Arabs are a large minority group in the Israeli society. With the increasing use of medical cannabis throughout Israel due to changing governmental policies, the interactions of the Arab society with medical cannabis becomes of scientific and medical relevance. Recreational cannabis use is considered haram (forbidden) in Islam. However, most religious scholars agree that medical cannabis usage might be justified as zarurat (emergency and life-saving, therefore allowed) use. Obstacles to medical cannabis use within the Arabic population may relate to language barrier and/or cultural barriers. There are few Arabic-speaking web-based medical-cannabis support groups, and little official information about it is available in the Arabic language. In order for the full benefits of medical cannabis to reach the entire Israeli population, a government-sponsored web-based educational program is necessary in Hebrew and Arabic, both of which are among the nation’s official languages, thereby contributing to the equalization of health resource accessibility.
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.
There is universal agreement that the Nobel Prizes, given to individuals who have made an extraordinarily notable contribution to humankind in the fields of chemistry, physics, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace, are the most prestigious prizes offered for human achievement. This commentary gives an overview of the basis for Alfred Nobel writing his third will that established the five prizes and includes a discussion of why those five fields were chosen. The commentary includes factors that influenced his choices and contains examples of controversial selections or omissions, especially in the earlier years. A few were errors of omission (e.g. Tolstoy, Tesla, Edison, Best, Gandhi, Franklin), some errors of commission (e.g. Fibiger, Moniz); but, given the complexity of the task, the error rate is small. In some cases, the conclusion that an error had been made is debatable. Such decisions are difficult. Arne Tiselius, a Nobel laureate in chemistry and President of the Nobel Foundation said that one cannot in practice apply the principle that the Nobel Prize should be given to the person who is best; it is impossible to define who is best. Hence, there is only one alternative: to try to find a particularly worthy candidate. This paper includes a brief review of the integration of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, established in 1968, and added to the original five Nobel Prizes; the prize was first awarded in 1969. A short discussion on the absence of a Nobel Prize in mathematics is provided. Adaptations to the development of “big” science, especially in physics, may require the Nobel Foundation to extend its limit of no more than three awardees for the prize in physics and, perhaps, other scientific disciplines.
The Joles Jewish Hospital in Haarlem (a small city in the Netherlands) was established in 1930 to provide a Jewish milieu for local patients. Mozes Joles, a wealthy Jewish businessman, bequeathed his fortune to the Haarlem Jewish community to accomplish this objective, and its spiritual leader, Rabbi Simon Philip de Vries, was the driving force in successfully achieving this goal. The Joles Hospital was forcibly closed by the Nazis in 1943, and the postwar leadership of the Haarlem Jewish community decided not to reopen it. Instead, they used the Joles inheritance to build old age homes in both Haifa, Israel, and Haarlem, thus ensuring a Jewish environment for elderly care in both locales. The realization of one man’s charitable act bettered the lives of both ill and elderly individuals.
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.
On May 19, 2020, data confirmed that coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) had spread worldwide, with more than 4.7 million infected people and more than 316,000 deaths. In this article, we carry out a comparison of the methods to calculate and forecast the growth of the pandemic using two statistical models: the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and the Gompertz function growth model. The countries that have been chosen to verify the usefulness of these models are Austria, Switzerland, and Israel, which have a similar number of habitants. The investigation to check the accuracy of the models was carried out using data on confirmed, non-asymptomatic cases and confirmed deaths from the period February 21–May 19, 2020. We use the root mean squared error (RMSE), the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and the regression coefficient index R2 to check the accuracy of the models. The experimental results provide promising adjustment errors for both models (R2>0.99), with the ARIMA model being the best for infec¬tions and the Gompertz best for mortality. It has also been verified that countries are affected differently, which may be due to external factors that are difficult to measure quantitatively. These models provide a fast and effective system to check the growth of pandemics that can be useful for health systems and politi¬cians so that appropriate measures are taken and countries’ health care systems do not collapse.
Major improvements in medical diagnostics and treatments in Dutch hospital care during the second half of the 19th century led to a shift from a nearly exclusive focus on indigent patients to an increasing proportion of hospital beds dedicated to paying middle-class patients. To accommodate this change, three private non-sectarian hospitals for middle-class patients were established in Amsterdam between 1857 and 1902. However, the two Jewish hospitals in the Dutch capital, the Dutch Jewish Ashkenazi hospital (NIZ), and the Portuguese Jewish hospital (PIZ), initially established exclusively for poor Jews, were much slower to respond to the trend of increasing hospital care for the middle class. This study examines how these hospitals addressed the needs of both poor and middle-class patients in the first decades of the 20th century as well as the success of the Centrale Israelitische Ziekenverpleging (CIZ, Central Jewish hospital) that was established solely for middle-class Jewish patients. The report also investigates how, after the devastation of the Amsterdam Jewish community during WW2, the CIZ managed to remain and today is the only ritually observant Jewish hospital unit in the Netherlands.
The appointment of a new chancellor in 1933 marked the beginning of the Third Reich in Germany. The ideology of the Nazi Party focused on establishing a pure Aryan state characterized by nationalism and racial superiority. Their goals would be achieved through a totalitarian form of government that enforced the subjugation, exclusion, and elimination of those they defined as inferior minorities, particularly Jews, who were depicted as non-human. Implementation of the Nazi ideology required the exclusion of Jewish people and other dissenters, particularly Jewish physicians, from their professions. The exclusion of Jewish physicians, referred to herein as a “Medical Professional Elimination Program,” was gradually imposed on other Jewish professions in nations absorbed by the Third Reich, and particularly enforced by incorporated Austria. Why did German and Austrian doctors support the Nazi racial ideology, the removal of Jewish physicians from every possible sphere of influence, and subsequently participate in criminal medical research and experimentation, as well as euthanasia of perceived non-contributors to society, and become involved in refining the effectiveness of the death camps? Was the Medical Professional Elimination Program an opportunistic political concept, or was it part of an entrenched ideology? With these questions in mind, the lives of four key Nazi physicians and two institutions are examined.
Introduction: Antisemitism and antisemitic incidents have been increasing in United States medical institutions since the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. Such incidents include anecdotal reports of antisemitic displays at medical school commencements. This study examined unprofessional behavior observed at the commencement ceremonies of the 25 US medical schools top-ranked for research excellence. This issue is significant since these graduates are expected to become future leaders in the field of medicine.
Materials and Methods: Based on publicly available videotaped commencements, we assessed the number of students in the graduating classes wearing non-school-provided regalia, carrying signs, wearing protest buttons, or engaging in verbal protests related to the Israel–terror groups conflict that were either openly antisemitic or potentially offensive or insensitive.
Results: Symbols representing antisemitic themes (keffiyehs and three-part graduation stoles conveying antisemitic messages) were worn by students at just under half (12) of the medical schools. The mean number of students in each school wearing keffiyehs or non-official school stoles was 4.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2–5.8), ranging from 0%–13% of the classes, or 2.5% of the overall graduating cohort. The wearing of buttons, carrying of banners or signs, verbal protests interrupting the ceremony, or students deviating from script ranged from 0% to 22.5% of graduating students, with a mean of 2.7 per school (95% CI -0.8–6.2), or 1.7% of the medical schools graduating cohort.
Conclusions: We identified unprofessional behavior at commencements of top-ranked medical schools consisting of antisemitism and displaying offensive and insensitive symbols and messaging. There is an urgent need for medical schools in the US to educate medical trainees about the dangers of antisemitism and all forms of hate and insensitivity.
