Search Index

A rare disease that causes inflammation in the blood vessels Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Understanding and detecting Kawasaki disease on time Last updated: 24/02/25, 11:31 Published: 06/02/25, 08:00 A rare disease that causes inflammation in the blood vessels What is Kawasaki disease? Kawasaki disease is a rare type of vasculitis that damages blood vessels through inflammation and is prevalent in children under the age of five. Kawasaki disease is predominantly found in children of Asian races–mainly in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Asian races in the US–and is the leading cause of acquired heart disease in children in most developed countries. What causes Kawasaki disease? There is no known cause of Kawasaki disease, however, studies suggest a link between genetics and the disease, noting a high incidence between siblings and in children with a parental history of Kawasaki disease. Another study provided further evidence of genetic susceptibility, stating that variation in the expression of CASP3 and ITPKC—genes heavily involved in T cell function—leads to an overexpression of T cells.This can be attributed to the inflammatory symptoms of the disease. There are speculations that it may be caused by an airborne agent originating in Central Asia which moves across different geographical regions. This study suggests that through winds, the airborne agent is able to cause Kawasaki disease via infection of the respiratory tract–further investigation is needed regarding this hypothesis. Diagnosing Kawasaki disease Symptoms of Kawasaki disease, which are often accompanied by a fever, are classified into three phases: acute, subacute, and convalescent. The acute phase usually lasts between two to three weeks and symptoms include: Carditis Mucosal inflammation (cracked and dry lips, strawberry tongue, swollen lymph nodes) Polymorphous rash Coronary artery aneurysms The subacute phase also lasts up to three weeks and includes symptoms such as: - Perineal and periungual desquamation - Arthralgia - Myocardial disease The convalescent phase is when most clinical signs dissolve and usually lasts up to three months. It is important to note that while most symptoms clear up during this phase, cardiac issues may still persist in some patients. Misdiagnosing Kawasaki disease is very common as its symptoms are similar to that of many diseases like scarlet fever or toxic shock syndrome. With that being said, confirming its diagnosis is often a case of ruling out these diseases. In addition to identifying symptoms linked to other diseases, conducting laboratory tests such as CRP, CBC, and ESR can help confirm a diagnosis of Kawasaki disease. Additionally, echocardiograms and electrocardiograms can help assess coronary abnormalities as well as overall heart function. Treating Kawasaki disease Following diagnoses, patients are first administered an IVIG and a high dose of aspirin to reduce inflammation as well as eliminate pain, swelling and fever. Patients are then administered lower doses of aspirin which helps prevent blood clotting. Roughly 25% of untreated patients are at a higher risk of developing coronary artery aneurysms and lasting cardiovascular issues in general. This risk drops down to 5% when treated appropriately. IVIG is proven to be effective in treating approximately 85-90% of cases when administered within the first ten days of the illness which is why it is imperative that patients are treated early. X-rays are regularly conducted on patients as they can help visualise blood vessels and potential heart abnormalities that may suggest further complications. It can also observe the effectiveness of treatment over time. Post-recovery, an echocardiogram is recommended periodically to detect any coronary abnormalities that may have developed much later on. Summary Kawasaki disease is a rare disease that causes inflammation in the blood vessels. It normally develops in children under the age of five and is yet to have a known cause. It is often hard to diagnose as its symptoms are similar to that of other diseases, which is why it is important to identify its symptoms (polymorphous rash, mucosal inflammation, desquamation, etc) as well as conduct tests such as CBC, CRP, ESR, an electrocardiogram, etc to help rule out other diseases. It is essential that children with Kawasaki disease are diagnosed and treated early as this can help treat coronary artery aneurysm and prevent lasting coronary and cardiovascular abnormalities. Written by Sherine Latheef Related articles: Sideroblastic anaemia / Blood / Inflammation therapy REFERENCES Onouchi, Y., Ozaki, K., Buns, J.C., Shimizu, C., Hamada, H., Honda, T., Terai, M., Honda, A., Takeuchi, T., Shibuta, S., Suenaga, T., Suzuki, H., Higashi, K., Yasukawa, K., Suzuki, Y., Sasago, K., Kemmotsu, Y., Takatsuki, S., Saji, T. and Yoshikawa, T. (2010). Common variants in CASP3 confer susceptibility to Kawasaki disease. Human Molecular Genetics , 19(14), pp.2898–2906. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddq176 . Agarwal, S. and Agrawal, D.K. (2017). Kawasaki Disease: Etiopathogenesis and Novel Treatment Strategies. Expert review of clinical immunology , [online] 13(3), pp.247–258. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666X.2017.1232165 . Wolff, A.E., Hansen, K.E. and Zakowski, L. (2007). Acute Kawasaki Disease: Not Just for Kids. Journal of General Internal Medicine , [online] 22(5), pp.681–684. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-006-0100-5 . Oh, J.-H., Cho, S. and Choi, J.A. (2023). Clinical Signs of Kawasaki Disease from the Perspective of Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition Recruiting Erythrocytes: A Literature Review. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine , 24(4), pp.109–109. doi: https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2404109 . Team, H.J. (2018). Kawasaki Disease - Causes, Signs, Symptoms,Treatment . [online] Health Jade. Available at: https://healthjade.com/kawasaki-disease/ . Project Gallery

IT cells and their impact on public opinion Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link The spread of digital disinformation 14/07/25, 15:04 Last updated: Published: 05/08/23, 10:06 IT cells and their impact on public opinion As of January 2023, the internet boasts a staggering 4.72 billion estimated social media accounts, with a 3% year-on-year growth of +137 million users and further expansion projected throughout the year. The average person now spends a substantial 6 hours and 58 minutes daily connected to online screens, underscoring the significant role the internet plays in our lives. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that governments worldwide have recognised its potential as a critical tool to advance their agendas, policies, and achievements. Through diverse digital channels, governments aim to reach a vast audience and change public perception, striving to build transparency, trust, and legitimacy while maintaining a powerful digital presence. However, this approach also raises concerns about bias, propaganda, and information manipulation, which can impact public perceptions in questionable ways. One such phenomenon that has emerged is the presence of IT cells, organised groups typically affiliated with political parties, organizations, or interest groups. These Information Technology cells dedicate themselves to managing and amplifying their respective organisations' online presence, predominantly on social media platforms and other digital avenues. During contentious political events or national issues, IT cells deploy coordinated messaging in support of government policies and leaders, inundating social media platforms. Unfortunately, dissenting voices and critics may face orchestrated attacks from these IT cells, aimed at discrediting and silencing them. While some IT cells may operate with genuine intentions, they have faced criticism for engaging in tactics that spread misinformation, disinformation, and targeted propaganda to sway public sentiment in favour of their affiliated organisations. In such instances, IT cells strategically amplify positive news and government achievements while downplaying or deflecting negative information. Social media influencers and online campaigns have become tools to project a positive image of the government and maintain public support. One striking example of how governments can exploit IT cells for their gain was evident in the infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal. In 2018, revelations exposed how the political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, acquired personal data from millions of Facebook users without consent. The firm then weaponised this data to construct highly targeted and manipulative political campaigns, including during the 2016 United States presidential election and the Brexit referendum. In India, the ruling BJP party has come under scrutiny for its orchestrated online campaigns through its social media cell. The cell allegedly intimidates individuals perceived as government critics and actively disseminates misogyny, Islamophobia, and animosity. According to Sadhavi Khosla, a BJP cyber-volunteer associated with the BJP IT Cell, the organisation promotes divisive content and employs trolling tactics against users critical of the BJP. Journalists and Indian film actors have also found themselves targeted by these campaigns. As technology continues to evolve, it is imperative to strike a balance between leveraging the internet for transparency and legitimacy while safeguarding against potential misuse that could erode trust in digital governance and public discourse. Monitoring and addressing the activities of IT cells can be a significant step towards ensuring responsible and ethical use of digital platforms in the political arena. Written by Jaspreet Mann Related articles: COVID-19 misconceptions / Fake science websites Project Gallery

The yearly incidence of TBI is around 27 and 69 million people worldwide Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Beyond the bump: unravelling traumatic brain injuries 30/03/26, 17:08 Last updated: Published: 15/10/24, 11:32 The yearly incidence of TBI is around 27 and 69 million people worldwide A traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most serious and complex injuries sustained by the human body, often with profound and long-term effects on an individual’s physical, emotional, behavioural and cognitive abilities. What is a traumatic brain injury? A TBI results from an external force which causes structural and physical damage to the brain. The primary injury refers to the immediate damage to the brain tissue which is caused directly by the event. Whereas secondary injuries result from the cascade of cellular and molecular processes triggered by the initial injury and develop from hours to weeks following the initial TBI. Typically, the injury can be penetrating, where an object pierces the skull and damages the brain, or non-penetrating which occurs when the external force is large enough to shake the brain within the skull causing coup- contrecoup damage. Diagnosis and severity The severity of a TBI is classified as either mild (aka concussion), moderate, or severe, using a variety of indices. Whilst more than 75% of TBIs are mild, even these individuals can suffer long-term consequences from post-concussion syndrome. Here are two commonly used measures to initially classify severity: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is an initial neurological examination which assesses severity based on the patient’s ability to open their eyes, move, and respond verbally. It is a strong indicator of whether an injury is mild (GCS 13-15), moderate (GCS 9-12) or severe (≤8). Following the injury and any period of unconsciousness, when a patient has trouble with their memory and is confused, they are said to have post-traumatic amnesia (PTA). This is another measure of injury severity and lasts up to 30 minutes in mild TBI, between 30 minutes and 24 hours in moderate TBI, and over 24 hours in severe TBI. Imaging tests including CT scans and MRIs are used to detect brain bleeds, swelling or any other damage. These tests are essential upon arrival to the hospital, especially in moderate and severe cases to understand the full extent of the injury. Leading causes of TBI Common causes of TBI are a result of: Falls (most common in young children and older adults) Vehicle collisions (road traffic accidents- RTAs) Inter-personal violence Sports injuries Explosive blasts Interestingly, the rate of TBI is 1.5 times more common in men than women. General symptoms The symptoms and outcome of a TBI depend on the severity and location of the injury. They differ from person to person based on a range of factors which include pre-injury sociodemographic vulnerabilities including age, sex and level of education, as well as premorbid mental illnesses. There are also post-injury factors such as access to rehabilitation and psychosocial support which influence recovery. Due to this, nobody will have the same experience of a TBI, however there are some effects which are more common than others which are described: Mild TBI: Physical symptoms: headaches, dizziness, nausea, and blurred vision. Cognitive symptoms: confusion, trouble concentrating, difficulty with memory or disorientation. Emotional symptoms: mood swings, irritability, depression or anxiety. Moderate-to-severe TBI: Behavioural symptoms: aggression, personality change, disinhibition, impulsiveness. Cognitive symptoms: difficulties with attention and concentration, decision making, memory, executive dysfunction, information processing, motivation, language, reasoning, self-awareness. Physical symptoms: headaches, seizures, speech problems, fatigue, weakness or paralysis. Many of these symptoms are ‘hidden’ and can often impact functional outcomes for an individual, such as their capacity for employment and daily living (i.e. washing, cooking, cleaning etc.). The long-term effects of TBI can vary, with some returning to normal functioning. However, others might experience lifelong disabilities and require adjustments in their daily lives. For more information and support, there are some great resources on the Headway website, a leading charity which supports individuals after brain injury. Written by Alice Jayne Greenan Related articles: Why brain injuries affect adults and children differently / Neuroimaging / Different types of seizures Project Gallery

Loss aversion: the power of framing in decision-making and why we are susceptible to poor decisions Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Behavioural Economics III 06/11/25, 11:56 Last updated: Published: 15/10/24, 11:18 Loss aversion: the power of framing in decision-making and why we are susceptible to poor decisions This is article no. 3 in a series on behavioural economics. Next article- Libertarian Paternalism . Previous article- The endowment effect . In the realm of decision-making, the way information is presented can dramatically influence the choices people make. This phenomenon, known as framing, plays a pivotal role in how we perceive potential outcomes, especially when it comes to risks and rewards. We shall now explore the groundbreaking work of Tversky and Kahneman, who sought to explain how different framings of identical scenarios could lead to vastly different decisions. By examining their research, we can gain insight into why we are susceptible to making poor decisions and understand the underlying psychological mechanisms that drive our preferences. The power of framing Imagine that the UK is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. In a paper by Tversky and Kahneman, they examined the importance of how information is conveyed in two different scenarios. In scenario 1: If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved and a 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. In scenario 2: If program A is adopted, 400 people will die. If program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that nobody will die and a 2/3 probability that 600 people will die. Notice that both scenarios display the exact same information, but the way in which the information is displayed is different. So surely there should be no difference between the two scenarios? In fact, there is a huge difference. Scenario 2 has been given a loss frame, where the loss frame emphasises the potential negative outcomes. By taking a sidestep, we can examine why this is important. Loss aversion is the phenomenon where ‘losses loom larger gains’. In other words, if we lose something, then the negative impact of this is greater than the positive impact of an equal-sized gain. Image 1 illustrates a loss aversion function. As illustrated in the image, a loss of £100 results in a much larger negative reaction than the positive reaction of a gain of £100. To put this into perspective, imagine it’s your birthday and someone gifts you some money. You would hopefully feel quite grateful and happy, but perhaps this feeling isn’t overwhelming. On the contrary, if you soon discover that you lost your wallet or purse, which contained the same amount of money, the psychological impact is often much more severe. Losses are perceived to be much more significant than gains. Going back to the example involving the two scenarios, we see that in scenario 2, program A emphasises the death of 400 people compared to scenario 2, program B, which has a chance to lose more but also a chance to save everyone. Statistically, you should be indifferent between the two, but because the guaranteed loss of 400 people is so overwhelming, people would much rather gamble and take the chance. This same reason is why gambling is so addictive. When you lose money in a gamble, you feel compelled to not accept the loss and decide to continue betting in an effort to make back what you once had. What Kahneman and Tversky found was that in scenario 1, 72% of people chose program A, and in scenario 2, 78% of people chose program B. Clearly, how we frame a policy makes a huge difference in its popularity. By framing the information by saying “200 people will be saved” rather than “400 people will die” out of the same 600 people, our own perception is considerably different. But on a deeper level, why might this be, and why is knowing this distinction important? In my previous article on the endowment effect, we saw that once you own something, you feel possessive over it, and losing something that you have had to work for, like money, makes you feel as though that hard work has gone to waste. But this explanation struggles to translate into our example of people. In researching for this article, I came across the evolutionary psychology perspective and found it to be both interesting and persuasive. From an evolutionary perspective, loss aversion can be seen as an adaptive trait. For our ancestors, losses such as losing food or shelter could have dire consequences for survival, whereas gains such as finding extra food was certainly beneficial but not as crucial for immediate survival. Therefore, we may be hardwired to avoid any losses, which has translated into modern-day loss aversion. The reason why knowing about this is important comes up in two aspects of life. The first is in healthcare. As demonstrated at the beginning of the article, people’s decisions can be impacted by the way in which healthcare professionals and the government frame policies. By understanding this, it allows you to make your own decision on the risks and determine whether you believe it is right for you. Similarly, policymakers can shape public opinion by highlighting the benefits or costs of action or inaction such that it meets their own political agenda. So recognising loss aversion allows for more informed decision-making. Additionally, when it comes to the world of investing, people tend to keep hold of an investment that is performing badly or perhaps at a loss in the hopes that it will go back up in the future. If this belief is justified through analysis or good judgement, then deciding to hold may be a good decision; however, often loss aversion creates a false sense of hope similar to the example I gave for gambling. If you are a keen investor, it’s important to be aware of your own investment psychology so that it allows you to maintain an objective view of a company throughout the time you decide to remain invested. Evidently, understanding how we think and make decisions can play an important role in improving the choices we make in our personal and professional lives. By recognising the impact of loss aversion and framing, we can become more aware of the unconscious biases that drive us to avoid losses at all costs, even when those decisions may not be in our best interest. Whether it’s in healthcare, investing, or everyday life, cultivating this awareness allows for more rational, informed choices that better align with long-term goals rather than short-term fears. In a world where information is constantly framed to sway public opinion, knowing the psychology behind our decision-making processes is a powerful tool that can help us make wiser, more deliberate decisions. Written by George Chant REFERENCES Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453-8. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683. PMID: 7455683. Image provided by Economicshelp.org , a link to the website: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/loss-aversion/ Project Gallery

For some species, the rock-paper-scissors theory determines survival or reproductive success. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Rock, paper, survival? Last updated: 02/04/26, 17:23 Published: 02/04/26, 07:00 For some species, the rock-paper-scissors theory determines survival or reproductive success. Rock-paper-scissors: a classic way of resolving petty disputes or making small decisions. That is, if you’re a human. For some species, the rock-paper-scissors theory determines survival or reproductive success. It occurs when three equally strong variants coexist in a population. The three variants interact “non-transitively”, meaning there is not one clear best variant; each variant has an advantage in a different environment. Variants of a species are controlled by genetics, so they are called “genotypes”. This article describes two cases of rock-paper-scissors competition between three genotypes of the same species, and one case between different species. Alternative mating strategies in side-blotched lizards The first scientific article to describe a real-life rock-paper-scissors system was published by Sinervo and Lively in 1996. They studied male side-blotched lizards that come in three different throat colours: yellow, orange, and blue. The lizards fight each other for territory and female mates, and the more females a male has on his territory, the more offspring he can have, so the more successful he is. Orange-throated male lizards are the most aggressive and have the most testosterone. Blue-throated males are less aggressive, so they lose fights against the orange-throats and therefore lose their females. Yellow-throated male lizards do not fight for mates, so they lose their females to the fighting blue-throated males. Instead, yellow-throated males pretend to be sexually active females, deceiving another male lizard and mating with his females. Since orange males are more aggressive in finding females, they are more prone to yellow-throated deception, and lose many females to the yellow-throats. So yellow beats orange, orange beats blue, and blue beats yellow: a rock-paper-scissors dynamic. Sinervo and Lively found that blue-throated males dominated the side-blotched lizard population in 1991, but they were wiped out by the more aggressive orange-throated males in 1992, who themselves were wiped out by the deceiving yellow-throated males in 1993-4. A population dominated by yellow-throats was the ideal environment for blue-throated males to come back in 1995 ( Figure 1 ). Therefore, rock-paper-scissors competition causes a population to cycle between three equally strong genotypes over time. Colicin dynamics in E. coli While rock-paper-scissors theory determines reproductive success in side-blotched lizards, the stakes are higher in E. coli bacteria, where the three genotypes fight each other to survive. In this system, there are three strains (i.e. types) of E. coli called colicin-producing (C), colicin-susceptible (S), and colicin-resistant (R). Strain C makes a toxin called colicin, which kills strain S. Strain R outcompetes strain C because not only is it resistant to strain C’s colicin, but it also saves the energy needed to produce it. However, by gaining colicin resistance, strain R loses nutrient uptake abilities. This means strain S, which is better at nutrient uptake, outcompetes strain R. So C kills S, S outcompetes R, and R outcompetes C: a rock-paper-scissors dynamic ( Figure 2 ). Kerr et al. found that when the three E. coli strains were grown on a solid agar surface, they stayed at equal, constant biomass for one week. If one strain grew too much, another strain in a system would outcompete it and bring the biomass back down. Therefore, rock-paper-scissors competition maintained strain diversity and stability in a genetically heterogeneous E. coli population. Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock in coral reefs Expanding rock-paper-scissors theory to between species, rather than within species, creates a complex and diverse ecosystem. ‘The Big Bang Theory’ TV show popularised a five-object version of rock-paper-scissors called rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock, which expanded the number of possible scenarios in the game and reduced the chance of a draw. Similarly, a 1979 paper describes dozens of possible interactions between seven species of marine animals off the coast of Jamaica, keeping the marine ecosystem diverse. There were five sponges (S-2 Toxemna sp. , S-3 Tenaciella sp ., and three previously undescribed sponges S-4, S-5, and S-6), one coral species (C-1 Madracis sp. ), and one ascidian (A-1 Didemnum sp. ). These species all grow as colonies, in which hundreds of individual animals function as one cohesive unit. However, coral reefs have limited space, so colonies of different species fight over a solid surface to grow on. Scientists noted the outcomes of dozens of interactions where the colony of one species grew over the colony of another, to determine whether the ecosystem is linear/transitive or not. They found many examples of non-transitive interactions; for example, one rock-paper-scissors three-species system, and one system where six species beat each other in a cyclical pattern ( Figure 3 ). Even though species S-4 can outcompete five other species, there is always the risk of species S-2 outcompeting it, so S-4 cannot dominate the ecosystem. Depending on the spatial and temporal organisation of the Jamaican coral reef, any of the seven species can dominate. Conclusion Non-transitive interactions lead to high diversity and cyclical patterns over time. Scientists have observed these interactions between and within species, and across ecological scales from small laboratory bacteria to complex coral reef ecosystems. If one variant begins to dominate, that makes another variant perform better, keeping the system balanced. While the three variants co-exist in some situations, like the E. coli colicin dynamics, they take turns being dominant in other situations, like the side-blotched lizards. So next time you’re thinking of using rock-paper-scissors to decide something, maybe try C-S-R E. coli or orange-yellow-blue lizards instead! Written by Simran Patel REFERENCES Sinervo, B. and Lively, C.M. (1996) The rock–paper–scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. Nature , 380(6571), 240–243. Buss, L.W. and Jackson, J.B.C. (1979) Competitive Networks: Nontransitive Competitive Relationships in Cryptic Coral Reef Environments. The American Naturalist , 113(2), 223–234. Kerr, B., Riley, M.A., Feldman, M.W. and Bohannan, B.J.M. (2002) Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock–paper–scissors. Nature , 418(6894), 171–174. Project Gallery

Treatment that effectively controls tumours and prolongs survival without side effects Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link A breakthrough in prostate cancer treatment 08/07/25, 14:35 Last updated: Published: 04/04/24, 16:00 Treatment that effectively controls tumours and prolongs survival without side effects Introduction Prostate cancer is a devastating disease that affects millions of men worldwide. Despite advancements in treatment options, aggressive forms of the disease, such as metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), remain a major challenge. However, a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago Medicine Comprehensive Cancer Centre has established a promising "proof-of-concept" for a new treatment approach that could revolutionize the field. The study, published in Clinical Cancer Research, demonstrated the remarkable effectiveness of this novel treatment in a mouse model of advanced prostate cancer. The researchers achieved complete tumour control and long-lasting survival without any side effects. These ground-breaking findings have paved the way for further investigation in human clinical trials. Finding the exact cancer cell and then destroying it but leaving the healthy tissue untouched. In theory, it could be like aiming and shooting at someone in the video game but real world is a bit different, isn’t it? Overcoming Resistance to Hormonal Therapy Hormonal therapy, specifically androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), is the standard treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. However, the majority of patients eventually develop resistance to this therapy, leading to castrate-resistant prostate cancer. This resistance poses a significant challenge for clinicians and leaves patients with limited treatment options. Dr. Akash Patnaik, an accomplished physician-scientist and renowned expert in prostate cancer research and treatment, and his team at the University of Chicago Medical Centre have been exploring new strategies to overcome this resistance. Their research focuses on harnessing the immune system's ability to combat cancer cells. Targeting Macrophages to Control Cancer Growth Dr. Patnaik's team discovered that macrophages, a type of immune cell, play a crucial role in promoting the growth of prostate cancer. These macrophages express a molecule called PD-1, which suppresses the anti-cancer immune response. By targeting these macrophages, the researchers aimed to control the growth of the cancer. In a previous study, the team found that co-targeting the PI3K and PD-1 pathways enhanced the effects of hormonal therapy in PTEN-deficient prostate cancer, a particularly aggressive form of the disease. However, a significant portion of the mice remained resistant to this therapy. Further investigations revealed that the activation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway restored lactate production in these treatment-resistant cancers, leading to macrophages promoting tumour growth. A Novel Therapeutic Approach Building on their previous findings, Dr. Patnaik and his team developed a novel therapeutic approach. By co-targeting the PI3K, MEK, and Wnt/β-catenin signalling pathways, they achieved an impressive 80% response rate in mouse models. However, a small percentage of the mice still showed resistance due to the restoration of lactate production in the treatment-resistant cancers. This led the researchers to investigate further and uncover the mechanism behind this resistance. They discovered that lactate can interact with macrophages and modify them through a process called histone lactylation, making the macrophages immunosuppressive and promoting cancer growth. In their latest study, the researchers found that targeting lactate as a macrophage phagocytic checkpoint can effectively control the growth of PTEN/p53-deficient prostate cancer. Through intermittent dosing of the three drugs, they achieved complete tumor control and significantly prolonged survival without the long-term toxicity associated with continuous drug administration. These groundbreaking findings provide "proof-of-concept" for a new treatment approach that holds great promise for the most aggressive forms of prostate cancer. The researchers believe that their strategy of harnessing the ability of macrophages to eliminate cancer cells could revolutionize cancer therapy. By flipping the switch in macrophages, the cancer cells can be effectively controlled and eliminated. The next step for Dr. Patnaik and his team is to translate these findings into clinical trials. They plan to develop a phase 1 clinical trial to test the efficacy of the intermittent dosing approach in human patients. If successful, this approach could potentially offer a new therapeutic option for patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, who currently have limited treatment options. The potential of this novel therapeutic approach extends beyond prostate cancer. The researchers have also uncovered new therapeutic opportunities by perturbing signaling pathways in cancer cells that affect the metabolic output of the cancer cell and its interaction with tumor-promoting macrophages. This opens up new avenues for research and the development of targeted therapies for various types of cancer. Conclusion The research conducted by Dr. Patnaik and his team has demonstrated the effectiveness of co-targeting multiple signaling pathways in treating aggressive forms of prostate cancer. Their findings provide a solid foundation for further investigation in human clinical trials and offer hope for patients with limited treatment options. This novel therapeutic approach has the potential to revolutionize cancer therapy and pave the way for more targeted and effective treatments in the future. Written by Sara Maria Majernikova Related article: A breakthrough drug discovery in cancer treatment References: Chaudagar, K., et al . (2023) Suppression of tumor cell lactate-generating signaling pathways eradicates murine PTEN/p53-deficient aggressive-variant prostate cancer via macrophage phagocytosis. Clinical Cancer Research . doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-1441 Chetta, P., Sriram, R. and Zadra, G. (2023) ‘Lactate as key metabolite in prostate cancer progression: What are the clinical implications?’, Cancers , 15(13), p. 3473. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133473 . Mathieu (2023) Revolutionary breakthrough in prostate cancer treatment at the University of Bern , Greater Geneva Bern area . Available at: https://ggba.swiss/en/revolutionary-breakthrough-in-prostate-cancer-treatment-at-the-university-of-bern/(Accessed: 29 September 2023). Project Gallery

Peruse through the current treatment discoveries for one of the deadliest diseases in the world. Learn about the factors that cause tumour growth, metastatic processes and blastomas. Cancer Articles Peruse through the current treatment discoveries for one of the deadliest diseases in the world. Learn about the factors that cause tumour growth, metastatic processes and blastomas. You may also like: Biology, Medicine Arginine and tumour growth Another breakthrough in cancer research Unveiling the cancer magnet Stem cells in vertebral bones can act like cancer magnets for spinal tumour metastasis Brain metastasis in cognitive impairment Researchers used machine learning to investigate this Novel neuroblastoma driver Uncovering the role of IGF2BP1 in neuroblastoma and its potential as a therapeutic target Previous

Delving into the 'Nudge' effect by Thaler and Sunstein Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Libertarian Paternalism and the ‘Nudge’ Approach Last updated: 05/11/25, 20:21 Published: 06/11/25, 08:00 Delving into the 'Nudge' effect by Thaler and Sunstein This is article no. 4 in a series on behavioural economics. Next article: Effect of time (coming soon). Previous article- Loss aversion . So far in our series of behavioural economics, we have discussed why and how people may make less favourable decisions than traditional economics assumes. We have spoken about how people can still be honest even when they are faced with a decision where they can be materially better off; and when someone loses their wallet, they feel more distaste than finding some money on the street; and how an endowment adds a bizarre sense of additional worth, that would cause you to think twice about trading it for something equally valuable. In today’s article, we are going to address why this is important to policy makers, and subsequently you and I, by exploring how governments and institutions can influence our decisions in ways that may seem paternalistic yet still respect individual freedom. This idea lies at the heart of libertarian paternalism . The idea behind the “Nudge” Nudge is a book written by Nobel Prize–winning economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein. Building on their 2003 paper, the book develops the idea that people’s choices can be shaped not only by the options available, but also by the context in which those options are presented — even by factors that seem trivial or irrelevant. This is where the concept of a “nudge” comes in: small design changes that steer people toward better decisions without restricting their freedom to choose. A simple change: the pension example A classic example comes from workplace pensions. Before 2008, when someone joined a new company, they were asked whether they wanted to join the company pension scheme. Most people didn’t — they took their full pay instead and failed to save for retirement. This created a growing problem for the government: an ageing population without enough savings to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. The solution was remarkably simple. Instead of asking employees to opt in to a pension, companies began enrolling them automatically, giving them the option to opt out instead. The choice remained exactly the same, pension or no pension, but the framing made all the difference. Opting out felt like losing something, and because people are naturally loss-averse, far fewer did so. In 2012, just under 50% of employees in the private sector had a pension. By 2018, after the introduction of auto-enrolment, that number had risen to around 80%. All from a change in default wording on a form. Libertarian Paternalism – a justification Paternalism is generally considered the situation where the government interferes in our choices, for better or for worse, much like a parent telling their children what they can and cannot do. In many cases, society accepts paternalism as necessary: we ban harmful drugs, make theft illegal, and impose safety regulations. But should governments really be meddling with our personal financial decisions? Should they be influencing our choices about pensions, spending, or saving? Whether they should or shouldn’t is ultimately a political question, not an economic one. However, what we can do is consider Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s explanation of why policies such as pension defaults represent something fundamentally different. When the government restricts drugs or criminalises theft, it removes our freedom to choose — these are examples of hard paternalism, enforced by law. But with pensions, the government doesn’t force participation. The choice remains entirely yours: you can stay enrolled or opt out. This preservation of choice embodies the libertarian element — the freedom to decide for oneself. At the same time, by changing how the choice is presented, such as making enrolment the default option, policymakers can dramatically alter behaviour in a direction they consider beneficial. That is where the paternalistic element comes in. According to Thaler and Sunstein, this combination of freedom and gentle guidance is what defines libertarian paternalism . In Thaler and Sunstein’s eyes, nudging individuals towards better decisions through the use of policy is better and less controversial than implementing outright bans and mandates. It respects our autonomy while encouraging outcomes that they believe will improve collective welfare. If the government genuinely believes certain decisions are in the public’s best interest, then libertarian paternalism provides a way to influence behaviour without infringing on people’s right to choose. A question of freedom I do, however, pose some questions to you. If the government can influence your decision making through manipulating people’s psychology, can it truly be called libertarian ? And more fundamentally - does the government really know best? In recent years, the 'Nudge' approach has faced criticism, particularly regarding the assumptions it makes about what constitutes a “better” decision and who gets to define it. Despite this, the research continues to shape public policy across the world — from pensions and health to energy use and education. What’s crucial is that we remain aware of the ways our choices can be influenced. Recognising these nudges allows us to make decisions that best reflect our own values, circumstances, and goals. And on a deeper level, if every choice we make can be subtly shaped by those in power, how do we ensure that nudges serve the public interest — and not the interest of those who nudge? Written by George Chant Project Gallery

- And face masks! No need to say they don’t work either. No matter the number of layers in the mask. Nothing is ever 100% efficient, and face masks are not exempt from this. Face masks help a lot by stopping you from inhaling COVID-19 particles in the air, indeed spread by people not wearing, or cannot wear, masks. Not just COVID-19 particles, Go back Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Misconceptions about COVID-19 and its vaccine Last updated: 07/11/24 Published: 28/12/22 Three years into the pandemic, after huge losses in lives, livelihoods, and freedoms, misinformation about the coronavirus and now its vaccines, are still in circulation on the internet. It will take time to completely eradicate these misconstructions, but it is not impossible. I will begin discussing some myths and theories about the coronavirus itself, and then continue on to the vaccines science has developed to battle the virus. The misunderstandings are not listed in any order. Coronavirus The virus is called many different names: coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). The disease it causes is called COVID-19, or simply COVID. – Getting COVID is no big deal. It is just another flu. It is true yes that COVID-19 is only a mild condition for most people, however for those who are elderly and/ or clinically vulnerable it is anything but mild. Getting COVID-19 depends on the immune system, and if the immune system is already weakened, it is a big deal. As for the flu, it has been around for years mutating each time, but it is never less of a threat. – Only the elderly contract it. In most cases, it is the elderly who fall victim to the disease. But there are many factors at play; age is only one of them. Pre-existing health conditions regardless of age (for those clinically vulnerable), ethnicity, wealth, gender (does not factor that much), all determine who contracts it and how long it will take for someone to recover from the disease. – Children and teenagers are immune to it. Not necessarily true. For the better part of a year, children and younger adults seemed to evade COVID-19 but now more and more are falling ill to it. It is probably due to the emerging variants and how vulnerable children are. – Herd immunity is the way out. We do this by sacrificing said elderly to save the economy. It would have been the ideal solution to continue working and travelling while the virus ravages entire nations to protect the economy, but it would also have meant exposing society’s most vulnerable, namely the elderly, to the virus. Not a good solution to only protect one generation of society and not another. – Yes, because lockdowns don’t work. Lockdowns tend to have a rapid effect; they act to break the circuit of virus transmission up and down the country. They work. This is the reason why they last no more than one month or so when put in place. However, lockdown costs people’s freedoms and mental health so it should only be imposed when crucial. – But we need to work! How will we support ourselves? Very understandable. But if you suddenly contract COVID, you will not be able to work anyway. Many government initiatives have been started to support workers in the past year or so. - What is this 2m/ 6ft rule? No social contact whatsoever? The particles don’t even travel that far. The major way coronavirus travels is by droplets in the air between human contact. Not through surfaces (very little evidence supporting this), not by sharing needles, not by parasites and animals (vectors that bring the virus to humans). - And face masks! No need to say they don’t work either. No matter the number of layers in the mask. Nothing is ever 100% efficient, and face masks are not exempt from this. Face masks help a lot by stopping you from inhaling COVID-19 particles in the air, indeed spread by people not wearing, or cannot wear, masks. Not just COVID-19 particles, but any other harmful particles. You’re still able to take oxygen in and carbon dioxide out- these molecules are much smaller, 1-3 atoms big, so they can pass through the mask. Multiple layers of the mask offer more protection, however one is enough. - Antibiotics can be used to treat COVID-19. Antibiotics are anti-bacteria. Coronavirus is a virus- only antivirals will help. - Surely if bleach cleans and wipes out pathogens on surfaces and on just about anything else, it can do the same inside our bodies. Bleach is for surfaces only; they are not for consumption or administration as medicine. They will cause untold amount of damage inside the body. Bleach also turns things white. Whatever cleaning and wiping of pathogen need to be done, your immune system will do it. No need for bleach. - How does opening windows help prevent the spread of COVID-19? As mentioned before, COVID-19 respiratory particles travel by air. So opening windows and increasing the circulation of air, helps the particles to be blown away from you and the people with you and reduces the chance of becoming infected with the virus. Going outside for this reason helps (if not under lockdown or other restrictions). - How does fresh air help? As above. Vaccine – I think they will inject a microchip under the pretence of a vaccine and will track my every movement. There is no microchip. All the ingredients and chemicals used to produce the vaccines are available to view on the respective pharmaceutical website. None of the ingredients have any tracking potential. – Or they are just making money. Usually the government or state orders and buys the vaccines from the different companies. The expenses are on them. The rest of the population get the vaccine for free. - Vaccines hurt. Only a pinprick when the vaccine is being administered. After that only mild side effects and taking paracetamol or other painkillers will help. - And we are part of a big experiment. All the testing and experimenting was done during the three phases of clinical trials. The vaccines have been approved for (temporary) nationwide use. - Vaccines don’t work anyway. There is always a story in the news detailing the efficacies of the vaccines. They have an efficiency of 70-96% depending on the vaccine, and vaccine dose. Generally, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the risks that come from it. - Yes, because they cause shedding. Check the context and definition of this word. ‘Shedding’ here refers to the vaccine releasing or discharging its viral components onto others and infecting them. Once inside the body, the vaccine has no way to expel the viral contents.The only way the virus will shed its components is when the person is infected and sneezes, coughs, or causes the particles to travel in the air (i.e. when NOT vaccinated). - And, fertility issues. No biological mechanism or pathway has been discovered over the centuries that shows vaccines cause fertility issues. In fact, the reproductive system itself suppresses the immune system (not the other way round). - They will definitely cause issues if given to children. Vaccines were originally produced to provide protection to adults 18 years and older. Though there are vaccines that only children take as routine e.g. MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and children don’t typically have any problems with them, COVID-19 vaccines aren’t among them. - Vaccines contain meat, and/ or made from animal products (and I am against this). As mentioned already, all the ingredients of the different vaccines can be found on the individual drug company websites. None of the vaccines contain meat, and if religion-conscious, scriptures advise the use of health agents even if they contain meat, to better your well-being. Anyway, the vaccine is used as medicine and not as an item for consumption. – You can pay to get a vaccine made from glucose sugar and water, and I believe it does the same thing as the official vaccine. Sugar solution is not a vaccine. It does not prevent against COVID-19. No trials have been conducted in favour of this. For a vaccine to be a vaccine, it is essential to have the actual weakened version or mRNA form of the virus. - Please take the time to read, watch, or listen to official government or health system information on coronavirus and vaccines. Millions if not billions have listened so far, be a part of this number. As with any public health guidance, education and spreading awareness are always key. Written by Manisha Halkhoree Related articles: COVID-19 glossary / Origins of COVID-19 / Digital disinformation / Fake science websites

Characteristics, triggers and theoretical models of embarrassment Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link Psychology of embarrassment: why do we get embarrassed? 05/06/25, 10:07 Last updated: Published: 06/09/24, 11:07 Characteristics, triggers and theoretical models of embarrassment The six basic emotions proposed by Ekman and recognised worldwide are sadness, happiness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust- Ekman (1999). Recently, the list of basic emotions has expanded to include self-conscious emotions, such as embarrassment, pride and shame, as all of those emotions show evidence for cross-cultural and cross-species production and perception. According to Miller (1995), embarrassment is the self-conscious feeling individuals get after realising they have done something stupid, silly or dishonourable. Embarrassment is a social emotion that emerges at around 18 months of age and the development of which is related to self-recognition. Characteristics of embarrassment in humans are gaze aversion, downward head movements, controlled smile and face touching. Embarrassment has been linked to the two main personality dimensions proposed by Eysenck (1983): extraversion/introversion and neuroticism/emotional stability. Kelly & Jones (1997) found that neuroticism is positively associated with embarrassment, suggesting that the individuals who score highly in neuroticism are more prone to experiencing embarrassment. The same researchers also concluded that embarrassment is negatively related to extraversion, implying that introverted individuals are more likely to feel embarrassed than extroverted individuals. The three triggers of embarrassment, according to Sabini, Siepmann & Meyerowitz (2000), are faux pas, sticky situations and centre of attention. Faux pas causes embarrassment when an individual creates a social mistake that forces them to think of others’ evaluation, like misspelling a word in a presentation and only realising when presenting it to a supervisor. Sticky situations lead to embarrassment when they threaten an individual's role, not their self-esteem, such as a leader being challenged publicly by their second in command. Centre of attention describes an anomaly when embarrassment is not a result of failure but of increased attention, for example being at your own birthday party. The faux pas trigger aligns with the social evaluation model of embarrassment, whilst sticky situations are in line with the dramaturgic model of embarrassment. There are four prominent theories of embarrassment: the dramaturgic model, the social evaluation model, the situational self-esteem model and the personal standards model. The dramaturgic model proposed by Silver, Sabini and Parrott (1987) says that embarrassment is the flustered uncertainty that follows a poor public performance and leaves the individual at a loss of what to do. This model suggests that anxiety and aversive arousal trigger embarrassment after realising a performance has gone wrong (see Figure 4 ). In this model, concern about what others think accompanies embarrassment but does not cause it. Miller (1996) suggests that whilst the dramaturgic model has substantial support, it is difficult for a dramaturgic dilemma to cause embarrassment without simultaneously creating unwanted social evaluations, highlighting a limitation of this model. The social evaluation model of embarrassment put forward by Edelmann (1987) suggests that embarrassed individuals fear failure to impress others and feeling at a loss of what to do is a result of embarrassment, not the cause (see Figure 5 ). This model assumes that individuals are concerned about others’ opinions. Miller (1996) supports this theory, saying that negative evaluation from others is crucial to embarrassment. The situational self-esteem model by Modigliani (1971) proposes that the root cause of embarrassment is the temporary loss of self-esteem that results from public failures based on one’s own opinions of self and performance in faulty situations (see Figure 6). Miller (1995) does not support this theory, arguing that self-esteem plays a secondary role in embarrassment and states that susceptibility to embarrassment depends more on the persistent concern about others’ evaluations of us. The personal standards model of embarrassment introduced by Babcock (1988) presents the view that embarrassment is caused by the individual realising they have failed the standards of behaviour that they have set for themselves, implying that the situation does not matter and that individuals can feel embarrassment when they are alone (see Figure 7 ). Miller (1992) disagrees with this theory, saying that guidelines for self are linked to impressions made on other people and that embarrassment can happen due to poor audience reaction, not letting yourself down. Therefore, there are many plausible theories behind embarrassment that have been linked to various causes like dispositional, situational and personality factors. Whilst it is unlikely that one theory can perfectly explain such a complex social emotion like embarrassment, the consensus among psychologists in the recent years has created the most support for a combination of the dramaturgic and the social evaluation models. I agree with the consensus and think that the different theories behind embarrassment may all apply to a given situation. For instance, forgetting someone’s name may lead to embarrassment due to being at a loss of what to say (the dramaturgic model), unwanted social judgements (the social evaluation model), the negative effects of this situation on the self-esteem (the situational self-esteem model) and the painful realisation of letting yourself down (the personal standards model). Thus, like many subjects in psychology, embarrassment is a multidimensional concept that can be looked at from many different angles. Written by Aleksandra Lib Related articles: Chemistry of emotions / Unmasking aggression / Inside out: chemistry of depression REFERENCES Babcock, M. K. (1988). Embarrassment: A window on the self. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour . Edelmann, R. J. (1987). The psychology of embarrassment . John Wiley & Sons. Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. Handbook of cognition and emotion , 98 (45-60), 16. Eysenck, H. J. (1983). Psychophysiology and personality: Extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. In Individual differences and psychopathology (pp. 13-30). Academic Press. Kelly, K. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). Assessment of dispositional embarrassability. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 10 (4), 307-333. Lewis, M., Sullivan, M. W., Stanger, C., & Weiss, M. (1989). Self development and self-conscious emotions. Child development , 146-156. Miller, R. S. (1992). The nature and severity of self-reported embarrassing circumstances. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 18 (2), 190-198. Miller, R. S. (1995). On the nature of embarrassabllity: Shyness, social evaluation, and social skill. Journal of personality , 63 (2), 315-339. Miller, R. S. (1996). Embarrassment: Poise and peril in everyday life. Guilford Press. Modigliani, A. (1971). Embarrassment, facework, and eye contact: Testing a theory of embarrassment. Journal of Personality and social Psychology , 17 (1), 15. Sabini, J., Siepmann, M., Stein, J., & Meyerowitz, M. (2000). Who is embarrassed by what?. Cognition & Emotion , 14 (2), 213-240. Silver, M., Sabini, J., Parrott, W. G., & Silver, M. (1987). Embarrassment: A dramaturgic account. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour , 17 (1), 47-61. Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Tangney, J. P. (2007). The self-conscious emotions. New York: Guilford . Project Gallery