Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Exoskeleton Helps Paralyzed Man Walk For First Time In Twenty Years
One of the coolest realms of technology currently transitioning from sci-fi to practical is that of exoskeletons. Above is an astonishing video of one such device in action, a medical model that helps a quadriplegic man walk for the first time in 20 years. The exoskeletons are still in development, with the one in the video a prototype that's about to undergo US trials. If this is what an early model can do, can you imagine where we'll be in 10 years with the technology? Here's hoping the FDA finds a way to speed these through approval.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
IVF 'greed': clinics shun cheaper treatment
Private IVF clinics are resisting moves to offer cheaper treatment, which would give more Australian women a chance to conceive a child, because they are worried about their profit margins, according to one of the world's leading fertility experts.
Professor Alan Trounson, who delivered Australia's first test tube baby in 1980, said cheaper IVF was available to women overseas, including a method being trialled in Africa for less than $300 a cycle, plus labour costs. While the method would be more expensive here because of the high price of labour, it could still be provided at a fraction of the price private clinics now charged for their treatments, he said.
Medicare covers about 80 per cent of standard treatment fees but out-of-pocket costs can range from $1000 to $3000 per IVF cycle, making it too expensive for many couples.
Professor Trounson, founder of The Low Cost IVF Foundation, said the low-tech method, which he piloted, was as effective as treatments used now in Australia and should be made available to all women - particularly those in developing countries and on low incomes.
But he said a widespread rollout would be scuppered by those with commercial interests at all stages of the IVF process. ''This should be about freedom of choice, but everywhere you go there's entrenchment,'' Professor Trounson said from San Francisco, where he is president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. ''We've got under-resourced populations that can't access IVF, and the ethics committees say 'well, they shouldn't get a lesser treatment', but that's not a reasoned argument.
''Clinicians who work in this area make an awful lot of money and they have an interest in keeping it that way.''
IVF is an increasingly common procedure in Australia, with more than 85,000 babies born since the technology was introduced. There is a growing global push for low-cost or ''minimally invasive'' IVF amid concerns increasingly expensive drugs and refined technology are making fertility treatment the preserve of the wealthy.
Professor Trounson's low-tech procedure strips treatment back to its early days, with basic equipment and oral drugs that are cheaper and have fewer side effects than hormone injections used in conventional treatment, meaning fewer blood tests and ultrasounds are required.
The drugs stimulate the body to produce one or two eggs per cycle, with a 12 per cent pregnancy rate, compared with 10 to 12 eggs per cycle and a 30 to 35 per cent success rate with conventional IVF. Fertility doctors are divided on its efficacy, with critics saying it is unethical to offer women a ''substandard'' treatment that has a lower pregnancy rate per cycle.
But supporters argue that over several IVF cycles the success rate is comparable. This is because the low-cost method is less gruelling, allowing patients to start another cycle within a month rather than having to delay their next attempt.
The method has been delivered in pilot form in Sudan, Namibia and South Africa for less than $300 a cycle. Some countries, including Japan, are already offering women a low-cost option. Women in Britain can access publicly funded IVF through the National Health Service.
In Australia, a few public hospitals do offer discount IVF but the waiting lists are long.
But Geoff Driscoll, founder of IVF Australia, who left the organisation in 2002, said prices would remain high here as there was no competition between the private equity groups that now owned the major clinics.
''The commercialisation of IVF is a potent disincentive to deliver the product cheaper,'' said Professor Driscoll, who is director of reproductive medicine at the University of New South Wales and is on the scientific board of the Low Cost IVF Foundation.
He said pharmaceutical companies were pushing the most expensive drugs. ''It gets back to the the philosophy of offering [IVF] to the masses. Not everyone needs caviar. Many people can get by with rice.''
Gab Kovacs, international medical director with private clinic Monash IVF, argued that Australian treatment was relatively affordable. Optimal treatment incurred costs for services including nurses, embryologists, doctors, counsellors, laboratory work and blood tests which might not be available with a low-cost model.
''It's not up to the IVF units to look after people who can't afford it, it's up to the government,'' Professor Kovacs said.
''This is not a medical decision, it's a social decision, and our politicians have to decide whether IVF is something that should be made available to poor people free of charge.''
Jill Stark
February 13, 2011
Professor Alan Trounson, who delivered Australia's first test tube baby in 1980, said cheaper IVF was available to women overseas, including a method being trialled in Africa for less than $300 a cycle, plus labour costs. While the method would be more expensive here because of the high price of labour, it could still be provided at a fraction of the price private clinics now charged for their treatments, he said.
Medicare covers about 80 per cent of standard treatment fees but out-of-pocket costs can range from $1000 to $3000 per IVF cycle, making it too expensive for many couples.
Professor Trounson, founder of The Low Cost IVF Foundation, said the low-tech method, which he piloted, was as effective as treatments used now in Australia and should be made available to all women - particularly those in developing countries and on low incomes.
But he said a widespread rollout would be scuppered by those with commercial interests at all stages of the IVF process. ''This should be about freedom of choice, but everywhere you go there's entrenchment,'' Professor Trounson said from San Francisco, where he is president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. ''We've got under-resourced populations that can't access IVF, and the ethics committees say 'well, they shouldn't get a lesser treatment', but that's not a reasoned argument.
''Clinicians who work in this area make an awful lot of money and they have an interest in keeping it that way.''
IVF is an increasingly common procedure in Australia, with more than 85,000 babies born since the technology was introduced. There is a growing global push for low-cost or ''minimally invasive'' IVF amid concerns increasingly expensive drugs and refined technology are making fertility treatment the preserve of the wealthy.
Professor Trounson's low-tech procedure strips treatment back to its early days, with basic equipment and oral drugs that are cheaper and have fewer side effects than hormone injections used in conventional treatment, meaning fewer blood tests and ultrasounds are required.
The drugs stimulate the body to produce one or two eggs per cycle, with a 12 per cent pregnancy rate, compared with 10 to 12 eggs per cycle and a 30 to 35 per cent success rate with conventional IVF. Fertility doctors are divided on its efficacy, with critics saying it is unethical to offer women a ''substandard'' treatment that has a lower pregnancy rate per cycle.
But supporters argue that over several IVF cycles the success rate is comparable. This is because the low-cost method is less gruelling, allowing patients to start another cycle within a month rather than having to delay their next attempt.
The method has been delivered in pilot form in Sudan, Namibia and South Africa for less than $300 a cycle. Some countries, including Japan, are already offering women a low-cost option. Women in Britain can access publicly funded IVF through the National Health Service.
In Australia, a few public hospitals do offer discount IVF but the waiting lists are long.
But Geoff Driscoll, founder of IVF Australia, who left the organisation in 2002, said prices would remain high here as there was no competition between the private equity groups that now owned the major clinics.
''The commercialisation of IVF is a potent disincentive to deliver the product cheaper,'' said Professor Driscoll, who is director of reproductive medicine at the University of New South Wales and is on the scientific board of the Low Cost IVF Foundation.
He said pharmaceutical companies were pushing the most expensive drugs. ''It gets back to the the philosophy of offering [IVF] to the masses. Not everyone needs caviar. Many people can get by with rice.''
Gab Kovacs, international medical director with private clinic Monash IVF, argued that Australian treatment was relatively affordable. Optimal treatment incurred costs for services including nurses, embryologists, doctors, counsellors, laboratory work and blood tests which might not be available with a low-cost model.
''It's not up to the IVF units to look after people who can't afford it, it's up to the government,'' Professor Kovacs said.
''This is not a medical decision, it's a social decision, and our politicians have to decide whether IVF is something that should be made available to poor people free of charge.''
Jill Stark
February 13, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Appendix removed through vagina
On March 26, 2008, surgeons at UC San Diego Medical Center removed an inflamed appendix through a patient’s vagina, a first in the United States. Following the 50-minute procedure, the patient, Diana Schlamadinger, reported only minor discomfort. Removal of diseased organs through the body’s natural openings offers patients a rapid recovery, minimal pain, and no scarring.
The procedure, called Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES), involves passing surgical instruments through a natural orifice, such as the mouth or vagina, to remove a diseased organ such as an appendix or gallbladder. Only one incision is made through the belly button for the purpose of inserting a two millimeter camera into the abdominal cavity so the surgeons can safely access the surgical site…
Schlamadinger, a third-year graduate student at UC San Diego working toward her Ph.D. in chemistry, reported her pain as a ’1′ or a ’0.5′ on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest. The opportunity to participate in the clinical trial was attractive to the scientist in her.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Doctors Will Use Dell Streak Tablets When Treating Patients
At 5-inches, the Streak is a lot more portable than the iPad—but still not quite as pocket-friendly (lab coat-friendly?) as the iPhone. Nonetheless, that's where Dell wants to place its tablets, ramming it with a healthcare software app.
I wasn't aware of this, but it seems Dell has quite the reputation in the medical world, with its software aiding doctors, nurses and other medical practitioners with staying up-to-date with patients' medical records. They purchased Perot Systems for $3.9 billion last year, gaining the company's technology and reputation in this area.
We've all heard the stories of doctors using iPhones, but with the Streak Dell aims to fight back, giving the tablet to doctors to test later this year. The dual cameras will supposedly be useful for recording the patient's progress, and via the app they can update their electronic medical records.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Why Apple Will Not Release a Cloud-Based iPhone Nano This Year
I like the idea of an iPhone nano. One with a small screen with the same resolution of an iPhone 3GS, powered by an A4 processor. I'd buy one. But a cloud-based iPhone doesn't make any sense. Not right now.
A source at Cult of Mac claims that this is exactly what is going to happen: An iPhone nano with no storage, just some "buffer memory". This new device would pull and push everything, from the videos and photos you take to the songs you listen to. Everything will upload and download to and from the cloud. "The iPhone nano will have no memory for onboard storage of media," the source says. The Wall Street Journal claims that it will have "limited storage" too—and "MobileMe [...] would serve as a locker [...] eliminating the need for devices to carry a lot of memory."
That's really nice. It's my wet dream: A phone that uploads photos and videos in real time to your personal space in the cloud? Beam me up. A phone that can access all the music and videos and books in real time? No more synchronization at last! All your information safe and protected? It's THE FUTURE! But I don't think the future can happen this year. Not until a lot of things get fixed.
The networks suck
I lose my connection at least once a day. It doesn't matter if you are on AT&T or Verizon or whatever other operator in the world. It happens. It may be a network hiccup caused by rush hour. It may be a dark spot, in the subway or in a restaurant with no reception.
For this cloud vision of the iPhone to work, network access would have to be truly ubiquitous and 100% dependable all of the time. Right now, no cell network can offer this. The network itself would cripple the product and make users angry every time a photo didn't get saved or a song didn't play.
The cost would be prohibitive
The other problem is cost. There aren't unlimited data plans anymore. AT&T has scrapped them. Even if you get Verizon's, they will cap your data transfer speed over a certain the limit. A 100% cloud-based iPhone will pass that limit easily. And most operators in the world offer the same speed-throttled plans.
So even if the networks were perfect, it would be an expensive phone to have or an unusably slow one after some real use.
Battery life
If the phone accesses the network to pull and push everything, you will be depleting the battery really fast. 3G connectivity sucks a lot of juice, and this theoretical iPhone nano would probably have a smaller battery to begin with, just because it's supposedly tiny.
MobileMe is really bad
Unless Apple has made a lot of progress in their network abilities, experience has shown us that their cloud services are more useless than drunk pandas having the sex. I find it hard to believe that a future MobileMe would be so perfect that it would not affect the user experience.
And that's the key: The User Experience. Apple is obsessed with it, which is why they will not depend on the cloud until all these things are fixed. Because—when the user finds these problems—they are going to blame their iPhone nano. Not the network.
I can imagine the iPhone nano with storage. Not a lot of it. 8GB will be enough for most people, perhaps integrated in the same silicon as the A4 processor to save costs. That would (almost)* work.
Of course, you can add cloud services today, just like Windows Phone 7 already does. Things like automatic over-the-air synchronization of everything to the cloud, a la Dropbox. Or Spotify-style streaming, please. But Apple will not depend on the network for functions that users expect to happen seamlessly and perfectly, no matter where they are. Right now, you just can't have a zero-storage phone.
* The only thing I can't see in this whole iPhone nano business is the keyboard. How much smaller can the iPhone get before you need toothpicks to type?
By Jesus Diaz
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)