May 27, 2018

More than half of Maine counties are at high risk for Lyme

Lyme disease has tightened its grasp on the Northeast and Midwest, with a dramatic rise in the number of counties considered at high risk, a new government study finds.

The number of Northeast counties where the risk of Lyme disease is at least twice the national average skyrocketed from 43 in 1993-1997 to 182 in 2008-2012, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study. That’s an alarming jump of 323 percent.

In Maine, more than half of all counties are at high risk for the disease, spread by the bite of the eight-legged deer tick.

Source: More than half of Maine counties are at high risk for Lyme | Vital Signs

Share

Echinococcosis: An Economic Evaluation of a Veterinary Public Health Intervention in Rural Canada

Abstract

Echinococcosis is a rare but endemic condition in people in Canada, caused by a zoonotic cestode for which the source of human infection is ingestion of parasite eggs shed by canids. The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors associated with infection and to measure the cost-utility of introducing an echinococcosis prevention program in a rural area. We analyzed human case reports submitted to the Canadian Institutes for Health Information between 2002 and 2011. Over this 10 year period, there were 48 cases associated with E. granulosus/E. canadensis, 16 with E. multilocularis, and 251 cases of echinococcosis for which species was not identified (total 315 cases). Nationally, annual incidence of echinococcosis was 0.14 cases per 100 000 people, which is likely an underestimate due to under-diagnosis and under-reporting. Risk factors for echinococcosis included female gender, age (>65 years), and residing in one of the northern territories (Nunavut, Yukon, or Northwest Territories). The average cost of treating a case of cystic echinococcosis in Canada was $8,842 CAD. Cost-utility analysis revealed that dosing dogs with praziquantel (a cestocide) at six week intervals to control cystic echinococcosis is not currently cost-effective at a threshold of $20,000-100,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained, even in a health region with the highest incidence rate in Canada ($666,978 -755,051 per QALY gained). However, threshold analysis demonstrated that the program may become cost-saving at an echinococcosis incidence of 13-85 cases per 100,000 people and therefore, even one additional CE case in a community of 9000 people could result in the monetary benefits of the program outweighing costs.<<<Read Entire Report>>>

Share

Medicare’s Harm to Patients, Doctors Detailed in New Book

As Medicare Turns 50 on July 30, New Book Exposes Medicare’s Problems and its Victims

“Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians ” Tells Tales of Harm to Patients, Struggles by Doctors

Explains Why “Medicare-for-All,” as Proposed by Some Politicians, Won’t Work

Washington, DC – “As Medicare nears its 50th anniversary, there will no doubt be much celebrating among politicians and pundits on the left,” says Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow and health care policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Yet Medicare has a sick underbelly. Exposing the problem and reporting the true facts about this program should be the media’s main focus. There is no reason to sugarcoat this program. It’s broken and my book explains why.”

Dr. Hogberg’s new book, “Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians,”* shows that Medicare often fails to provide quality health care to patients.

“The media too often overlooks the many victims of Medicare, in part because Medicare has achieved this mythic status as a wonderful government program,” says Dr. Hogberg. “This book reports on the program’s many flaws, providing the reader with a more balanced view of Medicare.”

“Medicare’s Victims” tells the intimate stories of patients and physicians who have struggled with Medicare’s policies. They include:

-Clay Bell, whose death was hastened because Medicare denied the physical therapy he needed to slow the progression of his Multiple Sclerosis.

-Sean Plomann, who suffered in agonizing pain while languishing in Medicare’s waiting period for the disabled.

-Donna Dennis, who came very close to suffering a stroke because she could not afford her medication after falling into Part D’s donut hole.

-Dr. Scott Braddock, who, despite getting stellar results with his hard-to-treat diabetes patients, had to close his practice, thanks to Medicare.

-The book also recounts how the American Hospital Association and Federation of American Hospitals used Medicare to stop competition from physician-owned specialty hospitals, although such hospitals often provided the highest quality of care.

“The book is also timely because there are some more liberal politicians who are now pushing for a ‘Medicare-for-All’ single-payer system,” says Dr. Hogberg. “Specifically, Senator Bernie Sanders recently called for such a system. The book yields insight into why such a system wouldn’t work.”

“Medicare’s Victims” shows that the beneficiaries who do get good treatment under Medicare are the ones who have the ability to influence Congress on Medicare policy. That generally includes senior citizens, who vote at rates higher than almost any other group.

“Under a system of Medicare-for-All, resources would flow to those with political power,” says Dr. Hogberg. “The problem is that people without political power will lose out, and they are likely to be some of the sickest patients.”

“For starters, there are relatively few people who get seriously ill each year, too few, in fact, to have much impact on Election Day. Second, because of their health, they aren’t going to be organizing, protesting and doing other things necessary to influence Congress. And finally, some of them are so sick that they won’t be around for the next election. Given that, it is inevitable that sicker patients are most likely to suffer under a system of Medicare-for-all.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here.

Share

Nuclear Chemist Publishes Paper Detailing: “Aluminum Poisoning of Humanity via Geoengineering”

“In response to an urgent call through an article in Current Science for assistance to understand the geological association of high aluminum mobility with human health in the Ganga Alluvial Plain, I describe evidence of clandestine geoengineering activity that has occurred for at least 15 years, and which has escalated sharply in the last two years. The geoengineering activity via tanker-jet aircraft emplaces a non-natural, toxic substance in the Earth’s atmosphere which with rainwater liberates highly mobile aluminum. Further, I present evidence that the toxic substance is coal combustion fly ash. Clandestine dispersal of coal fly ash and the resulting liberation of highly mobile aluminum, I posit, is an underlying cause of the widespread and pronounced increase in neurological diseases and as well as the currently widespread and increasing debilitation of Earth’s biota. Recommendations are made for verifying whether the evidence presented here is applicable to the Ganga Alluvial Plain.”

Source: Nuclear Chemist Publishes Paper Detailing: “Aluminum Poisoning of Humanity via Geoengineering” | Humans Are Free

Share

New Book Tells Stories of People Suffering Thanks to Medicare

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

New Book, “Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians,” To Be Released

Tells Intimate Stories of People Who Suffer Because of Medicare’s Policies

Why Senator Bernie Sander’s “Medicare-for-All” Won’t Work

Washington, DC – Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow and health care policy analyst for the National Center for Public Policy Research, is scheduled to release his new book, “Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians,”* on July 6, 2015.

“So many people think Medicare is a wonderful program,” says Dr. Hogberg. “My extensive research in writing this book shows just the opposite… there are often hidden victims of Medicare and my book examines how Medicare’s policies harm them,” he reports.

The victims of Medicare, Dr. Hogberg notes, not only include the patients but also doctors themselves, each of whom share a common trait. “The patients who receive poor treatment and the physicians, who are stymied in their efforts to provide good care, tend to lack political power,” he says. “That is, they lack the ability to compel Congress to make changes in Medicare. Usually the victims are too few in number to have any real impact at the ballot box. Furthermore, they are often too ill to engage in the sorts of activities, such as organizing, protesting and so forth, that can help change policy,” he says.

“Medicare’s Victims” examines the disabled on Medicare who struggle with Medicare’s two-year waiting period and Medicare’s cost sharing. It looks at seniors who fell into Part D’s donut hole, and patients who either received insufficient treatment or received too much care under Medicare.

The book also reveals why primary care physicians are either leaving Medicare or are limiting the number of Medicare patients they accept; how concerned physicians who try to spend more time with their Medicare patients are, in effect, penalized; and how lobbying groups for large hospitals used Medicare to squash their competitors, smaller physician-owned specialty hospitals.

“The book is timely because there are some more liberal politicians who are now pushing for a ‘Medicare-for-all’ single-payer system,” says Dr. Hogberg. “Specifically, Senator Bernie Sanders recently called for such a system. The book yields insight into why such a system wouldn’t work.”

“Medicare’s Victims” explains why the beneficiaries who do get good treatment under Medicare are the ones who do have political power, particularly seniors ages 65-74.

“They vote at rates higher than almost any other group and since many of them live in retirement communities or belong to senior centers, they are easy to organize if needed,” says Dr. Hogberg. “With that sort of political clout, members of Congress are going to make sure that, in general, seniors receive good treatment under Medicare.

“The problem with the Medicare-for-all approach is that you’d be extending Medicare to all sorts of diverse groups who don’t collectively have the political clout or wherewithal to institute any change within the system. As such, politicians will have little incentive to ensure that such groups are even receiving the good care they should expect under Medicare.”

Share

It All Begins With the Fake Term “Ecosystem”

*Editor’s Note* – “Everyone” does NOT know and not everyone is interested in swallowing this BS  about balancing a fake ecosystem. Nor are we interested in wasting our time with outcome-based new-science scientism of “maybes,” and “indications” – hoping for another fake excuse to love the animals and hate the people.

Everyone knows that keeping our forests and grasslands full of wolves, bald eagles and honeybees is good for the environment. But could protecting animals and preserving ecosystems also help people not catch Lyme disease or West Nile virus?

Source: Save Wildlife, Save Yourself? | Maine Public Broadcasting

Share

Obama Administration Set to Ban Artificial Trans-Fats as Soon as Monday

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy Research:

National Center for Public Policy Research Risk Analysis Director Calls the Expected Ban a “Horrible Idea”

Washington, DC – The Food and Drug Administration is expected to announce a de facto ban on artificial trans-fats as soon as Monday, a move National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow and Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier strongly opposes.

“That’s a horrible idea,” says Stier. “In 2013, the FDA claimed that ‘further reduction in the amount of trans-fat in the American diet could prevent an additional 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year.'”

“Those claims were preposterous back then,” says Stier. “They are even more far-removed from reality today, as markets responded to consumer demand and have already lowered the amount of trans-fat in food.”

Says Stier: “The FDA’s scary assumptions are based on wobbly models piled on top of wishful thinking and doused with junk science.”

“In 2006, Americans ate more than 4 and a half grams of trans-fats daily, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In 2009, consumption was down to about a gram, and today, numbers are surely lower,” Stier added. “Today, trans-fats are generally used at very low levels for specific purposes that are difficult or costly to replace. Used in sprinkles for ice cream, microwave popcorn and Red Lobster biscuits, the remaining trans-fats in the diet are there because they serve a specific function.”

“For instance, trans-fats are stable for a longer period of time, so a ban on even the most narrow uses of trans-fats will undoubtedly lead to more expensive food and more food waste,” said Stier.

The upcoming ban should be no surprise, since, as Jeff Stier warned last year, “If you liked Mayor Bloomberg’s approach to controlling how New Yorkers eat, you are going to love what federal nutrition nannies are planning for the entire U.S. population. The top brass of Bloomberg’s food police are now top health officials in the Obama administration. CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden was the architect of New York City’s trans-fat ban under Mayor Bloomberg.”

“Hold onto your salt-shaker,” says Stier, “there’s more to come from this administration.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

The National Center for Public Policy Research was founded in 1982. Sign up for free issue alerts here.

Share

War on Health: The FDA’s Cult of Tyranny

Share

Fast Food Giant McDonald’s is Pressured to Promote Sound Science Regarding Food Safety and Potential of GMOs

National Center for Public Policy Research Presents Shareholder Resolution Saying Corporate America Faces Grave Risks if it Disengages from Food Safety Debate

Nation’s Leading Burger Chain Deflects Responsibility – Suggests Government, Not Private Sector, Should Educate Consumers About Food and Health Issues

National Center Calls Response of McDonald’s “Inane”

Oak Brook, IL/Washington, DC – At today’s annual shareholder meeting of McDonald’s in Oak Brook, Illinois, the National Center for Public Policy Research presented a shareholder resolution urging the worldwide burger chain to increase its efforts to educate consumers about the safety and benefits linked to the use of genetically modified organisms in its products. The company’s management, however, disavowed any responsibility in educating the public about its products.

“The reluctance of McDonald’s to defend GM foods highlights a major reason why the public is so ill-informed about this issue,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Relying on the government to educate consumers is a sure-fire way to ensure the public remains ignorant. The government’s responsibility for food inspection and safety is fine, but when it comes to educating the public, its track record is abysmal.”

Danhof also observed demonstrators urging McDonald’s to increase its lowest wage to $15 per hour, noting the demonstrators had luxurious coach buses and expensive signage.

“It looked to me like a classic case of astroturf,” said Danhof. “Perhaps if liberal governments and municipalities hadn’t already artificially raised their minimum wage to prices not dictated by market forces, these demonstrators would have been on the job somewhere rather than serving as a mouthpiece for Big Labor.”

At the meeting, Danhof presented a shareholder proposal, submitted by National Center Chairman Amy Ridenour. He noted:

Our proposal asks the company to defend its products and promote the safety and benefit of Genetically Modified Organisms. Companies whose products may contain GMOs, such as McDonald’s, are harmed by the public’s ignorance on the issue.

With more than 2,000 global scientific studies on genetically engineered foods, the evidence is clear; GMOs are perfectly safe. The debate is over. Despite this scientific consensus, anti-GMO activists… continue to sow fear and doubt. Their actions are ignorant and inhumane. Polling data shows that nearly four in ten Americans are misinformed about GMO safety and more than nine in ten are not aware of the unnecessary cost and unscientific rationale of GMO labeling. That ignorance harms the company and the developing world where malnutrition is sometimes exacerbated by resistance to GMO technology.

To read Danhof’s full statement, as prepared for delivery, click here.

The National Center’s proposal pointed out the humanitarian need for advanced technologies to boost worldwide agricultural output, stating:

According to the World Health Programme, approximately 805 million people do not have enough food to eat. Lack of proper nutrition is responsible for 45 percent of the deaths worldwide in children under five… according to the World Health Organization, “the development of GM organisms (GMOs) offers the potential for increased agricultural productivity or improved nutritional value that can contribute directly to enhancing human health and development.”

GMO foods are a great gift to mankind. They lower food costs, allow farmers to produce food in a more sustainable way and show great promise for ending world hunger and malnutrition. The Company should be more pro-active in delivering that positive message of GMOs.

The National Center’s proposal is available on page 50 of the proxy statement issued by McDonald’s.

The board of directors of McDonald’s opposed the proposal, by stating,

The issues raised in the proposal are complex, and reach far beyond McDonald’s role as a purchaser of food products to implement. The Board believes education efforts and reporting in this regard should be the responsibility of scientific, regulatory and government agencies… We believe that it is not the Company’s role to educate the American people on the benefits of genetically modified ingredients and the potential of genetically modified crops to alleviate worldwide hunger.

“This is perhaps the most inane, tepid statement ever issued by a corporate board,” said Danhof. “McDonald’s is one of the most recognizable food brands in the world. With those trillion-plus meals served comes responsibility. And when it comes to the issue of GMOs and worldwide hunger, McDonald’s has a humane responsibility. As the world’s population continues to climb, and malnutrition and death result due to a lack of adequate food resources, I hope the McDonald’s board of directors may some day realize and make amends for their decision to sit on the sidelines of the GMO debate.”

In April, Danhof attended the annual meeting of Coca-Cola shareholders in Atlanta, Georgia and similarly urged the beverage giant to increase its efforts to promote sound science in general and GMOs in particular. In reply, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent agreed that the food and beverage industry has an important role stating, “we firmly believe that there is – that the only way that we can combat some of these matters that you’ve just talked about is again, that golden triangle of government – not relying solely on government though, business, and civil society organizations like yours, public policy think-tanks like yours, coming together and talking about how we have more sound science, how we can have better science and how we can collaborate more to make sure that consumers are better educated.”

A video of the exchange between Danhof and Kent is available by clicking here.

In 2014, National Center representatives spoke with many major food companies about doing more to engage the public in the debate over GMOs. On three occasions, the National Center urged investors to reject unscientific shareholder resolutions concerning GMO labeling. After National Center representatives explained the safety and promise of GMOs, shareholders of Safeway, Monsanto and General Mills each rejected proposals regarding mandatory GMO-labeling.

To read more of Danhof’s writings on GMOs, click here. You can also watch Danhof debate the GMO issue with liberal talk radio host Thom Hartmann here.

A preliminary vote showed the National Center/Amy Ridenour proposal did not receive enough votes to pass.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. So far in 2014-15, National Center representatives have participated in 68 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

-30-

Background Information on GMOs:

Numerous scientific bodies have determined that GMO foods are safe, including: The National Academy of Sciences (“no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population”), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (“the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe”), the American Medical Association (“bioengineered foods have been consumed for… 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature”), the Royal Society of Medicine (“There is no reason to doubt the safety of foods made from GM ingredients that are currently available, nor to believe that genetic modification makes foods inherently less safe than their conventional counterparts”) and the World Health Organization (“GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved”).

The European Union spent ten years and hundreds of millions of Euros to exhaustively examine GMOs, determining: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” Scientific American reported: “the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002. That odd sounding metric – not just lives but ‘life years’ – accounts not only for those who died, but also for the blindness and other health disabilities that Vitamin A deficiency causes. The majority of those who went blind or died because they did not have access to Golden Rice were children.”

Share

FDA colludes with Big Pharma to cover up deaths in psych drug trials 

FDA colludes with Big Pharma to cover up deaths in psych drug trials
Source: FDA colludes with Big Pharma to cover up deaths in psych drug trials – NaturalNews.com

Share