fighting for their lives.&nbsp;

The reason - some hospitals have reported unusually high death rates for coronavirus patients on ventilators, and some doctors worry that the machines could be harming certain patients.

The evolving treatments highlight the fact that doctors are still learning the best way to manage a virus that emerged only months ago. They are relying on anecdotal, real-time data amid a clutch of patients and shortages of basic supplies.

Mechanical ventilators push oxygen into patients whose lungs are failing. Using the machines involves sedating a patient and sticking a tube into the throat. Deaths in such sick patients are common, no matter the reason they need breathing help.

Generally speaking, 40 per cent to 50 per cent of patients with severe respiratory distress die while on ventilators, experts say. But 80 per cent or more of coronavirus patients placed on the machines in New York City have died, state and city officials say, reported by Associated Press.&nbsp;

Similar reports have emerged from China and the United Kingdom. One UK report put the figure at 66 per cent. The ICNARC (Intensive Care National Audit &amp; Research Centre, UK) report looked at the first 775 patients who had fallen critically ill with COVID-19 across 285 intensive care units. &nbsp;

Of the 98 patients who needed advanced respiratory support when their lungs started to fail, just 33 patients lived (34 per cent). A very small study in Wuhan, the Chinese city where the disease first emerged, said 86 per cent died.

The reason is not clear. It may have to do with what kind of shape the patients were in before they were infected or it could be related to how sick they had become by the time they were put on the machines, some experts said. But some health professionals have wondered whether ventilators might make matters worse in certain patients, perhaps by igniting or worsening a harmful immune system reaction- that’s speculation. ''

But experts do say ventilators can be damaging to a patient over time, as high-pressure oxygen is forced into the tiny air sacs in a patient’s lungs.

“We know that mechanical ventilation is not benign,” said Dr Eddy Fan, an expert on respiratory treatment at Toronto General Hospital.&nbsp;

“One of the most important findings in the last few decades is that medical ventilation can worsen lung injury — so we have to be careful about how we use it.”

The dangers can be eased by limiting the amount of pressure and the size of breaths delivered by the machine, Fan said in an interview to Associated Press.&nbsp;

Dr Luciano Gatinoni, an expert in anesthesiology and intensive care at the Medical University of Gottingen, in a letter to the editor published in Intensive Care Medicine, wrote that coronavirus patients in Italy showed symptoms subtly but significantly different from of other patients in respiratory distress.&nbsp;

“All we can do ventilating these patients is "buying time" with minimal additional damage: the lowest possible PEEP [Positive End Expiratory Pressure] and gentle ventilation,” Gattinoni added.

“The ventilator is not therapeutic. It’s a supportive measure while we wait for the patient’s body to recover,” said Dr Roger Alvarez, a lung specialist with the University of Miami Health System in Florida, who is a leader in the effort to use nitric oxide to keep patients off ventilators for as long as possible said, while speaking the Associated Press.

In a recent study published in The Lancet experts have projected the demand for ventilators at the peak of the coronavirus outbreak in the USA. '' Explained: Can mobile apps aid the fight against coronavirus?

In a recent study published in The Lancet experts have projected the demand for ventilators at the peak of the coronavirus outbreak in the USA. '' Explained: Can mobile apps aid the fight against coronavirus? According to the report, at a basic reproduction rate of 2.5, 1,15,001 (ranging between 101 006–131 770) invasive ventilators and 89,788 (ranging between 78 861–102 880) non-invasive ventilators would be needed, on average at the outbreak peak. The estimates used to project the numbers include recent evaluations of coronavirus patient’s hospitalization and data of patients in ICU requiring ventilation. The study further elaborates that 69,660 out of 98,105 invasive ventilators in the USA are already deployed for non-coronavirus patients, before the spread of the pandemic. It essentially means that only 28,445 invasive ventilators would be left for coronavirus patients. Consequently, at least 45 341 (IQR 31 346–62 110) additional units would be needed for the surge at the peak. Similarly, of the 22,976 non-invasive devices, an estimated 12,499 units would be available for COVID-19 patients. As a result, a minimum of 77,289 additional units would be needed at the peak in the USA. The startling numbers projected in the report reveals how ill-prepared the USA really is, once coronavirus peaks in the country. A point worth being noted here is that these available ventilators include additional units in stockpile or storage. The USA is not alone in facing the crisis. As the pandemic spread, countries around the world started to push to get more ventilators to treat coronavirus patients. According to an estimate projected by in a report by Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics and Policy on March 24, India will need an estimated 1 million ventilators to address the peak of coronavirus. The shortfall has resulted in a race to develop low-cost ventilators in the country. India is also looking to import ventilators from countries like China, South Korea to meet the required numbers of units. But, with growing concerns among health experts on the usage of ventilators and data suggesting higher mortality rate among patients on ventilators than the normal mortality rate, leaves a big question unanswered. Are ventilators saving lives or killing more people? As health officials around the world are working day and night for a possible vaccination to cure COVID-19 responsible for the death of more than 171,652 around the world, some doctors are moving away from using ventilators when they can. High death rates on most advanced breathing support in the UK, New York, etc. raises questions on the effectiveness of critical care for patients in ICU who are fighting for their lives. The reason - some hospitals have reported unusually high death rates for coronavirus patients on ventilators, and some doctors worry that the machines could be harming certain patients. The evolving treatments highlight the fact that doctors are still learning the best way to manage a virus that emerged only months ago. They are relying on anecdotal, real-time data amid a clutch of patients and shortages of basic supplies. Mechanical ventilators push oxygen into patients whose lungs are failing. Using the machines involves sedating a patient and sticking a tube into the throat. Deaths in such sick patients are common, no matter the reason they need breathing help. Generally speaking, 40 per cent to 50 per cent of patients with severe respiratory distress die while on ventilators, experts say. But 80 per cent or more of coronavirus patients placed on the machines in New York City have died, state and city officials say, reported by Associated Press. Similar reports have emerged from China and the United Kingdom. One UK report put the figure at 66 per cent. The ICNARC (Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, UK) report looked at the first 775 patients who had fallen critically ill with COVID-19 across 285 intensive care units. Of the 98 patients who needed advanced respiratory support when their lungs started to fail, just 33 patients lived (34 per cent). A very small study in Wuhan, the Chinese city where the disease first emerged, said 86 per cent died. The reason is not clear. It may have to do with what kind of shape the patients were in before they were infected or it could be related to how sick they had become by the time they were put on the machines, some experts said. But some health professionals have wondered whether ventilators might make matters worse in certain patients, perhaps by igniting or worsening a harmful immune system reaction- that’s speculation. '' But experts do say ventilators can be damaging to a patient over time, as high-pressure oxygen is forced into the tiny air sacs in a patient’s lungs. “We know that mechanical ventilation is not benign,” said Dr Eddy Fan, an expert on respiratory treatment at Toronto General Hospital. “One of the most important findings in the last few decades is that medical ventilation can worsen lung injury — so we have to be careful about how we use it.” The dangers can be eased by limiting the amount of pressure and the size of breaths delivered by the machine, Fan said in an interview to Associated Press. Dr Luciano Gatinoni, an expert in anesthesiology and intensive care at the Medical University of Gottingen, in a letter to the editor published in Intensive Care Medicine, wrote that coronavirus patients in Italy showed symptoms subtly but significantly different from of other patients in respiratory distress. “All we can do ventilating these patients is "buying time" with minimal additional damage: the lowest possible PEEP [Positive End Expiratory Pressure] and gentle ventilation,” Gattinoni added. “The ventilator is not therapeutic. It’s a supportive measure while we wait for the patient’s body to recover,” said Dr Roger Alvarez, a lung specialist with the University of Miami Health System in Florida, who is a leader in the effort to use nitric oxide to keep patients off ventilators for as long as possible said, while speaking the Associated Press.

Ventilators in times of COVID-19: Life-saving machine or a 'killing' unit?

People with a a long history of offences have structurally smaller and thinner brains according to a study published in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/eat-lancet-diet-unaffordable-for-158-billion-people-study-260880">Lancet psychiatry journal.</a>

Long-term offenders show striking differences in brain structure compared with those who have a clean track record.

Researchers from the University College of London conducted the study on 672 people from <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/new-zealand-massacre-lack-of-racial-empathy-a-major-cause-of-concern-for-asians-204023">New Zealand</a>.

Watch: Playing with your mind: Quadriplegic controls video game using brain

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/playing-with-your-mind-quadriplegic-controls-video-game-using-brain-239699/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Detailed records of participants’ anti-social behaviour were collected at regular intervals from the age of seven up until the age of 26 .&nbsp;

The brains of the participants were scanned when they were 45 years old.

The participants were split into three groups based on their history of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/police-thwart-climate-activists-drone-bid-to-close-heathrow-249469">anti-social behaviour</a>.

Out of these,&nbsp;441 showed little sign of such behaviour, 151 were only <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/police-thwart-climate-activists-drone-bid-to-close-heathrow-249469">anti-social</a> as adolescents and 80 displayed anti-social behaviour from childhood onwards.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science-tech/facebook-may-soon-let-you-type-directly-from-your-brain-14714">Facebook may soon let you type directly from your brain</a>

Researchers found brain scans of adults who had a long history of offending showed a smaller surface area in many regions of the brain compared with those with a clean track record.

&nbsp;<img alt="brain" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="f2291408-3e3a-404b-bd00-162e45673d10" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/24847088-8013069-Life_long_criminals_have_smaller_brains_and_it_may_explain_why_t-a-31_1581961646499.jpg" />

In photo: The average brain of a life-long criminal. Blue areas indicate which parts are smaller when comparing to someone who has never committed a crime.

They also had thinner grey matter in regions linked to regulation of emotions, motivation and control of behaviour which are aspects of behaviour they are known to have struggled with.&nbsp;

The team said that&nbsp;the findings remained even when other factors such as <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/indian-child-prodigy-invited-to-join-high-iq-club-mensa-1930">Intelligence Quotient </a>and socio-economic status were taken into account.

The study claims that genetic and environmental factors such as childhood deprivation may have shaped their brains early in life and it is also possible that other factors such as smoking, alcohol or <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/celebrity-news-justin-bieber-opens-up-about-drug-abuse-it-was-legit-crazy-scary-278642">drug abuse</a> could have caused the brain changes.

Professor Terrie Moffitt who is the co-author of the research said the study helped to shed light on what may be behind the persistent anti-social behaviour of criminals.

According to Professor Terrie Moffitt, another co-author of the study, although these individuals have committed serious crimes but they need to be treated with compassion.

The team say the findings suggest more needs to be done to identify children who show signs of ongoing antisocial behaviour and to offer them or their parents support a move they say could reduce crime later on.

They claim the study provides a 'valuable' insight into what drives crime and how to prevent it happening.

People with a a long history of offences have structurally smaller and thinner brains according to a study published in the Lancet psychiatry journal. Long-term offenders show striking differences in brain structure compared with those who have a clean track record.

People with a a long history of offences have structurally smaller and thinner brains according to a study published in the Lancet psychiatry journal. Long-term offenders show striking differences in brain structure compared with those who have a clean track record. Researchers from the University College of London conducted the study on 672 people from New Zealand. Watch: Playing with your mind: Quadriplegic controls video game using brain Detailed records of participants’ anti-social behaviour were collected at regular intervals from the age of seven up until the age of 26 . The brains of the participants were scanned when they were 45 years old. The participants were split into three groups based on their history of anti-social behaviour. Out of these, 441 showed little sign of such behaviour, 151 were only anti-social as adolescents and 80 displayed anti-social behaviour from childhood onwards. Also read: Facebook may soon let you type directly from your brain Researchers found brain scans of adults who had a long history of offending showed a smaller surface area in many regions of the brain compared with those with a clean track record. In photo: The average brain of a life-long criminal. Blue areas indicate which parts are smaller when comparing to someone who has never committed a crime. They also had thinner grey matter in regions linked to regulation of emotions, motivation and control of behaviour which are aspects of behaviour they are known to have struggled with. The team said that the findings remained even when other factors such as Intelligence Quotient and socio-economic status were taken into account. The study claims that genetic and environmental factors such as childhood deprivation may have shaped their brains early in life and it is also possible that other factors such as smoking, alcohol or drug abuse could have caused the brain changes. Professor Terrie Moffitt who is the co-author of the research said the study helped to shed light on what may be behind the persistent anti-social behaviour of criminals. According to Professor Terrie Moffitt, another co-author of the study, although these individuals have committed serious crimes but they need to be treated with compassion. The team say the findings suggest more needs to be done to identify children who show signs of ongoing antisocial behaviour and to offer them or their parents support a move they say could reduce crime later on. They claim the study provides a 'valuable' insight into what drives crime and how to prevent it happening.

Long-term offenders have smaller and thinner brains: Study

A group of doctors and psychologists have claimed that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/doctors-warning-julian-assange-could-die-in-uk-jail-281295">Wikileaks </a>founder <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/doctors-warning-julian-assange-could-die-in-uk-jail-281295">Julian Assange</a> is being psychologically tortured, pending his extradition on espionage charges to the United States.&nbsp;

A&nbsp;group of 117 professionals from 18 nations have written an open letter to the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/eat-lancet-diet-unaffordable-for-158-billion-people-study-260880">Lancet </a>medical journal.

They have warned that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/doctors-warning-julian-assange-could-die-in-uk-jail-281295">Assange </a>is ''in dire state of health due to psychological torture'' and could be "effectively tortured to death in prison".

Watch: Doctors Warning : Julian Assange can 'die' in UK jail

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/doctors-warning-julian-assange-could-die-in-uk-jail-281295/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

They have asked to put an end to the ''psychological torture and medical neglect''.

"We condemn the torture of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/doctors-warning-julian-assange-could-die-in-uk-jail-281295">Assange</a>. We condemn the denial of his fundamental right to appropriate healthcare," they wrote in the scientific magazine.

"Since doctors first began assessing Mr <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/doctors-warning-julian-assange-could-die-in-uk-jail-281295">Assange </a>in the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2015, expert medical opinion and doctors' urgent recommendations have been consistently ignored."

Also see:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/julian-assange-heroic-whistleblower-now-battles-rape-allegation-218445">Julian Assange: Heroic Whistleblower now battles rape allegation</a>

"Our appeals are simple: we are calling upon governments to end the torture of Mr <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/doctors-warning-julian-assange-could-die-in-uk-jail-281295">Assange </a>and ensure his access to the best available healthcare, before it is too late," the group of doctors said.

UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has repeatedly warned that Assange has begun to exhibit signs of psychological torture.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/doctors-warning-julian-assange-could-die-in-uk-jail-281295">Assange </a>was briefly transferred from prison to a medical facility last year because of his frail health.

The 48-year-old Australian is facing 18 counts in the United States, 17 of them under the Espionage Act that could see him jailed for 175 years.

Washington's extradition request will start being heard next Monday at Woolwich Crown Court. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/doctors-warning-julian-assange-could-die-in-uk-jail-281295">Assange </a>is being held at the neighbouring high-security Belmarsh Prison.

A group of doctors and psychologists have claimed that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being psychologically tortured, pending his extradition on espionage charges to the United States.

A group of doctors and psychologists have claimed that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being psychologically tortured, pending his extradition on espionage charges to the United States. A group of 117 professionals from 18 nations have written an open letter to the Lancet medical journal. They have warned that Assange is ''in dire state of health due to psychological torture'' and could be "effectively tortured to death in prison". Watch: Doctors Warning : Julian Assange can 'die' in UK jail They have asked to put an end to the ''psychological torture and medical neglect''. "We condemn the torture of Assange. We condemn the denial of his fundamental right to appropriate healthcare," they wrote in the scientific magazine. "Since doctors first began assessing Mr Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2015, expert medical opinion and doctors' urgent recommendations have been consistently ignored." Also see: Julian Assange: Heroic Whistleblower now battles rape allegation "Our appeals are simple: we are calling upon governments to end the torture of Mr Assange and ensure his access to the best available healthcare, before it is too late," the group of doctors said. UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has repeatedly warned that Assange has begun to exhibit signs of psychological torture. Assange was briefly transferred from prison to a medical facility last year because of his frail health. The 48-year-old Australian is facing 18 counts in the United States, 17 of them under the Espionage Act that could see him jailed for 175 years. Washington's extradition request will start being heard next Monday at Woolwich Crown Court. Assange is being held at the neighbouring high-security Belmarsh Prison.

Doctors claim Julian Assange is being 'psychologically tortured'

A vast research study that sought to settle a long-standing debate about whether or not anti-depressant drugs really work has found they are indeed effective in relieving acute depression in adults.

The international study - a meta-analysis pooling results of 522 trials covering 21 commonly-used antidepressants and almost 120,000 patients - uncovered a range of outcomes, with some drugs proving more effective than others and some having fewer side effects.

But all 21 drugs - including both off-patent generic and newer, patented drugs - were more effective than placebos, or dummy pills, the results showed.

&ldquo;Antidepressants are routinely used worldwide yet there remains considerable debate about their effectiveness and tolerability,&rdquo; said John Ioannidis of Stanford University in the United States, who worked on a team of researchers led by Andrea Cipriani of Britain&rsquo;s Oxford University.

Cipriani said these findings now offered &ldquo;the best available evidence to inform and guide doctors and patients&rdquo; and should reassure people with depression that drugs can help.

&ldquo;Antidepressants can be an effective tool to treat major depression, but this does not necessarily mean antidepressants should always be the first line of treatment,&rdquo; he told a briefing in London.

According to the World Health Organization, some 300 million people worldwide have depression. While both pharmacological and psychological treatments are available, only one in six people with depression in rich countries gets effective treatment. That drops to one in 27 patients in poor and middle-income countries.

Effectiveness varies

The study, published in The Lancet medical journal, found some differences in the effectiveness of the 21 drugs.

In general, newer antidepressants tended to be better tolerated due to fewer side effects, while the most effective drug in terms of reducing depressive symptoms was amitriptyline - a drug first discovered in the 1950s.

Some well-known medicines - such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine, sold under the Prozac brand - were slightly less effective but better tolerated.

The scientists noted that their study could only look at average effects, so should not be interpreted as showing that antidepressants work in every patient. Only around 60 percent of people prescribed depression medication improve, Cipriani said.

&ldquo;Unfortunately, we know that about one-third of patients with depression will not respond to them,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s clear there is still a need to improve treatments further.&rdquo;

Several experts not directly involved in the study said its results gave a clear message.

&ldquo;This meta-analysis finally puts to bed the controversy on antidepressants,&rdquo; said Carmine Pariante, a professor at Britain&rsquo;s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.

James Warner, a psychiatrist at Imperial College London, added: &ldquo;Depression causes misery to countless thousands every year and this study adds to the existing evidence that effective treatments are available.&rdquo;

Cipriani said these findings now offered “the best available evidence to inform and guide doctors and patients” and should reassure people with depression that drugs can help

A vast research study that sought to settle a long-standing debate about whether or not anti-depressant drugs really work has found they are indeed effective in relieving acute depression in adults. The international study - a meta-analysis pooling results of 522 trials covering 21 commonly-used antidepressants and almost 120,000 patients - uncovered a range of outcomes, with some drugs proving more effective than others and some having fewer side effects. But all 21 drugs - including both off-patent generic and newer, patented drugs - were more effective than placebos, or dummy pills, the results showed. “Antidepressants are routinely used worldwide yet there remains considerable debate about their effectiveness and tolerability,” said John Ioannidis of Stanford University in the United States, who worked on a team of researchers led by Andrea Cipriani of Britain’s Oxford University. Cipriani said these findings now offered “the best available evidence to inform and guide doctors and patients” and should reassure people with depression that drugs can help. “Antidepressants can be an effective tool to treat major depression, but this does not necessarily mean antidepressants should always be the first line of treatment,” he told a briefing in London. According to the World Health Organization, some 300 million people worldwide have depression. While both pharmacological and psychological treatments are available, only one in six people with depression in rich countries gets effective treatment. That drops to one in 27 patients in poor and middle-income countries. Effectiveness varies The study, published in The Lancet medical journal, found some differences in the effectiveness of the 21 drugs. In general, newer antidepressants tended to be better tolerated due to fewer side effects, while the most effective drug in terms of reducing depressive symptoms was amitriptyline - a drug first discovered in the 1950s. Some well-known medicines - such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine, sold under the Prozac brand - were slightly less effective but better tolerated. The scientists noted that their study could only look at average effects, so should not be interpreted as showing that antidepressants work in every patient. Only around 60 percent of people prescribed depression medication improve, Cipriani said. “Unfortunately, we know that about one-third of patients with depression will not respond to them,” he said. “It’s clear there is still a need to improve treatments further.” Several experts not directly involved in the study said its results gave a clear message. “This meta-analysis finally puts to bed the controversy on antidepressants,” said Carmine Pariante, a professor at Britain’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience. James Warner, a psychiatrist at Imperial College London, added: “Depression causes misery to countless thousands every year and this study adds to the existing evidence that effective treatments are available.”

Study seeks to end antidepressant debate: The drugs do work

People who live near busy roads laden with heavy traffic face a higher risk of developing dementia than those living further away, according to researchers in Canada.

A study published in The Lancet medical journal found that people who lived within 50 metres (55 yards) of high-traffic roads had a 7.0 per cent higher chance of developing dementia compared to those who lived more than 300 metres away from busy roadways.

&quot;Air pollutants can get into the blood stream and lead to inflammation, which is linked with cardiovascular disease and possibly other conditions such as diabetes. This study suggests air pollutants that can get into the brain via the blood stream can lead to neurological problems,&quot; said Ray Copes, an environmental and occupational health expert at Public Health Ontario (PHO) who conducted the study with colleagues from Canada&#39;s Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.

Dementia is caused by brain diseases, most commonly Alzheimer&#39;s disease, which result in the loss of brain cells and affect memory, thinking, behaviour, navigational and spatial abilities and the ability to perform everyday activities.

The World Health Organization estimates the number of people with dementia in 2015 at 47.5 million, and that total is rising rapidly as life expectancy increases and societies age. The incurable condition is a leading cause of disability and dependency, and is starting to overtake heart disease as a cause of death in some developed countries.

The team analysed records of more than 6.5 million Ontario residents aged 20 to 85 and found 243,611 cases of dementia between 2001 and 2012. Then they mapped residents&#39;&nbsp;proximity to major roadways using postal codes.&nbsp;

The increase in the risk of developing dementia went down to 4.0 per cent if people lived 50 to 100 metres from major traffic, and to 2.0 per cent if they lived within 101 to 200 metres. At more than 200 metres, the elevated risk faded away.

The team also explored links between living close to major roads and Parkinson&rsquo;s disease and multiple sclerosis - two other major neurological disorders - but the findings suggested no increased risk of these from living near heavy traffic.

The scientists said their results could be used to help town and city planners take traffic conditions and air pollution into account as urban areas become more densely populated.

(Reuters)

A study in the Lancet found people who lived within 50 metres of high-traffic roads had a 7% higher chance of developing dementia

People who live near busy roads laden with heavy traffic face a higher risk of developing dementia than those living further away, according to researchers in Canada. A study published in The Lancet medical journal found that people who lived within 50 metres (55 yards) of high-traffic roads had a 7.0 per cent higher chance of developing dementia compared to those who lived more than 300 metres away from busy roadways. "Air pollutants can get into the blood stream and lead to inflammation, which is linked with cardiovascular disease and possibly other conditions such as diabetes. This study suggests air pollutants that can get into the brain via the blood stream can lead to neurological problems," said Ray Copes, an environmental and occupational health expert at Public Health Ontario (PHO) who conducted the study with colleagues from Canada's Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dementia is caused by brain diseases, most commonly Alzheimer's disease, which result in the loss of brain cells and affect memory, thinking, behaviour, navigational and spatial abilities and the ability to perform everyday activities. The World Health Organization estimates the number of people with dementia in 2015 at 47.5 million, and that total is rising rapidly as life expectancy increases and societies age. The incurable condition is a leading cause of disability and dependency, and is starting to overtake heart disease as a cause of death in some developed countries. The team analysed records of more than 6.5 million Ontario residents aged 20 to 85 and found 243,611 cases of dementia between 2001 and 2012. Then they mapped residents' proximity to major roadways using postal codes. The increase in the risk of developing dementia went down to 4.0 per cent if people lived 50 to 100 metres from major traffic, and to 2.0 per cent if they lived within 101 to 200 metres. At more than 200 metres, the elevated risk faded away. The team also explored links between living close to major roads and Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis - two other major neurological disorders - but the findings suggested no increased risk of these from living near heavy traffic. The scientists said their results could be used to help town and city planners take traffic conditions and air pollution into account as urban areas become more densely populated. (Reuters)

Closer you live to busy road, higher the chance of dementia

A tiny investment of only $1-2 (0.90-1.80 Euros) per person per month could give all people in low- and middle-income countries access to a basket of 201 essential medicines, researchers said on Monday, news agency AFP reported.

But one in five countries spend even less than that.&nbsp;

&quot;Recent estimates suggest that the average total spend on medicines in low-income countries is $8.6 per person per year,&quot; said a statement by The Lancet, where the study was published.&nbsp;

The study was compiled by 21 international experts and made recommendations to governments, NGOs, health institutions, medicines regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry.

A basket of essential medicines includes painkillers, HIV, cancer, and tuberculosis drugs, and vaccines and contraceptives.

Poorer households in low- and middle-income countries spend as much as 9.5 per cent of their income on medicines, compared to 3.5 per cent in poorer households in rich countries, the Lancet study added.

The study talked about the necessity of affordable medicines, and how countries might work towards them.&nbsp;

&quot;Every available regulatory and management intervention that could improve the affordability of medicines must be considered,&quot; said AFP, quoting a line from the study.

&quot;For example, removing taxes and tariffs is well within the power of governments, even if it might be unpopular with certain stakeholders.&quot;

(WION with inputs from AFP)

Essential medicines would include painkillers, HIV, TB, and cancer drugs, vaccines and contraceptives

A tiny investment of only $1-2 (0.90-1.80 Euros) per person per month could give all people in low- and middle-income countries access to a basket of 201 essential medicines, researchers said on Monday, news agency AFP reported. But one in five countries spend even less than that. "Recent estimates suggest that the average total spend on medicines in low-income countries is $8.6 per person per year," said a statement by The Lancet, where the study was published. The study was compiled by 21 international experts and made recommendations to governments, NGOs, health institutions, medicines regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. A basket of essential medicines includes painkillers, HIV, cancer, and tuberculosis drugs, and vaccines and contraceptives. Poorer households in low- and middle-income countries spend as much as 9.5 per cent of their income on medicines, compared to 3.5 per cent in poorer households in rich countries, the Lancet study added. The study talked about the necessity of affordable medicines, and how countries might work towards them. "Every available regulatory and management intervention that could improve the affordability of medicines must be considered," said AFP, quoting a line from the study. "For example, removing taxes and tariffs is well within the power of governments, even if it might be unpopular with certain stakeholders." (WION with inputs from AFP)

Cost of essential meds for all people in developing countries? $1-2 per person per month