Role of high mobility group box-1 and protection of growth hormone and somatostatin in severe acute pancreatitis

In this study, we investigated the potential role of high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) and the effects of growth hormone (G) and somatostatin (S) in SAP rats. The rats were randomly divided into 6 groups of 20 each: sham-operated, SAP, SAP+saline, SAP+G, SAP+S and SAP+G+S. Ileum and pancreas tissues of rats in each group were evaluated histologically. HMGB1 mRNA expression was measured by reverse transcription-PCR. Levels of circulating TNF-α, IL-1, IL-6, and endotoxin were also measured. In the SAP group, interstitial congestion and edema, inflammatory cell infiltration, and interstitial hemorrhage occurred in ileum and pancreas tissues. The levels of HMGB1, TNF-α, IL-1, IL-6 and endotoxin were significantly up-regulated in the SAP group compared with those in the sham-operated group, and the 7-day survival rate was 0%. In the SAP+G and SAP+S groups, the inflammatory response of the morphological structures was alleviated, the levels of HMGB1, TNF-α, IL-1, IL-6, and endotoxin were significantly decreased compared with those in the SAP group, and the survival rate was increased. Moreover, in the SAP+G+S group, all histological scores were significantly improved and the survival rate was significantly higher compared with the SAP group. In conclusion, HMGB1 might participate in pancreas and ileum injury in SAP. Growth hormone and somatostatin might play a therapeutic role in the inflammatory response of SAP.

Rethinking the economics of capital mobility and capital controls

This paper reexamines the issue of international financial capital mobility, which is today's economic orthodoxy. Discussion is often framed in terms of the impossible trinity. That framing distorts discussion by representing capital mobility as having equal significance with sovereign monetary policy and control over exchange rates. It also distorts discussion by ignoring possibilities for coordinated monetary policy and exchange rates, and for managed capital flows. The case for capital mobility rests on neo-classical economic efficiency arguments and neo-liberal political arguments. The case against capital mobility is based on Keynesian macroeconomic inefficiency arguments, neo-Walrasian market failure arguments, and neo-Marxian arguments regarding distortion of the social structure of accumulation. Close examination shows the case for capital mobility to be extremely flimsy, pointing to the ideological dimension behind today's policy orthodoxy.

Neoliberalism and global capital mobility: a necessary reconsideration of textbook trade theory

Textbook theory ignores capital flows: trade determines exchange rates and specialisation. Approaches taking the effects of capital movements adequately into account are needed, and a new theory of economic policy including measures to protect the real economy from external volatility. Equilibrating textbook mechanisms cannot work unless trade-caused surpluses and deficits set exchange rates. To allow orthodox trade theory to work one must hinder capital flows from destroying its very basis, which the IMF and wrong regulatory decisions have done, penalising production and trade. A new, real economy based theory is proposed, a Neoclassical agenda of controlling capital flows and speculation.