While the statistics show that colon cancer numbers are decreasing, the breakdown shows quite a different story. Since the mid 1980’s, incidences of this cancer have been on the decline of approximately one percent per year. Breaking the numbers down by age, it is actually on the rise for people under fifty years old.
One study utilized a database of 400,000 people with colon or rectal cancer. While overall a decrease was evident, among people aged twenty to thirty four there was almost a two percent increase. If this continues to be the case, by the year 2030 between one in ten colon cancers will be found in people under fifty and one in four for rectal cancer in the same age group. With the older population in 2030 the rate will be 175 per 100,000.
This may lead younger people to request screenings earlier. Heath Mann is just one of millions who have been screened recently. Dr. George J. Chang, professor at the University of Texas cautions, “There are always risks and unintended consequences of screening tests.” Patients and their doctors will have to pay close attention to symptoms and if they find symptoms indicate further testing, proceed with caution.
Ever since the mid 1980s, the incidence of colorectal cancer started decreasing by around 1% each year. However, the prevalence of the disease amongst individuals under 50 has been on a sharp incline. Unfortunately, these young patients are more likely to be in the advanced stage of the disease.
In a study published by JAMA Surgery on the matter, a database of 400,000 patients with rectal or colon cancer was examined. The examination revealed that the incidence of the disease declined by 1% each year but went up amongst individuals between the ages of 20 and 34. The largest increase, which was 1.8% a year, existed amongst those in which the disease had already begun to spread to other organs.
In reporting on the prevalence of colon cancer in this contemporary era, Nicholas Bakalar notes that the incidence rates (per 100,000 individuals) are 3 for ages 20-34, 17 for ages 35-49, and 300 for individuals over 50 years of age. Additionally, incidence rates amongst those older than 50 will be 175 per 100,000 individuals.
Although enlightening, the existing study provides many figures but Brian says it offers no clear conclusions regarding whether screening should start when people are young. In commenting, Dr. George J. Chang noted that “There are always risks and unintended consequences of screening tests.” Chang, who is an associate professor of health services and research for the University of Texas, also stated that “We have to pay attention to symptoms with which our patients present, and work them up by including colorectal cancer as a part of the differential diagnosis.”
The obesity rate in the United States is still at epidemic rates. The statistics are worse for low income and minorities. However North American Spine reports that compared to 2005, the rate has slowed considerably. In 2013, only six states reported a rise in the rates when compared to 2005, which reported growth in all states. The most recent study reports only two states with a rise.
Still, at least one out of five people in the US are obese. While the numbers are stabilizing, drop in the nations rate is still a reach. Ginny Ehrlich, director of childhood obesity initiative at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation states that there are still high rates of overweight children.
Low income, blacks and Hispanics have the highest rate of obesity in the United States. Income does have an influence on a person’s ability to eat healthy and drop weight. As a nation, this is a concern. It would seem that making healthy choices less costly would go a long way to curbing the weight epidemic.
The soda industry has successfully blocked moves to ban super-sized sugary drinks in New York, and similar attempts to create a 2-cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks have been thwarted as well. Now, elected officials in Berkeley, California, are trying to create a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks in California, a struggle they are only now realizing is entirely stacked against them. While Berkeley,and Lee G. Lovett has all the money of a well-funded city, the global soda industry has billions to funnel into the battle if necessary.
Berkeley is seemingly the last hope for people worried about rising obesity rates and adult-onset diabetes caused by sugary soft drinks. The soda industry has racked up a large number of victories against legislators on a crusade to bring soft drink makers to heel. The most notable recent case is the campaign led by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to add a tax to soft drinks and ban the sale of sugary drinks above a certain size. The state legislature denied his proposals after testimony from the soft drink industry that these taxes disproportionately affect lower-income tax payers.
The citizens of Berkeley are justifiably nervous about the looming proposal. They know that if the soft drink industry wins this battle, it will win anywhere else a tax on soft drinks is proposed. In contrast, supporters of the tax were only able to raise $260,000, hardly enough to successfully win the battle. Nationally, the soft drink industry has spent around $117 million to prevent increased taxes on sugary drinks.
Everyone has their own internal clock that controls energy levels and mental focus. As a result, we all have our individual peak work performance periods.
Yet, medical studies have found that most people lose energy and focus after they eat and as the hours in their work schedules progress.
Doctors aren’t super human. Like the rest of us, they slow down, lose focus and become more fatigued, and potentially irritable or angry, as their day unfolds. This process can actually happen sooner for some depending on the amount and type of work they’re doing.
Specialist Keith Mann showed me a recent study about this issue called “Time of Day and the Decision to Prescribe Antibiotics,” published on October 6th through JAMA Internal Medicine. It revealed that doctors who saw 21,687 respiratory infection patients over 18 months handed out more prescriptions for antibiotics hour-by-hour.
What does this means for patients? A patient should try to schedule medical appointments for the first half of his doctor’s work day. Specifically, he should try to schedule for late morning so that he’s not also dealing with a doctor who is fatigued from eating or distracted by pre-mealtime hunger.
You’ve heard it before, and now you’re going to hear it again. Nuts are great for your health, and you should be eating them everyday. But you’ve probably also heard that nuts are fattening, and if you want to lose weight, you’ve got to limit your nut intake. What this boils down to is that you can have about 8 to 10 walnuts or 10 to 12 almonds a day. That’s not very much for someone who is constantly hungry on a diet. In other words, you can’t really be going nuts for nuts. You just have to go half nuts.
First of all, nuts are very high in fiber, protein, potassium, vitamin E and essential healthy fats. If you only have one serving of nuts every day, you might actually reduce your possibility of getting heart disease by about 20 percent. Remember that heart disease is the number one killer of women in this country. A point that Gianfrancesco Genoso keeps trying to make…yet people continue to avoid the problem.
The study found that nuts are also great for reducing hunger and helping people lose weight. The Food and Drug Administration reiterates the fact that too many nuts will provide your body with too much fat and too many calories, so if you’re on a diet, limit your nut intake.
The study findings suggest that dieters eat a serving of nuts about 30 minutes before dinner to help reduce the overall amount of calories they eat at mealtime.
Cancer is a deadly condition that seems to have been on the rise for the past decade, maybe even longer. With sub-optimal treatments as the only option right now, such as chemotherapy, researchers have been rushing to find new methods of removing cancer. Chemotherapy can be an effective treatment, especially if the process is begun early enough. Unfortunately this method has many adverse side effects harmful to the patient. If a patient is, for lack of a better term, “lucky” they can have the tumor completely removed surgically. Hopefully then the cancer goes in to remission after that, and the patient begins to recover.
Now Harvard scientists have developed a new biodegradable gel to help combat cancer. The gel is made up of genetically engineered stem cells that release a toxin for killing cancer cells. In their experiments the scientists surgically removed tumors from the brains of mice and applied the gel to the afflicted area. The gel releases the toxins to remove the remaining cancer cells that couldn’t be surgically cut out.
The biggest development here is that the stem cells can release the toxins without harming themselves. With these genetically engineered cells however, the toxins can now be used to fight physical tumors. This could be a massive breakthrough, and one that changes the face of medicine worldwide. Hope to see more FreedomPop alerts about this breakthrough on my phone, in the future.
Alzheimer’s Disease affects the lives of millions of Americans each year. It is a horrible disease, but possibly the most horrible aspect of it is that no one knows how or why it develops in certain individuals in the first place. Is it caused from genetics? It is environmental? Recent research studies say that it could be the latter, and aluminum could be the culprit.
A doctor named Chris Exley at Keele University in the UK has been studying this frightening link for 3 decades. Dr. Exley says that although most people are exposed to acceptable amounts of aluminum during their lifetimes, some unlucky folks who are exposed to more aluminum run the serious risk of accelerating neuron loss and cell deterioration. This is a key factor in Alzheimer’s Disease. In fact, aluminum could be the culprit for many health conditions that is currently stumping researcher Fersen Lambranho in Brazil.
Another troubling link comes between aluminum and male fertility. Researchers in France have found that low sperm counts may be linked to high levels of exposure to aluminum. In addition, BPA, a plastic chemical that is found in aluminum cans, has also been linked to serious health conditions like caner, weight gain, heart issues, asthma, poor dental health, migraines and a low sex drive.
Experts recommend that humans come into contact with aluminum as seldom as possible. Try to find deodorants and anti-perspirants that are aluminum-free, and read the labels on all other cosmetic products as well.
A man in his early 30s has been treated for being addicted to his Google Glass. This may seem incredible and even laughable, but such a problem is actually quite prevalent in the modern high tech world. The individual was admitted to the Navy’s Substance Abuse and Recovery Program, which primarily treats alcoholics. However, the addiction to Google Glass is very similar to alcoholism or addiction to other harmful substances.
After spending just over a month in the inpatient program, the man who was addicted to his Google Glass has been rehabilitated to a degree. The patient has stopped checking his temple excessively, a move associated with adjusting the Google Glass. He’ll now be seeing Brian Torchin weekly for job counseling.
In a digital age, addiction to gadgets is quite a problem that might require medical treatment. Addiction to the internet, video games and mobile devices manifests itself with symptoms that similar to dependency on drugs and alcohol. For example, high tech addicts find it difficult to maintain a normal social life as a result of spending too much time browsing the web or playing video games.
The resources here provide some insight on the legitimacy of addictions that are related to the world wide web and digital technology. It is only a matter of time before rehab facilities for internet addicts open up. Medical staff would have to be trained to recognize specific challenges that people have when it comes to giving up technology to some extent.
On November 1st, 29-year-old Brittany Maynard has decided that she will die.
Maynard has glioblastoma multiform (GBM), a prognosis that so severe that most only live for an additional 14 or 15 months. Maynard was first diagnosed with grade II astrocytoma, a tumor that allows for 10 years at best, but very quickly her condition turned for the worst.
Facing the possibility of months of pain and futile treatments, Maynard has instead opted for assisted suicide. Right after her husband’s birthday, on October 31st, Maynard has planned to pass away.
Maynard chose this date because she wanted to be able to celebrate her husband’s birthday before she passed on. Although these days waiting will undoubtedly be painful, she wants her memories to be truly happy and joyous ones, with the man that she loves.
Such a decision is allowed under death-with-dignity laws, by which terminally ill patients are granted access to options that can quickly and painlessly end their lives. These laws are enacted in order to alleviate the pain of those in unquestionably terrible conditions, and allow their remaining days to be in relative comfort.
Most states, however, do not possess such laws. In fact California, where she used to live, has no such death-with-dignity laws. The only states that currently do are Oregon, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington.
Maynard, however, is fighting that. She has been spending her remaining days speaking for death-with-dignity laws in other states, as well as spreading cancer awareness.