Thailand reports first anthrax death in decades
Thailand has reported its first anthrax death in decades, prompting authorities to track hundreds of people who have potentially been exposed to deadly bacteria.
A 53-year-old man in Mukdahan province died from the highly dangerous livestock disease, with authorities confirming a second case and investigating three more suspected infections.
The dead man had been exposed after a cow was slaughtered during a religious ceremony, according to early investigations.
The meat was later distributed and consumed within the village.
Authorities identified at least 638 people as being potentially exposed, including 36 who had taken part in butchering livestock, while the rest had consumed raw or undercooked beef.
'All individuals who may have been in contact with infected meat are being monitored,' the health ministry said.
Meanwhile the United Nations said Democratic Republic of Congo was battling its own outbreak, which had killed one person.
Medics found 16 suspected cases and one confirmed human case in the country's North Kivu Province, which has been blighted by violence and has this year seen the M23 rebel group make sweeping gains.
Anthrax is caused by a spore-forming bacteria called Bacillus anthracis and typically affects cows, sheep and goats but can also spread to people.
The bacteria produce potent toxins which are responsible for the symptoms.
The most common form is anthrax of the skin, when spores get into cuts or scratches, leading to black bumpy sores, headaches, muscle aches, fever and vomiting.
Gastrointestinal anthrax is caught from eating meat from an infected animal and can lead to severe abdominal pain, vomiting of blood and severe diarrhoea.
The rarest and most severe form of human anthrax is when the spores reach the lungs, which can cause severe breathing problems. Inhaled anthrax, if untreated, can have a fatality rate as high as 90 per cent.
Thai officials said the dead man was a construction worker with underlying diabetes. He developed a lesion on his right hand on April 24 and was hospitalised three days later.
As his symptoms got worse, his wound turned black, his lymph nodes swelled up in his armpit and he began fainting and having seizures.
Globally, there are thought to be a few thousand human cases each year. This week's death was the first anthrax fatality in Thailand since 1994.
Thailand last reported human anthrax cases in 2017, when two people were infected without fatalities. In 2000, 15 cases were recorded, also without deaths.
Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Huma launches genAI clinical documentation tool
British healthtech company Huma Therapeutics has initiated the global launch of Hi Scribe, a generative AI (genAI) clinical documentation tool designed to automate and streamline the creation of clinical notes. Powered by over 60 million consultations conducted by eConsult, which Huma acquired last year, Hi Scribe is available through the Huma Cloud Platform (HCP), providing real time clinical documentation automation and the generation of structured clinical notes that can be directly integrated into electronic health record (EHR) systems. Hi Scribe is already launched in the UK to 870 practices, covering around 10 million patients, with write-back and coding capabilities for the EHR systems EMIS and SystmOne. Now rolling out across more than 4,500 health systems and clinics powered by Huma technologies, worldwide, Huma CEO and founder Dan Vahdat stated that administrative burdens such as process compliance and accurate billing remain some of the 'greatest challenges' facing healthcare systems globally. 'Hi Scribe gives clinicians critical time back, allowing them to focus on what matters most: their patients,' said Vahdat. Initiation of the tool's global launch follows the UK's National Health Service (NHS) England guidance around using AI-enabled scribing products in healthcare settings that was issued in April. Relating to best practices surrounding controls and implementation, the NHS guidelines advise healthcare systems to integrate such AI products with their principal EHR system and to ensure legal and regulatory requirements are factored into the procurement and implementation of their chosen products. Dr Murray Ellender, head of UK Healthcare at Huma commented: 'By leveraging genAI with strong regulatory governance, we are ensuring safe, effective, and efficient care. We are excited in the near future to start helping care providers with intelligent suggestions for next steps — ensuring that nothing is left unnoticed.' Huma recently announced a partnership with growth equity company Eckuity to support its development of technology infrastructure to support ongoing plans to acquire companies and launch digital solutions across the healthcare space. "Huma launches genAI clinical documentation tool" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Women shouldn't drink alcohol, say scientists. These are the facts
We cling tightly to the studies that say the odd glass of red is healthy, reminding us how it's packed with polyphenols and brings down your stress levels to boot. But in April, the World Cancer Research Fund ruled that women should be avoiding alcohol just as strenuously as cigarettes as 'any amount of alcohol increases breast cancer risk'. With the average British woman drinking nine units of alcohol each week, this is bad news. These days we cringe when we see characters in old movies pull out the cigarettes at the first hint of drama. It might have been normal decades ago, but we have come to see smoking as a habit that's uniquely bad for our health. Now, scientists believe that our favourite national pastime could be just as dangerous, for women at least. Here is what we know and how much you can get away with drinking without significantly raising your risk. It's not what any of us want to hear, but alcohol is 'a known carcinogen,' says Britta Stordal, an associate professor in cancer research at Middlesex University. When you drink alcohol, 'your body turns it into acetaldehyde, which is a compound known to cause cancer,' she explains. For this reason, 'any amount of alcohol that you drink increases your risk of cancer'. The World Cancer Research Fund has advised that to reduce our risk of bowel cancer, we should restrict alcohol; however, to reduce breast cancer risk, women should avoid alcohol entirely. The reality is that drinking alcohol is especially likely to lead to breast cancer rather than other cancers. 'Alcohol is turned into acetaldehyde primarily in your liver, but this process can also happen inside of breast tissue,' Prof Stordal says. 'We also know that drinking alcohol increases your oestrogen levels, which can also increase cancer risk in women.' There is a 'dose response' involved in breast cancer risk, says Dr Harriet Rumgay, an epidemiologist at the World Health Organization in its international agency for research on cancer. This means that 'the more alcohol you drink, the greater your risk,' she says. Though smoking is 'still much more harmful to us than alcohol when it comes to all of the consequences for your health, the evidence does say that women should try to limit their alcohol consumption as much as possible to reduce their breast cancer risk, as 8 per cent of all breast cancer cases in women are attributable to drinking [alcohol],' Dr Rumgay says. Women who drink two bottles of wine a week are at a 27 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who drink two bottles of wine every week, around 14 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors like weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke. This compares with the number of non-drinking women who will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, a figure that's at 11 in 100. If you're keen on wine, you might like to have a large glass most nights with dinner, bringing you up to at least two bottles of wine drunk each week. In units, that's equivalent to nine pints of beer or cider throughout the week, or nine double-shot cocktails. According to the World Health Organization, drinking two bottles of wine a week is in 'the middle category of risk, rather than being judged as high risk,' says Dr Rumgay. For a postmenopausal woman, however, drinking in this way could lead to 'a 27 per cent higher risk of developing breast cancer,' says Dr Rumgay. Postmenopausal women are affected differently to premenopausal women when it comes to breast cancer risk. Scientists are still trying to determine why that is. 'It might just be a fact of age, because as you age, your cells have more of a chance to divide and mutate, leading to cancer,' says Dr Rumgay. 'But postmenopausal women also have different amounts of hormones in their systems. For these women, drinking alcohol could be more likely to cause breast cancer, because the increase in oestrogen that comes with drinking alcohol causes more cell proliferation, where your body's cells divide to produce more of themselves. Whenever this happens, there is the risk that one of those cells will mutate and become cancerous.' Women who drink 14 units of alcohol a week are at a 22 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who drink 14 units of alcohol every week, around 14 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors like weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke. One in seven women in Britain drink more than 14 units a week, the 'low-risk' guideline set by the Government, and they are at a 22 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink. Drinking 14 units of alcohol every week, equivalent to six medium glasses of wine, would give you a 14.4 per cent chance of developing breast cancer over the course of your life, not including other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not you smoke. But what about the much-quoted government advice that 14 units a week is the safe limit on drinking for women? When it comes to breast cancer risk, 'this is quite outdated advice,' says Prof Stordal. 'I suspect that the 14-unit guideline doesn't properly take cancer risk into account. Instead it's likely based more on issues like liver damage, and is a combination of what the health research suggests is sensible and what people are already doing in a specific country.' Canada has recently introduced alcohol guidelines that explain the increased risk of cancer with the number of units that you consume. 'I'd love to see the UK bring this in instead, just so that people can be aware,' says Prof Stordal. 'I certainly didn't know about the extent of the risk for a long time.' According to Alcohol Change UK, just one drink per day (1.25 units) can increase your breast cancer risk by 7 per cent. Smoking, either regularly or occasionally, leads to a 7 per cent increased risk of breast cancer, and of 100 women that currently smoke, 12 will develop breast cancer over the course of their lives. 'Smoking is worse for your health for a huge number of reasons, however, so I wouldn't want people to think that it's safer to smoke than to drink,' says Dr Rumgay. Women who drink a small glass of wine every day, equivalent to around 10 units a week, are at a 15 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have a small glass of wine every day, around 13 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors like weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke. Much alcohol risk research looks at everyday drinking. The facts are in: having a single drink a day, four times or more each week, can lead to a 20 per cent greater risk of early death. When it comes to breast cancer, the risks escalate further. A report by the American Institute for Cancer Research found in 2017 that one glass of wine a day increased the risk of cancer by 9 per cent in postmenopausal women, and by 5 per cent in premenopausal women. Studies such as this tend to use the WHO's definition of a standard drink: a drink containing 10g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of wine. So having just one tiny glass a day could be having a big impact on your health, and while it may keep you from being too tipsy, 'there's not enough evidence to say whether having food with your wine is any better for your cancer risk, though this is something that research could tell us in the future,' says Dr Rumgay. Women who drink eight double-shot cocktails or eight medium glasses of wine over the course of a weekend are at a 24 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have eight drinks of this size every weekend, around 14 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors such as weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke. Women who drink four of these drinks over the course of a weekend, meanwhile, are at a 12 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink. Of 100 women who have four drinks of this size every weekend, around 13 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives. While having alcohol-free days can improve your health, there are added dangers to drinking large amounts of alcohol in one sitting, says Dr Rumgay. One study she worked on in the past found that 'the risk of breast cancer was increased by 40 per cent in women that had had any occasion of heavy episodic drinking in the year leading up to the research,' she says. We might not think of it as such, but the WHO classes 'heavy episodic drinking' or binge drinking as consuming 60g of pure alcohol or more in a single drinking session. That's equivalent to just over two large glasses of wine. Research into the effects of weekend-only drinking is still ongoing, but 'premenopausal women who binge drink seem to be twice as likely to develop breast cancer,' says Prof Stordal. 'There is some confidence in the notion that having this carcinogenic compound in your system in high concentrations after a weekend of drinking could be more dangerous compared with having the same quantity over the course of a longer period.' Women who have one drink three times a week are at a 9 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have one drink three times a week, around 12 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not including other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke. Having a break between the days that you visit the pub or have a glass of wine with your dinner is certainly good for your health, says Dr Rumgay. 'Drinking frequently can lead to systemic inflammation of the body,' she explains. 'If you cut the number of days that you drink, or spread them out, then it's possible that your body has more time to recover from this inflammatory state, which could potentially avoid increasing your risk of cancer.' Even this amount of alcohol can increase your cancer risk, however. Another study that Dr Rumgay worked on found that 'having just half a standard drink every day increases breast cancer risk by 4 per cent,' she says. Women who have one drink once a week are at a 3 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have one drink a week, around 11 would develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, not taking into account other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke. The same amount of non-drinking women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives More than 40 per cent of women in Britain drink at least once a week. The effects of having one drink each week are hard to study, however, as 'most people either drink more than once a week or don't drink at all,' says Dr Rumgay. The numbers still show that even this much alcohol consumption can increase your risk of breast cancer – though you might see a 3 per cent increased risk as something you're willing to tolerate. Women who have one drink every other week are at a 2 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have one drink a few times a month, around would develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, not taking into account other factors such as genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke. Again, there isn't a lot of research into this pattern of drinking, though 'any amount of alcohol still increases your risk of breast cancer,' says Dr Rumgay. 'The simple advice I always give is reduction,' says Prof Stordal. 'Whether that's cutting down to once a week or once every few weeks, whatever you can do will benefit you.' Women who have fewer than six drinks over the course of a whole year are 0.3 per cent more likely to develop breast cancer than women who don't drink. Of 100 women who have one drink fewer than six times a year, 11 would develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, not taking into account other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke. So while no amount of drinking is completely safe, you may be pleased to know that you can celebrate with a drink a few times a year and only increase your risk of breast cancer marginally, 'though the general consensus is that anything more than zero does raise your risk,' says Dr Rumgay. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Funding Gavi is the simplest financial decision facing Keir Starmer. He must get it right
When he announced he was cutting international cooperation and aid to its lowest level on record, Keir Starmer promised he would protect global health. He is now about to take a decision that will show how serious he was. Will he maintain the UK's support for the global vaccine alliance, Gavi, which has prevented an estimated 18 million deaths since its inception in 2000? In the view of Save the Children and more than 150 other organisations around the world, it is critical that he does. Gavi has been one of the most effective investments in public health in modern history. In the last 25 years, the alliance has helped immunise more than a billion children. Gavi supports the rollout of vaccines for everything from measles to polio to Ebola. In doing so, it not only saves lives but builds up national health systems, strengthens pandemic preparedness and helps protect us all – everywhere including Britain – from the spread of infectious disease. Five years ago, through the Covid-19 pandemic, we witnessed that when it comes to health, nobody is safe until everyone is safe. Gavi's purpose is to shield us from the re-emergence of pandemics and lethal but preventable diseases. The fact that it is struggling to secure enough money to continue its critical mission tells us a lot about the geo-political climate today and the false instinct to draw back from international cooperation to solve global problems. Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective health interventions known to mankind. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates the return on routine vaccinations at $54 for every $1 invested. You'll be hard-pressed to find a more attractive investment proposition; and that's before you take account of the human factor. Anyone who has met a mother mourning a child who could have been saved by a routine jab or seen toddlers gasping for breath because their measles has turned into pneumonia, will know what I mean. I understand it can feel difficult to back aid in times of economic crisis, budget deficits and a struggling NHS here at home. When it comes to Gavi and global health security, however, the benefits so outweigh the costs that any vacillation seems incomprehensible. Infectious diseases know no borders, and the cost comes home to Britain. In 2023-24, more than 20 per cent of secondary care bed days in the NHS were attributable to infectious disease or infections. The cost to the NHS was £5.9 billion. Gavi's role in supporting routine vaccination and its stockpiles of vaccines against killers such as Ebola, cholera and yellow fever represent our first line of defence against future pandemics and the terrible costs counted in ruined lives and devastating economic damage. Some say governments in the Global South could, and maybe should, buy their own vaccines. They ask why British taxpayers should pay for jabs for African arms. This misses an important point: vaccine markets, like many essential commodities, are global. If every country did its own procurement, the poorest – those with the lowest bargaining power – would immediately be priced out of essential, life saving vaccines. Perhaps the most important thing Gavi has done in the last 30 years is to shape this market. By guaranteeing the purchase of hundreds of millions of vaccines over many years, Gavi has enabled pharma companies to manufacture many more doses and, through economies of scale, do it much more cheaply than would otherwise be the case. It has also enticed other firms to enter the fray and compete. Witness the Serum Institute of India, which played a major role in supplying Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic and has now become a vaccine manufacturing giant. And Gavi works with countries to 'graduate' so that they pay for an increasingly large share of their own vaccines as they become richer, thereby ensuring that aid-funded doses go to the poorest and most vulnerable countries. The UK, as a founding member, has helped Gavi become the world-changing alliance it is today. Our partnership has put British scientific leadership in the global spotlight. From 18 million doses of ground-breaking malaria vaccines that are already saving lives in Africa to digital biometric identification and record-keeping that are transforming health systems in Ghana, Gavi links UK scientists and innovators with partner governments in the global South. At Save the Children, we're working with national governments and local communities – for example in Malawi where a recent cholera outbreak killed more than 1,700 people – to make sure children are protected from deadly and debilitating illness. With our private sector partner GSK, we are targeting millions of 'zero-dose' children who are completely unvaccinated in Nigeria and Ethiopia. In war-torn Sudan, we are transporting vials into a country whose health services are shattered. All this would be immeasurably harder to do without Gavi ensuring that vaccines are made affordably in large enough quantities for the most vulnerable populations. To keep up UK funding of Gavi is one of the most straightforward decisions this government must make. I know a bargain when I see one. I hope Keir Starmer will too. Moazzam Malik is chief executive of Save the Children UK Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
