Professor John Burn of Newcastle University, UK, writes in the British Medical Journal that doing so "would give us unparalleled knowledge to prevent, diagnose, and treat disease".

He explains that the cost of gene sequencing has fallen 10,000-fold in a decade, and continues to fall. "We can have a whole genome for the price of a family package holiday," he writes.

Everyone carries about three million sequence variants, of which about 400 contribute to disease predisposition, and one or two would cause a severe disease if both parents pass them to a child. "The bioinformaticians need to know it all" to develop better diagnostic tests, he says.

Linking genome sequencing to clinical outcomes will boost drug discovery and development, expose the weaknesses of pathogens in order to tackle epidemics, and prevent drug resistance, he states.

However in the same journal Professor Frances Flinter of Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, points out the disadvantages.

"The cost and challenges of analysing, interpreting, and storing the data are substantial," he writes. But more important are the ethical issues it raises.

What will be the nature of the consent given by patients? He asks. What happens if they change their mind? How will implications for relatives be handled? What secondary uses of the data will be allowed? What about people with mental health disorders or learning difficulties? What about possible commercial gain by the private sector?

"Possessing the technical ability to do something new is not an immediate justification for going ahead with it," he writes, especially in such an ethically complex area."

Burns, J. Should we sequence everyone's genome? Yes. BMJ 22 May 2013 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3133 [abstract]

Flinter, F. Should we sequence everyone's genome? No. BMJ 22 May 2013 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3132 [abstract]

Researchers in Belgium and the USA revealed findings of separate pieces of research, which failed to find benefits from the drug bexarotene.

The drug is a retinoid developed to treat cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

A year ago researchers said it had shown promise against Alzheimer's disease in tests on laboratory mice.

But writing in Science last night Bart De Strooper, of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, says the drug should not be tested on patients with Alzheimer's disease.

He said: "Science is a learning process and one learns by trial and error and by starting again and correcting mistakes. Therefore, it is logical that conclusions from scientific research – even in prestigious journals – need to be re-evaluated from time to time.

"If results cannot be reproduced, it is very important that this is mentioned so that other scientists can also determine the value of a publication (reproducible science is the only true science). This is the only way that we can learn from our mistakes and hopefully one day develop a drug.”

And Professor David Borchelt, of Florida University, USA, said: "We thought it was important that something like this, which got a lot of publicity and patients were immediately looking to try to get access to this drug, that it was important to publish the fact that we couldn’t reproduce the most exciting part of the study.

"Maybe there should be some caution going forward in regard to patients.”

"Technical comment on ApoE-Directed Therapeutics Rapidly Clear b-Amyloid and Reverse Deficits in AD Mouse Models”, Ina Tesseur et al., Science 24 May 2013

The Canadian research links particular kinds of statins to risk of diabetes. One kind was linked with a 22% increased risk - while others were linked to slightly reduced odds of developing the disease.

One possibility is that people who take statins are less concerned to maintain a healthy lifestyle than others.

But researchers said it was possible there were also direct biological causes.

Writing in The BMJ , the researchers report a study of 1.5 million people in Ontario, Canada, all over the age of 66 and all were taking statins.

The researchers only compared people taking statins - potentially eliminating the effect on lifestyle of taking the drugs.

All the kinds of statin were compared with the drug pravastatin as other research has suggested this might help prevent diabetes. The researchers say their findings suggest that this drug might continue to be a better choice than other kinds of statin.

British experts said statin users should not be worried about the findings.

Maureen Talbot, of the British Heart Foundation, said: "Statins are taken safely by millions in the UK and protect those at high risk of developing coronary heart disease.

"Although this study suggests an increased risk of older people developing diabetes when taking certain statins, other risk factors like being overweight, family history and ethnicity may have played their part.

"There are benefits and risks with all medicines so if you’re worried, discuss your concerns with your GP."

Aleesa A Carter et al. Risk of incident diabetes among patients treated with statins: population based study. BMJ 24 May 2013;346:f2610 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2610

The British researchers say patients suffer from a "complex combination" of hundreds of small, weak changes in genes - with each change being found widely in the population.

The researchers at Queen Mary, University of London, say the findings suggest the diseases result from combinations of genetic and environmental factors.

They say there is no evidence that any of the diseases are caused by small numbers of rare genetic mutations.

The researchers set out to study six autoimmune diseases - thought to be caused by the immune system going awry and attacking the body.

These were coeliac disease, Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, the skin disease psoriasis, type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid disease.

Their findings were reported in the journal Nature.

The researchers compared some 25,000 people with these diseases with another 17,000 people free from them, studying variants in some 25 genes previously linked to the diseases.

Researcher Professor David van Heel said: "These results suggests that risk for these autoimmune diseases is not due to a few high-risk genetic variations but seems rather due to a random selection from many common genetic variants which each have a weak effect.

"For each disease there are probably hundreds such variants and the genetic risk is likely to come from inheriting a large number of these variants from both parents."

He added: "If this is the case then it may never be possible to accurately predict an individual's genetic risk of these common autoimmune diseases."

One of the researchers was Professor Richard Trembath, vice-principal of the Barts and The London School of Medicine.

He said: "The results prompt a re-assessment of the genetic architecture that determines risk for development of common auto-immune disorders and will fuel future careful assessment of regions of the human genome beyond those presently known to confer susceptibility to these important medical conditions."

Nature 22 May 2013

British researchers conducted a study in the nearby country of Vietnam and found the level of immunity was "very low."

So far 36 deaths from the H7N9 virus have been reported in south-east China from an outbreak thought to centre on pigeon and poultry markets in Shanghai. Another 95 cases of infection have been identified.

The researchers from the Wellcome Trust Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, based in Vietnam, tested people in rural and urban Vietnam.

They say that Vietnam would be especially vulnerable if the flu outbreak were to jump the Chinese borders.

The findings, which used new techniques developed in the Netherlands, show that the new virus is not widely found in south-east Asia. they have been reported in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Researcher Dr Maciej Boni said: "H7N9 is a virus that until now has only infected birds so it's not surprising that we don't find much evidence of humans having been exposed to it.

"It is reassuring that in Vietnam we don't see any evidence that the current outbreaks represent a tip-of-the iceberg observation of widespread H7N9 infection in people.

"On the other hand, the low antibody levels indicate that there is likely to be very little immunity to this virus."

Dr Boni added: "It has been suggested that people who live in closer proximity to chickens and other birds will have higher levels of immunity to bird flu viruses simply because their exposure is likely to be greater. However we find no evidence for this."

Centre director Professor Jeremy Farrar said the findings should be treated with caution - as it was not clear how much immunity the new technique measured. The technique measures levels of antibodies.

He said: "These new techniques do allow for much higher throughput of samples, ease of use and once validated may allow much more rapid assessment of the spread of infection and levels of population immunity than do traditional assays."

M. Boni et al. Population level antibody estimates to novel influenza A/H7N9. Journal of Infectious Diseases 17 May 2013 [abstract]

Researchers at the University of Gothenburg say they have successfully tested the vaccine on healthy volunteers.

They hope the vaccine will help prevent hundreds of thousands of child deaths in poor countries - as well as dozens of people who fall ill after travelling to these countries.

It can be administered by mouth.

The researchers say it has been developed from four strains of E.coli and a protein found in the enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli bacteria.

Some 129 volunteers took part in the study, with some of them receiving placebo vaccine. The researchers say there was no sign of serious side-effects and that 75% of the volunteers showed signs of developing immune protection against E.coli.

The findings are due to be reported later this year at international conferences on vaccines in Copenhagen, Denmark, and in Bangkok, Thailand.

A university spokesman said: "Based on these very encouraging results, additional clinical studies are planned to document protective efficacy in travellers, and to study the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine when given to children living in areas endemic for enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli bacteria."

Professor Ian Greer of Liverpool University, UK, and colleagues say that pregnant women are often unclear about the safety of air travel, as many airlines prohibit pregnant women over 36 weeks gestation from flying.

Although environmental and physiological changes occur at high altitudes, Professor Greer and his team believe these changes pose no direct risk to healthy pregnant women. Body scanners also pose no hazard, say the team.

However they point out that motion sickness may exacerbate morning sickness, and as with all passengers, immobility during long flights may raise the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

The team also recommend that pregnant women may wish to avoid air travel from 37 weeks gestation, which is classed as full term. They add that pregnant women who have complications, are carrying more than one baby, or who have other risk factors for preterm labour probably should not fly from 32 weeks of pregnancy.

Their paper is published today (22 May) by the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Pregnant women on medium to long-haul flights (four-plus hours) may choose to use compression stockings, and those with significant DVT risk factors should take low-molecular-weight heparin for a few days starting on the day of travel.

"For uncomplicated pregnancies there is no reason to give advice against commercial air travel, and specifically there is no issue with travel in early pregnancy as the main consideration is risk of labour," says Professor Greer.

"However if the woman has a history of miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy it would be sensible to suggest ultrasound prior to travel to confirm the location and viability of the pregnancy."

Experts have added recommendations about heart rate to guidelines prepared by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

The guidance seeks to help doctors identify which of hundreds of childhood fevers are likely to represent serious illness.

They also give advice on using common drugs to treat fever.

About a third of parents of young children will contact the health services about a case of fever every year.

The problem represents the second most common reason for hospital admission - as a few cases may indicate serious diseases such as meningitis or pneumonia.

The guidance says drugs such as paracetamol and ibuprofen will not prevent febrile convulsions - and should not be given together.

It says doctors can tell parents to switch drugs if one has no impact.

Paediatrician Dr Martin Richardson said: "The updated guideline has two major changes. The first is a revision of the well respected traffic light table of symptoms and signs. In particular, the inclusion of raised heart rate should lead to further improvements in the recognition of seriously ill children.

"The second major change is that the section on the treatment of fever has been rewritten to encourage the rational, stepwise use of drugs such as paracetamol and ibuprofen."

GP Dr John Crimmins added: “While dealing with children with fever is an everyday encounter in general practice, identifying the small number of those children who are in the early stages of a serious bacterial illness remains a difficult and challenging problem.

"As outcomes are largely dependent on early intervention, the initial assessments of these children, which can also occur in a variety of other settings including telephone advice lines, A&E and out-of-hours services, are crucial."

Instead former cancer patients tend to be less active and more sedentary than other people of the same age, according to a major British study.

Specialists said the findings showed the idea that a diagnosis of disease would prove a "wake-up" call was wrong.

Researcher Professor Jane Wardle, of University College London, said the findings showed reductions in use of alcohol and tobacco among cancer survivors and the general public at about the same rate.

She said: "Anecdotally, we often hear that a cancer diagnosis is a wake-up call - but the results from our large study show that this is not the general rule.

"People who received a cancer diagnosis during the time we were studying them were no more likely to quit smoking, drink less or become more active than those who remained cancer-free."

Sara Hiom, of Cancer Research UK, said: “More needs to be done to encourage cancer survivors to take a look at their lifestyle choices and support them in making improvements that could increase their chances of survival and sense of wellbeing.

"Patients and health professionals could be made more aware of the information and evidence on these issues and supported in how to make manageable changes after diagnosis and treatment.”

Williams K. at al. Is a cancer diagnosis a trigger for health behaviour change? Findings from a prospective, population-based study. British Journal of Cancer 22 May 2013.

A new study has linked bed-sharing to a five times increased risk of cot death.

The increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) to breastfed babies under three months old remains the same, regardless of whether or not the parents are non-smokers and the mother does not use illegal drugs and has not drunk alcohol.

Writing online in BMJ Open, Professor Bob Carpenter, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK, and colleagues estimate that about 88% of all SIDS cases that happened while the parents and babies bed shared would not have happened if the babies had slept alone.

Professor Carpenter said today: "If parents were made aware of the risks of sleeping with their baby, and room sharing was instead promoted in the same way that the 'Back to Sleep' campaign was promoted 20 years ago to advise parents to place their newborn infants to sleep on their backs, we could achieve a substantial reduction in cot death rates in the UK.

"Annually there are around 300 cot death cases in babies under a year old in the UK, and this advice could save the lives of up to 40% of those. Health professionals need to make a definite stand against all bed sharing, especially for babies under three months."

The researchers say: “The current messages saying that bed sharing is dangerous only if you or your partner are smokers, have been drinking alcohol or taking drugs that make you drowsy, are very tired or the baby is premature or of low-birth weight, are not effective."

Midwives today said there might be circumstances when parents had a baby in bed with them - but they should ensure they do not fall asleep.

Janine Stockdale, of the UK Royal College of Midwives, said the safest place for a baby was in a cot in the parents' room.

She said: "The RCM is not against parents taking their child into bed with them, for example, for breastfeeding and to comfort the child. However, even when doing this parents need to be organised and very sensitive to how tired they are when they do this, for example it is easy to fall asleep when breastfeeding especially in the middle of the night."

Combining individual data from five published data sets from the UK, Europe and Australasia, this is the largest individual level study of SIDS, including data on 1,472 SIDS cases and 4,679 controls.

The results showed that even when neither parent smoked and the mother did not drink alcohol or take drugs, breastfed babies under three months old had a five times higher risk of SIDS than babies who had slept in a cot next to their parents’ bed.

The risk of SIDS decreased as baby grew older, but if either parent was a smoker or the mother had drunk more than two units of alcohol in the previous 24 hours or had used illegal drugs at any time since the child was born, the risk was greatly increased.

Prof Carpenter’s study found that of the 22.2% of babies who had died from SIDS, both parents had been sleeping with their child at the time of death, while 9.6% of the parents in the control group had awoken the morning of the interview in the same bed as their child.

Over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in bed sharing and the authors believe about half of SIDS cases occur while bed sharing – more than double the figure found in the study.

“88% of the deaths that occurred while bed sharing would probably not have occurred had the baby been placed on its back in a cot by the parents’ bed,” write the authors.

Even in very low-risk breastfed babies, where there were no risk factors for SIDS other than that they had slept in their parents’ bed, 81% of SIDS deaths in infants under three months of age could have been prevented by not bed sharing, they add.

SIDS is still one of the major causes of death among babies from 28 days to their first birthday in developed countries.

Carpenter C, McGarvey C et al. Bed sharing when parents do not smoke: is there a risk of SIDS? An individual level analysis of five major case–control studies. BMJ Open Online First. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002299