Tag Archives: health

More Americans Misused Painkillers Last Year Than Live in New York City

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last year, nearly half of the US population used a prescription pain reliever, stimulant, sedative, or tranquilizer, according to a new report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). One in 14 Americans older than 11 misused or abused the drugs; 1 in 21 misused painkillers. The high numbers may help explain why drug overdoses now kill more people each year than car accidents or gun violence.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health, SAMHSA

Based on responses to 68,000 surveys, the report examined the use of psychotherapeutic drugs, including pain relievers (like Vicodin, OxyContin, or Percocet), tranquilizers (Xanax, Soma), stimulants (Adderall, Ritalin), and sedatives (Ambien, Lunesta).

Prescription painkillers, which fuel the ongoing opioid epidemic, appeared in particularly high numbers. About 5 percent of those older than 11 had misused the medication—meaning they took a medication that wasn’t theirs or used a prescription for the wrong purpose. Most of them got the drugs from a friend or relative.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health, SAMHSA

The high numbers are especially concerning because occasional misuse can give way to substance abuse disorders. About 2.7 million people, or 1 percent of the adult population, have a prescription drug use disorder. More than three-quarters of them are addicted to painkillers, as the chart below shows.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health, SAMHSA

For Kim Johnson, the director of SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, the major takeaway was the need for more addiction treatment options. “Despite everything that we have been doing, most people that need treatment still don’t get it,” she says. “Every time someone dies, I wonder: Did they try to get treatment and not find it?”

The Obama administration called for more than $1 billion to expand prescription painkiller and heroin addiction treatment services in fiscal year 2017; Congress has not yet decided on the budget.

See the original post:  

More Americans Misused Painkillers Last Year Than Live in New York City

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on More Americans Misused Painkillers Last Year Than Live in New York City

Is Contraception Really Key?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sarah Kliff reports today that the teen birthrate has plummeted over the past decade. That’s not news. The interesting question is why the teen birthrate has plummeted, and a new paper in the Journal of Adolescent Health says the reason is better access to contraceptives. That sounds reasonable, but Kliff backs up this idea with the following chart, taken from data in the paper:

This is a problem. Contraception use dropped slightly between 2009 and 2012. Sexual activity stayed about the same. And yet teen pregnancies declined by an astounding 20 percent over the same period. This does not fit with the notion that contraception is key.

Plus there’s longer term data. The chart below shows the teen pregnancy rate since 1990. It dropped steadily from 1992 to 2006, despite virtually no change in contraceptive use. I’ve subbed in contraceptive use from the new paper for 2007-12 (dashed line), and it doesn’t really seem to correlate with teen pregnancy rates either:

So count me skeptical about the contraception theory. Teen pregnancy has been dropping for 25 years, and any explanation needs to account for this. But what could it be?

This article: 

Is Contraception Really Key?

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Contraception Really Key?

More Parents Are Refusing to Vaccinate Their Kids—But Not for the Reason You Think

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Anti-vax parents are on the rise.

On Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released new reports and recommendations concerning parents refusing to immunize their kids against deadly diseases. Between 2006 and 2013, the percentage of pediatricians that had encountered a parent refusing a vaccine went from about 75 percent to 87 percent.

Vaccination will prevent around 322 million illnesses among children born between 1994 and 2013, the researchers write. Yet recent years have seen a loud, high-profile resistance to vaccines. The increase in unvaccinated kids has contributed to a return of dangerous diseases like measles and whooping cough.

Though all states require vaccinations, 18 allow parents to opt their kids out based on their personal beliefs. The AAP’s new recommendations include a plea to states to get rid of nonmedical exemptions to vaccination.

For the first time, AAP said it supports doctors who choose to ban anti-vax parents from their practice. “The decision to dismiss a family who continues to refuse immunization is not one that should be made lightly, nor should it be made without considering and respecting the reasons for the parents’ point of view,” the report says. “Nevertheless, the individual pediatrician may consider dismissal of families who refuse vaccination as an acceptable option.”

In the past, anti-vaccination campaigns have stirred irrational fears (based on disproven, fraudulent research) that vaccines cause autism. But that’s not what’s driving the trend now, says Catherine Hough-Telford, lead author on the study. Instead, more and more parents simply believe that vaccines are unnecessary.

“The parents who are making decisions about vaccines today have never lived through measles outbreaks or children dying of pertussis or polio,” Hough-Telford said. “They’ve never seen these illnesses firsthand.” It’s important to vaccinate as many people as possible, doctors say, in order to create “herd immunity” by limiting the infected population so vulnerable groups like infants and the elderly are less likely to be exposed.

The survey also found parents decide to delay or skip vaccinations for a variety of other reasons, most commonly concerns over child discomfort and harming the child’s immune system.

Here are some of the key numbers from the report:

In 2006, around 75 percent of pediatricians said they encountered a parent refusing to vaccinate their child. By 2013, that number had risen to 87 percent.
Pediatricians estimated in 2006 an average of 4.5 percent of parents in their practice refused one vaccine, compared to 8.6 percent in 2013. The average number of parents that refused all vaccines went from 2.1 to 3.3 percent.
In 2013, around 73 percent of pediatricians encountered parents that refused vaccines because they felt they were unnecessary, compared to 63.4 percent in 2006.
In 2013, 87.6 percent of pediatricians had a parental request to delay at least one vaccine (the 2006 study did not ask about delays). Mainstream doctors consider PDF delays a threat to herd immunity.
Fewer pediatricians encountered concerns over autism in 2013 (64.3 percent) than 2006 (74.2 percent).
More doctors are sending anti-vax patients away: In 2006, 6.1 percent of pediatricians would “always” dismiss patients that refused vaccines, compared 11.7 percent in 2013.
Some good news: Of those that initially refused vaccines but were given educational materials by their pediatrician, 31.9 percent changed their mind in 2006, and 34.4 percent changed their mind in 2013.
In 2013, 9.2 percent of pediatricians couldn’t convince any anti-vax parents with additional education.

From:  

More Parents Are Refusing to Vaccinate Their Kids—But Not for the Reason You Think

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on More Parents Are Refusing to Vaccinate Their Kids—But Not for the Reason You Think

Planned Parenthood Wins in a Florida Court

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A federal judge permanently blocked parts of Florida omnibus legislation that aimed to cut off state funding for preventative health services at women’s clinics that also provide abortions, a measure that was perceived to have targeted Planned Parenthood clinics. Another provision in the law that would have vastly increased what providers have described as unnecessary records inspection requirements for abortion clinics was permanently blocked as well.

The ruling comes at a critical time for Florida—Zika is now spreading in Miami Beach and north of Miami, Gov. Rick Scott confirmed Friday. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have issued a new travel warning that advises pregnant women to avoid the area. So far, there have been 36 confirmed cases.

“We are grateful the court stepped in to stop Rick Scott in his tracks and protect access to health care,” said Lillian Tamayo, CEO of Planned Parenthood of South, East, and North Florida. “If this law had gone into effect, it would have made a bad situation even worse. With the threat of Zika growing by the day, this care is even more critical. It’s time to stop political attacks on women’s basic health care.”

The legislation passed the conservative Legislature with ease back in March, and Scott signed it into law shortly thereafter. The law specifically took aim at Planned Parenthood’s funding in the wake of a smear campaign by anti-abortion activist David Daleiden that alleged Planned Parenthood was selling fetal tissue for profit. (None of the investigations into Daleiden’s allegations have found the health care provider guilty of any wrongdoing.) In June, US District Judge Robert Hinkle temporarily put provisions in the law on hold after Florida Planned Parenthood affiliates challenged them as unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that a government cannot prohibit indirectly—by withholding otherwise-available public funds—conduct that the government could not constitutionally prohibit directly,” Hinkle wrote in June when he placed the law on hold.

State and federal law already prohibit the use of federal funds to finance abortion procedures. The Florida law would have cut $500,000 in expected state funding that Planned Parenthood uses to fund health care screenings and a school dropout prevention program. Opponents of the law also criticized its requirements for records inspections at abortion clinics, fearing it would jeopardize patient privacy by making it easy to uncover details about mental health history, abortion care history, and HIV status.

As previously reported in Mother Jones, Scott had promised to allocate $26 million in state funds to deal with the health crisis, part of which would pay for CDC Zika prevention kits that include two kinds of mosquito repellent, tablets that kill mosquitos in water, and condoms. He has also said his office and Florida’s Department of Health were coordinating to go door to door in an effort to educate women in areas of concern about the risks Zika poses. It’s unclear whether any of those plans have been enacted.

The state could still appeal the decision, but because Scott ultimately decided to drop further legal action in this case, allowing for the injunction, it seems unlikely. Scott’s spokeswoman told ABC News that the governor is reviewing the order, and maintained that “Scott is a pro-life governor who believes in the sanctity of life.”

Originally posted here: 

Planned Parenthood Wins in a Florida Court

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Planned Parenthood Wins in a Florida Court

Texas is still gunning for your reproductive rights

y’all things considered

Texas is still gunning for your reproductive rights

By on Aug 18, 2016Share

One might think that when the U.S. Supreme Court sends a clear message — like, “no, it’s still not at all chill to mess around with a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion” — state legislatures would take that and run with it. But this is America! And never one to be bossed around, Texas continues to try to flout the June Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade.

As we’ve established before, reproductive rights are a key sustainability issue. Around the world, women are disproportionately threatened by climate change. Ensuring that women are able to decide when, how, and even whether to have children is pretty much the best means of empowering them to face the coming challenges.

And that means keeping a close eye on what’s going on with those rights in Texas, both our third-most populous state and one severely threatened by climate change (being both southern and coastal), where an antiquated-at-best, misogynistic-at-worst mentality still holds sway with way too many legislators.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that Texas’ highly restrictive abortion clinic regulations (known as HB2) were unconstitutional. The rules, which required facilities that provide abortions to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers, would have closed all but eight abortion clinics in the entire state.

The court ruling was a wonderful moment for the pro-choice movement — and, indeed, for women in general. But as we wrote at the time, it only addressed part of the problem. Since 2011, Texas women have had to endure a slew of restrictive legislation surrounding their reproductive rights. June’s ruling, while a promising step in the right direction, may have intensified that flood.

In July, Gov. Greg Abbott published new rules regarding the disposal of fetal remains, dictating that they would have to be cremated or buried to “affirm the value and dignity of all life,” as Texas Monthly reported. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) then awarded a massive contract to an anti-abortion organization as a provider in the state’s already much-weakened Healthy Texas Women program, which is the state’s publicly funded healthcare program for low-income women.

As the Houston Chronicle reported, $1.6 million of the meager $18 million chunk of state cash for the Texas Healthy Women program this year will go to the Heidi Group — an organization behind “crisis pregnancy centers” that work to steer pregnant women in need away from abortions. As Nancy Cardenas with the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health puts it: “The Heidi Group does not provide health services.”

And yet its share of program funding is now the second-largest (after the Harris County Public Health Department). That’s more or less the equivalent of asking your weed dealer to take over the legal team handling your divorce.

We asked the HHSC why, exactly, it provided this contract to the Heidi Group, and got the following response:

“The Heidi Group has partnered with healthcare providers across the state to offer quality women’s healthcare services including family planning and birth control. The group’s proposal was one of the most comprehensive of any of the applicants that applied for the grants. The group’s services will cover more than 60 counties in seven regions through approximately 20 clinic sites. The Heidi Group is a Medicaid provider.”

That doesn’t assuage the concern of activists like Cardenas, who told me: “If we just look at basic facts, they are not licensed medical providers. [The Heidi Group’s founder] Carol Everett has a history of being very disingenuous when it comes to reproductive health access.”

Everett has publicly made the following claims: 1) That she can’t condone “killing babies” after “coming to Christ”; 2) that disposal of fetal tissue could disseminate HIV and other STDs into the water supply; and 3) that abortion  in the United States is a profit-based industry that attempts to trick young girls into getting knocked up. She actively and destructively spreads misinformation about reproductive health.

The Heidi Group’s inexplicable role in Texas’ public health program is a slap in the face to both women’s rights and sustainability. The women who will be most disadvantaged by the decimation of reproductive health services are exactly those most affected by climate change (which, let’s remember, is already hitting Texas hard): low-income women, women of color, and women in rural areas.

“We have to keep in mind that when cuts are made to reproductive healthcare services, they don’t affect groups the same way,” Cardenas told me. “And this rings especially true when we’re talking about the Latinx community in Texas.”

Latina women in Texas suffer from some of the highest rates of cervical cancer in the nation. And regular gynecological exams and cervical cancer screenings are some of the invaluable reproductive health services that end up falling by the wayside when money allotted for public health is given to an organization that traffics in ideology instead.

Says Cardenas: “I think the state is angry. I think our governor is angry … [and] I think they are trying to overcompensate at this point.”

The Supreme Court decision was a boon for women in Texas by saving them from having just a handful of abortion providers sprinkled across the largest state in the lower 48. But as events of this summer have shown, it’s hardly been a solution to all their problems.

The obstacles that Texas has hurled in the way of reproductive healthcare access are not dissimilar to a herd of raccoons: Even if you (say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg) can pick one off with a shotgun, there are plenty more to hurl garbage around your yard.

ShareElection Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

Visit link – 

Texas is still gunning for your reproductive rights

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Texas is still gunning for your reproductive rights

The Despicable Way That Insurance Companies Screw Over Lesbians

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, four lesbian women in New Jersey sued the state after being denied insurance coverage for infertility treatments because they couldn’t prove they had tried to conceive naturally.

A New Jersey law from 2001 requires that insurance companies cover infertility treatment as well as in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technology (ART). But there’s a catch: The patient must prove that her infertility has extended for up to “two years of unprotected sexual intercourse.” Since that law was enacted, though, two important things happened. The Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal, and Obamacare prohibited insurance policies from discriminating again patients based on their sexual orientation. In the first lawsuit of its kind since marriage equality and the passage of Obamacare, the New Jersey women are arguing that the law discriminates against same-sex couples because they obviously can’t get pregnant through unprotected sex with their partners.

“These women are already going through what can be a difficult experience, and they have the added stress of affording it financially and the added insult of being treated like a second-class citizen,” Grace Cretcher, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, told the New York Times. “The specific wording of the New Jersey mandate is particularly egregious and one of the most specific and exclusionary.”

Despite progress on a national level, the New Jersey couples’ experiences might not be unusual. Only 14 states require that insurance companies have at least one plan that covers infertility treatments, which can include intra-uterine insemination, drug therapies, and IVF. But many of them use language similar to the New Jersey law and define infertility as the inability to become pregnant after a certain period of unprotected sex, as opposed to only a medical diagnosis indicating infertility or sexual orientation that excludes intercourse. Even in states like California where laws have been updated to protect insurance discrimination against LGBT people, not all policies are in compliance, according to Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. As a result, same-sex couples no matter what their medical circumstances may be, are often told they don’t qualify for coverage.

In the 36 states that don’t have laws related to fertility coverage, insurance policies can enforce provisions that effectively exclude same-sex couples. Minter says that even though many of those policies cover infertility treatments, many also require heterosexual sex as evidence. Sometimes, plans will allow patients to prove their infertility through failed artificial insemination, but that’s expensive: One cycle of IVF can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and cheaper methods still range from the hundreds to thousands.

The insurance company involved in the New Jersey case told the New York Times that it covers “infertility services equally, regardless of sexual orientation,” and that it interpreted the law “in a gender- and orientation-neutral manner.” It added that “our coverage standard complies with federal nondiscrimination requirements.”

LGBT rights advocates also say the fact that cases like the one in New Jersey are gaining traction shows some movement toward the ultimate goal: protecting the insurance coverage rights of same-sex couples who want to have biological children regardless of their medical circumstances, because ART is their only option.

“If you have a policy that on its face requires a certain kind of sexual intercourse in order to demonstrate infertility, I would argue that’s discrimination,” Minter says. And because of the barriers to pregnancy that same-sex couples face, assisted reproductive technology is an important option. “It’s a very, very common situation.”

Read this article:  

The Despicable Way That Insurance Companies Screw Over Lesbians

Posted in Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Despicable Way That Insurance Companies Screw Over Lesbians

How Honeybees Buzz Out Pests

Research has discovered that honeybees can reduce the activity of plant-eating caterpillars, even though honeybees dont harm them in any way. This is another great reason to promote bees and other pollinators in our farms and gardens. Not only do you get the pollination benefits, you may also be able to reduce insecticide use.

How Do Bees Protect Against Pests?

A University of Wurzburg study set up two tents that contained bell pepper and soy bean plants. One tent included a bee hive and the other tent was closed to bees.

They introduced beet armyworms into both tents. Armyworms eat much more than beet greens and are a serious pest of many vegetable and flower crops.

Honeybees themselves are not predatory and dont harm insects like armyworms. But parasitic wasps will prey on the caterpillars by either eating them or laying eggs in their body. The eggs will later hatch and the wasp larvae will eat the caterpillar from the inside out.

As young caterpillars, armyworms are voracious leaf eaters. Although, when a wasp flies over, their natural response is to stop moving and eating. They sometimes even drop off the plant for extra safety.

The study found that the armyworms in the tent with bees circulating amongst the flowers ate about two-thirds less leaves than those in the bee-free tent.

Researchers concluded that the beating of a bees wings most likely mimics the sound of a predatory wasp. This is probably what makes the caterpillars stop eating in order to avoid a perceived predator.

What This Could Mean for Reducing Pesticide Use

The United States applied 857 million pounds of pesticides in the year 2007, with 80 percent being used by the agriculture industry. Unfortunately, more recent statistics are not available, but its likely that current pesticide usage would be similar.

Out of that total, almost 100 million pounds were insecticides. Many insecticides can have far-reaching effects on human health and the health of ecosystems.

For instance, organophosphates are a type of insecticide that damages the nervous system of both mammals and insects. They have also been used as a nerve gas during wars, a practice which has been banned by the Geneva Convention due to their high toxicity.

Research has also shown that wide-spread use of the insecticides called neonicotinoids has contributed to collapsing bee populations globally.

Its clear we need to find better ways to control pests, particularly on agricultural crops. Promoting pollinating insects could be the perfect way to reduce insecticide use and costs, while also helping boost global bee populations.

How Can You Help Promote Pollinators?

You may already be using various methods to support pollinators in your yard. This will benefit your own garden as well as any surrounding farms. These are some of the key ways to help pollinators.

Plant wild spaces. Pollination isnt all about honeybees. Thousands of other species of insects and animals also help plants spread pollen, such as butterflies, bats, moths, flies and even some mammals. All these creatures need wild spaces to live in.

Any garden beds will help boost your local populations of beneficial insects and other pollinators. If you have enough space, you can designate a completely wild area where humans arent allowed.

Grow organically. Insecticides and other pesticides harm more than just the pests youre targeting. They can contaminate ground water, the food supply and the air. Its important to find non-toxic ways to control unwanted visitors in your yard.

Provide food and water. Most pollinating insects eat pollen, so including a wide variety of flowering plants is ideal. Herbs like oregano, thyme and lavender are always insect magnets. Many native plants like blanket flower, Echinacea and bee balm are also favorites. And dont rule out flowering shrubs, vines and trees like wild roses, honeysuckle or linden trees.

Pollinators also need a source of water. A sunken dish in the ground filled with water and pebbles for landing sites will do the job. Bird baths, ponds and larger water features are also great.

Almond orchard with imported bee hives

How Can This Be Applied to Agriculture?

Agricultural operations can incorporate similar strategies as your backyard on a much larger scale.

An excellent example is in the almond orchards in California. Currently, theres a situation where the local honeybee populations arent large enough to pollinate the hundreds of thousands of acres of commercial almond trees.

Every February when the almonds bloom, more than one million beehives need to be shipped into the orchards to help with pollination. Thats more than half of all honeybees farmed in the United States, and theyre trucked in from all corners of the country.

The Journal of Applied Ecology published a study pointing out that it may not be sustainable to rely solely on one species (honeybees) for pollination of almonds. Researchers found that orchards surrounded by areas of semi-natural vegetation were visited by more wild bee species and other pollinating insects. In addition, greater numbers of wild pollinators visited when organic agricultural practices were used.

Also, fruit set increased as the percentage of natural habitat surrounding the orchards increased.

If almond orchards incorporated larger wild spaces to promote pollinators and moved to more organic cultivation practices, it would help solve their shortage of bees as well potentially reducing damage due to leaf-eating pests.

Related
11 Foods We Would Lose Without Pollinators
Want to Pollinators to Visit Your Yard? Heres How to Attract Them
Sunflowers: Delicious in More Ways Than One

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Excerpt from – 

How Honeybees Buzz Out Pests

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Honeybees Buzz Out Pests

Colorado could vote to limit fracking on November ballot

Fracktions

Colorado could vote to limit fracking on November ballot

By on Aug 9, 2016Share

Colorado is one step closer to ditching fracking.

Anti-fracking activists have collected 100,000 signatures, more than the 98,500 needed, to secure two measures on the November ballot. One measure would bring oil and gas drilling operations under local oversight while the other would add a no-fracking buffer zone 2,500 feet around any occupied buildings. Together these would, in essence, prevent drilling on 95 percent of the state’s most oil-rich land, according to the New York Times.

The state has 30 days to review the signatures and submit any challenges.

The industry, however, is already fighting back. Pro-fracking groups have raised $13 million to oppose the initiatives, and Yes for Health and Safety Over Fracking, the group that collected the signatures, reported that volunteer and contractor canvassers were “yelled at, and physically threatened” by people suspiciously spouting oil and gas industry’s favorite lines.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

Read More: 

Colorado could vote to limit fracking on November ballot

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Colorado could vote to limit fracking on November ballot

Calling Someone Crazy Is Not an Insult to the Mentally Ill

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy is tired of people diagnosing Donald Trump:

What I do know is that we ought to stop casually throwing around terms like “crazy” in this campaign and our daily lives….When that language is commonplace, it becomes that much harder for those experiencing mental illness to openly seek treatment that works. It discriminates, in subtle and overt ways, and extends its reach into schools, workplaces and the health-care system, where we still don’t provide routine mental health exams. When we use that word the way we have, we perpetuate the dangerous, “separate and unequal” treatment of these illnesses, and continue to pretend that the brain isn’t part of the body.

No. Just no. There are lots of words that have both ordinary meanings as well as technical medical meanings. When I say that Donald Trump is a cancer on our society, it’s not an insult to people with leukemia. When I say that Donald Trump is stupid, it’s not an insult to the mentally retarded. And when I say that Donald Trump is crazy, it’s not an insult to people with mental illnesses.

This is the kind of thing that helps power people like Trump in the first place. Sure, a lot of people who gripe about political correctness are just upset that people get on their case these days if they call blacks lazy or Asians inscrutable or women hysterical. There’s not much we can do about this except keep fighting the good fight and wait for them to all die off.

But there are also people who aren’t especially racist or sexist, but nonetheless feel like they have to walk on eggshells around us liberals. Call someone crazy and you’re insulting the mentally ill. Talk about someone “suffering” from an illness and you get a stern lecture about not making assumptions. Ask any number of possibly dumb but innocent questions and you’re committing a microaggression. Wear a sari in a music video and you’re engaging in cultural appropriation.

This kind of hypersensitivity does little good and plenty of harm. We should focus on the big stuff and settle down about the rest of it. It won’t help us win over the racists or sexists—who we don’t need or want anyway—but it will help a lot of other people to feel like it’s not such an emotional trial to hang around liberals, watching their every word in case something new has popped up since the last time they visited. Most people, after all, are neither as plugged in to lefty culture or as hyperverbal as your average university student. Hell, even I sometimes have trouble remembering the approved language to use about things, and I get to sit at the keyboard until I figure it out. Your average schmoe talking in real time hardly has a chance.

More: 

Calling Someone Crazy Is Not an Insult to the Mentally Ill

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Calling Someone Crazy Is Not an Insult to the Mentally Ill

What is ‘Earthing’ and Why Are People Going Nuts Over It?

As humans, we seem to intuitively know that spending time outside is good for body and soul. In addition to the vitamin D benefits of sunlight, theres just something about being outside that feels good. We might not always be able to put our finger on why, exactly, the great outdoors is good for us, but we know it to be true: In fact, a recent study estimated that an abundant urban tree population would reduce national healthcare spending to the tune of $6.8 million, as a result of better air quality, decreases in stress and other health factors.

A new group of scientists has recently started looking into the health benefits of direct contact with the earththings like walking barefoot on the grass, sitting against a tree and lying on a warm, sandy beach. This practice of direct contact has been termed earthing, and a number of health and wellness gurus are beginning to advocate for it.

The Theory Behind Earthing

The idea on which earthing is based states that the earth emits a certain type of energy that can reduce inflammation, calm stress and improve health overall. Without making direct contact with the ground, say proponents, we dont get these benefits, leaving us feeling sluggish and generally causing ill health.

Think of it perhaps as vitamin GG for ground, states Earthing.com. What does that mean to you? Maybe the difference between feeling good and not so good, of having little or a lot of energy, or sleeping well or not so well.

This may sound extremely woo-woo, but in fact, there is some research to support this. One study published by scientists at the University of California, Irvine, found that just one hour of earthing decreased markers of inflammation and improved blood flow. Another study confirmed these findings, and also added that earthing seemed to improve immune response, increase wound healing factors and lessen the effects of autoimmune diseases. The idea of some special electric current running through the ground may be a little far-fetched, but there’s little doubt that the effects of nature can reduce stress and therefore improve health.

ElectronicEarthing Products

So, its hard to argue with the idea of grass beneath your feet being bad for you, but do you really need technology to experience the benefits of earthing? This is where the line gets blurry.

Companies such as Earthing.com sell products that you can place under your feet (for while youre at the computer or in front of the TV) or under your bed (for while youre sleeping) that supposedly get energy from the ground outside your home, allowing you to earth while youre inside partaking of your daily activities. The argument is that these earthing pads give you the same energy charge that youd get from making direct contact with the ground outside.

The Bottom Line

Its hard to see how people would buy into the idea of synthetic earthing pads when they could just go outside. But strange products aside, the prospect of spending more time in direct contact with the grass, dirt or sand is certainly an attractive one. And if sitting against a tree, eating an apple and reading a book is good for you, theres really no downside. Time spent outside is always valuable.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Visit source: 

What is ‘Earthing’ and Why Are People Going Nuts Over It?

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What is ‘Earthing’ and Why Are People Going Nuts Over It?