Genetic abnormalities leading to multiple myeloma among Indians studied

Thiruvananthapuram, Jan 16: Kerala Tourism on Wednesday shared a recipe of a popular meat dish in the Central Travancore region of Kerala, Beef Ularthiyathu, which is a special delicacy in the region.

Taking to its Twitter handle, the Kerala Tourism wrote, "Tender chunks of beef, slow-roasted with aromatic spices, coconut pieces, and curry leaves. A recipe for the most classic dish, Beef Ularthiyathu, the stuff of legends, from the land of spices, Kerala."

The State Tourism also shared the recipe of the delicacy with Twitteratis.

The tweet which has garnered 3.5 thousand likes so far had received a mixed response

While some said "beef is not Kerala's culture", others termed the recipe 'a match made in heaven".

Dr Vireandta Jilowa wrote, "Surprised to see it, that beef is being consumed despite BJP government in the Centre."

"We are not slaves of BJP at the Centre....people eat whatever they like in this state, including beef, pork, mutton and fish," another user Tatheesh Vijayakumar wrote.

In 2017, The Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Harsh Vardhan had ordered that the ministry has notified the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 to ensure that the sale of cattle is not meant for slaughter purposes.

Regulating animal trade is a state business, but animal welfare is a central subject.

In lieu of this, there was widespread opposition of the order, with many states openly denying accepting the notification.

Porotta and Kappa biriyani with beef are counted as delicacies by Keralites. 

Also Read: The Art of Prepping Meat

The World Health Organisation on Wednesday said that anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will return to the solidarity trial for the potential treatment of coronavirus disease.

At a press conference in the WHO headquarters in Geneva, Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said: "On the basis of the available mortality data, the members of the committee recommended that there are no reasons to modify the trial protocol. The Executive Group received this recommendation and endorsed continuation of all arms of the solidarity trial, including hydroxychloroquine."

The world health body had temporarily suspended the usage of HCQ from the solidarity trial for coronavirus treatment on May 25 soon after a study published in one of the most reliable medical journals, which had suggested that the drug could cause more fatalities among COVID-19 patients.

However, the WHO chief said that the decision was taken as a precaution while the safety data was reviewed.

Ghebreyesus also said that the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee will continue to closely monitor the safety of all therapeutics being tested in the solidarity trial.

"So far, more than 3,500 patients have been recruited in 35 countries. WHO is committed to accelerating the development of effective therapeutics, vaccines and diagnostics as part of our commitment to serving the world with science, solutions and solidarity," he said.

Soon after HCQ was suspended from the trial, the Indian government had said that the antimalarial drug has been known for its benefits for a long time and its usage will be continued on the frontline workers, including police and healthcare professionals, as prophylaxis. The government had also said that studies were being conducted and the drug would be included in the clinical trial also for the treatment of coronavirus disease.

US President Donald Trump also had strongly advocated the use of HCQ and called it a "game-changer". He went to the extent of saying that he had taken the medicine.

Launched by WHO and partners, solidarity trial is an international clinical trial to find an effective treatment for COVID-19, including drugs to slow the progression of the disease or improve survival. The trial, which enrols patients from different countries, "will compare four treatment options against standard of care to assess their relative effectiveness against COVID-19", said WHO. 

Should you let your babies "cry it out" or rush to their side? Researchers have found that leaving an infant to 'cry it out' from birth up to 18 months does not adversely affect their behaviour development or attachment.

The study, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that an infant's development and attachment to their parents is not affected by being left to "cry it out" and can actually decrease the amount of crying and duration.

"Only two previous studies nearly 50 or 20 years ago had investigated whether letting babies 'cry it out' affects babies' development. Our study documents contemporary parenting in the UK and the different approaches to crying used," said the study's researcher Ayten Bilgin from the University of Warwick in the UK.

For the study, the researchers followed 178 infants and their mums over 18 months and repeatedly assessed whether parents intervened immediately when a baby cried or let the baby let it cry out a few times or often.

They found that it made little difference to the baby’s development by 18 months.

The use of parent’s leaving their baby to ‘cry it out’ was assessed via maternal report at term, 3, 6 and 18 months and cry duration at term, 3 and 18 months.

Duration and frequency of fussing and crying was assessed at the same ages with the Crying Pattern Questionnaire.

According to the researchers, how sensitive the mother is in interaction with their baby was video-recorded and rated at 3 and 18 months of age.

Attachment was assessed at 18 months using a gold standard experimental procedure, the strange situation test, which assesses how securely an infant is attached to the major caregiver during separation and reunion episodes.

Behavioural development was assessed by direct observation in play with the mother and during assessment by a psychologist and a parent-report questionnaire at 18 months.

Researchers found that whether contemporary parents respond immediately or leave their infant to cry it out a few times to often makes no difference on the short - or longer term relationship with the mother or the infants behaviour.

This study shows that 2/3 of mum's parent intuitively and learn from their infant, meaning they intervene when they were just born immediately, but as they get older the mother waits a bit to see whether the baby can calm themselves, so babies learn self-regulation.