Connect with us

Women’s Health

Infected Cut Symptoms – How To ID An Infected Wound, From A Derm



It’s an unfortunate fact of life: cutbacks happen to good people. But in most cases, you can clean it, put a bandage on your wound, and get on with your life. However, sometimes things don’t go according to plan and you can end up with an infected cut – and the excruciating symptoms of one.

Maybe you didn’t clean your cut as well as you should have, or maybe you were just unlucky. However, it is not good if you squint at your cut and google things like “How do I know if a cut is infected” and “Is my cut infected or is it just healing?” while silently telling yourself that you are in complete control of the situation.

Okay, why should a cut get infected in the first place?

There are a few ways a cut can become infected, says Baltimore-based board-certified dermatologist Ife J. Rodney, MD, founding director of Eternal Dermatology and Aesthetics. “If bacteria, dirt and microorganisms get into the open wound or healthy bacteria mix with damaged skin, it can lead to an infection,” she says. Your cut can also be contaminated from other parts of the body, says Dr. Rodney, like touching the cut after you haven’t washed your hands after your bathroom break.

And, says Dr. Rodney, how clean you keep the actual cut is important. “If the incision is not properly cleaned, treated, and covered, the chances of infection increase significantly,” she says.

When you actually have an infected cut or scratch, a few things can happen, ranging from minor issues to more worrisome issues. In general, skin infections can lead to blistering, scarring, and discoloration, says Dr. Rodney. However, if the infection is severe, it can cause severe symptoms such as fever, fatigue, and swollen lymph nodes. “These are signs that the infection has spread beyond the dermis to other parts of the body,” says Dr. Rodney.

If you have severe symptoms, along with nausea, vomiting, or drowsiness, she recommends going to the emergency room right away. These could be signs that you have developed sepsis, a serious and potentially life-threatening complication of infection.

Deep breaths. Here’s what you need to know to identify an infected cut and avoid infection in the first place.

What does an infected cut look like?

There are a couple of key clues that you’re dealing with an infected cut, says Dr. Rodney, and this can vary by stage.

To begin with, you may notice the following symptoms:

  • Redness
  • swelling
  • Yellow crusts on the wound

    As the infection progresses, more severe symptoms may develop, such as:

    • Streakiness around the cut
    • Pain
    • Warmth to touch
    • pus
    • Yellow, green, or brown discharge

      According to Dr. Rodney noticed these signs:

      • fever
      • fatigue
      • Swollen, tender lymph nodes
      • A foul smell from the cut with yellow or green discharge

        How should I treat an infected cut?

        Pretty sure you are dealing with an infected cut? When it’s early and doesn’t seem severe, Dr. Rodney that you can potentially treat it at home – as long as you monitor the situation.

        “Making sure the cut is clean and protected is a top priority,” she says. That means washing your infected cut with soap and warm water, then keeping it dry and covered with a clean bandage.

        This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may find the same content in a different format or more information on their website.

        “Keep the wound clean and covered, and check and change the dressing daily,” says Dr. Rodney. You can come across home remedies, like turmeric, honey, or aloe to treat an infected cut, but Dr. Rodney says it’s really best to use good ol ‘soap and water. Also: Avoid using an antiseptic on your cut. “You risk damaging the skin further and delaying healing,” says Dr. Rodney.

        If things don’t seem to get better in a day or two, symptoms worsen, you notice red streaks or redness spreading, or you have a fever, it is time to see a professional. Treating an infected cut may require antibiotics.

        How can I prevent a cut from getting infected?

        Of course, the best way to avoid all of this is to reduce the risk of an infected cut. The next time you get a small incision, Dr. Rodney to take these steps:

        • Wash your hands with soap and water.
        • Rinse the wound with soap and plain water.
        • Cover the incision with sterile gauze or a bandage.

          It’s not a 100 percent guarantee your cut won’t get infected, but it should drastically reduce the risk of going through this drama again.

          This content is created and maintained by a third party and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may find more information on this and similar content at

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Women’s Health

Why are medical journals full of fashionable nonsense?



In August 2018, The Lancet published a curious paper reminiscent of America’s long-forgotten era of Prohibition. The research came to a remarkable conclusion: there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

The conclusion was largely a product of the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (which recently tarnished its reputation by promoting extremely inaccurate COVID models), and the conclusion was contrary to common sense and the scientific literature. Notably, it also contradicted the study’s own data. Figure 5 of the study, pictured below, clearly shows that there is no significant difference in health outcomes (measured as the relative risk on the y-axis) between people who don’t drink at all and people who drink one drink a day to take in.

Source: GBD 2016 Alcohol Collaborators, Lancet, 2018.

Why a research paper would come to a conclusion that is not supported by its own data would be puzzling if the authors had not stated (to their credit?) Their motivation in advance: need to be revised worldwide in order to revert to the effort focus on reducing the overall consumption of the population. ”In other words, the authors are on a sacred mission; whether the data they support is of minor importance.

The Lancet study points to a larger trend in scientific journals, an increasing prevalence of fashionable nonsense backed not by research but by ideology. Scientific magazines are meant to be the porters of objective facts, not cheerleaders for moral crusades or fashionable ideologies. Adjusting to the political zeitgeist of science is not something a medical journal – or any scientific journal – should do. But that is exactly what they are increasingly doing. This is dangerous. And we can turn to a landmark book for guidance on why this is happening.

Fashionable nonsense

In 1999, physicists Alan Sokal (of Sokal Hoax fame) and Jean Bricmont published a book called Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. Their thesis was that part of the academic world, generally within the humanities and social sciences, had embraced postmodernism, a philosophy which they defined as follows:

“… an intellectual current that is characterized by the more or less explicit rejection of the rationalistic tradition of the Enlightenment, by theoretical discourses that are beyond any empirical examination, and by a cognitive and cultural relativism, science only as ‘narrative’ ‘Myth’ or a social construction among many others. ”

By their definition, a good example of fashionable nonsense comes from self-help guru Deepak Chopra, who once wrote a book called Quantum Healing – a term that sounds learned but is utter gibberish. The word “quantum” is often used in particle physics to denote the minimal differences in energy levels, but it has no use in medicine. Combining both is nonsense, much like inspiring an audience with a term like “gravitational genetics”.

More than two decades after Sokal and Bricmont’s book was published, the problem has grown exponentially. Rather than just inappropriately adopting the language of science, postmodernism – the inherent indefinability of which appears to be a feature rather than a flaw – has invaded the scientific establishment itself. The “fashionable nonsense” that Sokal and Bricmont originally identified has mutated and grown to embody a wide range of problems, from cynical features to Orwellian changes in our vocabulary.

Medical journals get on political trains

In the weeks, months, and years following the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, it became fashionable for scientists to link their research to bioterrorism, however tangential it may be. This still occurs. An article published in the Journal of Bacteriology in April 2021 reported the discovery that a specific gene (or perhaps a group of genes) for the bacterium that causes Q fever (called Coxiella burnetii) is necessary to make immune cells in mice infect. The authors quickly pointed out that C. burnetti is “classified as a potential biological warfare agent”.

To be clear, the research is perfectly legitimate and important. The Journal of Bacteriology is a very respected journal in the field of microbiology. And yes, C. burnetii has been used as a weapon before and is considered a bio-terrorist threat. But let’s be realistic: Few national security officers lose sleep because of Q fever, a farm animal-borne disease that kills about 12 Americans each year.

The point is, it’s good to hop on a political train to get attention – and then fund it. We are experiencing a similar phenomenon with climate change. No matter how foreign a topic is, researchers try to link it to climate change. Job-stealing robots? Climate change. Revive the woolly mammoth? Climate change. Cancer therapy? Climate change. What could climate change have to do with cancer? The latter article provides an example: “[P]People with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer [a]They are more likely to die if their radiation therapy [i]s interrupted by hurricanes. “

In this dubious setting – where any fancy link to climate change is simply accepted as scientifically legitimate – the New England Journal of Medicine recently published a perspective on the importance of “decarbonising” the health sector. The opening sentence makes a bold assertion: “Nowhere are the effects of climate change more evident than in human health.” Really? One could argue that satellite images showing melting ice caps and retreating glaciers are much clearer – or perhaps the planet’s remarkable rise in temperature or record breaking heat waves.

While this first statement could be dismissed as poetically hyperbolic, the second sentence of the article cannot read: “Although many people view climate change as an impending threat, millions of people are already dying each year from the resulting health problems.” -Measurable quantity and is either true or false. The authors cited this paper to support their claim, but it seems that none of them got it.

According to the cited study, there were an average of about five million additional deaths per year from 2000 to 2019 due to “sub-optimal temperatures,” 90 percent of which were due to cold and only 10 percent to heat. In addition, as the temperature rises, more people survived the extreme cold than died from the extreme heat, so temperature-related deaths have decreased on a net basis. The cited paper not only does not support the claim of the authors, it even contradicts it.

It turned out that another source cited by the authors contradicted their claim. According to the World Health Organization, “climate change is expected to cause around 250,000 additional deaths per year from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress between 2030 and 2050”. Another paper in Nature Climate Change (not cited by the authors) concluded: “[O]Our overall estimate that heat stress from man-made climate change is responsible for ~ 0.6% of total warm season deaths, if applied globally, would result in more than a hundred thousand deaths per year. “

In other words, the authors’ extraordinary claim that “millions of people” are currently dying from climate change is at least a factor of ten exaggerated.

Orwellian Medicine?

Playing quick and easy with public health data is hardly the only example of fashionable nonsense. Another worrying aspect is the monitoring of scientific vocabulary in a way that is confusing at best and Orwellian at worst.

On September 25th of that year, The Lancet published an issue that rightly wanted to raise awareness of women’s health, a topic that has a long and inglorious past as medicine has been dominated by men for millennia. The cover sheet, which was mostly a blank white page, contained the following text: “Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.”

Photo credit: The Lancet (September 25, 2021 edition)

The quote, which came from an article in which the word “women” was still used, nevertheless sparked a firestorm. Critics argued that women are being “dehumanized” and reduced to body parts in a way that men never are. Nobody, for example, describes men as “bodies with penises”. The excitement was so bad that Editor-in-Chief Dr. Richard Horton was forced to publish a statement and a pseudo-apology.

In the statement, Horton stated that the quote was inclusive and a compelling call to empower women, along with non-binary, trans, and intersex people who have experienced menstruation, and to address the myths and taboos surrounding menstruation. “Inclusivity is a necessary and admirable goal, as is the breaking down of taboos about female physiology. However, this requires clarity of thought and wise communication. Refusing to spotlight “women’s health” when the obvious goal is to spotlight women’s health really fails. It also undermines Horton’s admonition that “serious problems” […] call for serious action. ”It is difficult to take The Lancet seriously under the circumstances, which thwarts one’s goal. This is bad not only for The Lancet, but for the entire biomedical community.

The deadly effect of fashionable nonsense

When Sokal and Bricmont wrote their book, the fashionable nonsense they complained seemed largely limited to abuses by the humanities and social sciences. But this newer fashionable nonsense has infected other parts of the campus, most notably the public health sector. At the same time, the trend is increasingly threatening society as a whole. It is one thing to publish fashionable nonsense in an art history journal; it is a matter of life or death when it is published in a medical journal.

Why? Because public health officials use medical journals to guide decision-making. Doctors too. Journalists broadcast the conclusions of published research to the general public. And if the public believes they can’t trust medical journals on simple things – like advice on drinking alcohol – why should we expect people to trust them on anything like the safety of MMR and COVID vaccines? The credibility problem faced by the biomedical and public health facility is, at least in part, a product of its own manufacture.

Continue Reading

Women’s Health

More firms supporting female entrepreneurs in Japan



To foster a more diversified society, more and more Japanese firms have begun supporting women entrepreneurs in hopes of revitalizing the economy with services and products designed from the perspective of women.

Some businesses target investing in businesses founded by women in a country where women entrepreneurs face greater challenges in starting businesses than elsewhere.

One such example is coly Inc., an online gaming company for female users. The company, in which women make up more than 70 percent of the employees, has started a project to invest up to tens of millions of yen each in newly founded companies with a female executive.

The photo shows Mizuki Nakajima, CEO of coly Inc. (front) and her sister Anna, co-founder of the company, on June 22, 2021. (Kyodo)

The Tokyo-based game developer was founded by twin sisters shortly after graduating from college in 2014 and debuted on the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s Mothers market for emerging companies in February of that year.

As part of the project, coly plans to support around 10 companies, among other things with management consulting, staff induction and the provision of jobs as well as investments.

“Women entrepreneurs face hurdles because there are few senior women who can advise them on starting and running businesses,” said the company’s CEO Mizuki Nakajima.

Meanwhile, major venture capital firm ANRI, founded in Tokyo in 2012, announced in November last year that it would increase the share of investments it directs in women-owned companies in one of its operational funds to over 20 percent.

Also in the spotlight as a supporter of women entrepreneurs was the MPower Partners Fund, a venture capital fund that was founded by three women in May of this year.

One of the founders is Kathy Matsui, former vice chairwoman of Goldman Sachs Japan, who advocates womenomics, or the idea that women’s economic participation contributes to overall economic growth.

Its working capital is likely to reach around 16 billion yen ($ 140 million) after being backed by large corporations like a life insurance company that has an emphasis on environmental, social and corporate governance.

According to a survey published last year by US credit card company Mastercard Inc., Japan ranked 47th out of 58 economies in its index, which examines the work environment of women and what each economy does to promote female entrepreneurship.

The index reflects factors such as cultural perceptions when starting a business, conditions to support such endeavors, and the visibility of female leaders as role models for aspiring entrepreneurs.

Japan ranks lower than other Asian countries such as Thailand and Taiwan, which were ranked 11th and 12th, respectively, according to the poll.

The steps to support women entrepreneurs are in line with the expansion of a concept called “femtech,” a term that describes products and services that use cutting-edge technology to provide solutions to women’s health problems.

Not only private companies but the Japanese government has shown great interest in femtech in the hope that it will lead to greater participation of women in society.

This year, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry set up a fund for companies involved in femtech-related companies.

The 20 government-selected projects include developing custom bra inserts for women diagnosed with breast cancer, providing telemedicine to women undergoing infertility treatment, and providing gynecological advice to working women.

Continue Reading

Women’s Health

Supreme Court Agrees to Quick Consideration of Texas Abortion Law



WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to quickly consider two lawsuits against a ban on most abortions in Texas, but left the restrictive law for the time being and added a new blockbuster fight to a file that was already another major case of abortion rights contained.

The court set oral arguments for Nov. 1, but postponed the execution of an urgency request by the Justice Department to block the Texas law while the federal government challenges its legality. The Texas limits, which are the most restrictive in the US, have been in place for almost two months.

The case adds to the urgency of a Supreme Court term that is already emerging as significant to the future of abortion law. The judges will consider an appeal from the state of Mississippi in December seeking to enforce a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of gestation.

Both states are trying to reverse precedents protecting abortion law, starting with the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling. The Supreme Court refused to grant such requests for years, but the Republican-led states were more willing to consider the issue after recent changes in the composition of the court made it more conservative.

“These are home run vibes from these states,” said Vikram Amar, dean of law at the University of Illinois. “There is no way Texas or Mississippi laws can be upheld unless existing doctrines and rules are dramatically changed. And so at the end of this term we will know whether it is an incremental conservative court or a transformative court. “

With Friday’s action, judges entered the battle in Texas, although the lower courts have not yet passed final rulings on the law known as the Texas Heartbeat Act or SB 8, which prohibits abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. The measure restricts the process much earlier than current Supreme Court precedent allows, which states that women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before the fetus is viable. Doctors generally assume that if a fetus could live outside the uterus, viability falls into pregnancy after about 21 to 24 weeks.

Republican Abortion Bill draftsman, Senator Bryan Hughes of the state of Texas, said: “I am encouraged that the bill will remain in effect while the case is in court, and I am optimistic that the court will protect Texans’ right to life . ”

The law’s critics expressed mixed views on Friday’s developments.

“It’s good in the sense that we get a response faster than usual,” said Texas State Representative Donna Howard, a Democrat who chairs the Texas Women’s Health Caucus. But it was disappointing, she added, that “Texas women are still being denied the rights and protections that every other US woman has while this is happening.”

Texas state Democrat Donna Howard said, “Texas women are still being denied the rights and protections that every other US woman has” during the trial.


Tom Williams / Zuma Press

The Supreme Court said it would hear separate appeals from the Department of Justice and abortion providers to resolve legal issues related to Texas’s novel effort to protect its law from federal review.

The court’s latest order comes weeks after it voted 5: 4 on September 1 to bring Texan law into effect. The judges’ previous order came when they denied an urgency complaint from the abortion providers, with the majority of the court saying there were procedural issues with the way they challenged the law.

The Justice Department stepped in with its own lawsuit against Texas days later, arguing that its claims did not face the same hurdles that prevented the Supreme Court from intervening in the vendors’ case.

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Austin sided with the department and issued an injunction blocking the law, but the Fifth District Court of Appeals put that ruling on hold last week so state restrictions can remain in place for the time being.

According to SB 8, doctors are not allowed to perform an abortion if they know that there is a “detectable fetal heartbeat” which, according to the law, includes the heart activity of the embryo in the first weeks of pregnancy. The law does not contain any exceptions for rape or incest.

Texas has drafted its law in a way that makes it difficult to challenge it in court by preventing state officials from playing a direct role in enforcing the law. Instead, SB 8 empowers private parties to file civil claims for alleged violations. A plaintiff who wins in court can cash in at least $ 10,000 from someone who performed or assisted a prohibited abortion.

In the weeks since the law went into effect, abortions have been difficult in Texas with some women traveling to abortion clinics in neighboring states.

The Justice Department said in papers filed with the Supreme Court that Texas openly opposed federal constitutional law and “has successfully overturned the decisions of this court within its borders.”

If the state’s tactics succeed, nothing will stop other states from drafting laws denying other constitutional rights previously protected by the Supreme Court, such as the right to own a handgun at home, the ministry said.

Texas responded that it was under no obligation to make its law easily challengeable, arguing that the Justice Department’s lawsuit was inappropriate.

“The federal government cannot enforce abortion, and the Constitution does not give it a special role in protecting a supposed right to abortion,” the state wrote in a court letter.

A march in Austin, Texas earlier this month in response to SB 8, a law that bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy.


Stephen Spillman / Associated Press

The Supreme Court said Friday it would determine whether the federal government can sue Texas in federal court and obtain a ruling “against the state, state court judges, state court employees, other state officials or any private party” to enforce SB 8 . “

In the case of the providers, the court will examine whether Texas can protect its rights from federal judicial review by delegating the law enforcement agency to the public.

Under the normal Supreme Court deadlines, judgments would be expected by the end of June, although decisions could come earlier as judges expedite cases.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote separately on Friday, criticized the court for failing to immediately block the law while it is reviewing the cases.

“The promise of a future decision offers cold comfort … to Texan women seeking abortion assistance who are now eligible for relief,” wrote Judge Sotomayor. “These women will suffer personal harm from the delay in their medical care, and as their pregnancy progresses, they may not even be able to get abortion care.”

Despite the fast-paced litigation in Texas, the Mississippi case, which was brought up for discussion on Dec. 1, may still be the case where the Supreme Court addresses abortion law issues more broadly.

Mississippi argues that neither the text, structure, or history of the Constitution endorse an abortion right. States have legitimate interests in preventing abortion long before the viability of the fetus, which the court defined in 1973 as the capacity for meaningful life outside the womb.

Proponents of abortion rights say the state is pushing for radical legislative changes that would turn 50 years of practice upside down and deprive a woman of the freedom to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy.

Write to Brent Kendall at

Copyright © 2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Continue Reading