Monthly Archives: August 2012

Seyyer, Inc., The First to Develop Cognitive Video Realization, Launches Artificial Intelligence Company

Posted on by

PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

CEO and founder, Behrooz Rezvani, Ph.D, has launched Seyyer Inc., a cloud-based video software artificial intelligence company that offers users the first customized, cognitive video realization (CVR) platform built to easily create massive amounts of individualized, authentic video content, instantly and inexpensively. Seyyers interactive video personalization platform is targeted to online commercial producers, advertising agencies and other multimedia developers to create infinitely transformative video avatar content based on real people, in less time and at significantly lower cost than traditional filming and editing techniques.

Seyyers CVR platform applies artificial intelligence and machine learning to make computer-generated modifications to original video footage of a persons facial expressions, gestures and speech, resulting in a hyper-realistic, customizable and extensible avatar with authentic detail to be extremely convincing to the viewer. This is done though text-to-instant-video realization (TTV) that is both instant and inexpensive.

Until now, filming people for web commercials, online videos and other applications has been a time-intensive and expensive process that does not align with the fast-paced dynamics of advertising, mobile marketing and social commerce, said Rezvani. Our solution enables video to be super targeted, relevant and interactive while delivering massive amounts of customizable, authentic video content, faster and at significantly lower cost than any traditional methods available today.

Customer Applications

With Seyyers CVR platform, developers can create human video, then adapt, regenerate and extend content with its unique combination of gesture recognition, micro-expression and speech-modeling technology. To enhance the learning process, educational content can be generated using interactive, personalized video-based curricula. Advertisers can develop highly targeted and almost instantly updatable mobile and online marketing campaigns that drive deeper consumer engagement. Retailers using the latest social commerce engines can create advanced avatars to further augment and complement the consumer experience.

Seyyers interactive video platform could be a game-changer for our clients, said Dave Benton, Creative Director of Metajive, a full-service interactive and social media agency. At Metajive we look to create authentic messages that enable connections to the brand, leveraging interactive video to deliver content in the most direct, compelling and creative manner possible. Deploying Seyyers text to instant video realization capability gives us an extraordinary new tool for deeply engaging campaigns with extremely realistic interactive video avatars.

Rezvani is a repeat entrepreneur who also founded Ikanos Communications (VDSL, Very high speed Digital Subscriber Line) in 1999 to a successful IPO in 2005 and co-founded Quantenna Communications (Wi-Fi) in 2006. Seyyer is an angel-backed, cloud-based video software artificial intelligence company.

View Demo and Availability

Seyyer has provided a demonstration of the companys interactive video personalization platform at http://www.seyyer.com. The CVR platform is available today and the company is engaged with brands and companies across industries.

Read the original here:

Seyyer, Inc., The First to Develop Cognitive Video Realization, Launches Artificial Intelligence Company

Scientists identify new gene that influences survival in ALS

Posted on by

Public release date: 26-Aug-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Jim Fessenden james.fessenden@umassmed.edu 508-856-2000 University of Massachusetts Medical School

WORCESTER, MA A team of scientists, including faculty at the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS), have discovered a gene that influences survival time in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease). The study, published today in Nature Medicine, describes how the loss of activity of a receptor called EphA4 substantially extends the lifespan of people with the disease. When coupled with a UMMS study published last month in Nature identifying a new ALS gene (profilin-1) that also works in conjunction with EphA4, these findings point to a new molecular pathway in neurons that is directly related to ALS susceptibility and severity.

"Taken together, these findings are particularly exciting because they suggest that suppression of EphA4 may be a new way to treat ALS," said Robert Brown, MD, DPhil, a co-author on the study and chair of neurology at UMass Medical School.

ALS is a progressive, neurodegenerative disorder affecting the motor neurons in the central nervous system. As motor neurons die, the brain's ability to send signals to the body's muscles is compromised. This leads to loss of voluntary muscle movement, paralysis and eventually respiratory failure. The cause of most cases of ALS is not known. Approximately 10 percent of cases are inherited. Though investigators at UMMS and elsewhere have identified several genes shown to cause inherited or familial ALS, almost 50 percent of these cases have an unknown genetic cause. There are no significant treatments for the disease.

Wim Robberecht, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the Nature Medicine study and a researcher at the University of Leuven in Belgium and the Vesalius Research Center, screened for genes in zebrafish that blunt the adverse effect of the ALS mutant gene SOD1. Through this process, his team identified EphA4 as an ALS modifier. Dr. Robberecht's team went on to show that when this gene is inactivated in mice with ALS, the mice live longer.

Dr. Robberecht then turned to UMass Medical School to confirm that turning off EphA4 in human ALS cells would slow the progression of the disease. Dr. Brown and his team identified two human ALS cases with mutations in the EphA4 gene which, like the zebrafish and the mice, had unusually long survival times. This suggests that blocking EphA4 in patients with ALS may be a potential therapeutic target in the future.

In an exciting, related development, a new ALS gene (profilin-1) identified last month by UMMS scientists works in conjunction with EphA4 in neurons to control outgrowth of motor nerve terminals. In effect, gene variants at both the top and the bottom of the same signaling pathway are shown to effect ALS progression. Together these discoveries highlight a new molecular pathway in neurons that is directly related to ALS susceptibility and severity and suggests that other components of the pathway may be implicated in ALS.

"It is exciting that these two studies identify the same pathway in ALS," said John Landers, PhD, associate professor of neurology and lead author of the PFN1 study. "Hopefully this discovery will accelerate efforts to finding a treatment for ALS."

###

Here is the original post:
Scientists identify new gene that influences survival in ALS

The GOP and women: Akin's ignorance is hardly unique

Posted on by

Rep. Todd Akin's fame -- more accurately, his infamy -- now reaches all the way to the Congo.

There, Eve Ensler, the award-winning American author of "The Vagina Monologues" and herself a survivor of rape, wrote an open letter castigating last week's suggestion by the Republican congressman that when a woman is a victim of "legitimate rape," her body has means of preventing pregnancy. As it happens, Ensler is in the Congo working to help some of the thousands of women raped in the fighting there. She called Akin's words "ignorant."

Nor is hers the only voice of international opprobrium. Criticism of the Missouri lawmaker has rung from such far points as London ("shamefully inaccurate"), Belfast ("profoundly offensive") and Paris ("medieval"). A writer in Australia dubbed Akin a "boofhead" -- apparently, not a compliment. All this, plus domestic denunciation, including sharp criticisms from his own party.

Akin, make no mistake, richly earned every ounce of contempt that now rains upon his head. What he told KTVI-TV, the Fox affiliate in. St. Louis, manages to combine repulsiveness ("Legitimate rape?" As opposed, one supposes, to the rapes where "she brought it on herself"?) and remarkable ignorance (Does he really think the uterus is equipped with a force field?) into one appallingly malodorous ball of stupid. Naturally, given his grasp of biology, Akin sits on the House Science Committee.

Yes, you read right. You can't make this stuff up.

Still, this is not about one congressman's need for sensitivity training and remedial science. Akin is hardly unique, after all. To the contrary, he is just the latest vivid example of conservatism's unrelenting hostility toward women's reproductive rights -- as in a Texas judge who just upheld the state's ban on Planned Parenthood.

Indeed, even as this controversy was simmering, the GOP unveiled a proposed platform plank calling for a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. It's a plank Akin himself could have written.

But he is emblematic of more than hard-core opposition to abortion. In him, one also senses the juvenile discomfort with which some male conservatives are afflicted at the merest suggestion of female sexuality.

Think then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, piously covering the breasts of the "Spirit of Justice" statue at the Department of Justice. Think then-Rep. Tom Coburn decrying the "full-frontal nudity" of a movie broadcast on network television -- the movie being "Schindler's List," the nudes being doomed European Jews. Think Republicans banning Rep. Lisa Brown from speaking in the Michigan State House for using the word "vagina" -- as opposed, perhaps, to "lady parts," "third base" or "tunnel of love." Think Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut because she has, presumably, on occasion had sex.

It's the kind of behavior one associates with a locker room full of adolescent boys, waiting for their faces to clear up and their voices to change. But these are men. Worse, they are men who are judged competent to make, interpret or influence laws impacting the most intimate decisions a woman can make.

Read the original:
The GOP and women: Akin's ignorance is hardly unique

Romo finding chemistry with unknown WRs

Posted on by

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ARLINGTON, Texas -- The next game Tony Romo plays, the Dallas Cowboys quarterback expects to be throwing again to Miles Austin and Dez Bryant.

And hopefully Pro Bowl tight end Jason Witten too.

Yet Romo didn't seem bothered that his expected top three pass-catchers were standing on the sideline injured in his last preseason game. He did just fine throwing to Dwayne Harris, Kevin Ogletree and John Phillips.

"Tony is an outstanding player and he's done it with a lot of different kinds of guys. This is the third or fourth time we've turned the receivers over," coach Jason Garrett said. "He's someone who continues to play at a very high level. It's nice to see him play well and play in a good rhythm with the younger guys. He's worked very hard with the different cast of characters he's been playing with and they've been growing together."

Romo was 9-of-13 passing for 198 yards and two long touchdowns to Harris in a 20-19 victory over the St. Louis Rams on Saturday night. The Cowboys (No. 15 in the AP Pro32) scored 17 of their points in the three series Romo played in the first quarter.

There is a void to fill at the No. 3 receiver spot behind Austin and Bryant after Laurent Robinson had 11 TD catches last season and got a big free-agent deal from Jacksonville.

The absence of Austin (hamstring) and Bryant (right knee tendinitis) provided Harris and Ogletree more time with Romo and an extended chance to prove they can play.

"You get a feeling, you get a sensation you think is good, but what happens then is you've got to be able to go out and prove it," Romo said. "You've got to go out into the game and you've got to execute well. I thought our team did that. Our young guys knew what they were doing and it showed."

Harris, a sixth-round draft pick in 2011, got behind the secondary for a 61-yard TD and then split two defenders while finishing a 38-yard score. Ogletree, going into his fourth season, caught two passes from Romo for 40 yards.

See the original post:
Romo finding chemistry with unknown WRs

New DNA Test Can Now Determine Hair, Eye Color Of A Possible Suspect

Posted on by

August 26, 2012

Lawrence LeBlond for redOrbit.com Your Universe Online

The next time you leave your DNA behind be forewarned that you are now not only leaving your biological fingerprint behind for prying eyes, but also leaving evidence of what color your hair and eyes are. Until the mid-1980s, DNA at a crime scene went largely unchecked due to lack of technology to search it out. And for the last two decades, in order for a crime scene detective to match DNA to a suspect, samples had to be taken from possible matches.

But now, according to a team of researchers, led by professor Manfred Kayser of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, a new forensic test can predict both the hair and eye color of a possible suspect using DNA at a crime scene. The team said it could provide valuable leads in cases where suspects cannot be identified through DNA profiling.

The test, called the Hirisplex system, could allow crime scene investigators to narrow down a large group of possible suspects, making it easier to pinpoint the perpetrator. Details of the research appear in the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics.

Predicting phenotypes is quickly becoming an emerging field in forensics. The current approach, genetic profiling, involves comparing crime scene DNA to possible suspects or to a database of stored profiles. Genetic profiling relies on the person either being among a pool of suspects identified by police or having their profile previously stored.

The Hirisplex approach could be very useful in cases where a perpetrator is completely unknown to the authorities, said Kayser.

The test includes the 24 currently best eye and hair color predictive DNA markers, Kayser said in a press release. In its design we took care that the test can cope with the challenges of forensic DNA analysis such as low amounts of material.

The test is very sensitive and produces complete results on even smaller DNA amounts than usually used for forensic DNA profiling.

Kayser told BBC News Paul Rincon that the research article outlines everything needed to establish the test in a forensic lab, but that the team was also in touch with industry regarding their knowledge about hair and eye color prediction.

See the rest here:
New DNA Test Can Now Determine Hair, Eye Color Of A Possible Suspect

Posted in DNA

A Positive Popular Press Article on Alcor and Cryonics

Posted on by

The public attitude towards cryonics has shifted greatly over the past ten years, at least as measured by the changing tenor of articles in the popular press. They are more favorable, more respectful, and more accurate on technical details. So greater exposure and publicity over the past decade has brought benefits, and increasing familiarity with the topic has allowed more people to overcome whatever knee-jerk reactions they normally have to all novel ideas. This is a positive trend, perhaps driven as much by the general proliferation of media enabled by the internet as by efforts made by the cryonics community, and will hopefully continue apace.

The Cryonic Man: How Alcor Life Extension preserves your dead body

What is it to die? For some, death is our body's expiration date, for others it is an absolute point where the soul leaves the body. For a group of scientists in Scottsdale, Arizona, however, it is merely an arbitrary natural accident, an engineering problem we have yet to find a solution for.

The Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the world's leading provider of cryonics, the practice of using ultra-cold temperatures to preserve humans until such a time when medicine is advanced enough to restore good health. The widely-held belief that it involves freezing is actually something of a red herring. As soon as possible after legal death is pronounced, cryoprotectant solution - a sort of antifreeze - is administered to a patient through their circulatory system, entering almost every cell in the body. Known as vitrification, this process avoids ice crystal formation and allows the body to be cooled with virtually no freezing damage, before being placed in liquid nitrogen in a Dewar container and moved to storage indefinitely.

For a long time cryonics was dismissed by many as science-fiction, an unnatural or even immoral procedure, but while the company make no bones about cryonics being an entirely speculative process, futurist and Alcor chief executive Max More says that the field is gaining legitimacy in the eyes of others. "People have certainly grown less hostile," he told Metro. "In terms of how science looks at cryonics we've definitely seen an improvement over time." Mr More added that Alcor's teams which intervene at members' deathbeds are also being treated more favourably by doctors. "Our relationship with hospitals and hospices has also improved; they used to be very adversarial and reluctant to even let us in, now hospital staff are usually fascinated and want to help in any way they can. They even let us position our equipment in the room next to the patient before clinical death, their whole attitude has really turned around."

Cryonics is an important industry, the only option for all too many people who will die before the advent of rejuvenation biotechnology. It has not found the level of growth that it deserves, sadly, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still the sole chance at a longer life in the future for those who are very old today.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

Identifying Cancer Stem Cells for Melanoma

Posted on by

The cancer stem cell hypothesis continues to show promise as a way to strike at the root of many different forms of cancer: "Cancer stem cells are defined by three abilities: differentiation, self-renewal and their ability to seed a tumor. These stem cells resist chemotherapy and many researchers posit their role in relapse. A [new study] shows that melanoma cells with these abilities are marked by the enzyme ALDH, and imagines new therapies to target high-ALDH cells, potentially weeding the body of these most dangerous cancer creators. ... We've seen ALDH as a stem cell marker in other cancer types, but not in melanoma, and until now its function has been largely unknown. ... [Researchers] transplanted ALDH+ and ALDH- melanoma cells into animal models, showing the ALDH+ cells were much more powerfully tumorigenic. In the same ALDH+ cells, the group then silenced the gene that creates this protein, finding that with ALDH knocked down, melanoma cells died in cultures and lost their ability to form tumors in animal models. In cell cultures, silencing this ALDH gene also sensitized melanoma cells to existing chemotherapies. When the group explored human tumor samples, they found distinct subpopulations of these ALDH+ cells, which made up about 0.1-0.2 percent of patients' primary tumors. In samples of metastatic melanoma - the most aggressive form of the disease - the percentage of ALDH+ cells was greater, even over 10 percent in some tumors, further implying the powerful danger of these cells."

Link: http://www.coloradocancerblogs.org/news/study-identifies-human-melanoma-stem-cells

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

Testing Stem Cells From Amniotic Fluid as a Stroke Therapy

Posted on by

Many different sources of stem cells remain under investigation, such as those derived from amniotic fluid: "We recently reported isolation of viable rat amniotic fluid-derived stem (AFS) cells. Here, we tested the therapeutic benefits of AFS cells in a rodent model of ischemic stroke. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats received a 60-minute middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAo). Thirty-five days later, animals exhibiting significant motor deficits received intravenous transplants of rat AFS cells or vehicle. At days 60-63 post-MCAo, significant recovery of motor and cognitive function was seen in stroke animals transplanted with AFS cells compared to vehicle-infused stroke animals. Infarct volume [was] significantly reduced, coupled with significant increments in the cell proliferation marker, Ki67, and the neuronal marker, MAP2, in the dentate gyrus (DG) and the subventricular zone (SVZ) of AFS cell-transplanted stroke animals compared to vehicle-infused stroke animals. ... This study reports the therapeutic potential of AFS cell transplantation in stroke animals, possibly via enhancement of endogenous repair mechanisms."

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22912905

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

A Political Party for the 2045 Initiative

Posted on by

I note that the Russian community behind the well-backed 2045 initiative are trying their hands at launching a political party to further the cause. There is a website for the Evolution 2045 party concept; at this point it would seem to be chiefly worthwhile as a way to gain some additional insight into the thinking of those steering the 2045 initiative:

The Initiative 2045 announces the creation of its own political party - "Evolution 2045" - in order to advocate for a new strategy for human development.
This is a Russia-based party, but its goals are international and global. Our ultimate goal is to inspire other countries to follow suit, and compete not in the arms race, but in the race for building a bright future for mankind.

There is a fair amount of money behind this project, so they can certainly afford the luxury of trying a great many different approaches in the course of gathering greater support for their cause. In this sense a nascent political party falls into exactly the same bucket as the series of international conferences being organized: outreach, education, advocacy.

This all seems to be an idea very much in the air at the Russian end of the longevity advocacy community. See this recent and unrelated item, for example:

we made the first step towards the creation of the Longevity Party. The initiative group of 10 people gathered together in Moscow to establish the first political party aimed at extending human lifespan using technological advances. ... . This is the very first step in the long and hard process of legally registering a political party. ... The next big thing we need to do is to finalize the Program of the Party. Then we have to have at least 2 people in 42 regions of Russia as representatives of the Party and have the founding meeting after which the Party can be registered and eventually appear in the voting ballots. Our goal is to influence the authorities to support life extension technologies and increase funding for research aimed at improving people's health and extending longevity.

Single issue political parties are a long-standing and widely used methodology for advancing particular causes in Europe and further East, far more so than across the pond in the US, though they do exist there as well. In most European countries you'll find a range of these organizations, some more successful than others. The Green parties are perhaps the exemplar of the type, formed around a movement and grown to staid success in terms of delivering their message, with the Pirate parties as another, younger and still dynamic example.

Either way, radical optimism about what can be achieved in the near future - if we just worked at it - is in comparatively short supply in our culture. Visionaries who talk about the path to humanity ascendant are a small minority in comparison to the masses and the talking heads who are blinkered by the present and look little further than the bounds of what is. So more vision and more optimism are very welcome, even if harnessed to a program that isn't my first choice for how to proceed towards engineering greatly extended lives.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

CIRM Board Member Prieto Defends Klein's Right to Appear Before Board

Posted on by


A member of the governing board of the
California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has commented
in an email about the “unseemly performance” item concerning the
agency's former chairman, Robert Klein. Prieto is a
Sacramento physician who serves as a patient advocate member of the
board. He has been on the board since its inception. Here are his
remarks.

“I wanted to comment on this piece
from the perspective of another patient advocate.  While I think
you know that I did not always agree with Bob Klein during his tenure
on the ICOC(the agency's governing board), I would strongly defend
his right to appear and give his opinions to the Board.  He is a
private citizen now, albeit one with considerable experience and
expertise, and I think his greatest vested interest in this case
stems (you should pardon the expression) from being the child of a
parent with Alzheimers.  As you point out, some eyebrows may be
raised, and I can imagine that some board members might be swayed in
either direction by his testimony, but  he is a passionate and
committed advocate, and he has the right to advocate before us.”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

An Unseemly Performance: Former Chair of Stem Cell Agency Promotes $20 Million Research Proposal

Posted on by


Bob Klein is nearly an icon in the
history of the $3 billion California stem cell. And when he appeared
before its governing board last month and aggressively touted a $20
million grant proposal already rejected by agency reviewers, his
actions raised eyebrows.

Robert Klein
Elie Dolgin/Nature photo
Klein's comments carried unusual
weight, given that they were supported by his unique and influential
relationship with the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM). He and his associates wrote the 10,000-word ballot
initiative that created the stem cell agency in 2004. He ran the $35
million electoral campaign that convinced voters to buy into the
idea. Klein raised millions on behalf of the effort. He personally
provided the campaign $3 million. And he was the first chairman of
the agency, leaving that office only 13 months ago, when he was
designated chairman emeritus.
The meeting last month marked Klein's
first public appearance before the board on behalf of a specific
application.. He heralded the applicant, StemCells, Inc., as unique
and the “best” in United States with a “huge body of
experience.”

(The full text of his testimony can be found here.)
Irv Weissman
Stanford Photo
StemCells Inc. is a publicly traded company based in Newark, Ca., that was founded by renown Stanford
scientist Irv Weissman, who sits on its board. Weissman also played
an important role in the Prop. 71 ballot campaign that created the
stem cell agency. StemCells, Inc.'s application was turned down by
CIRM reviewers who gave it a score of 61, but the company appealed the action to the agency's governing board. Following the appearance by Klein, Weissman and others, the CIRM board sent the application back for more review.
The board will reconsider it next month or in October.
One California stem cell researcher,
who requested anonymity, said it is “highly inappropriate for Bob
Klein to be advocating for any grant application from a public
company.”
The scientist said,

 “He has
considerable influence with the ICOC(the CIRM governing board), and
is closely associated with biotech in the Bay Area. Even if he
doesn't make a lot of money himself from this, then he certainly has
friends who will.  Irv Weissman would be one of those friends."

In response to questions asked on Aug. 7 by the
California Stem Cell Report, Klein today defended his actions.  He was asked if he had “any sort of
financial ties” to firms or individuals that would benefit from
approval of the award. Klein, who is a real estate investment banker and also an attorney, said he has
“no financial interest” in the firm or individuals that might
benefit.
Klein also indicated his appearance was
entirely appropriate. He defined his role as a patient advocate –
not as a lobbyist who is paid for advocating on behalf of a company.
Klein said he had “a particular responsibility to contribute my
background knowledge and experience.”
Klein said he hoped other former board
members would follow his example. He said,

“(I)t would be a tragedy if the
expertise of board members built up over six or more years is lost.”

(The full text of his response can be found here.)
Klein's appearance came at a propitious
time for financially strapped StemCells, Inc. The company's
financial information shows that it is losing $5.4 million a quarter
as of the end of June and had only $9 million in cash on hand. It
also had liabilities of $11.6 million, up substantially from $8.5
million in September of last year.
The researcher who criticized Klein's efforts as inappropriate also said,

"StemCells Inc has been on the
stock market for 20 years, without producing anything of value for
the investors.  The stock price has been sinking fast:  it
was 60 cents this June; last year at this time, it was around $5 a
share.   

“On July 17, when the CIRM Disease
Team Award review results became available, the stock rose from 87
cents to $1.80 – a person who could anticipate the outcome of the
CIRM applications could have made considerable money in that 24 hour
period.”

Weissman's role
with the StemCells, Inc., is more than scientific. According to the
company's financial statements, he holds 88,612 shares. His wife,
Ann Tsukamoto, is executive vice president of the firm. She holds
185,209 shares in the firm.
Weissman played a significant role in
the Prop. 71 campaign. He did the “billionaire circuit,” raising
money for the initiative, according to an article by Diana Kapp in
San Francisco magazine. Among other things, Weissman worked the
exclusive Bohemian Grove in Northern California and “pitched”
Bill Bowes, a co-founder of Amgen, who, along with his wife, gave
$1.3 million to the campaign. Weissman was the key to securing a
$400,000 contribution from Microsoft's Bill Gates. Weissman also plumped for Prop. 71 in a TV campaign ad.
In addition to StemCells, Inc., Klein
and Weissman supported a successful attempt last month to overturn
reviewers' rejection of another $20 million application by Judith Shizuru
of Stanford. The application received a score of 53 from reviewers.
One of the application's problems cited
by reviewers was the availability of antibodies for the study. The
antibodies were developed by Systemix, a company founded by Weissman.
Systemix was acquired by Novartis in 1997 for about $70 million.
Weissman said he has “negotiated back” rights to key antibodies,
which he said are now held by Stanford.
Klein said that reviewers believed the
research was “a showstopper” but did not think the documentation
was adequate. He told the CIRM directors that they now have a letter
with proprietary information that supports the grant application.
Our take: The stem cell agency has long
labored under the perception that it is something of an insiders'
club. Even the prestigious journal Nature warned in 2008 about what
it called “cronyism” at CIRM. If anything, the situation is worse today,  four years later. Enterprises associated with persons on the CIRM board of directors have received more than 90 percent of the funds handed out by the agency. Klein's efforts last month
reinforce the not-so-pleasant image of the stem cell agency as an
old boy's club and create an impression – at the very least – of
unseemly insider influence.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

CIRM Board Member Prieto Defends Klein’s Right to Appear Before Board

Posted on by


A member of the governing board of the
California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has commented
in an email about the “unseemly performance” item concerning the
agency's former chairman, Robert Klein. Prieto is a
Sacramento physician who serves as a patient advocate member of the
board. He has been on the board since its inception. Here are his
remarks.

“I wanted to comment on this piece
from the perspective of another patient advocate.  While I think
you know that I did not always agree with Bob Klein during his tenure
on the ICOC(the agency's governing board), I would strongly defend
his right to appear and give his opinions to the Board.  He is a
private citizen now, albeit one with considerable experience and
expertise, and I think his greatest vested interest in this case
stems (you should pardon the expression) from being the child of a
parent with Alzheimers.  As you point out, some eyebrows may be
raised, and I can imagine that some board members might be swayed in
either direction by his testimony, but  he is a passionate and
committed advocate, and he has the right to advocate before us.”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Text of Klein’s Response to Questions Concerning His Advocacy on Rejected Grant Applications

Posted on by


Here is the text of Robert Klein's response today to the California Stem Cell Report concerning his appearance before the governing board of the California stem cell agency July 26, 2012. Klein, former chairman of the agency, real estate investment banker and attorney, promoted two applications seeking $20 million each from the agency. Both applications had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. Here is a link to an item on the subject.

"Dear David,
"You have posed two
questions related to my continuing role as a Patient Advocate in
contributing information to the Board of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, in an effort to optimize decisions on medical
and scientific grants and loans for research that could mitigate
and/or cure chronic diseases or injuries. 

"Q: Do you have any sort
of financial ties to StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or
firms that would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC(the CIRM governing board)?
"A: I have no financial
interest in StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or firms that
would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC. In fact, I
have no financial interest in any biomedical research company.

"Q: Do you think it is
appropriate for the former chairman of the ICOC to lobby that body on
behalf of awards to specific companies or individuals?
"A: First, it is
fundamental that the terms be defined to properly respond to your
question. A “Patient Advocate” is a member of a patient family or
a medical/scientific care /support group who advocates for medical
and scientific advances that might potentially mitigate and/or cure a
patient’s chronic disease or injury. A “Patient Advocate” is
not paid for his/her advocacy, unless they are staff members of a
non-profit institution dedicated to a specific disease or group of
diseases or injuries. 

"Second, a “lobbyist”
is a paid representative of a company or a for-profit institution(s)
with a financial interest in the outcome of a governmental decision. 

"I am serving as a
Patient Advocate in my presentations to the Board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine. As the former Chairman of the
Board, I have a particular responsibility to contribute my background
knowledge and experience for the Board to consider, along with all
new information, in reaching their best decision. I hope other former
Board members, who possess a wealth of scientific, medical, and
institutional knowledge that can benefit the Board, would consider
the value they can contribute to future decisions. As Board terms
expire, it will be important not to lose that institutional knowledge
and medical/scientific expertise that has been built up over the last
seven plus years of the Agency’s existence. 

"In an outline format,
I would suggest the following areas where the knowledge of former
Board members can be especially valuable in optimizing the input for
Board decisions in the future. 

"A number of Board
members have participated in up to 20 or more Peer Review meetings,
some of which cover multiple days. Current grant or loan requests
represent the result of scientific and medical advancement that has
been intensely vetted in prior peer reviews; the information gained
in those peer reviews should not be lost, when a subsequent grant or
loan request – built on the earlier research outcomes – is
considered. Each peer review session has the benefit of different
specialists and scientists and/or biotech representatives with
unique backgrounds and areas of expertise. The value of the prior
contributions may be pivotal, in considering a later application,
developed from the earlier medical or research advances funded
through CIRM’s grants or loans. The current peer review,
scientific staff presentation, and Board expertise, is not the limit
of the Board’s information, in reaching the best current decision.
To the extent the Board can draw from prior peer reviews (unique
insights), prior scientific staff presentations, and prior Board
expertise, additional information that can enhance a potential
decision, the Board has the opportunity to optimize its decision
making process. This is particularly valuable, when there is a high
standard deviation – a substantial split – in the scoring
positions from the current peer review. 

"Beyond peer review
participation, Board members have intensely engaged in another 35
plus Working Group sessions on Facilities and Standards, in addition
to more than 70 Board meetings and over 125 Subcommittee meetings,
as of August 2012. Retiring Board members possess a treasury of
information on policy development, process, federal and state laws
and regulations, and the regulations of the agency, as well as in
depth information on research facilities and capabilities throughout
California, the nation, and the world. It takes a substantial length
of time for a new Board member to gain a comprehensive knowledge in
all of these areas and each Board member will develop unique
insights, which it would be a tragedy to lose. As Chairman, I
frequently reached back to consult with former Board members on
areas of their special expertise and I would hope that all current
and future Board members utilize the significant asset in developed
knowledge of the prior Board members. To the extent prior members
can be available for public meetings, this would be a substantial
benefit to the agency to broadly inform the Board, the scientific
staff, and the public. 

"The Board has a
unique contribution to make on programmatic resource allocations and
risk management of the research and clinical investments in each
disease area. The opportunities in some disease areas for major
advancement are numerous, whereas there are major diseases and/or
critical research areas where the potential, high-value advancement
options are relatively limited. For Board members who have
participated in over 20 peer reviews and 70 Board meetings, the
programmatic perspective on the opportunities in each disease area
has been highly developed. Concurrently, those Board members or
former Board members have substantial knowledge that is of critical
value in reaching programmatic decisions on the number of
opportunities for advancement in any specific disease area and the
relative risk that needs to be taken to accomplish meaningful
breakthroughs in advancing the research and clinical opportunities
in a disease and/or injury area. 

"I hope these examples
of how former Board members can contribute to the current Board’s
information in reaching decisions on the best medical/scientific
grants and loans are helpful. As I stated earlier, it would be a
tragedy if the expertise of Board members built up over six or more
years is lost. The field is extremely complicated and the Board needs
the opportunity to consider all of the information available. The
Board can choose to accept or reject any past advice or opinions
gained from prior peer review sessions or Board meetings, but the
Board should have access to the full spectrum of information and the
treasury of scientific and medical advice the agency has received
since its inception.

"There are areas that I
have not addresses in this short response, such as the institutional
value of applicants being able to rely upon prior scientific and/or
policy direction, in their current applications. From a historical
perspective, prior Board members and/or the Chairman can have
significant information that is relevant to these evaluations,
especially if the individual Board member served on a special Task
Force , Subcommittee or peer review. These more complicated areas of
individual contribution by former Board members I can address in a
future communication; but, this specific subject – alone – could
comprise several pages and I would like to obtain critical advice and
perspective from other former Board members and the scientific
community before discussing this area in greater detail.
"Bob Klein
"Chair Emeritus
"California Institute
for Regenerative Medicine"

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Text of Klein's Response to Questions Concerning His Advocacy on Rejected Grant Applications

Posted on by


Here is the text of Robert Klein's response today to the California Stem Cell Report concerning his appearance before the governing board of the California stem cell agency July 26, 2012. Klein, former chairman of the agency, real estate investment banker and attorney, promoted two applications seeking $20 million each from the agency. Both applications had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. Here is a link to an item on the subject.

"Dear David,
"You have posed two
questions related to my continuing role as a Patient Advocate in
contributing information to the Board of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, in an effort to optimize decisions on medical
and scientific grants and loans for research that could mitigate
and/or cure chronic diseases or injuries. 

"Q: Do you have any sort
of financial ties to StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or
firms that would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC(the CIRM governing board)?
"A: I have no financial
interest in StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or firms that
would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC. In fact, I
have no financial interest in any biomedical research company.

"Q: Do you think it is
appropriate for the former chairman of the ICOC to lobby that body on
behalf of awards to specific companies or individuals?
"A: First, it is
fundamental that the terms be defined to properly respond to your
question. A “Patient Advocate” is a member of a patient family or
a medical/scientific care /support group who advocates for medical
and scientific advances that might potentially mitigate and/or cure a
patient’s chronic disease or injury. A “Patient Advocate” is
not paid for his/her advocacy, unless they are staff members of a
non-profit institution dedicated to a specific disease or group of
diseases or injuries. 

"Second, a “lobbyist”
is a paid representative of a company or a for-profit institution(s)
with a financial interest in the outcome of a governmental decision. 

"I am serving as a
Patient Advocate in my presentations to the Board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine. As the former Chairman of the
Board, I have a particular responsibility to contribute my background
knowledge and experience for the Board to consider, along with all
new information, in reaching their best decision. I hope other former
Board members, who possess a wealth of scientific, medical, and
institutional knowledge that can benefit the Board, would consider
the value they can contribute to future decisions. As Board terms
expire, it will be important not to lose that institutional knowledge
and medical/scientific expertise that has been built up over the last
seven plus years of the Agency’s existence. 

"In an outline format,
I would suggest the following areas where the knowledge of former
Board members can be especially valuable in optimizing the input for
Board decisions in the future. 

"A number of Board
members have participated in up to 20 or more Peer Review meetings,
some of which cover multiple days. Current grant or loan requests
represent the result of scientific and medical advancement that has
been intensely vetted in prior peer reviews; the information gained
in those peer reviews should not be lost, when a subsequent grant or
loan request – built on the earlier research outcomes – is
considered. Each peer review session has the benefit of different
specialists and scientists and/or biotech representatives with
unique backgrounds and areas of expertise. The value of the prior
contributions may be pivotal, in considering a later application,
developed from the earlier medical or research advances funded
through CIRM’s grants or loans. The current peer review,
scientific staff presentation, and Board expertise, is not the limit
of the Board’s information, in reaching the best current decision.
To the extent the Board can draw from prior peer reviews (unique
insights), prior scientific staff presentations, and prior Board
expertise, additional information that can enhance a potential
decision, the Board has the opportunity to optimize its decision
making process. This is particularly valuable, when there is a high
standard deviation – a substantial split – in the scoring
positions from the current peer review. 

"Beyond peer review
participation, Board members have intensely engaged in another 35
plus Working Group sessions on Facilities and Standards, in addition
to more than 70 Board meetings and over 125 Subcommittee meetings,
as of August 2012. Retiring Board members possess a treasury of
information on policy development, process, federal and state laws
and regulations, and the regulations of the agency, as well as in
depth information on research facilities and capabilities throughout
California, the nation, and the world. It takes a substantial length
of time for a new Board member to gain a comprehensive knowledge in
all of these areas and each Board member will develop unique
insights, which it would be a tragedy to lose. As Chairman, I
frequently reached back to consult with former Board members on
areas of their special expertise and I would hope that all current
and future Board members utilize the significant asset in developed
knowledge of the prior Board members. To the extent prior members
can be available for public meetings, this would be a substantial
benefit to the agency to broadly inform the Board, the scientific
staff, and the public. 

"The Board has a
unique contribution to make on programmatic resource allocations and
risk management of the research and clinical investments in each
disease area. The opportunities in some disease areas for major
advancement are numerous, whereas there are major diseases and/or
critical research areas where the potential, high-value advancement
options are relatively limited. For Board members who have
participated in over 20 peer reviews and 70 Board meetings, the
programmatic perspective on the opportunities in each disease area
has been highly developed. Concurrently, those Board members or
former Board members have substantial knowledge that is of critical
value in reaching programmatic decisions on the number of
opportunities for advancement in any specific disease area and the
relative risk that needs to be taken to accomplish meaningful
breakthroughs in advancing the research and clinical opportunities
in a disease and/or injury area. 

"I hope these examples
of how former Board members can contribute to the current Board’s
information in reaching decisions on the best medical/scientific
grants and loans are helpful. As I stated earlier, it would be a
tragedy if the expertise of Board members built up over six or more
years is lost. The field is extremely complicated and the Board needs
the opportunity to consider all of the information available. The
Board can choose to accept or reject any past advice or opinions
gained from prior peer review sessions or Board meetings, but the
Board should have access to the full spectrum of information and the
treasury of scientific and medical advice the agency has received
since its inception.

"There are areas that I
have not addresses in this short response, such as the institutional
value of applicants being able to rely upon prior scientific and/or
policy direction, in their current applications. From a historical
perspective, prior Board members and/or the Chairman can have
significant information that is relevant to these evaluations,
especially if the individual Board member served on a special Task
Force , Subcommittee or peer review. These more complicated areas of
individual contribution by former Board members I can address in a
future communication; but, this specific subject – alone – could
comprise several pages and I would like to obtain critical advice and
perspective from other former Board members and the scientific
community before discussing this area in greater detail.
"Bob Klein
"Chair Emeritus
"California Institute
for Regenerative Medicine"

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Text of Klein’s Comments Supporting Rejected Applications

Posted on by


Robert Klein, who served 6 ½ years as the first chairman
of the $3 billion California stem cell agency,  testified before the agency's board for the first time on July 26, 2012. Klein, a real
estate investment banker and attorney, spoke on behalf of two applicants whose
grants had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. The appearance
has raised questions about the propriety of Klein's actions.

Here is a link to an item on his appearance. Here is the text of
his comments as reported in the transcript of the meeting.

“As the board knows, I've never addressed any grant from the
floor. It is critical here to understand that we have here
StemCells, Inc., which is the only company in North America
and, for that matter, maybe in the world, that has had two stem cell
therapies in the brain with these specific neural stem cells. They
have a huge body of experience here. 

“Secondly, one of the fundamental issues here that it (the
company's grant application) was downgraded on was the issue of the
fundamental concept, the platform concept, of injecting two focal
injections in the brain, in the hippocampus of the brain. It's
important to note that I've sat on three (CIRM)peer reviews where the
scientists really affirmed this specific approach with extremely high
scores, three different views. All right.

“So it's very important to realize we have a standard deviation
here of 12 (on the review scores). These scientists were completely
split. With some recusals on that panel, if you have 12 or 13 that
can really vote, three or four very low scores can bring it out of
the funding category all the way down. It is in the region where
this board is looking where the other three peer reviews, right,
early translation, the one before that was the planning grant review,
that the hippocampus was a good platform.

“Then they said the key weakness was you can't show migration.
Dr. Laferla (a co-PI on the application) has told me that
today the Journal of Neuroscience accepted the publication of
the data demonstrating migration. It was stated previously in the
application, but it wasn't accepted for publication. It now is.
That is the fundamental weakness that they identified in this
approach.  

“So we have a reaffirmed approach to the hippocampus by three
different peer review groups and a substantial portion of these
reviewers along with data dealing with the weak point. I'm sorry it
happened today. The data was out there, accepted for publication
today, means that it should definitely fall into this category. And,
of course, Dr. (Alan) Trounson (president of CIRM) wouldn't
have been able to review that in process because he was recused from
this grant by his own voluntary recusal. So the progress of this
data being accepted for publication is new information today. 

“If I look at the entire history of CIRM, as Leeza (Gibbons,
a CIRM director) says, building up to this point, we have reaffirmed
this approach from the very beginning with Dr. Laferla, with multiple
scientific approvals, and board approval, and we have the best
company in North America with the greatest experience with these
neural stem cells, with the best researcher we have for the potential
to address this disease, and we have brand-new data that demonstrates
and totally contradicts the key weakness on which it was downgraded.”

Here is the text of Klein's remarks on
behalf of a second application, also rejected by CIRM reviewers.

“This is the only other disease team grant I will address. Very
specifically, this was a disease team grant that I was on the peer
review in the planning grant stage. There are some fundamental
issues here. Is the international company on which the one antibody
that's not coming from Stanford, the two for sorting are
coming from Stanford, is the other antibody coming from this
international company a commitment that you can rely on? 

“The reviewers said this was a showstopper. That's the word they
used. They made a decision this was a showstopper because they did
not believe the company because they thought that the documentation
was inadequate. You now have a letter that goes into great
proprietary depth about the depth of this company's commitments
written by the head of development and translation internationally
for the company. 

“If we cannot depend on company commitments of this type, and
you will review the letter in executive session, if you have one, I
will not understand how we'll be able to collaborate with companies
with proprietary products and processes where they're making
commitments to academic institutions of the highest standard. I
believe this company is going to perform. I was on an hour call to
confirm with eight members of that company their level of commitment,
and I am completely convinced by that point. 

“The review is completely factually wrong on this issue about
the other two antibodies for sorting this. Dr. (Irv) Weissman
has just said they have not only been developed, they have been used
in clinical trials. There's data on them. And they are, in fact,
being thawed under FDA direction to reuse in this trial. 

“So I believe there's a major factual difference. Remember with
Karen Aboody there was a major factual error that was pivotal
in elevating that, and we found tremendous performance on that grant
by Karen Aboody of City of Hope. 

“So you have a decision to make. As a risk issue, do we believe
this company? Finally, this is broader than SCID. 

“Donald Kohn has written a letter that's in the public
domain that I suggest you read. It makes it very clear that opening
the niche for repopulating the immune system without chemotherapy and
radiation is a key contribution to every form of genetically modified
stem cells for an entire range of childhood diseases and other
genetic diseases in addition to therapies like sickle cell or aids. 

“I suggest that that profound contribution that can be made to
the field is a risk that is worth taking early on because of his
contribution to so many other areas. You have 12 other letters from
North America's leading pediatric geneticists that fundamentally
provide extraordinary support for this position and this approach.”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Text of Klein's Comments Supporting Rejected Applications

Posted on by


Robert Klein, who served 6 ½ years as the first chairman
of the $3 billion California stem cell agency,  testified before the agency's board for the first time on July 26, 2012. Klein, a real
estate investment banker and attorney, spoke on behalf of two applicants whose
grants had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. The appearance
has raised questions about the propriety of Klein's actions.

Here is a link to an item on his appearance. Here is the text of
his comments as reported in the transcript of the meeting.

“As the board knows, I've never addressed any grant from the
floor. It is critical here to understand that we have here
StemCells, Inc., which is the only company in North America
and, for that matter, maybe in the world, that has had two stem cell
therapies in the brain with these specific neural stem cells. They
have a huge body of experience here. 

“Secondly, one of the fundamental issues here that it (the
company's grant application) was downgraded on was the issue of the
fundamental concept, the platform concept, of injecting two focal
injections in the brain, in the hippocampus of the brain. It's
important to note that I've sat on three (CIRM)peer reviews where the
scientists really affirmed this specific approach with extremely high
scores, three different views. All right.

“So it's very important to realize we have a standard deviation
here of 12 (on the review scores). These scientists were completely
split. With some recusals on that panel, if you have 12 or 13 that
can really vote, three or four very low scores can bring it out of
the funding category all the way down. It is in the region where
this board is looking where the other three peer reviews, right,
early translation, the one before that was the planning grant review,
that the hippocampus was a good platform.

“Then they said the key weakness was you can't show migration.
Dr. Laferla (a co-PI on the application) has told me that
today the Journal of Neuroscience accepted the publication of
the data demonstrating migration. It was stated previously in the
application, but it wasn't accepted for publication. It now is.
That is the fundamental weakness that they identified in this
approach.  

“So we have a reaffirmed approach to the hippocampus by three
different peer review groups and a substantial portion of these
reviewers along with data dealing with the weak point. I'm sorry it
happened today. The data was out there, accepted for publication
today, means that it should definitely fall into this category. And,
of course, Dr. (Alan) Trounson (president of CIRM) wouldn't
have been able to review that in process because he was recused from
this grant by his own voluntary recusal. So the progress of this
data being accepted for publication is new information today. 

“If I look at the entire history of CIRM, as Leeza (Gibbons,
a CIRM director) says, building up to this point, we have reaffirmed
this approach from the very beginning with Dr. Laferla, with multiple
scientific approvals, and board approval, and we have the best
company in North America with the greatest experience with these
neural stem cells, with the best researcher we have for the potential
to address this disease, and we have brand-new data that demonstrates
and totally contradicts the key weakness on which it was downgraded.”

Here is the text of Klein's remarks on
behalf of a second application, also rejected by CIRM reviewers.

“This is the only other disease team grant I will address. Very
specifically, this was a disease team grant that I was on the peer
review in the planning grant stage. There are some fundamental
issues here. Is the international company on which the one antibody
that's not coming from Stanford, the two for sorting are
coming from Stanford, is the other antibody coming from this
international company a commitment that you can rely on? 

“The reviewers said this was a showstopper. That's the word they
used. They made a decision this was a showstopper because they did
not believe the company because they thought that the documentation
was inadequate. You now have a letter that goes into great
proprietary depth about the depth of this company's commitments
written by the head of development and translation internationally
for the company. 

“If we cannot depend on company commitments of this type, and
you will review the letter in executive session, if you have one, I
will not understand how we'll be able to collaborate with companies
with proprietary products and processes where they're making
commitments to academic institutions of the highest standard. I
believe this company is going to perform. I was on an hour call to
confirm with eight members of that company their level of commitment,
and I am completely convinced by that point. 

“The review is completely factually wrong on this issue about
the other two antibodies for sorting this. Dr. (Irv) Weissman
has just said they have not only been developed, they have been used
in clinical trials. There's data on them. And they are, in fact,
being thawed under FDA direction to reuse in this trial. 

“So I believe there's a major factual difference. Remember with
Karen Aboody there was a major factual error that was pivotal
in elevating that, and we found tremendous performance on that grant
by Karen Aboody of City of Hope. 

“So you have a decision to make. As a risk issue, do we believe
this company? Finally, this is broader than SCID. 

“Donald Kohn has written a letter that's in the public
domain that I suggest you read. It makes it very clear that opening
the niche for repopulating the immune system without chemotherapy and
radiation is a key contribution to every form of genetically modified
stem cells for an entire range of childhood diseases and other
genetic diseases in addition to therapies like sickle cell or aids. 

“I suggest that that profound contribution that can be made to
the field is a risk that is worth taking early on because of his
contribution to so many other areas. You have 12 other letters from
North America's leading pediatric geneticists that fundamentally
provide extraordinary support for this position and this approach.”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Managing perioperative risk in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery – BMJ review

Posted on by

Non-cardiac surgery has a low overall mortality but is associated with a large number of deaths because so many procedures are performed (250 million major surgical procedures worldwide per year).

Assuming a hospital mortality rate of 1%, non-cardiac surgery will be associated with 2.5 million deaths worldwide each year and complication rates at least five times this figure.

15% of people who undergo inpatient surgery are at high risk of complications, such as pneumonia or myocardial infarction.

Most deaths occur in a group of patients who are at high risk because of:

- advanced age
- comorbid disease
- major surgery

High risk surgical patients account for 80% of all perioperative deaths.

Further research is needed to identify the most effective approaches to perioperative medicine for high risk patients.

References:

Managing perioperative risk in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery. BMJ 2011; 343 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5759 (Published 5 October 2011), Cite this as: BMJ 2011;343:d5759

Image source: Wikipedia

Posted at Clinical Cases and Images. Stay updated and subscribe, follow us on Twitter and connect on Facebook.


Source:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/CasesBlog

The link between stress and heart disease

Posted on by

In this video from the Cleveland Clinic, Steven Nissen, MD, talks about the important lesson war has taught us about stress and its effect on the heart. One of the best ways to manage stress is regular exercise.

Tips for managing stress (watch the 2-minute BBC video embedded below)

- Take a few deep breaths
- Get plenty of exercise
- Socialize - don't stress alone, talk to someone and have a laugh
- Get out - go to the park

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/brainsmart 

Participation in sport is associated with a with a 20—40% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with non-participation. Exercise might also be considered as a fifth vital sign, according to the Lancet: http://goo.gl/gyxYf

 If nothing else helps, consider this: Chewing gum may reduce stress and improve memory

Posted at Clinical Cases and Images. Stay updated and subscribe, follow us on Twitter and connect on Facebook.


Source:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/CasesBlog