HIV can hide in the brain, concealed from the immune system and antiviral drugs, and cause dementia in the victim.
The discovery unravels the link between HIV infection and HIV dementia. In fact, about one in five of those infected by HIV develop dementia.
Some of the symptoms of dementia include mood swings, confusion, difficulty in performing complex tasks, failing memory, loss of judgement, social withdrawal etc.
“The persistence of the virus in the brain compromises the brain’s normal function, and leads to the death of neurons and to clinical dementia,” says Lachlan Gray, who headed the team that did the study at the Monash University and the Burnet Institute, both in Australia.
“We believe our findings will aid the development of novel drugs that will prevent HIV using the brain as a sanctuary, and help to shape future eradication strategies,” said Gray, according to a Monash statement.
Gray said: “We’ve identified changes in the way the virus reproduces, which allows it to keep a low profile and persist undetected in the brain.”
Modern drugs are very good at controlling the virus, but they are unable to eradicate it from ‘sanctuary’ sites like the brain,” said Lachlan’s supervisor, associate professor Melissa Churchill.
“Unfortunately, brain infection often leads to dementia which can be very debilitating. Somewhat more concerning, HIV is now the commonest cause of dementia in people under the age of 40, and is placing an extra burden on our mental health services,” Churchill added.
###
Political Blotter: Feds clarify medical pot policy
July 1
Anyone who cultivates, sells or distributes marijuana on a large scale -- including local or state officials in jurisdictions with laws allowing the drug's medical use -- could face federal prosecution, the U.S. Justice Department reiterated this week.
Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole issued a memo Wednesday to federal prosecutors across the nation clarifying the department's policy as set in an October 2009 memo. That memo said prosecuting significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remained a core priority, but it's not an efficient use of federal resources to nail patients with serious illnesses using marijuana consistent with state law, or their caregivers.
"The term 'caregiver' as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana," Cole wrote this week.
This stance hasn't changed, he wrote, yet "within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections
Advertisement
of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants."
The earlier memo "was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law," Cole wrote.
"Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law," he wrote. "Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws."
This comes as no surprise in Oakland, where the City Council had to shelve its plans to permit and tax large-scale marijuana farming operations after being warned by the county's district attorney and Northern California's top federal prosecutor that doing so would probably violate state and federal laws.
Still, medical marijuana advocates are decrying this week's memo as a retreat from President Barack Obama's pledge that he was "not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws," and from the 2009 memo's spirit.
"It is disingenuous of the Obama administration to say it is not attacking patients while obstructing the implementation of local and state medical marijuana laws," Americans for Safe Access Executive Director Steph Sherer said in a news release. "The president is using intimidation tactics to stop elected officials from serving their constituents, thereby pushing patients into the illicit market.
"How are federal threats against local and state officials who are adopting public health measures warranted at any time, let alone at a time of fiscal constraint?" she added. "At the same time the federal government is recognizing the rights of people living with cancer and other debilitating diseases to use medical marijuana, it is also denying them the means to obtain it legally."
Advocates are putting their energy into efforts to move marijuana off the CSA's list of most-restricted drugs, as well as legislation that would reduce federal restrictions on how states implement their own medical marijuana laws.
So far, 16 states including California plus the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana for patients with a physician's approval. Laws regulating dispensaries exist in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont, although some states have suspended those laws due to the federal policy.
-- Josh Richman
July 1
Some thoughts for Independence Day:
"America is much more than a geographical fact. It is a political and moral fact -- the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality." -- Adlai Stevenson
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -- Mark Twain
"He is a poor patriot whose patriotism does not enable him to understand how all men everywhere feel about their altars and their hearthstones, their flag and their fatherland." -- Harry Emerson Fosdick
-- Josh Richman
Anyone who cultivates, sells or distributes marijuana on a large scale -- including local or state officials in jurisdictions with laws allowing the drug's medical use -- could face federal prosecution, the U.S. Justice Department reiterated this week.
Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole issued a memo Wednesday to federal prosecutors across the nation clarifying the department's policy as set in an October 2009 memo. That memo said prosecuting significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remained a core priority, but it's not an efficient use of federal resources to nail patients with serious illnesses using marijuana consistent with state law, or their caregivers.
"The term 'caregiver' as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana," Cole wrote this week.
This stance hasn't changed, he wrote, yet "within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections
Advertisement
of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants."
The earlier memo "was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law," Cole wrote.
"Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law," he wrote. "Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws."
This comes as no surprise in Oakland, where the City Council had to shelve its plans to permit and tax large-scale marijuana farming operations after being warned by the county's district attorney and Northern California's top federal prosecutor that doing so would probably violate state and federal laws.
Still, medical marijuana advocates are decrying this week's memo as a retreat from President Barack Obama's pledge that he was "not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws," and from the 2009 memo's spirit.
"It is disingenuous of the Obama administration to say it is not attacking patients while obstructing the implementation of local and state medical marijuana laws," Americans for Safe Access Executive Director Steph Sherer said in a news release. "The president is using intimidation tactics to stop elected officials from serving their constituents, thereby pushing patients into the illicit market.
"How are federal threats against local and state officials who are adopting public health measures warranted at any time, let alone at a time of fiscal constraint?" she added. "At the same time the federal government is recognizing the rights of people living with cancer and other debilitating diseases to use medical marijuana, it is also denying them the means to obtain it legally."
Advocates are putting their energy into efforts to move marijuana off the CSA's list of most-restricted drugs, as well as legislation that would reduce federal restrictions on how states implement their own medical marijuana laws.
So far, 16 states including California plus the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana for patients with a physician's approval. Laws regulating dispensaries exist in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont, although some states have suspended those laws due to the federal policy.
-- Josh Richman
July 1
Some thoughts for Independence Day:
"America is much more than a geographical fact. It is a political and moral fact -- the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality." -- Adlai Stevenson
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -- Mark Twain
"He is a poor patriot whose patriotism does not enable him to understand how all men everywhere feel about their altars and their hearthstones, their flag and their fatherland." -- Harry Emerson Fosdick
-- Josh Richman
FDA panel against use of Avastin for breast cancer
A panel of cancer experts ruled Wednesday that Avastin - the world's best-selling cancer drug, developed by Genentech in South San Francisco - should no longer be used in breast cancer patients because of concerns the medicine didn't work as well in follow-up studies and may cause deadly bleeding.
Outside advisers to the Food and Drug Administration voted 6-0 against Avastin's use in breast cancer at a first-of-its-kind hearing in Silver Spring, Md. Their recommendations will be sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, who will make the final ruling on an unspecified date. Avastin will remain on the market because it's approved for four other types of tumors.
The decision capped two days of testimony from patients urging the panel to continue access while FDA scientists argued the drug is too dangerous. A final ruling is at least weeks away while the agency takes comments from the public through July 28. Doctors can prescribe Avastin "off label" in breast cancer even if approval is withdrawn, though insurers may no longer pay the $8,100-a-month price tag.
"There are just so many questions here and the agency has to look at protecting a larger number of patients," said panel member Ralph Freedman, a clinical professor at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The panel took a little more than an hour for its deliberations, less than half of the time allotted by the FDA. The advisers also voted unanimously that Avastin didn't have benefits in breast cancer and that its risks weren't justified.
Avastin also is used to treat lung, kidney, colon and brain cancer. Approval for those uses won't be affected by Wednesday's recommendation. Global sales last year were $6.22 billion, or 14 percent of revenue for Roche Holdings AG, Genentech's parent company based in Basel, Switzerland.
"We are very disappointed by the committee's recommendation and hope the commissioner does not decide to remove an important medicine for women with this incurable disease who already have too few treatment options," Charlotte Arnold, a spokeswoman for Roche, wrote in an e-mail. "We remain ready to collaborate with the FDA to find a solution that is in the best interest of patients who need Avastin."
The FDA gave Avastin accelerated approval for breast cancer in February 2008, overruling its advisory panel, on the basis of one study that suggested the medicine, combined with chemotherapy, slowed tumor growth by 5 1/2 months. Required follow-up tests found Avastin kept cancer at bay for one to two months. The drug was also tied to more life-threatening side effects such as severe bleeding, stomach tears and high blood pressure.
The FDA moved to withdraw Avastin's approval in breast cancer on Dec. 16 with the support of the advisory panel. Roche appealed the proposal, leading to this week's hearing.
"We all wanted Avastin to succeed, but the reality is that in these studies that we're talking about, it did not," said Natalie Compagni-Portis, the panel's patient representative from Oakland.
About a dozen patients and family members in the audience began shouting and crying after the vote, saying they'd depended on Avastin for years and had no other treatment options.
This article appeared on page D - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Outside advisers to the Food and Drug Administration voted 6-0 against Avastin's use in breast cancer at a first-of-its-kind hearing in Silver Spring, Md. Their recommendations will be sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, who will make the final ruling on an unspecified date. Avastin will remain on the market because it's approved for four other types of tumors.
The decision capped two days of testimony from patients urging the panel to continue access while FDA scientists argued the drug is too dangerous. A final ruling is at least weeks away while the agency takes comments from the public through July 28. Doctors can prescribe Avastin "off label" in breast cancer even if approval is withdrawn, though insurers may no longer pay the $8,100-a-month price tag.
"There are just so many questions here and the agency has to look at protecting a larger number of patients," said panel member Ralph Freedman, a clinical professor at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The panel took a little more than an hour for its deliberations, less than half of the time allotted by the FDA. The advisers also voted unanimously that Avastin didn't have benefits in breast cancer and that its risks weren't justified.
Avastin also is used to treat lung, kidney, colon and brain cancer. Approval for those uses won't be affected by Wednesday's recommendation. Global sales last year were $6.22 billion, or 14 percent of revenue for Roche Holdings AG, Genentech's parent company based in Basel, Switzerland.
"We are very disappointed by the committee's recommendation and hope the commissioner does not decide to remove an important medicine for women with this incurable disease who already have too few treatment options," Charlotte Arnold, a spokeswoman for Roche, wrote in an e-mail. "We remain ready to collaborate with the FDA to find a solution that is in the best interest of patients who need Avastin."
The FDA gave Avastin accelerated approval for breast cancer in February 2008, overruling its advisory panel, on the basis of one study that suggested the medicine, combined with chemotherapy, slowed tumor growth by 5 1/2 months. Required follow-up tests found Avastin kept cancer at bay for one to two months. The drug was also tied to more life-threatening side effects such as severe bleeding, stomach tears and high blood pressure.
The FDA moved to withdraw Avastin's approval in breast cancer on Dec. 16 with the support of the advisory panel. Roche appealed the proposal, leading to this week's hearing.
"We all wanted Avastin to succeed, but the reality is that in these studies that we're talking about, it did not," said Natalie Compagni-Portis, the panel's patient representative from Oakland.
About a dozen patients and family members in the audience began shouting and crying after the vote, saying they'd depended on Avastin for years and had no other treatment options.
This article appeared on page D - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Creating a blog to me then appeared as an essential complement to be able to add addresses, useful links, to speak more fully of my favorites products and obviously able to share my passion!