In the early seventeenth century, the Jews formally established two separate communities in Amsterdam, the Portuguese Sephardi and the High German Ashkenazi congregations. Until the end of the eighteenth century, medical care for the Amsterdam indigent Jews had been controlled and regulated by the powerful Parnasim, the de facto rulers, of each community. The primary communal organizations that were exclu¬sively responsible for medical care for the poor were the Bikur Holim societies. This approach for the care of the indigent Jewish sick became ineffective in the nineteenth century and was replaced by a hospital-based system. This essay describes how seriously ill indigent Jews in nineteenth-century Amsterdam received hospital care, tracing the establishment and development of the first Ashkenazi and Sephardi hospitals in the city. Although each community established their own hospital, they used different approaches to accomplish this goal.
Alfred Nobel was one of the most successful chemists, inventors, entrepreneurs, and businessmen of the late nineteenth century. In a decision later in life, he rewrote his will to leave virtually all his fortune to establish prizes for persons of any nationality who made the most compelling achievement for the benefit of mankind in the fields of chemistry, physics, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace among nations. The prizes were first awarded in 1901, five years after his death. In considering his choice of prizes, it may be pertinent that he used the principles of chemistry and physics in his inventions and he had a lifelong devotion to science, he suffered and died from severe coronary and cerebral atherosclerosis, and he was a bibliophile, an author, and mingled with the literati of Paris. His interest in harmony among nations may have derived from the effects of the applications of his inventions in warfare (“merchant of death”) and his friendship with a leader in the movement to bring peace to nations of Europe. After some controversy, including Nobel’s citizenship, the mechanisms to choose the laureates and make four of the awards were developed by a foundation established in Stockholm; the choice of the laureate for promoting harmony among nations was assigned to the Norwegian Storting, another controversy. The Nobel Prizes after 115 years remain the most prestigious of awards. This review describes the man, his foundation, and the prizes with a special commentary on the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, known as Maimonides, or The “Rambam” (a Hebrew acronym for his name), was one of the greatest arbiters of all times on matters of Jewish law, one of the greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages, a scientist, and a researcher. In addition, he was a court physician to the Egyptian Sultan. In addition to his monumental work on Jewish law and ethics, his writings on medicine have been considered classics over the generations. The aim of this paper is to assess Maimonides’ health regimen and to compare his dietary recommendations with contemporary dietary regimens. To this end, Maimonides’ recommendations were compared to the modern guidelines of the United States, the Netherlands, and the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as to the Mediterranean diet, which is popular worldwide. Both marked similarities and contrasts were noted between Maimonides’ and modern recommendations. Most of Maimonides’ medical recommendations remain relevant more than 800 years later.
Metallic drug-eluting stents have led to significant improvements in clinical outcomes but are inherently limited by their caging of the vessel wall. Fully bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) have emerged in an effort to overcome these limitations, allowing a “leave nothing behind” approach. Although theoretically appealing, the initial experience with BRS technology was limited by increased rates of scaffold thrombosis compared with contemporary stents. This review gives a broad outline of the current BRS technologies and outlines the refinements in BRS design, procedural approach, lesion selection, and post-procedural care that resulted from early BRS trials.
Determining appropriate care for patients who cannot speak for themselves is one of the most challenging issues in contemporary healthcare and medical decision-making. While there has been much discussion relating to patients who left some sort of instructions, such as an advance directive, or have someone to speak on their behalf, less has been written on caring for patients who have nobody at all available to speak for them. It is thus crucial to develop clear and rigorous guidelines to properly care for these patients. The Jewish tradition offers an important perspective on caring for unrepresented patients and determining approaches to guide care providers. This article develops an understanding of fundamental Jewish principles that can provide clear guidance in navigating this challenge. It applies those values to a specific set of suggested behaviors, one of which adds a novel ritualized component to what has been recommended by bioethicists in the past.
Background: Early thyroid cancers have excellent long-term outcomes, yet the word “cancer” draws unnecessary apprehension. This study aimed to define when the recommendations for observation and surveillance may be extended to early thyroid cancers at the population level.
Methods: Non-metastasized thyroid cancers ≤40 mm diameter were identified from the 1975–2016 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Causes of death were compared across demographic data. Disease-specific outcomes were compared to the age-adjusted healthy United States (US) population. Survival estimates were computed using Kaplan–Meier and compared using the Cox proportional hazard model. Dynamic benchmarks impacting disease-specific overall survival were determined by decision tree modeling and tested by the Cox model.
Results: Of the 28,728 thyroid cancers included in this study, 98.4% underwent some form of thyroid-specific treatment and were followed for a maximum of 10.9 years. This group had a 4.3% mortality rate at the end of follow-up (10.9 years maximum), with 13 times more deaths attributed to competing risks rather than thyroid cancer (stage T1a versus stage T1b, P=1.000; T1 versus T2, P<0.001). Among the untreated T1a or T1b tumors, the risk of disease-specific death was 21 times lower than death due to other causes. There was no significant difference between T1a and T1b tumors nor across sex. The age-adjusted risk of death for the healthy US population was higher than the population with thyroid cancer. Dynamic categorization demonstrated worsening outcomes up to 73 years, uninfluenced by sex or tumor size. For patients over 73 years of age, only tumors >26 mm impacted outcomes.
Conclusion: Based on the current data, T1a and T1b nodules have similar survival outcomes and are not significantly impacted even when left untreated. Multi-institutional prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings so that current observation and surveillance recommendations can be extended to certain T1 thyroid nodules.
Bite mark analysis plays a pivotal role in forensic investigations, by helping to identify suspects and establish links between individuals and crime scenes. However, traditional bite mark methodologies face significant challenges due to issues with reliability and subjectivity. Recent advances in microbiome analysis, which involves identifying and characterizing the microbial communities found in bite marks, have led to the emergence of a promising tool for forensic investigations. The integration of microbiome analysis with conventional DNA profiling enables more accurate interpretation of bite mark evidence in forensic investigations. This review provides an in-depth look at the integration of bite mark microbiome analysis with forensic DNA profiling. It also addresses the challenges and strategies involved in microbiome-based bite mark analysis for forensic purposes.
In December 2019, the first cases of a new contagious disease were diagnosed in the city of Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in China. Within a short period of time the outbreak developed exponentially into a pandemic that infected millions of people, with a global death toll of more than 500,000 during its first 6 months. Eventually, the novel disease was named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the new virus was identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Similar to all known pandemics throughout history, COVID-19 has been accompanied by a large degree of fear, anxiety, uncertainty, and economic disaster worldwide. Despite multiple publications and increasing knowledge regarding the biological secrets of SARS-CoV-2, as of the writing of this paper, there is neither an approved vaccine nor medication to prevent infection or cure for this highly infectious disease. Past pandemics were caused by a wide range of microbes, primarily viruses, but also bacteria. Characteristically, a significant proportion of them originated in different animal species (zoonoses). Since an understanding of the microbial cause of these diseases was unveiled relatively late in human history, past pandemics were often attributed to strange causes including punishment from God, demonic activity, or volatile unspecified substances. Although a high case fatality ratio was common to all pandemic diseases, some striking clinical character¬istics of each disease allowed contemporaneous people to clinically diagnose the infection despite null microbiological information. In comparison to past pandemics, SARS-CoV-2 has tricky and complex mech¬anisms that have facilitated its rapid and catastrophic spread worldwide.
Metallic drug-eluting stents have led to significant improvements in clinical outcomes but are inherently limited by their caging of the vessel wall. Fully bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) have emerged in an effort to overcome these limitations, allowing a “leave nothing behind” approach. Although theoretically appealing, the initial experience with BRS technology was limited by increased rates of scaffold thrombosis compared with contemporary stents. This review gives a broad outline of the current BRS technologies and outlines the refinements in BRS design, procedural approach, lesion selection, and post-procedural care that resulted from early BRS trials.
Metallic drug-eluting stents have led to significant improvements in clinical outcomes but are inherently limited by their caging of the vessel wall. Fully bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) have emerged in an effort to overcome these limitations, allowing a “leave nothing behind” approach. Although theoretically appealing, the initial experience with BRS technology was limited by increased rates of scaffold thrombosis compared with contemporary stents. This review gives a broad outline of the current BRS technologies and outlines the refinements in BRS design, procedural approach, lesion selection, and post-procedural care that resulted from early BRS trials.
