Hopefully, it winds up working on humans as well as mice...
 

UTMB develops promising anti-obesity drug that shrinks fat without suppressing appetite

January 4, 2018

GALVESTON, Texas – Given the ever-increasing obesity epidemic, researchers from The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston have discovered a promising developing drug that has been shown to selectively shrink excess fat by increasing fat cell metabolism. The drug significantly reduces body weight and blood cholesterol levels without lowering food intake in obese mice, according to a recent study published in Biochemical Pharmacology.

Obesity is a major public health problem around that world that is a leading cause of healthcare costs and compromised quality of life. In the U.S., 40 percent of adults are obese and 30 percent are overweight, battling serious obesity-related chronic diseases. The estimated cost of obesity in the U.S. is about $150 billion each year.

“As fat cells grow larger, they begin to overexpress a protein that acts as a metabolic brake that slows down fat cell metabolism, making it harder for these cells to burn accumulating fat,” said senior author Stanley Watowich, UTMB associate professor in the department of biochemistry and molecular biology. “In addition, as the fat tissue expands, they secrete greater amounts of hormones and pro-inflammatory signals that are responsible for several chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.”

The researchers discovered a molecule that blocks this metabolic brake from operating in obese white fat cells. By blocking this metabolic brake, they were able to increase the metabolism within white fat cells.

In the study, mice were fed a high-fat diet until they became obese and then received either the drug or a placebo. Following 10 days of drug treatment, researchers found that the obese mice receiving the actual drug lost more than seven percent of their total body weight and their white fat tissue mass and cell size decreased by 30 percent compared with the placebo group. In addition, blood cholesterol in drug-treated mice were lowered to normal levels, similar to those of non-obese mice.

On the contrary, placebo-treated mice continued to accumulate white fat and gain weight throughout the study. Interestingly, mice in both the drug-treated and placebo groups consumed the same amount of food during the course of the study period, showing that the fat loss was not due to appetite suppression.

“Blocking the action of the fat cell brake provides an innovative ‘fat’-specific mechanism to increase cell metabolism and reduce the size of white fat deposits, thereby treating a root cause of obesity and related metabolic diseases,” said senior author Harshini Neelakantan, a UTMB research scientist in the department of biochemistry and molecular biology. “These initial results are encouraging and support further development of this technology as a new and more effective approach to combating metabolic diseases.”

Other study authors include UTMB’s Virginia Vance, Michael Wetzel, Celeste Finnerty and Jonathan Hommel as well as Hua-Yu Leo Wang and Stanton McHardy from the University of Texas at San Antonio.

https://www.utmb.edu/newsroom/article11716.aspx

Our personal microbes and their effect on our health
 

I've just watched a fascinating Royal Institute lecture by a Canadian scientist on the role that the microbes that co-exist with us have on our health. From obesity to Alzhemers and Parkinsons, asthma and lactose tolerance, the effects of keeping a dog or overdoing it regarding hygiene, it's all covered, and some of it is seriously surprising. I'd particularly urge anyone thinking of having children or with very young children to watch this right through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlEFI5A3QFM

All I can say is thank goodness I tend to like Italian food - but I am going to increase how many times I brush my teeth up to three times a day now, having seen this!

Medscape & JAMA COVID 19 resource news and peer reviewed articles
 

For anyone who is licensed as a medical professional, in a variety of trades (nurse, physician, social worker/scientist, microbiologist, healing arts practitioner, etc), there are two great resources which provide a wealth of scientific based articles and supplemental information: Medscape & JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)

Both Medscape and JAMA have entire sections devoted to the latest news about COVID 19, as well as peer reviewed journal articles on a wide variety of medical interests.

More COVID-19 related news concerning PPE (extended use of glove wear issues)
 

One of the unintended consequences of having to wear gloves (masks, too) is that your skin is at risk. On my journey's at work, and because of revised safety protocols which demand that PPE be worn at all times while on campus, I *was* wearing nitrile gloves but had to quit wearing them because wearing these types of gloves for extended periods of time, sets up hazards for your skin (example: you can get contact dermatitis or fungal skin conditions).

I found an article online at ISHN (a website devoted to industrial complex issues, etc) about the hazards of wearing nitrile/latex gloves (for those interested in finding out more about this particular on-the-job safety issue).

LINK ~~~>>>> Sweaty Gloves Can Cause Health Problems

I spent some time yesterday, searching local business outlets for alternative gloves. The best I could find were cotton/jersey gardening gloves (in lavender and pink) and high-visibility safety gloves - which help your hands to breathe and not get sweaty.

Bolstering Case for Single Payer, Study Shows For-Profit Insurer Plans Pay Hospitals Nearly 250% More Than Medicare

"There is no better system of cost control and universal care for employers than Medicare for All."

A new study released Friday by the RAND Corporation details the astronomical prices hospital systems across the U.S. charge private insurers and the more than 153 million patients who obtain health coverage through their employers—while Medicare proves to be a far more affordable option.

The findings make the case for expanding the Medicare system to all Americans, one prominent single-payer healthcare advocate said.

"There is no better system of cost control and universal care for employers than Medicare for All," policy analyst Michael Lighty, a leading expert on and organizer for Medicare for All, told Common Dreams.

Studying hospital systems in 49 states, RAND found that employers and insurers paid $20 billion more to hospitals between 2016 and 2018 than the government did through Medicare for the same healthcare services.

In hospitals across the country, according to the study, private insurers paid an average of 247% more for services than what hospitals would have received via the Medicare system. In six states, hospitals charge three times more than Medicare if a patient has private insurance, and at the most expensive hospitals, insurers may be charged four times the amount—ultimately leading to a financial strain on the patient.

"Hospitals like this are a tax on their community, harming economic growth and decreasing workers' take-home pay," tweeted philanthropist John Arnold.

"If we want to keep a private market in U.S. healthcare, it has to function," Elizabeth Mitchell, chief executive of the Pacific Business Group on Health told the New York Times. "It's really not functioning."

The Times reported that the study was likely to bolster the argument for a public option which would compete with for-profit health insurance, ultimately bringing down the cost of care.

Lighty told Common Dreams that the research actually "creates a much stronger argument for Medicare for All than for the public option."

"The primary payment method for hospitals under Medicare for All would be a 'global budget,' which ensures that each facility has the resources to provide patient care for their patient population and service area," Lighty said. "The public option simply introduces another 'plan design' into a system of plans that is causing the problem—the administrative complexity of network definitions and rate setting continues under a public option."

The Times claimed Medicare for All is a far more "controversial" solution than the public option—but both solutions are popular with the U.S. public. A survey by Kaiser Family Foundation in May found that 56% of Americans support Medicare for All, including eight in 10 Democratic voters. A separate poll taken by The Hill/HarrisX in April showed that 69% of respondents believe every American should be covered under the hugely popular Medicare program.

The Times article brings up the frequently-expressed concern of Medicare for All opponents that hospitals would be unable to operate if they are forced to accept Medicare rates and are unable to price their surgeries, overnight stays, and other services at exorbitant rates for insurance companies.

"We cannot survive in that kind of the world," Tom Nickels, an executive vice president at the American Hospital Association (AHA), told the Times. The trade group further pushed back against the RAND Corporation's findings on Friday, saying "the study again perpetuates erroneous suggestions that Medicare payments should be used as a benchmark for private insurers."

Lighty countered that the AHA has "literally no credibility" regarding efforts to keep hospitals running.

"They have been promoting a business model that closes 'unprofitable' hospitals in rural areas and inner cities for over two decades," Lighty told Common Dreams. "In South Carolina, eight hospitals have closed since 2010. Global budgets keep hospitals open, the present system of financing and contracting closes them."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...spitals-nearly

The Toll of Covid-19 (JAMA, 12th of October 2020)
 

Tonight, I surfed to The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) and read a very interesting article concerning the Covid-19 death toll.

Here is an brief excerpt from the article and I will leave a link too, because on the right side of the web page, JAMA has other tabs a reader can click on, which features other interesting facts and details about other Covid-19 impacts:

Link to JAMA article found ~~~>>>>> Here.

Link to Culter and Summers article found ~~~>>>>> Here.


Check out the Op-Ed's on the second link, to the right of the page. I like how credible experts weigh in on fact vs fiction. Seriously good reading; I enjoyed a few articles featured on the Cutler and Summers page.

Prioritize to eat healthy (rather than prioritize for weight loss). 🎯
 

JAMA
 

For those of us keeping up with health care news and getting the best scientific news coverage, please visit JAMA’s new web portal online at:

https://jamanetwork.com/


There are several news worthy articles concerning Covid-19 and its impacts since 2019-2020. Three top stories examine how losing your home (eviction for renters and/or those with forced evictions via owning or trying to own your own home) is crazy serious stress which can kill you (imho, probably just as bad as losing your partner to divorce or death, etc).

:bunchflowers: