Austrian-style Goulash Soup

Ingredients

200 g onions
4 tbsp oil
20 g paprika powder
20 g tomato paste
200 g beef
200 g potatoes, cut in cubes
salt and pepper
garlic cloves, finely chopped
caraway seeds
marjoram

Method

  1. Fry beef and onions in a large pot until golden brown.
  2. Add paprika-powder, tomato paste and pour in some water. Toss to mix. Add the beef stock and season with salt, pepper, garlic, ground caraway and marjoram. Reduce heat, cover the pan and simmer for 30 minutes.
  3. Peel and cube potatoes.
  4. Add potatoes to the broth and continue to boil until tender.
  5. Check the seasoning of soup before serving.

Makes 4 servings.

Source: Culinary Austria

What’s in a Name? Why WHO’s Formal Name for the New Coronavirus Disease Matters

Sanya Mansoor wrote . . . . . . . . .

On Tuesday, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an official name for the new coronavirus disease: COVID-19 — making sure not to reference Wuhan, the central Chinese city where the virus originated. COVID-19 stands for Corona Virus Disease 19.

“Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatizing,” said Director-General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “It also gives us a standard format to use for any future coronavirus outbreaks.” The WHO referenced guidelines set in 2015 that ensure the name does not refer to a geographical location, an animal, an individual or group of people, while still being pronounceable and related to the disease.

If the new name had included a reference to Wuhan it would put a “tremendous stigmatization on the people of Wuhan who are the victims” of the disease, Wendy Parmet, a law professor at Northeastern University and public health expert, tells TIME.

“People tend to think of the disease as belonging to, as being a characteristic of some group of people associated with the place name, which can be really stigmatizing,” Parmet says. “To be thought of as a hole of disease is not going to be productive. It encourages the next city not to come forward, not to report a disease if your city is labeled as the disease.”

Following the outbreak of the new coronavirus, there have been reports of xenophobic incidents and attitudes, particularly towards people of Asian descent.

Experts note though that there is a “long history” of diseases being named in ways that include particular groups of people or places or animals.

Around the 1500s in France, Syphilis was called the Italian disease and in Italy it was called it the French disease. The 1918 influenza pandemic was widely called the Spanish Flu in the U.S., even though it did not originate in Spain. In 2009, the WHO stopped using the term “swine flu” and replaced it with Influenza A (H1N1), following a drop in the pork market. Ebola was named after a river near where the outbreak first originated.

The WHO now notes the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, the Spanish Flu, Swine Flu and the Chagas disease as examples of names that are should be avoided when looking to name new diseases.

Arnold Monto, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health, says it’s important to be sensitive to different cultures when naming a disease. “If you have a name which is regional and it spreads globally, it’s confusing,” Monto says.

Get our Health Newsletter. Sign up to receive the latest health and science news, plus answers to wellness questions and expert tips.

In the case of the new coronavirus, the WHO has specified a name for the disease but not the virus. The virus has been named the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by the Coronavirus Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which is responsible for the official classification of viruses. The committee recognized the new coronavirus’ similarities to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) pandemic that occurred between 2002-2003.

For the disease, it’s ideal to have a name that’s easy to pronounce like COVID-19, Parmet says: it’s short, easy to say and two syllables. “You want something that’s easy and that people are going to keep using otherwise they’re going to substitute it with more problematic slang,” she says.

Source : TIME

Choosing Common Pain Relievers: It is Complicated

Gisele Caloustian wrote . . . . . . . . .

About 29 million Americans use over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat pain. Every year in the United States, NSAID use is attributed to approximately 100,000 hospitalizations and 17,000 deaths. In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently strengthened its warning about risks of non-aspirin NSAIDs on heart attacks and strokes. While each over-the-counter and prescription pain reliever has benefits and risks, deciding which one to use is complicated for health care providers and their patients.

To provide guidance to health care providers and their patients in their clinical decision-making, researchers from Florida Atlantic University’s Schmidt College of Medicine have published a review in the Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics addressing cardiovascular risks and beyond, which include gastrointestinal and kidney side effects of pain relievers. They examined the benefits and risks of over-the-counter and prescription drugs for pain relief such as aspirin, ibuprofen (Motrin or Advil), naproxen (Aleve), and prescription drugs such as diclofenac (Voltaren), a non-aspirin NSAID, and selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib (Celebrex) as well as acetaminophen (Tylenol).

NSAIDs include aspirin, traditional non-aspirin NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, (Motrin or Advil), naproxen, (Aleve) and diclofenac, (Voltaren) as well as selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors (COXIBs), such as celecoxib (Celebrex), and acetaminophen (Tylenol).

All of these drugs have benefits and risks. Aspirin decreases inflammation as well as coronary events and stroke, but increases gastrointestinal symptoms and bleeding, however, without adverse hepatic or renal consequences. Non-aspirin NSAIDs decrease inflammation, but have been associated with adverse major coronary events and stroke with long-term use as well as major upper gastrointestinal and kidney side effects, as well as electrolyte imbalances such as high sodium or potassium and even heart failure. Cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2) inhibitors were developed primarily because of their more favorable gastrointestinal side effect profile relative to aspirin and traditional non-aspirin NSAIDs, but confer adverse cardiovascular as well as hepatic and renal effects. Acetaminophen has no clinically relevant anti-inflammatory properties and accounts for more than 50 percent of drug overdose related liver failure and about 20 percent of liver transplant cases, as well as kidney disease.

“With respect to the benefits and risks of pain relievers, the totality of evidence suggests that health care providers and their patients should make individual clinical judgements based on the entire risk factor profile of the patient,” said Manas Rane, M.D., first author and a third-year internal medicine resident in FAU’s Schmidt College of Medicine. “The judicious individual clinical decision-making about the prescription of NSAIDs to relieve pain based on all these considerations has the potential to do much more good than harm.”

This manuscript has been selected by the editorial board of the Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics for inclusion in the newly launched “Editor’s Choice Collection” – a collection of high-quality and potentially high-impact publications, which will be featured prominently on the journal’s website and promoted to their readership.

“The factors in the decision of whether and, if so, which drug to prescribe for relief of pain and inflammation, should not be limited to risks of cardiovascular or gastrointestinal side effects. These considerations should also include potential benefits including improvements in overall quality of life resulting from decrease in pain or impairment from musculoskeletal pain syndromes,” said Charles H. Hennekens, M.D., Dr.P.H., corresponding author, first Sir Richard Doll Professor and senior academic advisor in FAU’s Schmidt College of Medicine.

Source: Florida Atlantic University

Were You Born in an H1N1 Flu Year or an H3N2? It Affects Your Immunity

The first type of influenza virus you’re exposed to may set your lifetime ability to fight the flu.

Researchers with McMaster University and University of Montreal found that being born in an H1N1 year or an H3N2 year matters. Following a phenomenon known as antigenic imprinting, the study revealed that early exposure to one of these two flu strains permanently affects your immunity.

Knowing who is at a higher risk each year could help tailor pandemic and epidemic planning, the researchers say.

“People’s prior immunity to viruses like flu, or even coronavirus, can have a tremendous impact on their risk of becoming ill during subsequent epidemics and pandemics,” said study co-author Matthew Miller, an associate professor at McMaster Immunology Research Center.

“Understanding how their prior immunity either leaves them protected or susceptible is really important for helping us to identify the populations who are most at risk during seasonal epidemics and new outbreaks,” continued Miller.

Researchers analyzed data from the 2018-2019 flu season. Unlike typical flu seasons where one flu strains dominates, both strains of influenza A dominated at different times.

“We already knew from our previous studies that susceptibility to specific influenza subtypes could be associated with year of birth,” said lead author Alain Gagnon, a professor of demography at University of Montreal.

“This new study goes much further in support of antigenic imprinting,” Gagnon added. “Instead of just showing how specific age patterns are associated with one subtype or the other during a single influenza season, we took advantage of a unique ‘natural experiment’ to show how the change in subtype dominance during one season appears to lead, practically in real time, to a change in susceptibility by age.”

In the United States, flu has led to between 140,000 and 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 and 61,000 deaths annually since 2010, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates.

The study was published recently in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Source: HealthDay


Today’s Comic