Israeli researchers found that white bread does not have such a low nutritional value as people may think. A group of researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science compared white, prepackaged bread with its healthier counterpart, the whole-wheat bread.

The results were outstanding. Scientists found that when it comes to some people, there are very few differences between the two types of bread’s nutritional value, cholesterol intake, and glucose levels.

Since 1974, sales of white bread plunged 75 percent, with its healthier alternatives seeing an 85-percent sale increase over the same time period. This is mainly due to the fact that the media and research papers have demonized the white bread for causing a plethora of health issues from higher risk of diabetes to lower IQ and cancer.

The recent study which appeared in the journal Cell Metabolism revealed that consuming either white bread or brown bread for a month has different outcomes depending on the people that consume the bread.

There Were No Measurable Negative Health Outcomes of White Bread

Participants were asked to eat white bread or whole-wheat bread for a week with a two week pause after which they were asked to swap the types of bread for another week. Volunteers ate bread for 10% of their daily calorie intake.

The research team found that people reacted very differently to the foods because the mix of the microbes in their gut was very different. Lead author Dr Eran Elinav underlined that you cannot make blanket statements about a type of food, like white bread being bad for all people, because two people can react differently to the same type of food.

Nevertheless, the new study has its limitations due to its small sample size and short tracking period. Prof. Susan Jebb from the University of Oxford acknowledged the limitations but underscored that authors found no measurable negative effect on health for white bread.
Image Source: Pixabay

The girl from British Columbia who got bitten by a sea lion received seal finger treatment

A video which went viral this week showed a sea lion grabbing a little girl by the dress and pulling her into water near a dock in British Columbia, Canada. Fortunately, the grandfather of the six-year-old was quick enough to save the girl, but she still received a superficial wound. At the hospital, she received antibiotics, as she was at risk of developing a rare condition called seal finger.

What is seal finger?

A person might develop seal finger if bacteria from a sea creature’s mouth gets into their skin through cuts and bites. Initially, the infection is not severe but, if it is left untreated, it might lead to the loss of a finger. However, this condition might affect other parts of the body as well. If the bite occurs on a leg, the limb might need amputation.

The treatment also has a name, spekk finger, but it might be tricky. The bacteria which cause the infection lack a cell wall, which makes them harder to treat. Antibiotics like penicillin usually target this wall when attacking bacteria or viruses, so doctors need to be careful with the type of treatment they choose.

How to treat the infection

Fortunately, there are other kinds of antibiotics which might work better against seal finger infection. Tetracycline, for instance, does not attack the cell walls of bacteria, and this makes it suitable to treat this condition.

Seal finger was very common along fishermen or seal hunters, as they often got bitten by the animals. However, before the discovery of antibiotics, they often lost finger or limbs to this condition. The infection was painful and debilitating, and it is tricky to treat even nowadays.

The infection is sometimes resistant to certain kinds of antibiotics. If a person working at a sea park receives a sea lion bite, the vet needs to certify to what medication the infection is vulnerable before going to the hospital. It is not clear if the little girl contracted seal finger, but she received treatment as a preventive measure.
Image Source: Pixabay

The UK court found Ian Paterson guilty

The court ruled out the sentence in the case of Ian Paterson, the surgeon which allegedly performed unnecessary operations on his patients. They found him guilty of 17 cases of wounding with intent, and may be sued by 350 women who received the unnecessary surgical procedures.

The sentence came on Friday at Nottingham Crown Court. It was the culmination of the trial which lasted for seven weeks, during which the jury interrogated ten women and a man who were the victims of Paterson. However, these people only represent a small part of those operated on by the surgeon.

Hundreds of women are suing the surgeon

Thompson Solicitors brought this case against Paterson, as well as the Heart of England Foundation Trust and Spire Hospitals. They represent a number of 350 women who had to suffer after receiving an incorrect diagnosis. This led to unnecessary surgeries or unneeded or faulty treatment.

The solicitors are sure that there are many other people who were the victims of the surgeon and the hospital officials. They brought the case against the hospital, too, since they think that the officials did not take all the measures to protect their patients.

The investigation unveiled more unhealthy practices performed by Paterson over time. He got suspended in 1996 but, two years later, he regained his activity for the NHS. Then, the investigators found some reports from 2004 which stated his misconduct, but he continued to practice without bother until 2011, when he got suspended again.

Paterson performed life-threatening operations

Thus, there must be way more people who were affected by Paterson’s practices. Since Paterson’s unorthodox practices date back 20 years ago, there must be more victims who did not come to speak about their experiences, or some of them might not be alive anymore.

Among the surgeries he performed, there are many cases of important operations which could endanger the life of the patients if something had gone wrong. Among these, are were several mastectomies, which Paterson performed even though the patients were not at great risk.

One of his ‘favorite’ practices was the mastectomy where he did not remove all the tissue in the breasts but only the affected area. This is a cosmetic practice, but it is extremely dangerous, as more cancer cells may evolve in the remaining tissue.

Thus, the court found Paterson guilty of 3 counts of unlawful wounding and 17 of wounding with intent. He will no longer take advantage of people’s conditions at his own monetary benefit, as the sentencing will take place in May.
Image Source: Pexels