Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Chemotherapy is usually associated with a collection of side effects ranging from digestive problems to hair loss, but a study published this week in Human Reproduction demonstrated that female cancer patients may find they have something in common with much younger women in one specific area — their ovaries.

Scientists from the University of Edinburgh examined donated ovarian tissue from fourteen female cancer patients, most of whom had Hodgkin lymphoma, and compared it to tissue from healthy women. They found the samples from women who had been treated with a specific chemotherapeutic regimen known as ABVD not only contained greater numbers of dormant ova — egg cells — than those from women treated with harsher regimens but also more than samples from healthy women. ABVD is named for combining several drugs known as adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine.

These reproductive cells were not merely more plentiful in ABVD patients. They also appeared immature, “new” in the words of lead researcher Evelyn Telfer. This challenges the conventional belief that girls are born with all the ova they will ever have and the numbers can only go down as the cells are either used up by the reproductive cycle or succumb to damage or natural aging. However, further research is needed to confirm this. The study covered relatively few patients by scientific standards, and David Albertini of the Center for Human Reproduction in New York has suggested the cells may not actually be freshly grown. Instead, they may have always been there and were merely rendered more detectable by ABVD treatment.

The ability to grow new egg cells may have significant implications for women in Western societies, many of whom postpone childbearing to establish careers, sometimes into their late thirties or forties. However, Telfer warns against making use of these findings too soon: “There’s so much we don’t know about the ovary. We have to be very cautious about jumping to clinical applications.”

The experiments had been discussed earlier this year at the annual conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Legislators in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, are proposing a new law that would make pet owners criminally responsible for their animal’s actions.

This follows the death of a boy after a dog attack. The proposal would make it a category IV misdemeanor if a conviction for negligence is gained against a pet owner charged for their dog biting someone, punishable by a $250 fine. For a second offense, the penalty can go up to $1000 or 6 months in jail, and for a third offense, $2500, or a year in jail. The legislation, if enacted, would enable the creation of a criminal profile for a negligent animal owner and the animal itself.

On a CBS6 news report broadcast recently on an Orange County boy killed by the family dog, they said the station received many angry e-mails from dog owners about the story when it was aired earlier that day. It is a topic that draws strong views from both sides of the argument, and probably explains why the Commonwealth of Virginia has been strangely quiet on the subject. It appears the state government is willing at this point to let it be slugged out at the county level, while remaining distant and learning from it above the fray. This means that if a Spotsylvania County dog owner cannot abide a new law that might fine him $250 because his dog bit the mailman, he can move to a nearby county where no such law exists.

The legal wording the county might use in drafting the legislation should not concern itself with the species of pet. All pets should be affected because the legislation should be indiscriminate. What it needs to concern itself with is what meets the definition of a pet, and exactly what negligence is.

Recall that Dianna Large, now charged with a felony, originally said she owned only 1 of the 3 pit bulls involved in the attack that killed an elderly woman. Even if she later recanted that, if her defense can show that her status as pet owner of the other 2 dogs is only slight, or if it exists at all under current law, that would have a big impact on the case.

There will be a public hearing on May 10 to discuss proposals that may change county legislation.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

A 16-year-old male from Novato, California has been arrested in Tennessee over allegations he intended to hijack a commercial passenger airliner in the United States.

The boy, who was unnamed due to his age, was a passenger on board Southwest Airlines Flight 284 from Los Angeles to Nashville on Tuesday, with his parents reporting him missing at 11:30 am the same day. Although he remained calm throughout the flight and made no hijacking attempt, authorities report he had handcuffs, duct tape and yarn inside the aircraft cabin with him. Although his arrest was only made public on Friday, it is reported that he was detained immediately on reaching Nashville International Airport.

George Bolds, a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said that the items were “suspicious” and that the boy had informed the FBI he had indeed intended to hijack the aircraft. An FBI agent told reporters that he felt the plot was ill-conceived, saying “His plan had a low probability of success.”

The FBI also conducted a search of his home on Thursday, finding in his room “a photograph of the inside of a small aircraft, something you’d find in a bookstore.”

Subsequent to his arrest he pled guilty on Friday to a “delinquent act,” according to local officials. A juvenile court judge ordered him to be returned to California for continued perusal of that charge as well as others set to be made. He is currently in Davidson County Juvenile Detention Center in Nashville.

Authorities believe that the teen was suicidal, but the FBI dismissed earlier reports alleging that he intended to crash the airliner into a Hannah Montana concert in Lafayette, Louisiana.

Monday, March 28, 2005

San Jose, California — As the April 15 deadline for U.S. private citizens to file their 2004 income tax returns draws near, the government is reminding sellers on eBay that they may have to report any proceeds from sales on the auction site as taxable income.

This could be a surprise to some of the 135 million registered eBay users who consider trading on San Jose-based auction site to be a non-taxable hobby. Complicating matters, eBay says it doesn’t report individual sales figures to the government – users are responsible to report any profits on their own tax returns.

The amount of money traveling through eBay is big business. $33.8 billion worth of merchandise was sold on the site in 2004, up from $5.2 billion in 2000.

Although eBay pays taxes on its share of the sales (5.25 percent cut from each transaction as of Feb. 18), the IRS fears some small businesses are using the site to dodge tax responsibility. Adding to the confusion, some sellers may legally be a taxable business without realizing it.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service has a nine-point checklist it uses to determine whether or not a money-making activity is legally a business, which means money made is taxable, or a simple hobby – where it is not taxable. The IRS can consider a person to be a legal “business” even though they never incorporated or claimed to be one.

According to Woodbury, New York-based accountant Bart Fooden in an Associated Press interview, the IRS looks for such things as evidence that the auction seller depends on the eBay sales income to pay for activities other than maintaining the hobby, acts in a businesslike manner when selling on auctions or puts enough time and effort into the eBay activities that there is an obvious intent to make a profit.

But Fooden said in the same interview casual users probably have nothing to worry about. Those cleaning out closets or the garage and selling off junk for less than the original price paid are not turning a profit, so that money is not considered income and is not taxable.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

A woman in The Netherlands who uses her dogs to hunt in Austria has decided to give her dogs a new kind of treat: beer.

Terrie Berenden, a woman who owns a pet shop in Amsterdam, created a non-alcoholic beer for her dogs which is made from malt and a beef extract. The beer is called Kwispelbier (‘kwispelen’ means “wagging of a [dog’s] tail” in Dutch), and was put onto shelves just last week.

“Once a year we go to Austria to hunt with our dogs, and at the end of the day we sit on the verandah and drink a beer. So we thought, my dog also has earned it,” said Berenden.

According to Berenden, owners can enjoy the new beer as well, but she also stated that it will cost owners about four times as much to drink the beer than to buy a ‘human beer.’ A bottle of the dog beer sells at about $2.14.

The slogan for the new dog beer is “a beer for your best friend” and Brenden hopes that the product will grab international attention. Requests for the beer are already coming from the United States, England and Japan.

“We are overwhelmed with it. From America, England and Japan we have (received) mail and we are just going to think about it, how we can bring it on the market there,” said Brenden.