January 26, 2012
By John Phillip
“Here is even more evidence that Vitamin D is key.” –KTRN
The importance of vitamin D for human health has been the topic of extensive research over the past decade. Suboptimal levels of the prohormone are known to compromise immunity, cardiovascular health, bone health and normal metabolism. The result of a new meta-analysis study published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition shows that adequate circulating vitamin D reduces the risk of all-cause mortality by 29 percent. Vitamin D has been shown to provide the blueprint required for healthy DNA replication of cellular structures; low levels of the sunshine vitamin dramatically increase the incidence of many cancer lines as genetic mutations proliferate. Millions of at-risk people can protect themselves by ensuring normal blood saturation levels through a simple blood test and prudent sun exposure or supplementation.
Vitamin D deficiency runs rampant in the aging population around the world. Researchers estimate that correcting this deficiency by doubling the typically low vitamin D levels would result in a 20 percent mortality reduction. A body of evidence shows that senior adults with the lowest level of vitamin D blood saturation more than double their risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality.
January 11. 2012
By Madison Park
The leading killers of Americans continue to be non-infectious diseases like heart disease, strokes and lung diseases.
But one of the perpetual causes of death fell off the top 15 list this year: Homicides.
“Most of the changes were positive,” said Sherry Murphy, a statistician at the National Center of Health Statistics and one of the authors of the annual mortality report. “Homicides fell from among the 15 leading causes for the first time since 1965.”
The rest of the common killers remained fairly consistent compared with 2009, according to the report released Wednesday. The death rate in the United States dropped slightly from 749.6 deaths per 100,000 in 2009 to 746.2 deaths per 100,000.
The life expectancy in the United States inched up a tiny bit from 78.6 years in 2009 to 78.7 years in 2010.
The leading causes of death in 2010 remained nearly the same as in 2009 – kidney diseases became the 8th leading cause of death –- it had been 9th in the previous year. It swapped spots with flu and pneumonia.
The 15th leading killer is pneumonitis due to solids and liquids, an illness more likely to strike the elderly. This is inflammation of the lungs due to inhaling substance inside the lung such as dust, mold or inhalants.
August 16th, 2011
By: S.L. Baker
Imagine a Big Pharma prescription that will slash your risk of dying by 14 percent and give you at least an extra three years of life. How much you would be willing to pay for it? Many people would find a way to take this disease-preventing pill, no matter what the cost. Although there is no such drug, there is a free non-chemical prescription that can provide you with the amazing health benefits described above. There’s just one catch: you have to take responsibility for your health and get moving for 15 minutes a day.
That’s the dramatic conclusion of a study just published in the online version of The Lancet . Dr. Chi-Pang Wen of the National Health Research Institutes in Taiwan and China Medical University Hospital, and Dr. Jackson Pui Man Wai of the National Taiwan Sport University, headed a research team that investigated a large range of physical activity levels to see just how much exercise produces important health benefits. Previous research has come up with unclear results about whether exercising less than 150 minutes a week can help you live longer.
The new study involved over 400,000 Taiwanese people who participated in standard medical screening in Taiwan between 1996 and 2008, with an average follow-up of 8 years. Based on how much the research subjects said they exercised each week, the study participants were placed into one of five categories of exercise: virtually no exercise (inactive), or low, medium, high, or very high physical activity. Next, the scientists calculated hazard ratios (HR), a statistical measurement used to figure out the odds of an event occurring within a group at a particular time, to see what the risk of death was for every group that was active compared with the inactive group. Then the research team calculated life expectancy for each research participant group.
The results? Compared with individuals in the inactive group, those who were active had dramatic health benefits. Even the research participants in the low activity group who only exercised for an average of 92 minutes per week (about 15 minutes a day) had a 14 percent reduced risk of all-cause mortality, a 10 percent reduced risk of dying from any type of cancer and, on average, a three year longer life expectancy.
What’s more, every additional 15 minutes of exercise each day beyond the minimum amount reduced death from all causes by another four percent and reduced death from cancer by another by one percent. These benefits were found across all age groups and among both men and women. The benefits were even applicable to the people with risks for cardiovascular disease. On the other hand, those in the inactive group who had a 17 percent increased risk of mortality compared with individuals in the low exercise group.
“In Taiwan, if inactive individuals engage in low-volume daily exercise, one in six deaths from all causes could be prevented,” the scientists said in a statement to the media. “If the minimum amount of exercise we suggest is adhered to, mortality from heart disease, diabetes, and cancer could be reduced. This low volume of physical activity could play a central part in the global war against non-communicable diseases, reducing medical costs and health disparities.”
In commentary about the study, Dr. Anil Nigam and Dr. Martin Juneau of the Montreal Heart Institute and Universite de Montreal in Quebec, Canada stated: “The knowledge that as little as 15 minutes per day of exercise on most days of the week can substantially reduce an individual’s risk of dying could encourage many more individuals to incorporate a small amount of physical activity into their busy lives. Governments and health professionals both have major roles to play to spread this good news story and convince people of the importance of being at least minimally active.”
July 12, 2011
By Anne Harding
People who eat more sodium and less potassium may die sooner of heart or other problems than people who consume the opposite, a large, 15-year-study has found.
The study of more than 12,000 Americans provides more ammunition to health advocates who say that slashing salt intake will save lives. But not everyone is convinced, as some research is contradictory.
In the new study, men consumed an average of 4,323 milligrams of sodium a day, while women took in 2,918 milligrams.
The American Heart Association recommends people limit their sodium intake to 1,500 milligrams a day or less.
The group with the highest sodium-to-potassium ratio had a mortality risk about 50% higher during the study than the group with the lowest, according to the report by Elena V. Kuklina, M.D., and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Emory University, and the Harvard School of Public Health. The research was published Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
July 6th, 2011
By: T.M. Hartle
A new study published in Human and Experimental Toxicology has exposed a connection between higher numbers of infant vaccinations and increased infant mortality. In recent years there has been controversy over the risks vaccines pose to infants and children. Studies have been published stating no connection between vaccines and certain health problems including SIDS while others state there is a connection. This recent study highlights the potential connection between vaccination and infant mortality.
The United States requires the highest number of vaccinations for infants under the age of one. Researchers of the latest study on vaccines and infant deaths state: “Of the 34 nations that have crossed the socio-economic threshold and are able to provide the basic necessities for infant survival: clean water, nutrition, sanitation, and health care, several require a relatively high number of vaccine doses and have relatively high infant mortality rates. These nations should take a closer look at their infant death tables to determine if some fatalities are possibly related to vaccines though reclassified as other causes.” This study concluded that the nations with the highest number of vaccine doses in the developed world have the highest infant mortality rates. This study, however, does not stand alone in its implication of vaccines in infant mortality rates.
A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found infant death to be eight times greater within 72 hours post vaccination. A study published in Virchows Archiv and International Journal of Pathology exposed the oversight of many autopsies on suspected SIDS deaths. This study utilized pathologists experienced in vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome (who conducted the autopsy). In examining a 3 month old infant, who died of SIDS, researchers found bilateral hypoplasia of the arcuate nucleus among other findings. The researchers stated that autopsies conducted on SIDS babies fail to evaluate the brainstem and cardiac conduction systems, and they recommend that a full necropsy study be conducted. This study highlights the potential oversight that may occur in vaccine related deaths. It is important to note that while vaccine related deaths are under reported, countries with the lowest infant mortality have the lowest required number of infant vaccines. Japan and Sweden require the lowest number of infant vaccines prior to one year of age and have the lowest infant mortality rates in the developed world.
It is important to weigh the risks and benefits of any course of medical treatment. Parents should make informed decisions about vaccinations based on accurate information. There is significant controversy over the safety and efficacy of vaccination of infants throughout the world. Unfortunately this controversy involves large financial interests, and therefore accurate unbiased research and information is difficult for parents to obtain. The latest research in Human and Experimental Toxicology strongly indicates the need for more investigation into vaccination programs without financial ties to industries that profit from vaccination programs.
June 13th, 2011
By: Madison Park
Getting bariatric surgery will not decrease mortality several years after the surgery, according to a study published in JAMA.
Although the weight-loss surgery has been shown to decrease weight and diminish diabetes, the older, severely obese male patients in the study were not living longer because of the procedure.
The study was to be presented Sunday at the Academy Health Annual Research Meeting.
For the severely obese, bariatric surgery is one of the most effective ways to reduce weight. The most common bariatric surgery is gastric bypass, which creates a small stomach pouch that restricts food intake.
The study conducted at Veteran Affairs medical centers followed 850 veterans who had bariatric surgery from January 2000 to December 2006.
When study authors compared the raw rates, patients who had surgery had lower mortality rates with 6.8 percent versus 15.2 percent after six years.
But when researchers compared the 850 veterans to 1,694 similar patients who did not have bariatric surgery, they found that surgery was not significantly associated with reducing mortality.
Matthew Maciejewski, of Durham VA Medical Center and colleagues concluded that “bariatric surgery does not appear to be associated with survival during a mean of 6.7 years of follow-up.”
Click the picture or link below to hear Dr. John Apsley’s interview on The Kevin Trudeau Show and click here to learn more about how to protect yourself and your family from the Fukushima radioactive fallout.
May 26, 2010
By David Whelan
Not all cities are equal from a fitness standpoint. In some big cities one in three people are obese; in others it’s only one in five. In some cities there is one baseball diamond for every 10,000 people; in others there are five times as many ball fields.
So says this year’s American Fitness Index report, published by the American College of Sports Medicine. It takes the biggest 50 metropolitan areas and ranks them by fitness levels. The top city on the list, now for three years running, is Washington, D.C. The least fit is Oklahoma City, Okla.
The index considers 30 factors. The most important ones are measures of the city population’s disease rates, mortality, physical attributes and lifestyle–even how many people eat full servings of fruit and vegetables. The rest of the ranking is based on the number of dog parks, golf courses, swimming pools and the like.
In Depth: America’s 10 Fittest Cities
“We are thrilled to be the fittest city in the nation for the third consecutive year,” Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said in a statement. “We are investing in our recreation centers, building new swimming pools and opening more parks so our residents can exercise, swim, walk, bike and compete in sports.”
Washington isn’t normally thought of as a health-obsessed city. That designation might bring to mind outdoorsy places like Denver or Minneapolis, two other cities in the top 10.
But the Washington metro area “has a low smoking rate, a better-than-average number of folks eating fruits and vegetables and a lower-than-average rate of obesity,” says Walter Thompson, a professor at Georgia State who advises the index. Another example is the diabetes rate: Only 6.7% of the D.C.-area population has diabetes, compared with 8.3% nationwide. The youthful population of government aides and interns surely helps.
The nation’s capital is also a well-endowed city when it comes to community recreation centers, ball fields and other places to exercise. Washington has the second-highest rate of people walking or biking to work, aided by 60 miles of bike lanes.
On the other hand, just because there are a lot of parks and bike lanes being built doesn’t mean that everyone uses them. And by giving points simply for having infrastructure, the index might favor wealthier cities or those with bigger governments. “It’s a fair point,” says Brenda Chamness, who gathers the data for the index. Chamness points out that research has found that fitness levels rise along with the building of new facilities. “If individuals do not have access to safe, convenient and affordable places to exercise, they would be less likely to exercise.”
May 11, 2010
By Michael Smith
Over a period of nearly two decades, the medical costs of cancer care almost doubled in constant dollars, but remained proportional to other medical costs, researchers said. Over the same time — from 1987 to 2005 — cancer costs shifted away from inpatient care, according to Florence Tangka of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues.
Meanwhile, the share of cancer costs picked up by private insurers and Medicaid increased while private, out-of-pocket expenditures declined slightly, they reported online in the journal Cancer.
Much of the increase in cancer care costs has been driven by a growing caseload — fueled in turn by an aging population, rather than a rise in per-case costs — Tangka and colleagues said.
However, the cost of cancer care is a complex calculation, they noted, involving changes in population, incidence rates, prevalence rates, effectiveness of care, and mortality rates.
By Thomas C. Mountain
The “richest man in the world,” Microsoft’s Bill Gates, recently announced that he was making a $10 billion donation towards finding vaccines to prevent some of the world’s worst diseases.
Malaria is the number one killer in Africa. From what I’m hearing about $1 billion of Bill Gates donation/tax write-off is for research to find a vaccine to prevent malaria.
The African country of Eritrea, where I live, has reduced malaria mortality by 85 percent in the last seven years. How? By using basic public health methods. By distributing pesticide treated mosquito nets and organizing the pesticide retreatment every three months of mosquito nets. By habitat eradication. And by community medical clinics for immediate treatment.
Malaria is a parasite-based disease noted for its variety and quick development of resistance to medication. Any “vaccine,” if even a billion dollars is able to produce such, would have a limited lifetime and new, patented medications would have to be bought by Africa’s poor every few years.
So “donating” a billion dollars to develop a malaria “vaccine” could turn into tens of billions of dollars in drug sales in Africa alone, and Bill Gates, through his drug company investments, will quietly pocket more African blood money.
All the while a very successful malaria mortality reduction program is operating, effectively, safely and affordably, in Eritrea.
Why isn’t this being publicized internationally? Could it be that such a program is not going to put billions into the pockets of the drug lords of Western finance?
Bill Gates and other assorted financial terrorists through their control of the Western media and “aid” organizations are suppressing implementation of a successful malaria mortality program while investing in a malaria drug addiction for Africa’s people.
These financial terrorists are perfectly willing to see millions die in Africa while they search for their next highly profitable “wonder drug” to cure malaria, all the while deliberately ignoring, worse, engineering a white out/cover up of what could prevent millions of deaths, let alone uncounted suffering.
And HIV/AIDS, Africa’s N0.2 killer? Bill Gates is said to be providing over a billion dollars for research into developing an AIDS vaccine. AIDS, a virus based disease, has already shown to have varieties and to have developed resistance to the medications developed to treat it. Like the flu vaccine, a new AIDS vaccine would most likely have to be developed every few years to combat the latest strain of the AIDS virus; another gold mine of new, patented medications for sale to Africa’s sick.
Eritrea has reduced HIV/AIDS infection rates by 40 percent, according to Physicians for Peace, and is the only country in Africa to reduce HIV/AIDS. How? By using public health education promoting condom use everywhere in the country. Over a billion for a “vaccine” that may never work while an effective program that can reduce HIV/AIDS infection by 40 percent, safely and affordably can be immediately implemented?
Remember, Western billionaires didn’t get that way by being out to really help anyone. Millions die in Africa as the Western drug lords and their financial terrorist stockholders reap their billions in blood money. All the while real heroes in the Eritrean public health service struggle to save people’s lives.
So don’t believe that Bill Gates is up to any good when he donates $10 billion to vaccine research, just the opposite. And don’t forget that as far at the USA is concerned in Africa, no good deed goes unpunished, and, once again, Eritrea is subject to UN Security Council sanctions.
Stay tuned to Online Journal for more news from Africa’s Horn that the so called free press in the west refuses to cover.