The treatment of Parkinson's disease using MAO-B inhibitors

Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors have sparked great controversy in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson’s Disease. There is little doubt that Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors work synergistically with Levodopa to reduce several major debilitating symptoms. Multiple other medications provide a similar symptomatic benefit when combined with Levodopa; thus, a symptomatic benefit alone does little to advance current Parkinson’s treatment. The great controversy in treatment then comes from the possibility that Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors modify the natural course of Parkinson’s Disease. This class of drug protected nigrostriatal dopaminergic neurons in many cellular and animal studies. Clinical studies involving Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors are more controversial. Several studies have shown results that suggest a neuroprotective effect while other have not. This may be because the tools used to assess PD progression are inadequate. To see a clear decrease in nigrostriatal dopaminergic death, and thus prove a neuroprotective effect, more advanced techniques to measure the progression of Parkinson’s Disease must be developed. Given the controversy it will be important to revisit the benefits of MAO-B inhibitors once more advanced progression techniques are available

Letter to the Editor : Attitudes among Spanish general dentists in relation to burning mouth syndrome: Results of a national survey

Thouret Jacques-Guillaume, Lapoule Jean-Denis-Louis, Talleyrand Périgord Charles Maurice de, Goupil de Préfeln Guillaume François, Populus Marc Etienne, Cochard Claude Alexis, Muguet de Nanthou François Felix, Merlin (de Douai), Toulongeon Emmanuel-François, vicomte de, Tronchet François Denis. Discussion de l'article 4 du titre II du décret sur les droits féodaux, lors de la séance du 27 février 1790. In: Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 - Première série (1787-1799) Tome XI - Du 24 décembre 1789 au 1er mars 1790. Paris : Librairie Administrative P. Dupont, 1880. pp. 725-727

What Regulation, Who Pays? Public Attitudes to Charity Regulation in England and Wales

Funding for England and Wales’ Charity Commission has been cut by 48% between 2007 and 2016, impacting on its ability to deliver its core regulatory functions. Conversations around what charity regulation should look like and how it should be funded have therefore gained momentum. These debates, however, are not limited to England and Wales and in this paper we contribute to them by exploring public attitudes to these questions, presenting the findings of four focus groups. We find that while public knowledge of charity regulation is low, people are nonetheless clear that charities should be regulated. There is no clear preferred method of funding a charity regulator and a significant amount of complexity and nuance in public attitudes. People trust charities, but this can be eroded if they do not have confidence in how they operate. A visibly effective regulator supporting and supported by charities is central to maintaining trust

The European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet): Visions and roles of the gateway to marine data in Europe

Marine data are needed for many purposes: for acquiring a better scientific understanding of the marine environment, but also, increasingly, as marine knowledge for decision making as well as developing products and services supporting economic growth. Data must be of sufficient quality to meet the specific users' needs. It must also be accessible in a timely manner. And yet, despite being critical, this timely access to known-quality data proves challenging. Europe's marine data have traditionally been collected by a myriad of entities with the result that much of our data are scattered throughout unconnected databases and repositories. Even when data are available, they are often not compatible, making the sharing of the information and data aggregation particularly challenging. In this paper, we present how the European Marine Observation and Data network (EMODnet) has developed over the last decade to tackle these issues. Today, EMODnet is comprised of more than 150 organizations which gather marine data, metadata, and data products and make them more easily accessible for a wider range of users. EMODnet currently consists of seven sub-portals: bathymetry, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, seabed habitats, and human activities. In addition, Sea-basin Checkpoints have been established to assess the observation capacity in the North Sea, Mediterranean, Atlantic, Baltic, Artic, and Black Sea. The Checkpoints identify whether the observation infrastructure in Europe meets the needs of users by undertaking a number of challenges. To complement this, a Data Ingestion Service has been set up to tackle the problem of the wealth of marine data that remain unavailable, by reaching out to data holders, explaining the benefits of sharing their data and offering a support service to assist them in releasing their data and making them available through EMODnet. The EMODnet Central Portal (www.emodnet.eu) provides a single point of access to these services, which are free to access and use. The strategic vision of EMODnet in the next decade is also presented, together with key focal areas toward a more user-oriented service, including EMODnet for business, internationalization for global users, and stakeholder engagement to connect the diverse communities across the marine knowledge value chain

What is behind smoker support for new smokefree areas? National survey data

BACKGROUND: Some countries have started to extend indoor smokefree laws to cover cars and various outdoor settings. However, policy-modifiable factors around smoker support for these new laws are not well described. METHODS: The New Zealand (NZ) arm of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey (ITC Project) derives its sample from the NZ Health Survey (a national sample). From this sample we surveyed adult smokers (n = 1376). RESULTS: For the six settings considered, 59% of smokers supported at least three new completely smokefree areas. Only 2% favoured smoking being allowed in all the six new settings. Support among Maori, Pacific and Asian smokers relative to European smokers was elevated in multivariate analyses, but confidence intervals often included 1.0.Also in the multivariate analyses, "strong support" by smokers for new smokefree area laws was associated with greater knowledge of the second-hand smoke (SHS) hazard, and with behaviours to reduce SHS exposure towards others. Strong support was also associated with reporting having smokefree cars (aOR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.21 - 2.34); and support for tobacco control regulatory measures by government (aOR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.32 - 2.01). There was also stronger support by smokers with a form of financial stress (not spending on household essentials). CONCLUSIONS: Smokers from a range of population groups can show majority support for new outdoor and smokefree car laws. Some of these findings are consistent with the use of public health strategies to support new smokefree laws, such as enhancing public knowledge of the second-hand smoke hazard