Laughter is contagious

A neuroscientist confirms it, in an interview with Andrew Anthony in the British newspaper The Guardian, December 24, 2017 (bold, links in original):

Sophie Scott is a senior fellow at University College London. She is an expert in cognitive neuroscience, particularly in relation to communications. This year, she is giving the Royal Institution Christmas lectures looking at how evolution has shaped our bodies to communicate with each other. She also does standup comedy...

...Many animals laugh, including, apparently, rats. What have rats got to laugh about?
They laugh for the same reasons as other animals: it’s a social behaviour. We tend to associate laughing with jokes and humour in adult humans, but actually laughter is always something that happens primarily around members of your own species. Particularly the ones you know, particularly the ones you like. Rats laugh when they’re tickled and when they’re playing. That’s true of apes and humans too.

What are the advantages of laughter over a wry smile?
They are twofold. Laughter is a very strong cue to others to join in. So it works as a behaviourally contagious phenomenon. It also feels good to laugh. You get a kick from laughter. It’s having an effect at multiple levels. There’s some very good research from Robert Levenson on positive affect. If both members of a couple laugh or smile, they can deal with stressful situations. But only if they both do it.

We’re 30 times more likely to laugh with someone than on our own. Is laughing alone an activity that should be of concern?
All laughter’s good. Don’t worry about laughing on your own. It’s a statistical phenomenon – you’re much more likely to do it around other people. I realised the other day the same is true of speaking. You’re much more likely to talk around other people.

This is why they're called "emergencies"

An emergency is, by definition, a situation demanding immediate attention, which might come as a surprise to staff at Canadian hospitals. As reported by Sheryl Ubelacker of The Canadian Press, July 10, 2017:

TORONTO – Patients whose emergency surgeries are delayed due to a lack of operating room resources have an increased risk of death or a need for extra recovery time in hospital, a Canadian study suggests.

Researchers at the Ottawa Hospital found surgical delays for patients with serious injuries or life-threatening conditions such as a hip fracture, appendicitis or an aneurysm had almost a 60 per cent higher risk of dying compared to those who received more timely treatment.

The study, published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, showed that patients who didn’t get into the OR within a standard time frame for their condition had an almost five per cent risk of dying, compared to a 3.2 per cent risk for those whose surgeries weren’t delayed.

On average, delayed-surgery patients also stayed in hospital after their operation 1.1 days longer and cost the hospital $1,409 more than patients who did not have to wait.

“For the first time, we have strong evidence that the sooner you get to the operating room for an emergency surgery, the better off you are, regardless of your condition before surgery,” said senior author Dr. Alan Forster, vice-president of quality, performance and population health at the Ottawa Hospital.

Urgent surgeries are those considered necessary within 24 hours of a patient being diagnosed, in most cases at a hospital emergency department. Such surgeries represent 13 per cent of all operations performed in Ontario, according to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

“Some surgeries need to be done very promptly,” said Forster, an internist and researcher. “The hip fracture is a really good example because that’s one that really should be done within that 24-hour time frame.”

The reasons for delays were known in 39 per cent of cases. The most common causes for delay were that operating rooms were already in use or surgeons, anesthetists or surgical nursing staff were not available, he said.

“If you only have minutes or hours to plan, then you really have to have those resources available,” said Forster, adding that it’s difficult for patients and their families when an urgent surgery has to be put off.

“People are obviously very worried about their loved ones, they’re obviously worried about themselves, they’re often in discomfort as a result … The best thing is to get folks into the OR immediately when they’re supposed to be and minimize those anxieties, minimize their pain.”

To conduct the study, the researchers examined data from 15,160 adults who had emergency surgery at the Ottawa Hospital between January 2012 and October 2014. They found that 2,820 of these patients, or almost 20 per cent, experienced a delay.

Researchers spent the first three months of the study collecting data on the demand for emergency surgeries. In January 2013, the hospital began using a new method for scheduling such operations, including dedicating OR time specifically for emergency procedures and spreading elective surgeries more evenly throughout the week.

After the hospital implemented this new model, there was a significant decrease in the number of urgent surgeries that had to be delayed.

“There was a massive improvement in patients getting to emergency surgeries on time with this new model,” said Forster. “It might seem counterintuitive, but having unused time in expensive operating rooms could save both money and lives.”

Still, he said there are certain barriers to implementing a system with operating suites designated for emergency surgeries – which may at times sit unused.

“People running operations are always looking to make sure their budgets are maintained. It’s difficult to create capacity and then plan not to use it.”

In a related CMAJ commentary, Dr. David Urbach of Women’s College Hospital, says the study findings provide the most credible evidence to date that long delays to emergency surgery are harmful.

“These findings will ring true for many of us who have worked in an operating room in a Canadian hospital,” writes Urbach, surgeon-in-chief at the Toronto hospital.

“Global hospital budgets in an era of constrained public financing force surgical departments to strive for maximum efficiency; most optimize utilization of operating rooms and staff at maximum capacity for elective surgery, while assiduously avoiding any unbudgeted activity.”

The authors note that even though the study was conducted at one centre, the findings are likely generalizable to other hospitals across the country.

“We need to think about how we make OR resources available for urgent surgery differently,” said Forster.

Click on the link to see the original report Association of delay of urgent or emergency surgery with mortality and use of health care resources: a propensity score–matched observational cohort study in CMA Journal, July 10, 2017.

Drinking young leads to dying young

Now that scientists have discovered that drinking alcohol at an early age can lead to an early death, don't be surprised if they announce similar discoveries about the early practice of smoking, drug use, or other bad habits. The following article abounds in euphemisms: "alcohol abuse disorder;" "alcohol use disorder;" "abuse sufferers;" "alcohol addiction." I'm surprised "alcohol dependency" and "alcohol-dependent" weren't included. The term "drunkenness" is mentioned, which is far more honest. The Bible never uses such euphemisms, or even terms such as "alcoholism" or "alcoholic"--terms popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous in an effort to relabel a sin as a disease--but uses such terms as "drunkenness," and says that "drunkards" will not inherit the Kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:10). I'm not going to mention the innumerate use of the word "DOUBLES" in the original Daily Mail headline.

As reported by Alexandra Thompson in the London Daily Mail, June 9, 2017 (bold in original):

Getting drunk before your 15th birthday nearly doubles your risk of an early death, new research reveals.

Those who get inebriated at a young age are 47 percent more likely to die prematurely, a study found.

Researchers believe early drinking may increase a person's risk of suffering a life-threatening alcohol abuse disorder in later life.

Lead author Dr Hui Hu from the University of Florida, said: 'Early onset of drinking and drunkenness are associated with alcohol use disorders and therefore may play a role in elevated alcohol use disorder-related mortality rates.'

Other experts add excessive alcohol-consumption at a young age can increase a person's 'risk-taking behavior' and lead to mental health issues.

How the study was carried out

Researchers from the University of Florida analyzed the drinking habits and death records of almost 15,000 adults, who were followed for three decades.

The researchers examined data from the early 1980s that asked the participants if they had ever been drunk and how old they were when it first occurred.

At the time of the interviews, most participants were aged between 18 and 44-years-old.

Key findings

Compared to study participants who said they never got drunk, those who did so at least once before they turned 15 were 47 percent more likely to die during the study period.

Getting drunk at 15 or older increased the risk of death during the study by 20 percent.

Some 61 percent of the study's participants said they had been drunk at some point, with around 13 percent of first-time cases occurring before they turned 15.

Of those who got drunk young, around 37 percent were suffering from an alcohol abuse disorder at the time of the interviews, compared to 11 percent of abuse sufferers who did not get intoxicated until they were older.

By the end of the study, 26 percent of those who got drunk young had died, compared to 23 percent of those who got drunk later and 19 percent who had never been inebriated.

Why early drinking is risky

Excessive drinking at a young age is thought to be linked to alcohol abuse in later life.

Dr Hu said: 'Early onset of drinking and drunkenness are associated with alcohol use disorders and therefore may play a role in elevated alcohol use disorder-related mortality rates.'

Yet alcohol addiction may not be the only factor contributing to young drinkers' early death risk.

Dr Hu said: 'We found that an estimated 21 percent of the total effects of early drunkenness were mediated through alcohol use disorders, suggesting that many other factors in addition to alcohol use disorders may play important roles.'

Dr Michael Criqui, a public health researcher at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study, said: 'We know that alcohol abuse leads to earlier mortality, but it is also possible that earlier abuse reflects other genetic or environmental characteristics that lead to earlier mortality.'

Early drunkenness may point to other factors such as risk-taking behavior, mental health issues or a lack of social or economic support that influences health and longevity, noted Dr. Gregory Marcus, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study.

How to interpret the results

Dr Marcus said: 'No one should interpret these data to mean that their fate is sealed.

'On the contrary, these findings are useful exactly because they may help us identify those at risk so we can prevent these adverse outcomes.'

Yet Mr Joy Bohyun Jang of the institute for social research at the University of Michigan, who was not involved in the study, added that the study demonstrates an early mortality risk exists even among people without alcohol addiction, which all drinkers should be aware of.

He said: 'Those with alcohol use disorders may receive attention to their alcohol use behaviors by practitioners or they themselves may be cautious about their alcohol use.

'But what this study tells us is that those without alcohol use disorder may need the same level of attention if they experience drunkenness early in their life.'

Mainstream media don't like Donald Trump

It must be true, because Harvard University says so. As reported by Heat Street, May 19, 2017 (links in original):

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:



The academics based their study on seven US outlets and three European ones.

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:



The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 days got a good write-up overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Clinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:



Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility.

This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right.

Click on the earlier link or here to see the original article News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days by Thomas E. Patterson of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, May 18, 2017.

See also Michael Goodwin's column American Journalism is Collapsing Before Our Eyes in the New York Post, August 21, 2016.

The mainstream media coverage of Donald Trump reminds me of a comment made by white liberal South African comedian Pieter-Dirk Uys in an interview with TVOntario early in 1988. The apartheid regime was still in power in South Africa, and Mr. Uys said that the media coverage of anti-apartheid Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu was so biased against him that if he walked on water, it would be reported as "Bishop Tutu cannot swim."

HT: Infogalactic News

Prompt treatment of sepsis may save lives

It occurs to this blogger that the prompter the treatment of any medical emergency, the more likely it is that the life of the patient will be saved--assuming, of course, that the medical professionals know what they're doing. As reported by Lauran Neergaard of Associated Press, May 22, 2017:

WASHINGTON — Minutes matter when it comes to treating sepsis, the killer condition that most Americans probably have never heard of, and new research shows it's time they learn.

Sepsis is the body's out-of-control reaction to an infection. By the time patients realize they're in trouble, their organs could be shutting down.

New York became the first state to require that hospitals follow aggressive steps when they suspect sepsis is brewing. Researchers examined patients treated there in the past two years and reported Sunday that faster care really is better.

Every additional hour it takes to give antibiotics and perform other key steps increases the odds of death by 4 percent, according to the study reported at an American Thoracic Society meeting and in the New England Journal of Medicine.

That's not just news for doctors or for other states considering similar rules. Patients also have to reach the hospital in time.

"Know when to ask for help," said Dr. Christopher Seymour, a critical care specialist at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine who led the study. "If they're not aware of sepsis or know they need help, we can't save lives."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year began a major campaign to teach people that while sepsis starts with vague symptoms, it's a medical emergency.

To make sure the doctor doesn't overlook the possibility, "Ask, 'Could this be sepsis?'" advised the CDC's Dr. Lauren Epstein.

Once misleadingly called blood poisoning or a bloodstream infection, sepsis occurs when the body goes into overdrive while fighting an infection, injuring its own tissue. The cascade of inflammation and other damage can lead to shock, amputations, organ failure or death.

It strikes more than 1.5 million people in the United States a year and kills more than 250,000.

Even a minor infection can be the trigger. A recent CDC study found nearly 80 percent of sepsis cases began outside of the hospital, not in patients already hospitalized because they were super-sick or recovering from surgery.

In addition to symptoms of infection, worrisome signs can include shivering, a fever or feeling very cold; clammy or sweaty skin; confusion or disorientation; a rapid heartbeat or pulse; confusion or disorientation; shortness of breath; or simply extreme pain or discomfort.

If you think you have an infection that's getting worse, seek care immediately, Epstein said.

Doctors have long known that rapidly treating sepsis is important. But there's been debate over how fast. New York mandated in 2013 that hospitals follow "protocols," or checklists, of certain steps within three hours, including performing a blood test for infection, checking blood levels of a sepsis marker called lactate, and beginning antibiotics.

Do the steps make a difference? Seymour's team examined records of nearly 50,000 patients treated at New York hospitals over two years. About 8 in 10 hospitals met the three-hour deadline; some got them done in about an hour. Having those three main steps performed faster was better — a finding that families could use in asking what care a loved one is receiving for suspected sepsis.

Sepsis is most common among people 65 and older, babies, and people with chronic health problems.

But even healthy people can get sepsis, even from minor infections. New York's rules, known as "Rory's Regulations," were enacted after the death of a healthy 12-year-old, Rory Staunton, whose sepsis stemmed from an infected scrape and was initially dismissed by one hospital as a virus.

Illinois last year enacted a similar sepsis mandate. Hospitals in other states, including Ohio and Wisconsin, have formed sepsis care collaborations. Nationally, hospitals are supposed to report to Medicare certain sepsis care steps. In New York, Rory's parents set up a foundation to push for standard sepsis care in all states.

"Every family or loved one who goes into a hospital, no matter what state, needs to know it's not the luck of the draw" whether they'll receive evidence-based care, said Rory's father, Ciaran Staunton.

Click on the link to see the original article Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock — A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine, March 21, 2017.