| |
 |
|
|
|
| |
News
Alcohol misuse in the UK
07.05.2009
There is increasing evidence of the impact of excessive alcohol drinking is
having on young people’s long and short-term health, as
well as their chances of being in risky situations when
drunk.
There are also implications for crime and antisocial
behaviour as well as for society as a whole due to alcohol misuse
Our factsheet on young people and alcohol looks at the
existing evidence on young people’s drinking, showing
the prevalence of drinking and highlighting alcohol related
problems that are specific to young people
Key statistics
The proportion of 11-15 year-olds across England who
have never drunk alcohol has risen from 39% in 2003
to 46% in 2007.
Over half of 11-15 year-olds had drunk at least one
alcohol drink in their lifetime. This increases with
age from 20% of 11 year-olds to 81% of 15 year-olds.
Of those who drank alcohol in the last week, the average
weekly consumption has more than doubled since
1990 from 5.3 units a week to 11.4 units per week in
2006.
Boys tend to drink more than girls. Boys who drank in
the last week drank more units of alcohol (13.1 units)
than girls who drank in the last week (12.4 units).
A comparative European study of drinking among
15-24 year-olds showed that UK figures for alcohol
consumption were some of the highest in Europe.
The high risks associated with alcohol misuse in the workplace shows some 12 m working days lost due to alcohol misuse in the UK
More and more companies are using alcohol testing to monitor employers fitness to work.
Drugs and alcohol testing kits continue to be in demand particularly by safety critical industries across the UK
Drugs at work
08.06.2007
Modernh Health Systems :www.modernhealthsystems.com
provides extensive guidance and support on workplace drug testing. Always use Drugalyser technology for the workplace to avoid legal challenges.
For advice ring 01274 590235 or visit modern health systems.com
Swine Flu Get the Facts
30.04.2009
Critical Alert: The Swine Flu Pandemic – Fact or Fiction?
American health officials declared a public health emergency as cases of swine flu were confirmed in the U.S. Health officials across the world fear this could be the leading edge of a global pandemic emerging from Mexico, where seven people are confirmed dead as a result of the new virus.
On Monday April 27th, the World Health Organization (WHO) raised its pandemic alert level to four on its six-level threat scale,1 which means they've determined that the virus is capable of human-to-human transmission. The initial outbreaks across North America reveal an infection already traveling at higher velocity than did the last official pandemic strain, the 1968 Hong Kong flu.
The number of fatalities, and suspected and confirmed cases across the world change depending on the source, so your best bet -- if you want the latest numbers -- is to use Google Maps' Swine Flu Tracker
Several nations have imposed travel bans, or made plans to quarantine air travelers2 that present symptoms of the swine flu, such as:
* Fever of more than 100
* Coughing
* Runny nose and/or sore throat
* Joint aches
* Severe headache
* Vomiting and/or diarrhea
* Lethargy
* Lack of appetite
Top global flu experts are trying to predict how dangerous the new swine flu strain will be, as it became clear that they had little information about Mexico's outbreak. It is as yet unclear how many cases occurred in the month or so before the outbreak was detected. It's also unknown whether the virus was mutating to be more lethal, or less.
Much Fear Mongering Being Promoted
I suspect you have likely been alarmed by the media's coverage of the swine flu scare. It has a noticeable subplot - preparing you for draconian measures to combat a future pandemic as well as forcing you to accept the idea of mandatory vaccinations.
On April 27, Time magazine published an article which discusses how dozens died and hundreds were injured from vaccines as a result of the 1976 swine flu fiasco, when the Ford administration attempted to use the infection of soldiers at Fort Dix as a pretext for a mass vaccination of the entire country.
Despite acknowledging that the 1976 farce was an example of “how not to handle a flu outbreak”, the article still introduces the notion that officials “may soon have to consider whether to institute draconian measures to combat the disease”.
WHO and CDC Pandemic Preparedness Seriously Broken
The pandemic warning system has failed as it simply doesn't exist, even in North America and Europe. To improve the system, massive new investments in surveillance, scientific and regulatory infrastructure, basic public health, and global access to common sense interventions like vitamin D optimization are required.
According to the Washington Post, the CDC did not learn about the outbreak until six days after Mexico had begun to impose emergency measures. There should be no excuses. The paradox of this swine flu panic is that, while totally unexpected, it was accurately predicted. Six years ago, Science dedicated a major story to evidence that "after years of stability, the North American swine flu virus has jumped onto an evolutionary fast-track".
However, maybe this is precisely what public health authorities desire.
This is NOT the First Swine Flu Panic
My guess is that you can expect to see a lot of panic over this issue in the near future. But the key is to remain calm -- this isn't the first time the public has been warned about swine flu. The last time was in 1976, right before I entered medical school and I remember it very clearly. It resulted in the massive swine flu vaccine campaign.
Do you happen to recall the result of this massive campaign?
>BR>
Within a few months, claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis from the vaccine. The vaccine was also blamed for 25 deaths.
However, several hundred people developed crippling Guillain-Barré Syndrome after they were injected with the swine flu vaccine. Even healthy 20-year-olds ended up as paraplegics.
And the swine flu pandemic itself? It never materialized.
More People Died From the Swine Flu Vaccine than Swine Flu!
It is very difficult to forecast a pandemic , and a rash response can be extremely damaging.
As of Monday April 27, the worldwide total number of confirmed cases was 82, according to WHO, which included 40 cases in the U.S., confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control. But does that truly warrant the feverish news headlines?
To put things into perspective, malaria kills 3,000 people EVERY DAY, and it's considered "a health problem"... But of course, there are no fancy vaccines for malaria that can rake in billions of dollars in a short amount of time.
One Australian news source,3 for example, states that even a mild swine flu epidemic could lead to the deaths of 1.4 million people and would reduce economic growth by nearly $5 trillion dollars.
Give me a break, if this doesn't sound like the outlandish cries of the pandemic bird-flu I don't know what does. Do you remember when President Bush said two million Americans would die as a result of the bird flu ?
In 2005 , in 2006 , 2007 , and again in 2008 , those fears were exposed as little more than a cruel hoax, designed to instill fear, and line the pocketbooks of various individuals and industry. I became so convinced by the evidence AGAINST the possibility of a bird flu pandemic that I wrote a New York Times bestselling book, The Bird Flu Hoax , all about the massive fraud involved with the epidemic that never happened..
What is the Swine Flu?
Regular swine flu is a contagious respiratory disease, caused by a type-A influenza virus that affects pigs. The current strain, A(H1N1), is a new variation of an H1N1 virus -- which causes seasonal flu outbreaks in humans -- that also contains genetic material of bird and pig versions of the flu.
Interestingly enough, this version has never before been seen in neither human nor animal, which I will discuss a bit later.
This does sound bad. But not so fast. There are a few reasons to not rush to conclusions that this is the deadly pandemic we've been told would occur in the near future (as if anyone could predict it without having some sort of inside knowledge).
Why a True Bird- or Swine Flu Pandemic is HIGHLY Unlikely
While in my opinion it is highly likely factory farming is responsible for producing this viral strain, I believe there is still no cause for concern.
You may not know this, but all H1N1 flu's are descendants of the 1918 pandemic strain. The reason why the flu shot may or may not work, however, from year to year, is due to mutations. Therefore, there's no vaccine available for this current hybrid flu strain, and naturally, this is feeding the fear that millions of people will die before a vaccine can be made.
However, let me remind you of one very important fact here.
Just a couple of months ago, scientists concluded that the 1918 flu pandemic that killed between 50-100 million people worldwide in a matter of 18 months -- which all these worst case scenarios are built upon -- was NOT due to the flu itself !4
Instead, they discovered the real culprit was strep infections.
People with influenza often get what is known as a "superinfection" with a bacterial agent. In 1918 it appears to have been Streptococcus pneumoniae.
Since strep is much easier to treat than the flu using modern medicine, a new pandemic would likely be much less dire than it was in the early 20th century, the researchers concluded.
Others, such as evolutionary biologist Paul Ewald,5 claim that a pandemic of this sort simply cannot happen, because in order for it to occur, the world has to change. Not the virus itself, but the world.
In a previous interview for Esquire magazine, in which he discusses the possibility of a bird flu pandemic, he states:
"They think that if a virus mutates, it's an evolutionary event. Well, the virus is mutating because that is what viruses and other pathogens do. But evolution is not just random mutation. It is random mutation coupled with natural selection; it is a battle for competitive advantage among different strains generated by random mutation.
For bird flu to evolve into a human pandemic, the strain that finds a home in humanity has to be a strain that is both highly virulent and highly transmissible. Deadliness has to translate somehow into popularity; H5N1 has to find a way to kill or immobilize its human hosts, and still find other hosts to infect. Usually that doesn't happen."
Ewald goes on to explain that evolution in general is all about trade-offs, and in the evolution of infections the trade-off is between virulence and transmissibility.
What this means is that in order for a "bird flu" or "swine flu" to turn into a human pandemic, it has to find an environment that favors both deadly virulence and ease of transmission.
People living in squalor on the Western Front at the end of World War I generated such an environment, from which the epidemic of 1918 could arise.
Likewise, crowded chicken farms, slaughterhouses, and jam-packed markets of eastern Asia provide another such environment, and that environment gave rise to the bird flu -- a pathogen that both kills and spreads, in birds, but not in humans.
Says Ewald:
"We know that H5N1 is well adapted to birds. We also know that it has a hard time becoming a virus that can move from person to person. It has a hard time without our doing anything. But we can make it harder. We can make sure it has no human population in which to evolve transmissibility. There is no need to rely on the mass extermination of chickens. There is no need to stockpile vaccines for everyone.
By vaccinating just the people most at risk -- the people who work with chickens and the caregivers -- we can prevent it from becoming transmissible among humans. Then it doesn't matter what it does in chickens."
Please remember that, despite the fantastic headlines and projections of MILLIONS of deaths, the H5N1 bird flu virus killed a mere 257 people worldwide since late 2003. As unfortunate as those deaths are, 257 deaths worldwide from any disease, over the course of five years, simply does not constitute an emergency worthy of much attention, let alone fear!
Honestly, your risk of being killed by a lightning strike in the last five years was about 2,300 percent higher than your risk of contracting and dying from the bird flu.6 I'm not kidding! In just one year (2004), more than 1,170 people died from lighting strikes, worldwide.7
So please, as the numbers of confirmed swine flu cases are released, keep a level head and don't let fear run away with your brains.
So is the Swine Flu Getting More or Less Dangerous?
On Sunday, April 26, The Independent reported that more than 1,000 people had contracted the swine flu virus in Mexico, 8 but by the afternoon that same day, Mexican President Calderon declared that more than two-thirds of the 1,300 thought to have contracted the disease had been given a clean bill of health and sent home.9
Additionally, the number of actual confirmed cases appears to be far lower than reported in many media outlets, leading me to believe that many reporters are interchanging the terms "suspected cases" and "confirmed cases."
Interestingly Mexico is the ONLY country in the world where someone has actually died from this disease.Mexico has reported 159 fatalities in flu-like cases in recent days , seven of which have been confirmed as swine flu. Another 19 patients have been confirmed as having swine flu but surviving. About 2,000 people have been hospitalized with symptoms.
By contrast, the United States has had 64 confirmed cases, five hospitalizations and no deaths from US Citizens. On April 29th CNN reported the first swine fatality in the US, however this was actually a child from Mexico that died in Texas.
According to the World Health Organization's Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response site ; as of April 27, there are:
* 64 laboratory confirmed cases in U.S. -- 0 deaths (reported by CDC as of April 29)
* 26 confirmed cases in Mexico -- 7 deaths
* 6 confirmed cases in Canada -- 0 deaths
* 1 confirmed case in Spain -- 0 deaths
Additionally, nearly all suspected new cases have been reported as mild.
Personally, I am highly skeptical. It simply doesn't add up to a real pandemic.
But it does raise serious questions about where this brand new, never before seen virus came from, especially since it cannot be contracted from eating pork products, and has never before been seen in pigs, and contains traits from the bird flu -- and which, so far, only seems to respond to Tamiflu. Are we just that lucky, or... what?
Your Fear Will Make Some People VERY Rich in Today's Crumbling Economy
According to the Associated Press at least one financial analyst estimates up to $388 million worth of Tamiflu sales in the near future10 -- and that's without a pandemic outbreak.
More than half a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead Sciences Inc., Roche, GlaxoSmithKline and other companies with a stake in flu treatments and detection, have seen a rise in their shares in a matter of days, and will likely see revenue boosts if the swine flu outbreak continues to spread.
As soon as Homeland Security declared a health emergency, 25 percent -- about 12 million doses -- of Tamiflu and Relenza treatment courses were released from the nation's stockpile. However, beware that the declaration also allows unapproved tests and drugs to be administered to children. Many health- and government officials are more than willing to take that chance with your life, and the life of your child. But are you?
Remember, Tamiflu went through some rough times not too long ago, as the dangers of this drug came to light when, in 2007, the FDA finally began investigating some 1,800 adverse event reports related to the drug . Common side effects of Tamiflu include:
* Nausea
* Vomiting
* Diarrhea
* Headache
* Dizziness
* Fatigue
* Cough
All in all, the very symptoms you're trying to avoid.
More serious symptoms included convulsions, delirium or delusions, and 14 deaths in children and teens as a result of neuropsychiatric problems and brain infections (which led Japan to ban Tamiflu for children in 2007). And that's for a drug that, when used as directed, only reduces the duration of influenza symptoms by 1 to 1 ½ days, according to the official data.
But making matters worse, some patients with influenza are at HIGHER risk for secondary bacterial infections when on Tamiflu. And secondary bacterial infections, as I mentioned earlier, was likely the REAL cause of the mass fatalities during the 1918 pandemic!
Where did This Mysterious New Animal-Human Flu Strain Come From?
Alongside the fear-mongering headlines, I've also seen increasing numbers of reports questioning the true nature of this virus. And rightfully so.
Could a mixed animal-human mutant like this occur naturally? And if not, who made it, and how was it released?
Not one to dabble too deep in conspiracy theories, I don't have to strain very hard to find actual facts to support the notion that this may not be a natural mutation, and that those who stand to gain have the wherewithal to pull off such a stunt.
Just last month I reported on the story that the American pharmaceutical company Baxter was under investigation for distributing the deadly avian flu virus to 18 different countries as part of a seasonal flu vaccine shipment. Czech reporters were probing to see if it may have been part of a deliberate attempt to start a pandemic; as such a "mistake" would be virtually impossible under the security protocols of that virus.
The H5N1 virus on its own is not very airborne. However, when combined with seasonal flu viruses, which are more easily spread, the effect could be a potent, airborne, deadly, biological weapon. If this batch of live bird flu and seasonal flu viruses had reached the public, it could have resulted in dire consequences.
There is a name for this mixing of viruses; it's called "reassortment," and it is one of two ways pandemic viruses are created in the lab. Some scientists say the most recent global outbreak -- the 1977 Russian flu -- was started by a virus created and leaked from a laboratory.
Another example of the less sterling integrity of Big Pharma is the case of Bayer, who sold millions of dollars worth of an injectable blood-clotting medicine to Asian, Latin American, and some European countries in the mid-1980s, even though they knew it was tainted with the AIDS virus .
So while it is morally unthinkable that a drug company would knowingly contaminate flu vaccines with a deadly flu virus such as the bird- or swine flu, it is certainly not impossible. It has already happened more than once.
But there seems to be no repercussions or hard feelings when industry oversteps the boundaries of morality and integrity and enters the arena of obscenity. Because, lo and behold, which company has been chosen to head up efforts, along with WHO, to produce a vaccine against the Mexican swine flu?
Baxter!11 Despite the fact that ink has barely dried on the investigative reports from their should-be-criminal "mistake" against humanity.
According to other sources,12 a top scientist for the United Nations, who has examined the outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa, as well as HIV/AIDS victims, has concluded that the current swine flu virus possesses certain transmission "vectors" that suggest the new strain has been genetically-manufactured as a military biological warfare weapon.
The UN expert believes that Ebola, HIV/AIDS, and the current A-H1N1 swine flu virus are biological warfare agents.
In addition, Army criminal investigators are looking into the possibility that disease samples are missing from biolabs at Fort Detrick -- the same Army research lab from which the 2001 anthrax strain was released, according to a recent article in the Fredrick News Post.13 In February, the top biodefense lab halted all its research into Ebola, anthrax, plague, and other diseases known as "select agents," after they discovered virus samples that weren't listed in its inventory and might have been switched with something else.
Factory Farming Maybe Source of Swine Flu
Another theory as to the cause of Swine Flu might be factory farming. In the United States, pigs travel coast to coast. They can be bred in North Carolina, fattened in the corn belt of Iowa, and slaughtered in California.
While this may reduce short-term costs for the pork industry, the highly contagious nature of diseases like influenza (perhaps made further infectious by the stresses of transport) needs to be considered when calculating the true cost of long-distance live animal transport.
The majority of U.S. pig farms now confine more than 5,000 animals each. With a group of 5,000 animals, if a novel virus shows up it will have more opportunity to replicate and potentially spread than in a group of 100 pigs on a small farm.
With massive concentrations of farm animals within which to mutate, these new swine flu viruses in North America seem to be on an evolutionary fast track, jumping and reassorting between species at an unprecedented rate.
Should You Accept a Flu Vaccine -- Just to be Safe?
Watch the video above to see ridiculous 1976 commercials promoting Swine Flu shots.
As stated in the New York Times14 and elsewhere, flu experts have no idea whether the current seasonal flu vaccine would offer any protection whatsoever against this exotic mutant, and it will take months to create a new one.
But let me tell you, getting vaccinated now would not only offer no protection and potentially cause great harm, it would most likely be loaded with toxic mercury which is used as a preservative in most flu vaccines..
I've written extensively about the numerous dangers (and ineffectiveness) of flu vaccines , and why I do not recommend them to anyone. So no matter what you hear -- even if it comes from your doctor -- don't get a regular flu shot. They rarely work against seasonal flu...and certainly can't offer protection against a never-before- seen strain.
Currently, the antiviral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza are the only drugs that appear effective against the (human flu) H1N1 virus, and I strongly believe taking Tamiflu to protect yourself against this new virus could be a serious mistake -- for all the reasons I already mentioned above.
But in addition to the dangerous side effects of Tamiflu, there is also growing evidence of resistance against the drug. In February, the pre-publication and preliminary findings journal called Nature Precedings published a paper on this concern, stating15 :
The dramatic rise of oseltamivir [Tamiflu] resistance in the H1N1 serotype in the 2007/2008 season and the fixing of H274Y in the 2008/2009 season has raised concerns regarding individuals at risk for seasonal influenza, as well as development of similar resistance in the H5N1 serotype [bird flu].
Previously, oseltamivir resistance produced changes in H1N1 and H3N2 at multiple positions in treated patients. In contrast, the recently reported resistance involved patients who had not recently taken oseltamivir.
It's one more reason not to bother with this potentially dangerous drug.
And, once a specific swine flu drug is created, you can be sure that it has not had the time to be tested in clinical trials to determine safety and effectiveness, which puts us right back where I started this article -- with a potential repeat of the last dangerous swine flu vaccine, which destroyed the lives of hundreds of people.
Topping the whole mess off, of course, is the fact that if the new vaccine turns out to be a killer, the pharmaceutical companies responsible are immune from lawsuits -- something I've also warned about before on numerous occasions.
Unfortunately, those prospects won't stop the governments of the world from mandating the vaccine -- a scenario I hope we can all avoid.
How to Protect Yourself Without Dangerous Drugs and Vaccinations
For now, my point is that there are always going to be threats of flu pandemics, real or created, and there will always be potentially toxic vaccines that are peddled as the solution. But you can break free of that whole drug-solution trap by following some natural health principles.
I have not caught a flu in over two decades, and you can avoid it too, without getting vaccinated, by following these simple guidelines, which will keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you're far less likely to acquire the infection to begin with.
* Optimize your vitamin D levels . As I've previously reported, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, and vitamin D deficiency is likely the TRUE culprit behind the seasonality of the flu -- not the flu virus itself.
This is probably the single most important and least expensive action you can take. I would STRONGLY urge you to have your vitamin D level monitored to confirm your levels are therapeutic at 50-70 ng.ml and done by a reliable vitamin D lab like Lab Corp.
For those of you in the US we hope to launch a vitamin D testing service through Lab Corp that allows you to have your vitamin D levels checked at your local blood drawing facility, and relatively inexpensively. We hope to offer this service by June 2009.
If you are coming down with flu like symptoms and have not been on vitamin D you can take doses of 50,000 units a day for three days to treat the acute infection. Some researchers like Dr. Cannell, believe the dose could even be as high as 1000 units per pound of body weight for three days.
However, most of Dr. Cannell's work was with seasonal and not pandemic flu. If your body has never been exposed to the antigens there is chance that the vitamin D might not work. However the best bet is to maintain healthy levels of vitamin D around 60 ng/ml.
BUT to keep this in perspective the regular flu, not the swine flu, has killed 13,000 in the US since January. But there is strong support that these types of figures are grossly exaggerated to increase vaccine sales. However, the fact remains that the regular flu at this point in time is FAR more dangerous than the swine flu and were you worried about the regular flu before the media started talking this up?
* Avoid Sugar and Processed Foods. Sugar decreases the function of your immune system almost immediately, and as you likely know, a strong immune system is key to fighting off viruses and other illness. Be aware that sugar is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice.
* Get Enough Rest . Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you're tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu. Be sure to check out my article Guide to a Good Night's Sleep for some great tips to help you get quality rest.
* Have Effective Tools to Address Stress . We all face some stress every day, but if stress becomes overwhelming then your body will be less able to fight off the flu and other illness.
If you feel that stress is taking a toll on your health, consider using an energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which is remarkably effective in relieving stress associated with all kinds of events, from work to family to trauma. You can check out my free, 25-page EFT manual for some guidelines on how to perform EFT.
* Exercise . When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads. You can review my exercise guidelines
for some great tips on how to get started.
* Take a good source of animal based omega-3 fats like Krill Oil . Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils that are trans fats and in processed foods as it will seriously damage your immune response.
* Wash Your Hands . Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don't use antibacterial soap for this -- antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.
* Eat Garlic Regularly . Garlic works like a broad-spectrum antibiotic against bacteria, virus, and protozoa in the body. And unlike with antibiotics, no resistance can be built up so it is an absolutely safe product to use. However, if you are allergic or don't enjoy garlic it would be best to avoid as it will likely cause more harm than good.
* Avoid Hospitals and Vaccines In this particular case, I'd also recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you're having an emergency, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds, and could be one of the likeliest places you could be exposed to this new bug. Vaccines will not be available for six months at the minimum but when available they will be ineffective and can lead to crippling paralysis like Guillain-Barré Syndrome just as it did in the 70s.
Jim Campbell. BSc CEng MIM MIBF
Principal Scientific Officer
Swine Flu
27.04.2009
Revolutionary rapid point of care test for flu
RAPID INFLU A+B TEST
FOR H5N1 STRAIN (BIRD FLU) H1N1 STRAIN (SWINE-FLU) AND OTHER TYPE A AND TYPE B INFLUENZA VIRUSES.
INTENDED USE
Detection of influenza A and B viral antigens in nasal swabs, nasal aspirates and throat swabs from influenza symptomatic patients.
SUMMARY AND EXPLANATION
INTRODUCTION
Influenza is an acute infectious disease of the respiratory system, caused by the influenza virus. The influenza virus can be classified into types A, B, and C.
Influenza A and B cause significant widespread epidemics every year in humans and it has become a serious socio-economical problem.
Typical symptoms include the onset of fever, chills, shivering, general malaise, muscular soreness, arthralgia, headache, and pharyngitis, which usually resolve in one week.
However, influenza infection may cause serious complications among the elderly, children, pregnant women, and patients with other respiratory diseases.
Recently, anti-influenza medications have been developed, which are effective when taken during the early stages of the influenza infection, therefore rapid diagnosis and appropriate treatment are of considerable medical importance.
Traditional viral isolation, the gold standard for influenza virus detection, requires complicated aseptic procedures, that are not available in most clinical laboratories, and require several days before results are obtained.
While reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for influenza virus is a highly sensitive and rapid diagnostic method it also needs specialized facilities and trained personnel, again making it unsuitable for routine clinical diagnostic testing laboratories.
RAPID INFLU A-B TEST has been developed for the rapid and simple detection of influenza type A and B viral antigens.
This has been accomplished utilizing monoclonal antibodies specific for the nucleoproteins (NP) common to each type of influenza A and B.
Influenza A and B viral antigens in nasal swabs, nasal aspirates and throat swabs can be detected specifically to provide immediate and supplementary test results for clinical diagnosis.
FEATURES
1) Specifically detects influenza type A and B viruses.
2) Ready to use, no additional equipment is required.
3) Simple procedure, within 15 minutes.
PRINCIPLE OF THE TEST
The Rapid Influ A+B Test is a flow-through immunoassay method using colloidal gold consisting of the following steps:
1) Add the specimen to Wells A and B of the monoclonal antibody coated test device. The antibody-sensitized colloidal gold in each well dissolves to form an immune complex with the influenza viral antigen in the specimen.
2) This immune complex passes through the diamond and circular areas on the monoclonal antibody-coated test device, and is specifically trapped by the anti-influenza viral antibody immobilized on the membrane to form a red-diamond shape.
3) After the specimen is absorbed, remove the adapter, and observe the red-diamond shape in each well, to determine the presence of influenza viral antigens in the specimen.
4) Regardless of the absence of influenza viral antigens in the specimen, sensitized colloidal gold will be trapped by the antigen coated control areas (formation of circular spots).
5) This indicates that each step of the procedure (absorption into device, etc.) has proceeded correctly.
REAGENTS AND MATERIALS SUPPLIED
The standard kit is supplied with all the materials required to carry out ten tests.
1. Monoclonal antibody coated device. 10 devices.
The device contains Wells A and B;
"Well A"
The following are immobilized on the diamond and circular areas on the membrane. There is also a pad coated with colloidal gold sensitized with anti-influenza type A monoclonal antibody (murine: 0.5 (ig/device).
Diamond area: anti-influenza type A monoclonal antibody (murine: 10 |.ig/device) Circular area: Inactivated influenza A viral antigen (50 j.ig/device)
"Well B"
The following are immobilized on the diamond and circular areas on the membrane. There is also a pad coated with colloidal gold sensitized with anti-influenza type B monoclonal antibody (murine: 0.5 (.ig/device).
Diamond area: anti-influenza type B monoclonal antibody (murine: 10 (.ig/device)
Circular area: Inactivated influenza B viral antigen (50 (.ig/device)
>BR>
2. Specimen buffer 1.5mLx10
Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) containing bovine serum albumin (BSA) (1.0w/v%), TritonX-100 (5.0 w/v%), and sodium azide (0.08 w/v%) as a preservative.
3. Accessories
Extraction buffer filter x 10
Product insert x 1
Test procedure sheet x 1
MATERIALS NOT SUPPLIED
Sterilized swabs for nasal and throat specimens are not supplied in this kit.
WARNINGS
1. For in vitro diagnostics use.
2. Use this product according to the product insert. Test results are not guaranteed if used by methods or for purposes other than those indicated.
3. Diagnosis of influenza viral infection should not be performed only on the basis of RAPID INFLU A-B results, but also in conjunction with other test results or clinical symptoms.
4. Sensitivity tends to be lower when using throat swab specimens when compared to nasal specimens.
5. A nitrocellulose membrane is used in the device. Nitrocellulose is highly flammable and should not be exposed to naked flames. Do NOT open the foil pouch until use. If left for any length of time in high humidity, reagent quality will deteriorate.
6. Do NOT touch the colloidal gold pad in the device.
7. Specimen buffer contains 0.08 w/v% sodium azide. In the event of contact with skin, eyes or mouth, thoroughly flush the site with water immediately, and seek medical treatment if any adverse reactions occur. As sodium azide may react with lead and copper to generate explosive heavy metal azides, dispose of the kit reagents with copious amounts of water to avoid azide build-up.
8. Storage at high temperatures and high humidity or in direct sunlight may deteriorate reagent quality. Do NOT freeze the reagent. If accidentally frozen, do NOT use.
9. Do NOT use or mix reagents of kits with different lot numbers.
SHELF LIFE AND STORAGE
1. Storage: 2°C~30°C, protected from light.
2 Shelf life: Up to expiry date on the package.
1. SPECIMEN COLLECTION
Preparation for specimen collection
1) Swabs for nasal swab: Use sterilized swab for nasal specimens designed for this purpose.
2) Swabs for throat swab: Use sterilized swab for throat specimens designed for this purpose
3) Collection of nasal aspirate: Use a transnasal catheter with trap, and take a specimen from the trap using a sterilized swab for nasal specimen designed for this purpose.
Specimen Collection
a) Nasal swab
Insert the sterile swab through the nostril (nares) into the posterior nasopharynx, rubbing gently several times to collect the specimen.
b) Nasal aspirate
Insert one tube of the suction catheter into the suction pump, and the other tube into the nasopharyngeal cavity via the nostril (nares). Collect the nasopharyngeal aspirate into the suction trap using the suction pump. Immerse a cotton swab into the aspirate and soak for 10 seconds to collect the sample. It is recommended not to use a liquid medium such as physiological saline, as this could result in dilution of the virus in the sample.
c) Throat swab
Insert the sterilized swab for throat swab into the oral cavity, rubbing strongly against the lateral wall of the pharynx and pharyngeal tonsil to collect the specimen. Contact with saliva should be avoided to prevent dilution of antigen.
2. SPECIMEN PREPARATION
After collection, immediately immerse the specimen swab in the tube containing the specimen buffer, and rub the swab against the tube wall approximately 10 times to assure proper mixing. To extract the specimen from the swab, squeeze and twist the tip of the swab through the specimen buffer tube between the thumb and index finger; attach the extraction buffer filter provided. Failure to use the filter will result in a false positive.
3. PRECAUTIONS FOR COLLECTING SPECIMENS
1) NEVER take specimens using a sterilized swab pre-soaked in Specimen buffer.
2) All specimens should be handled as infectious.
3) Centrifuge or filter before use, if solid matter (dust, cellular matter, etc.) or blood is observed in the specimen.
4) Specimens collected by nasal or throat swab methods may not give accurate results, as the concentration of the virus will differ depending on the region of sampling.
5) Do not use mouthwashes as specimens.
6) Specimens observed containing red coloration (blood) may result in a false-positive result.
4. Specimen Storage
1) After collection, immediately suspend the specimen in Specimen buffer.
2) The specimen suspended in the Specimen buffer should be immediately applied to the test device.
3) If the test cannot be perform immediately, the suspended Specimen buffer should be stored at 2°C~10°C, and perform the test within three days.
NOTE: storage may adversely affect the test results, and we strongly recommend avoiding sample storage.
TEST PROCEDURE
Take an appropriate number of the monoclonal antibody coated devices from the foil pouches.
1) Attach Extraction buffer filter firmly to the Specimen buffer tube containing the specimen as described above. Slowly drop the sample into both wells of the device to the indicated black line in the well (approximately 17 drops) or to the top of the colloidal gold pad in each well.
2) Gently rotate the device in a circular motion 4 to 5 times on the bench top, to ensure mixing of colloidal gold and sample, and leave at room temperature until the samples are completely absorbed (approximately 15 minutes).
3) After confirming absorption of the sample, immediately remove the adapter, and observe the test results.
4). TECHNICAL PRECAUTIONS
1) If absorption time exceeds 20 minutes a false positive result may be obtained. In this case, another specimen should be collected and tested. If re-collection is not possible, the remaining sample in the specimen buffer tube can be used for retesting according to the following procedure.
• After one test, the specimen remaining in the tube is about 0.4 ml.
• Remove the filter from Specimen buffer tube, and add all the remaining contents to a
new Specimen buffer tube, and attach a new filter.
• Using the diluted specimen, retest with a new device.
2) Specimens with high viscosity may be difficult to filter. To prevent dislocation of the filter, attach it to the Specimen buffer tube firmly. In the case of a blocked filter, remove and replace with a new filter.
3) After adding the specimen to the device, do NOT remove the adapter until the specimen is completely absorbed. Insufficient absorption of the sample may cause an invalid result. If the adaptor is removed accidentally, do NOT use the device.
4) Do NOT remove the adapter prior to adding the specimen.
5) The adapter has a seal to prevent the colloidal gold from falling off. Do NOT peel off this seal before or after use.
6) A colloidal gold pad is inserted in each well. Do NOT remove these pads.
7) In the case of colloidal gold pad has detached from either well, do NOT use the device.
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Interpretation
Purple-red control spots must appear in both Wells A and B, of each device. The control spots show that the procedure has been performed correctly and the reagents worked satisfactorily. The shape of the control spot may not be perfectly circular, nor may the colour be homogeneous; however, in either case this does not indicate the loss of assay sensitivity or inappropriate test procedure.
If no control spots appear, retest the sample. If the spots still do not appear after the retest, the results are invalid.
1) Type A positive / Type B negative
A specimen is evaluated as positive for the presence of influenza virus type A and negative for influenza virus type B when a red diamond is observed only in Well A, with control spots in both Wells A and B. If the diamond shape is incomplete, it can still be interpreted as positive.
2) Type B positive / Type A negative
A specimen is evaluated as positive for the presence of influenza virus type B and negative for influenza virus type A when a red diamond is observed only in Well B, with control spots in both Wells A and B. If the diamond shape is incomplete, it can still be interpreted as positive.
3) Type A positive / Type B positive
A specimen is evaluated as positive for both influenza virus types A and B when red diamonds and control spots are observed in both Wells A and B. In this case a false positive can be suspected, collect specimens again, and retest.
Note: This is an extremely rare case. Reconfirmation is required. If a retest is not possible, dilute five fold with specimen buffer as mentioned in [TEST PROCEDURE], attach a new filter, and retest. Even if the dilution retest is performed and both A and B are still positive, then the results are invalid.
4) Negative
A specimen is evaluated as negative, when a red diamond is not observed in either Well A or B, with control spots in both Wells A and B. However, in some rare cases, the outer edge of the diamond shape may not be uniform. In this case, it should be interpreted as negative.
5) Invalid
Test results are invalid if the control spots are not observed in Well A and/or B.
Invalid (e.g.)
A positive B positive A/B positive Negative
* Well A: left: well B: right
2. Precautions in interpretation
1) Reaction areas on the device show green colored shapes before use. The green coloring disappears after the correct procedure is performed.
2) When interpreting, always observe the membrane from directly above. Red diamond shapes can be interpreted as positive. Other colors may indicate an inaccurate reaction. In this case, retest.
3) Interpret immediately after confirming that the specimen has been absorbed. Drying of the device membrane may alter the initial result.
3. Limitations of the procedure
1) As this product serves as a simple method for the prompt detection of types A and B influenza viral antigens by immunoassay, if the concentration of viral antigens falls under the detection sensitivity limit negative results will be obtained. Conseguently, negative results by this method may not mean the absence of influenza virus in the specimen.
2) Results may also differ according to the type of specimen used and specimen collection method used by the physician. Some specimens may contain substances such as cellular debris, etc. that may absorb on to the nitrocellulose membrane to cause a false positive result. Accordingly, final diagnosis should be made based on clinical symptoms, and the results of other assays (viral isolation/culturing, RT-PCR and changes in antibody liters for paired sera).
4. Interfering substances
No interference on the results of testing with Quick S was observed with the following cold
medications or drugs.
Acetylsalicylic acid; Mouth wash; Throat lozenge 1 (approx. 0.3 g); Throat lozenge 2 (containing Nandina domestica thunb extract; approx. 2.6 g); Throat lozenge 3 (approx. 2.9 g); Gargle (containing povidone iodine); Nasal spray; Diphenhydramine hydrochloride; Dextromethorphan hydrobromide; Clemastine fumarate; Cold medication 1 (containing acetaminophen); Cold medication 2 (containing ibuprofen)
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
When sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility tests are performed using the prepared positive and negative samples for both influenza A and B viruses, the following performances are obtained.
1. Sensitivity
Positive results were observed with the prepared positive quality control antigens of type A and B, respectively.
2. Specificity
Only Well A positive results were obtained using the prepared positive quality control antigen of type A, and also only Well B positive results using the prepared positive quality control antigen of type B. Both Wells A and B were negative, when using the prepared negative quality control sample.
3. Reproducibility
When tests were repeated five times using the prepared positive quality control antigens of type A or B, all results were positive. When using the prepared negative quality control sample, all results were negative.
4. Analytical sensitivity Analytical sensitivity was typically established as below.
1) Influenza virus type A
A/Fukushima/103/78 (H1N1): 5.3 x 104 pfu/mL in the specimen buffer A/Bangkok/1/79 (H3N2): 7.2 x 103 pfu/mL in the
specimen buffer
2) Influenza virus type B
B/Mie/1/93: 4.5 x 104 pfu/mL in the specimen buffer
B/Johannesburg/5/99: 1.3 x 105 pfu/mL in the specimen buffer
5. Cross-reactivity
1) Influenza virus type A
Cross reactivity was not observed in Well B using following type A influenza virus. A/PR/8/34 (H1N1), A/Fukuoka/1/70 (H3N2), A/FM/1/47 (H1N1), A/Chiba/5/71 (H3N2), A/Omachi/1/53 (H1N1), AATokyo/6/73 (H3N2), A/USSR/92/77 (H1N1), A/Kumamoto/22/76 (H3N2), A/Fukushima/103/78 (H1N1), A/Bangkok/1/79 (H3N2), A/Beijing/262/95 (H1N1), A/Niigata/102/81 (H3N2), A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1), A/Wuhan/359/95 (H3N2), A/Murakami/4/64 (H2N2), A/Sydney/5/97 (H3N2), A/Aichi/2/68 (H3N2), A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2)
2) Influenza virus type B
Cross reactivity was not observed in Well A using following type B influenza virus. B/Setagaya/3/56, B/Yamagata/16/88, BATaiwan/4/62, B/ Aichi/5/8, B/Amakusa/1/64, B/Mie/1/93, B/Akishima/1/64, B/Bangkok/163/90, B/Sapporo/1/65, B/Gunma/1/73, B/Tokyo/7/66, B/Gifu/2/73, B/Osaka/2/7, B/Kanagawa/3/76, B/USSR/100/83, B/Guangdong/5/94, B/lbaragi/2/85, B/Shandong/7/97, B/ Nagasaki/1/87, B/Yamanashi/166/98
3) Viruses other than influenza virus Cross-reactivity was not observed with the following viruses.
Parainfluenza virus Type 1, Parainfluenza virus Type 2, Parainfluenza virus Type 3, Parainfluenza virus Type 4, Echo virus Type 2, Echo virus Type 3, Echo virus Type 4, Echo virus Type 6, Echo virus Type 9, Echo virus Type 11, Echo virus Type 30, Coxsackie virus Type B4, Coxsackie virus Type B5, Coxsackie virus Type B6, Coxsackie virus Type A9, Measles virus, Mumps virus, Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Adeno virus Type 1, Adeno virus Type 2, Adeno virus Type 3, Adeno virus Type 4, Adeno virus Type 5, Adeno virus Type 7, HSV1
4) Chlamydia
Cross-reactivity was not observed with the following chlamydia types. Chlamydia psittaci Chlamydia trachoma!is Chlamydia pneumoniae
5) Mycopiasma
Cross-reactivity was not observed with the following mycoplasma. Mycopiasma pneumoniae
6) Bacteria Cross-reactivity was not observed with the following bacteria.
Streptococcus pyogenes Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus sp. Group B, C. G, F, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Serratia marcescens, Escherichia coli, Psedomonas aeruginosa, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus injluenzae, Staphylococcus epidermic/is
6. Correlation
1) Nasal swab
Correlation between this product and a competitor's in vitro diagnostic product that
uses a similar assay method gave the following results:
Type A sensitivity: 12/13 =92.3%
Type A specificity: 91/92 =98.9%
Type B sensitivity: 29/30 =96.7%
Type B specificity: 72 / 75 =96.0%
Accuracy: 100/105 =95.2%
2) Nasal aspirate
Correlation between this product and a competitor's in vitro diagnostic product that uses a similar assay method gave the following results:
Type A sensitivity: 13/13 =100.0%
Type A specificity: 67/69 =97.1%
Type B sensitivity: 25/25 =100.0%
Type B specificity: 57/57 =100.0%
Accuracy: 80/82 . =97.6%
3) Throat swab
Correlation between this product and a competitor's in vitro diagnostic product that uses a similar assay method gave the following results:
Type A sensitivity: 42/49 =85.7%
Type A specificity: 239/241 =99.2%
Type B sensitivity: 79/90 =87.8%
Type B specificity: 192 / 200 =96.0%
Accuracy: 264/290 =91.0%
PACKAGE CONTENTS
QUICK INFLU A-B 10 Tests/Package Product code number: RapidinfluAB
Nicoscreen market leader for cotinine testing
31.10.2008
The Nicoscreen® test is a very accurate POC (Point of Care) Cotinine test for detecting Cotinine in urine. It is supplied by Modern Health Systems Ltd (MHS) and the brand is a registered trade mark and legally protected.
The Nicoscreen® Cotinine test has been independently evaluated by UK experts and laboratories and found to be a highly reliable and accurate method for detecting the recent use of Nicotine and ideal for the insurance industry.
Currently Nicoscreen® is in use by major insurance companies, leading UK laboratories, NHS trusts, occupational health providers and medical practitioners.
Nicoscreen® is an exclusive MHS brand and can only be supplied by approved distributors. MHS has recently become aware from clients that other POC Cotinine tests have become available that may make similar claims. We strongly advise clients to take care when purchasing Cotinine POC tests.
Not all POC Cotinine tests have been subjected to the same rigorous UK independent evaluations as Nicoscreen® Quality control systems are in place to maintain the product’s reliability as a market leader in accordance with ISO 9001 and ISO 13485
Immunoassays’ quality can vary significantly and false readings may occur resulting in misdiagnosis and damage to the reputation of the organisation undertaking the tests. We would therefore recommend GC/MS laboratory confirmations. Some other Cotinine POC tests are not for re-sale in the UK and therefore may not be covered under manufacturers’ quality control systems.
Disclaimer
MHS does not accept any responsibility for any diagnostic Cotinine tests used by clients other than those approved by MHS.
Use of the Nicoscreen® trade mark or any associated materials including instructions sheets or brand marking is strictly prohibited.
If clients have any doubts about products and accuracy they are strongly advised to contact us 0845 873 9602 and speak to:
Our science advisor Graham Cope PhD or our customer service advisor Clare.
Quit smoking with NicoScreen
05.06.2008
NicoScreen is the UK's leading rapid test for the detection of nicotine.
A leading Yorkshire Company Masternaut Three X, based in Aberford, Leeds is offering its nicotine-addicted employees a £2,500 bonus if they successfully quit smoking.
More companies are recognising the need for a healthy non-smoking work force and NicoScreen is helping to encourage smokers to remain nicotine free.
Drugs and suicide
21.02.2008
There is growing evidence of the links between certain drugs and mental illnesses. Cannabis 'skunk' is believed to be linked to psychosis and paranoia.
Ecstasy (mdma)may be linked to depression and suicide.
Recent tragic suicides in Bridgend highlight the need for greater awareness of the risks to young people
of depression. Recognizing depression, substance abuse and other disorders associated with suicide could provide you with an opportunity to frankly ask those at risk if they're considering suicide. You could then help steer them to appropriate treatment.
New hair test for alcohol
16.05.2007
Hair testing for drugs on-line proves a success with legal services. New hair test for alcohol use has been launched and will feature here soon.
Draeger Safety
10.10.2007
Tests4health are UK approved distributors of Draeger products and will shortly be launching the latest advanced technology to detect drugs in the workplace. This compliments the highly regarded range of Draeger alco-test devices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
