Rising Female Death Rate | Page 5 | Research and Development | Forum

A A A

Please consider registering
guest

Log In

Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Rising Female Death Rate
March 10, 2017
3:00 pm
Jeff
Member
Forum Posts: 1597
Member Since:
December 22, 2007
Offline

Carpetbagger: Your young friend could use some help.
[holds up a bottle of patent medicine]

Carpetbagger: This is it... one dollar a bottle. It works wonders on wounds.

Josey Wales: Works wonders on just about everything, eh?

Carpetbagger: It can do most anything.

Josey Wales: [spits tobacco juice on the carpetbagger's (white) coat] How is it with stains?

 

From "The Outlaw Josey Wales", 1976

 

 

The story that follows is dated today, March 10. So my story from March 8 about Ssmart phones driving Alzheimer's got the "scoop", here, in newspaper parlance. It also shows that, when ideas come into being, they do so in a manner that exemplifies that, when the school of fish, the flock of birds turns, they do so apparently as one. 

Heavier-than-air flight was coming into being all over the globe, bunch of guys really close at the same time. The German immigrant Gustave Whitehead beat the Wright brothers to it by two years, in Connecticut, with the establishment's "Wright's were first!" ruse unravelling more and more quickly over time.

The story that follows is a another heavy blow against the Empire, to be sure. It says 'Those animals exposed to medium and high wattage of radiation had an 'abundant occurrence' of dead neurons."

"Professor Leif Salford, head of neurosurgery, said: 'We have already shown that mobile radiation can allow harmful proteins and toxins through the blood-brain barrier in rats. 'Now we see a significant degree of damage to the neurons in the brains of what you could call adolescent rats."

So this neuron damage is in addition to the blood-brain barrier damage. Things are not going so well for the Most Important Invention in Human History, I am afraid.

But it's, ours, Precious, and we wants it.

I found this on the "Cure Alzheimer's Fund" website, it's an article called "New Insights Into the Blood Brain Barrier", July 22, 2015:

"In May, Zlokovic discovered the mechanism of action for an Alzheimer’s-implicated gene encoding protein known as PICALM. The PICALM-Alzheimer’s connection had been studied previously by Cure Alzheimer’s Research Consortium Chair Rudy Tanzi, Ph.D., and Zlokovic in a Cure Alzheimer’s Fund-supported study. Zlokovic, publishing his research in Nature Neuroscience, showed that PICALM is crucial for clearing Abeta across the BBB. PICALM variants associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s lead to diminished expression of PICALM and faulty clearance of Abeta from the brain, leading to its accumulation both in the human brain and animal models of the disease. This suggests that, while Abeta is crucial in the subsequent cascade that leads to Alzheimer’s disease, the compromise of the BBB may happen earlier in the process, and may contribute directly to the destructive excess of Abeta in the brain.

There, Zlokovic (who was also quoted in the JAMA article I excerpted on 3/8) waved his arms and blew the smoke that the gene encoding protein was the driver. But deeper analysis quickly showed the compromise of the BBB occurred earlier. The protective, hedging article takes care to say "may happen" and "may contribute", but the gene-encoding ruse was foiled, here.

And neither the Official Alzheimer's Website nor the Quoted M.D. mention or investigate what might be driving epidemically-higher levels of blood brain barrier damage, as I have. Why wouldn't they?

In the article from below that we're discussing today, we've got a picked Fight Club member quoted:

"Dr Alan Preece, a medical physicist at Bristol University, said: 'This is fairly worrying - it suggests localised damage in the brain. 'I would like to see this work repeated in another laboratory.' "

FAIRLY worrying? That's called "protective hedging". While "I'd like to see the work repeated" is called "slow-playing" or "harrying the opposition."

Don't you feel like we're gaining on it here, and hard? 

This forum's name is Etheric Warriors. Because there's a war on, and we're in it. We didn't start it, and, now that we realized that we're in it, we're going to finish it.

Oh, wow, just thought of this, gotta mention it. I was riding my bike a couple of days ago, and saw a nice old car backing out of a garage about ten minutes from my house (about a block from where the agency wetworker hit me with her car). I turned around, introduced myself. Nice young man, in his late 20's, I'd say...the car is a 1970 Buick Skylark (I drive a 1965 Buick Skylark). It's his daily driver (like mine is), and is all original (like mine is). And I'd also note that the fact that they are both not only Buick's, but also Skylarks was to me also synchronous and worthy of mention. 

When the school of fish, the flock of birds turns, they do so apparently as one.

 

March 10, 2017 - Mobile use 'may trigger premature Alzheimer's'

By TIM UTTON, Daily Mail

Radiation from mobile phones destroys brain cells and could lead to the early onset of Alzheimer's disease, according to research.

Scientists have found that prolonged exposure to the handsets destroys cells in areas of the brain important for memory, movement and learning.

They also fear it could cause premature onset of illnesses linked to ageing, particularly among those who were heavy users of such phones as teenagers.

The Swedish study, which looked at the effects of radiation on rats, will alarm Britain's 47 million mobile users.

Despite the millions of pounds spent on research in the past decade, scientists have previously failed to establish any major health implications of sustained mobile phone use.

The biggest British study, led by Sir William Stewart, found three years ago that there was no evidence of a risk to health.

And a report by the American National Cancer Institute in 2001 also failed to find a link between mobile use and brain cancer.

But the latest research, at Lund University Hospital, focuses not on the cancer risk but on damage to neurons in the brain.

Professor Leif Salford, head of neurosurgery, said: 'We have already shown that mobile radiation can allow harmful proteins and toxins through the blood-brain barrier in rats.

'Now we see a significant degree of damage to the neurons in the brains of what you could call adolescent rats.

'If this effect were to transfer to young mobile users the effects could be terrifying.

'We can see reduced brain reserve capacity, meaning those who might normally have got Alzheimer's or dementia in old age could get it much earlier.'

Prof Salford experimented on rats aged 12-26 weeks because their brain cells are still developing in a similar way to those of teenagers.

Three groups of rats were exposed for two hours to radiation equivalent to that from mobile phones.

They were kept alive for 50 days after exposure and then sections of their brains were removed and examined under a microscope.

Those animals exposed to medium and high wattage of radiation had an 'abundant occurrence' of dead neurons.

The report concludes: 'After some decades of often daily use a whole generation of users may suffer negative effects as early as middle age.'

The research is due to be published next month in Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the U.S. government's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Dr Alan Preece, a medical physicist at Bristol University, said: 'This is fairly worrying - it suggests localised damage in the brain.

'I would like to see this work repeated in another laboratory.'

And Alasdair Philips, of consumer group Powerwatch, said: 'These findings are dynamite. Over time brain function will gradually be impaired.'

But a spokesman for the Mobile Operators Association dismissed the findings.

She said: 'Independent scientific review bodies in the UK and around the world have consistently concluded that the weight of scientific evidence suggests that exposure to radio waves from mobile phones operating within the international exposure guidelines do not cause health problems.'

"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" Thomas Paine 

March 13, 2017
2:13 pm
Jeff
Member
Forum Posts: 1597
Member Since:
December 22, 2007
Offline
82

The article that follows is 'chaff', a term for clouds of shredded aluminum foil blown out the back of airplanes in years past to confuse enemy radar. It's someone waving their arms and saying 'here, look over HERE' in response to the recent breakthrough 'radiation drives blood-brain barrier leakage' article just back in this thread.

Sugar is bad, make no mistake. But there's no mention of the blood-brain barrier, here, and that, we've learned, is at the base of Alzheimer's disease.

"Researchers from the University of Bath found excess glucose damages a vital enzyme involved with inflammation response to the early stage of the disease."

Re: sugar, they use the very powerful words "caused by", and follow closely with the repugnant meme phrase "tipping point."

Where "response to early stage of the disease" tells me the fire's already been lit. My understanding to this point is that the body's got a lot of ways to try to keep itself healthy, but the blood-brain barrier gets leakier and leakier, until the disease gets good and proper traction, after the bad stuff is no longer being cleaned out by that brain circulatory system. So the signs and symptoms show up after the cow is out of the barn - the leaking blood-brain barrier is not symptomatic, to my understanding, doesn't hurt, itch, like that.

So the key question, 'why the 68% increase in Alzheimer's in just a few short years', is not answered by sugar, or fatness. While I have no doubt that too much sugar or fatness exacerbates the situation.

It would only cost a few more years and tens of thousands of lives until this 'sugar' ruse was, er, unraveled. But that's how these guys play.

There's a study back in this thread where they teased out that people who went to college got 20% more brain tumors than people who did not.

It will be analyses similar to that one that will break this game open.

Having proven "Alzheimer's is caused by leakage of the blood-brain barrier" and "cell phone radiation causes leakage of the blood-brain barrier", we're kind of done, right? With the JAMA article saying "aging causes blood-brain barrier leakage (which it does), but aging hasn't increased 68% in a few short years, so what's the variable?

No heavy-lifting required "Alzheimer's in college vs. non-college populations", compute, "Alzheimer's in professional vs. manual occupations", and, God help us, "Alzheimer's in cell phone owners vs. non-cell-phone-owners." Etc. 

Not a "mystery", no complex chemicals, no hand-waving, just the answer to the question "what has caused a 68% increase in blood-brain barrier leakage in the general populace over the last few short years?"

 

 

February 27, 2017 - Alzheimer's could be caused by excess sugar: new study finds 'molecular link'

People who eat diets high in sugar could be at greater risk of Alzheimer's disease, a new study suggests.

For the first time, scientists have established a "tipping point" link between blood sugar glucose and the degenerative neurological condition.

Researchers from the University of Bath found excess glucose damages a vital enzyme involved with inflammation response to the early stage of the disease.

Abnormally high blood sugar levels, or hyperglycaemia, is a well-known characteristic of diabetes and obesity, and it is already understood that diabetes patients have an increased risk of developing Alzheimer's, where abnormal proteins aggregate to form plaque and tangles in the brain.

Now, however, scientists have unravelled the specific molecular link between glucose and Alzheimer's disease, suggesting people who consumer a lot of sugar but are not diabetic are at increased risk.

They did it by studing brain samples from people with and without Alzheimer's disease

They found that, in the early stages of Alzheimer's, an enzyme called MIF (macrophage migration inhibitory factor) is damaged by a process called glycation.

The researchers believe that inhibition and reduction of MIF activity caused by glycation could be the "tipping point" in disease progression.

The researchers found that, as the disease progresses, the glycation of these enzymes increases.

Professor Jean van den Elsen, from the University of Bath's department of biology and biochemistry, said: "We've shown that this enzyme is already modified by glucose in the brains of individuals at the early stages of Alzheimer's disease.

"We are now investigating if we can detect similar changes in blood.

"Normally MIF would be part of the immune response to the build-up of abnormal proteins in the brain, and we think that because sugar damage reduces some MIF functions and completely inhibits others that this could be a tipping point that allows Alzheimer's to develop."

In the study, scientists from the university worked with colleagues at the Wolfson Centre for Age Related Diseases, King's College London.

Dr Rob Williams, also from the department of biology and biochemistry, added: "Knowing this will be vital to developing a chronology of how Alzheimer's progresses and we hope will help us identify those at risk of Alzheimer's and lead to new treatments or ways to prevent the disease."

Globally, there are around 50 million people with Alzheimer's disease and the figure is predicted to rise to more than 125 million by 2050.

Dr Omar Kassaar, from the University of Bath, added: "Excess sugar is well known to be bad for us when it comes to diabetes and obesity, but this potential link with Alzheimer's disease is yet another reason that we should be controlling our sugar intake in our diets."

The study, funded by the Dunhill Medical Trust, used brain tissue provided through Brains for Dementia, a joint initiative between Alzheimer's Society and Alzheimer's Research UK in association with the Medical Research Council.

The work is published in the journal Scientific Reports.

"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" Thomas Paine 

March 14, 2017
4:28 pm
Jeff
Member
Forum Posts: 1597
Member Since:
December 22, 2007
Offline

"The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug into your wire whenever they wanted to.”

 

George Orwell, from "1984"

 

February 28, 2017 - The government surveys TV use because it’s a component of a household’s overall energy consumption. 

 

  

 

This just in from Correspondent Fran - thanks, Fran! - It's an article headlined "Americans have fewer TVs on average than they did in 2009 -And the number of households with no TVs at all grew."

It shows a societal move away from technology, specifically Television. I grew up watching hour upon hour of TV every day, as did everyone else. I now watch a half an hour per day, perhaps an hour. So my own TV use has decreased very significantly. There was no "I"m going to watch less TV" moment. Just the way it went.

"Americans went from having an average of 2.6 TVs per household in 2009 to having 2.3 TVs in 2015." That's an 11% drop, in one year. Did you notice they took care to withhold the percentage, as printing it would have been more impactful? I had to do the math.

Following that same pattern of hedging, we read "in 2015...39 percent of households had more than three TVs, whereas 44 percent had more than three TVs in 2009."

The gave you the numbers, but didn't note the percentage of the drop, as doing so would have been more impactful. "The number of households that had more than three TV's dropped five percent." That's more impactful.

That money quote up at the top of this post, "The government surveys TV use because it’s a component of a household’s overall energy consumption." Well, if that's true, did they break out washers and driers in that way? They consume way more power than TV's, at least they did before the clandestine weaponization of the Television:

"Last September, the Natural Resources Defense Council hired a third-party research firm to study TV energy use and found that several TV manufacturers were building their TVs to narrowly pass federal energy use tests, while consuming much more electricity if any of the TVs' baseline settings were changed."

So the fair-seeming, nattily-dressed sociopaths at the top of the Television Manufacturing control pyramid are lying to you about basically everything, including your TV's power consumption. Did you notice the article doesn't mention who the companies are, or if anything's being done to stop them, you know, like Great-Satan VW, who built a similar work-around, emissions?

But you can see how we're stepping back from the brink, here, I believe. Phone consumption is dropping, TV consumption is dropping, Computer consumption is dropping. Vinyl is rising. Technology can go out of fashion like Three Martini Lunches did.

I'm consuming less TV and didn't even notice it happening, on my way to getting there.

 

 

February 28, 2017 - Americans have fewer TVs on average than they did in 2009 - And the number of households with no TVs at all grew.

Americans went from having an average of 2.6 TVs per household in 2009 to having 2.3 TVs in 2015, according to survey data from the US Energy Information Agency (EIA).

The data comes from the agency’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), which has been conducted periodically since the 1970s to understand American energy use. The 2015 survey included 5,600 respondents who were contacted in person and then given an option to follow up by mail or online. A fine-detail report on the survey results is due to be released in April 2017.

The latest data shows that in 2015, 2.6 percent of households had no TV at all, a jump from the previous four surveys in 2009, 2005, 2001, and 1997 in which a steady 1.2 to 1.3 percent of households didn’t own a TV. The 2015 data also showed that the number of people with three TVs or more dropped in 2015. That year, 39 percent of households had more than three TVs, whereas 44 percent had more than three TVs in 2009.

Interestingly, the number of households with one or two TVs increased in 2015 to 58 percent, from 54 percent in 2009.

The EIA doesn’t go into what has caused this shift, but it does note that “younger households tend to have a lower concentration of televisions per person and a higher concentration of portable devices such as laptops and smartphones. Older households are more likely to have higher concentrations of desktop computers.” (Anecdotally, the Ars staff seems to agree that having one or two really nice TVs for family viewing as well as auxiliary devices for streamed media is preferable to having several just-okay TVs.)

The government surveys TV use because it’s a component of a household’s overall energy consumption. According to the EIA, about 6 percent of all electricity consumption in US homes comes from TVs, cable boxes, DVRs, video game consoles, and other peripheral equipment.

As TVs get bigger and higher in resolution, they can demand a lot more electricity, too. Last September, the Natural Resources Defense Council hired a third-party research firm to study TV energy use and found that several TV manufacturers were building their TVs to narrowly pass federal energy use tests, while consuming much more electricity if any of the TVs' baseline settings were changed.

"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" Thomas Paine 

March 15, 2017
2:15 pm
Jeff
Member
Forum Posts: 1597
Member Since:
December 22, 2007
Offline

This is from almost a decade ago.

 

June 22, 20008 - U.K. - Suicides ‘linked to phone masts’

THE spate of deaths among young people in Britain’s suicide capital could be linked to radio waves from dozens of mobile phone transmitter masts near the victims’ homes.

Dr Roger Coghill, who sits on a Government advisory committee on mobile radiation, has discovered that all 22 youngsters who have killed themselves in Bridgend, South Wales, over the past 18 months lived far closer than average to a mast.

He has examined worldwide studies linking proximity of masts to depression. Dr Coghill’s work is likely to trigger alarm and lead to closer scrutiny of the safety of masts, which are frequently sited on public buildings such as schools and hospitals.

It is also likely to fuel more campaigns against placing masts close to public places on health grounds.

Dr Coghill said last night there was strong circumstantial evidence that the masts may have triggered depression in those from Bridgend who took their lives.

They include Kelly Stephenson, 20, who hanged herself from a shower rail in February this year while on holiday in Folkestone, Kent.

Dr Coghill said: “There is a body of research that has over the years pointed to the fact that exposure to mobile radiation can lead to depression. There is evidence of higher suicide rates where people live near any electrical equipment that gives off radio or electrical waves.”

There are now 70 million mobile phone handsets in the UK and around 50,000 masts. Both emit radio signals and electromagnetic fields that can penetrate the brain, and for many years campaigners have argued that this could seriously damage people’s health.

The national average for proximity to a mobile phone transmitter varies depending on the type of mast. The latest masts are far more powerful so they can transmit more sophisticated data, such as photos and videos for people to download on internet phones.

Masts are placed on average 800 metres away from each home across the country. In Bridgend the victims lived on average only 356 metres away.

The national average distance from a new powerful mast is a kilometre while in Bridgend it is 540 metres. Three transmitters were within 200 metres, 13 within 400 metres and as many as 22 within 500 metres of victims’ homes. Carwyn Jones, 28, who hanged himself last week, was the third young person in his street to commit suicide.

Research shows young people’s brains are more susceptible to radio wave energy. Only two weeks ago a report identified mobiles as having an effect on sleep patterns.

Dr Coghill added: “What seems to be happening is that the electrical energy is having an effect on the chemistry of the brain, depleting serotonin levels. We know that in depression serotonin levels are low and that a standard treatment for depression is to give drugs to boost serotonin levels. As they begin to work, the patient’s depression lifts.”

He said urgent research was needed because Britain was now covered with thousands of masts, many close to homes, schools and offices.

Since January 5, 2007, there have been 22 deaths of young people in the Bridgend area. Some believe the suicides are linked but so far experts have failed to find a common cause.

Thomas Davies, 20, hanged himself in February 2007. Last night his brother Nathan, 19, welcomed Dr Coghill’s research. “As far as this family is concerned nothing can bring Tom back,” he said. “But if there is a link found and something can be done then it could prevent further suicides.”

But Mike Dolan, executive director of the Mobile Operators Association, dismissed Dr Coghill’s research. “This is an insensitive and outrageous piece of speculation which has no basis in established science,” he said.

The Government’s Health Protection Agency insisted that fields from mobile masts – even modern powerful masts – were well within international agreed safety limits.

“There is no evidence that masts do you harm. The levels of radio waves are very low.”

"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" Thomas Paine 

March 15, 2017
3:11 pm
Jeff
Member
Forum Posts: 1597
Member Since:
December 22, 2007
Offline

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right."

George Orwell, from "1984"

 

August 27, 2016 - The maternal mortality rate in Texas doubled from 2010 to 2014

March 10, 2017 - Is US maternal mortality rising? Maybe not.

 

 

 

August 27, 2016 - The maternal mortality rate in Texas doubled from 2010 to 2014.

 

January 3, 2017 - the Rise in Mortality from Breast Cancer in Young Women: Trend Analysis in Brazil

There was a tendency of increased mortality from breast cancer in Brazilian women (average increase of 0.18 per year; p <0.001), with regional differences, particularly in the age group 20–49 years (0.07 per year; p <0.001). The age group 50–69 years remained constant but had high average rates (37.14).

 

February 7, 2017 - U.K. - Unexpected mental health deaths up 50% in three years

Unexpected deaths include death by suicide, neglect and misadventure.

The Department of Health said the increase was "expected" because of changes to the way deaths were recorded and investigated.

 

February 16, 2017 - U.K. - Health cuts most likely cause of major rise in mortality, study claims ...

 

February 17, 2017 - U.K. - Care cuts may have fuelled largest rise in death rates for 50 years

 

February 28, 2017 - Rise in Texas maternal deaths absent from legislative agenda 

 

March 10, 2017 - Is US maternal mortality rising? Maybe not. | The Skeptical OB

"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" Thomas Paine 

March 15, 2017
4:50 pm
Jeff
Member
Forum Posts: 1597
Member Since:
December 22, 2007
Offline

In the last post, we read a story from the U.K., from just last month, headlined " - "Unexpected mental health deaths up 50% in three years."

For those unaware, "Unexpected deaths include death by suicide, neglect and misadventure."

The folks who study the subject for living in the U.K., and the reporters and editors covering it there said "the increase was 'expected' because of changes to the way deaths were recorded and investigated."

Well, if that's true, then why does a story from the U.S. from just two weeks later say "Massachusetts’ Suicide Rate Has Nearly Doubled Since 2004", and mention nothing about the way deaths were recorded and investigated as having anything to do with the matter?

"U.K. record keeping changes drove merely-statistical suicide increase" is not true, but is rather a lie, a falsehood. It is a local, plausible-deniability excuse put forward to give the subconscious of folks in the U.K. a straw to grasp and so avoid dealing with the larger phenomenon we're discussing here.

The story from Boston tells us that "Between 1999 and 2014, mortality rose 2–5% among white, Native American and Alaskan native people aged 25 to 30." They don't mention that ninety-plus percent of that increase was comprised by the whites. It makes it look like a broader phenomenon than it in fact is. It casts it in a false light. Do I recall it was 94 percent and 6 percent? I'll publish this and check back.

It goes on to tell us "In Massachusetts, men made up the vast majority (77 percent) of suicide victims, though the rate among women rose by 48 percent in the decade after 2004."

Where the "men made vast majority" section in italics above is a proactive, defensive hedge against, is deliberately positioned prior to "though the rate from women rose by 48%." There is no mention of the percentage rise (or drop) on the male side.

So suicides have doubled, in just ten years, most notably among white women between the ages of 35 and 64. And suicide rates are increasing at a staggering rate in both the U.S. and U.K. Just what has increased in the last decade? Particularly among women of that age and ethnicity? What is present across both societies, populations? It's got to be broad, you know, like something in the air.

Another story below from about a month ago from here in the U.S. is headlined "Study: Premature death rates rising in US"

It tells us "A recent study published in the journal “the lancet” finds that drug overdoses and suicide contribute heavily to the rise in numbers." But the reader must notice how they positioned drug overdoses prior to suicide, and that they didn't break out the statistics. That's careful hedging in both cases, but unsubtle, as it's part of a repeating pattern that I'm documenting here down through time.

It doesn't have to be subtle, as the Propagandists well know. The subconscious will do anything to avoid getting involved, it's how we've been programmed, been conditioned, as a society.

If my thesis is correct, the rates and intensity of all the mayhem documented in this thread is going to continue to increase, as the technology continues to work its malicious woe. And at some point the populace will leave its collective denial about the subject, and positive change will occur, and a controlled-media's defensive efforts against that process will be ultimately unsuccessful, and in fact counterproductive.

I actually think that the positive change has already begun, based on the dropping sales of all stripes of technology, dropping consumption of Television, dropping consumption of social media. 

 

 

 

 

 

February 7, 2017 - U.K. - Unexpected mental health deaths up 50% in three years

Unexpected deaths include death by suicide, neglect and misadventure.

The Department of Health said the increase was "expected" because of changes to the way deaths were recorded and investigated.

 

February 9, 2017 - Study: Premature death rates rising in US

(CNN) – For the first time in more than twenty years, life expectancy for Americans has fallen. The cause? According to a new study, premature deaths are on the rise.

Young white Americans and Native Americans are dying premature deaths at an increasing rate. A recent study published in the journal “the lancet” finds that drug overdoses and suicide contribute heavily to the rise in numbers.

Between 1999 and 2014, mortality rose 2–5% among white, Native American and Alaskan native people aged 25 to 30. The total number of accidental deaths, including drug overdoses, increased in all 50 states for women and in 48 states for men.

West Virginia had the highest rate of early death from all causes, while the District of Columbia had the lowest. According to a CDC report, the average woman lives to be 81 and the average man lives to be 76.

In 2015, the life expectancy for Americans dropped for the first time in twenty years. It only fell by a little over a month, according to the CDC.

That’s not a huge number, but it’s the first time life expectancy for Americans has fallen since 1993.

 

February 28, 2017 - Massachusetts’ Suicide Rate Has Nearly Doubled Since 2004

Suicides now outnumber deaths from car accidents and homicides combined.

Suicide rates in Massachusetts have nearly doubled since 2004, according to a jarring new report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

The report shows that Massachusetts saw a massive 40 percent increase in suicides between 2004 and 2014, an average increase of 3.1 percent per year. A total of 608 Commonwealth residents died of suicide in 2014—outnumbering car accident and homicide deaths combined.

While the raw numbers and the increase are both troubling, Massachusetts still has among the lowest suicide rates in the country, at nine self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 people. By contrast, Wyoming, the state with the highest suicide incidence in the nation, weathered 28.24 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2015.

In Massachusetts, men made up the vast majority (77 percent) of suicide victims, though the rate among women rose by 48 percent in the decade after 2004. People between the ages of 35 and 64 made up 56 percent of suicide victims.

"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" Thomas Paine 

March 15, 2017
5:26 pm
Jeff
Member
Forum Posts: 1597
Member Since:
December 22, 2007
Offline

(Me, from this thread, to Don, October, 2016)

You know how "video games are addictive"? Well, SSmart phones are addictive in a way that my flip phone is not. Just as the ill-intended make Doritos REALLY ADDICTIVE, so they've custom-crafted the smart phone, the social media programs, the Bachelor TV shows, et al...to be REALLY ADDICTIVE. And all they need to do is make sure you have the hose attached to the side of your head (or, more accurately, your FACE) for the requisite number of hours. It doesn't matter to them if you log those hours on social media application "A", or through TV show "B".

 

(Me, from this thread, this week)

"The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug into your wire whenever they wanted to.”

George Orwell, from "1984"

February 28, 2017 - The government surveys TV use because it’s a component of a household’s overall energy consumption.

"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" Thomas Paine 

March 15, 2017
6:53 pm
Jeff
Member
Forum Posts: 1597
Member Since:
December 22, 2007
Offline

"Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer; though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing. A kilometer away the Ministry of Truth, his place of work, towered vast and white above the grimy landscape...

The Ministry of Truth - Minitrue, in Newspeak - was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, three hundred meters into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"

 

George Orwell, from "1984"

 

June 6, 2016 - People are spending much less time on social media apps, said report.

September 9, 2016 - The end of an era: Social media grows as newspapers decline

December 23, 2016 - Are Teens Replacing Drugs With Social Media?

 

 

It used to be, there was a Sears Catalog. It was, like, four inches thick. Everyone got one and had one. It was the only catalog that there was.

Nowadays, catalogs are innumerable, and so deviously custom-designed and marketed that I will regularly get ones I've never heard of - super-specialized - and say to myself "this is really ME." Then I throw them away.

I mention that because the only area of media consumption that's still growing, at all, is mobile, and that's that custom thing...the user dials up exactly what they want, and binges on it. "Binge watching" is a real term at this time, in 2017, said Jeff to the school children of the future.

I think the data below shows we've just passed the sick peak of the technology Programme. This from June of last year: "U.S. Adults Consume an Entire Hour More of Media Per Day Than They Did Just Last Year"

A story from just last month: "Rise Of Fake News, Decline Of Social Media?"

Alcohol consumption is dropping drastically world wide, with exception of the U.S., particularly the bell-ringer Binge Drinking in the U.S. It's that last-ditch binge before the purge, I think. But even here, in very Heart of Darkness, social media use is dropping:

"In the U.S. — typically social media's most lucrative market — Instagram use was down 36.2 percent, Twitter was down 27.9 percent, Snapchat was down 19.2 percent and Facebook fell 6.7 percent. "

Can you see how all of the Bad Guy gambits are failing, each and every one of them? And how the positive changes, the rise in awareness we're seeing across the globe are increasing in speed and magnitude? 

I'm going to research bicycle sales. I'm an avid cyclist, have been since I was a teenager. Half an hour less social media consumption, half an hour more cycling, cycling to a store where you bought less-poisonous, unweaponized food? Bet you I find a big increase in bicycle sales. 

At the store last week, I saw a sign, "Completely Harmless Coconut Water". World Peace is at hand, people.

 

 

 

August 9, 2010 - Phone Fatigue: Cell Phone Minutes and Voice Calls on the Decline ...

 

June 6, 2016 - People are spending much less time on social media apps, said report.

People are spending less time on social media apps, in some cases substantially less, a new study from marketing intelligence firm SimilarWeb found.

The company compared Android users' daily time spent on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat from January to March 2016 with the same period in 2015. The firm looked at data from the U.S, UK, Germany, Spain, Australia, India, South Africa, Brazil and Spain.

Facebook's Instagram saw the biggest year-over-year drop — usage was down 23.7 percent this year, closely followed by Twitter (down 23.4 percent), Snapchat (down 15.7 percent) and Facebook (down 8 percent), the study found.

In the U.S. — typically social media's most lucrative market — Instagram use was down 36.2 percent, Twitter was down 27.9 percent, Snapchat was down 19.2 percent and Facebook fell 6.7 percent. Despite this drop, Facebook users in the U.S. continued to spend the most time using the app: 45 minutes and 29 seconds every day on average. Facebook users in India used the app the least, spending 22 minutes and 59 seconds daily, on average.

Americans are also the biggest Snapchatters, spending 18 minutes and 43 seconds using the app daily, followed by the French (16 minutes and 7 seconds), and then the British (15 minutes and 27 seconds).

 

February 12, 2016 - Digital Media's Consumption Growth Slowing; So Is Traditional's Decline

Digital media’s consumption growth rate in the U.S. continued to slow last year, while the rate of decline in traditional media use (dominated by television, of course) also slowed.

 

June 14, 2016 - All media consumption is declining - with one exception

Worldwide media consumption is dropping, but there's one silver lining.

Zenith Optimedia has issued its newest Media Consumption Forecast, which predicts that all non-mobile media consumption, including traditional media and desktop Internet, will decline by 3.4% this year.

But mobile media consumption will climb by approximately 28%. Because of this, the forecast predicts that overall media consumption will still increase this year.

Despite the declines, TV media consumption still dominates. Consumers spent 177 minutes per day watching TV in 2015, compared to 110 minutes per day on the Internet (both desktop and mobile). TV accounted for 41% of media consumption in 2015, but that figure is expected to decline to 38% by 2018. Internet media, meanwhile, will account for 31% in that year.

Last year, mobile overtook desktop as the primary means of accessing the Internet. But now, mobile is racing past desktop, as people are expected to spend 86 minutes on average on mobile media, compared to just 36 minutes on desktop. This means that approximately 71% of global internet consumption will occur on mobile in 2016.

 

June 27, 2016 - U.S. Adults Consume an Entire Hour More of Media Per Day Than They Did Just Last Year

For daily total of 10 hours, 39 minutes

 

August 18, 2016 - Mobile phone sales drop as smartphone buyers bide their time

 

August 22, 2016 - NBC Blames Millennials And Social Media For Awful Olympics ...

 

September 9, 2016 - The end of an era: Social media grows as newspapers decline 

 

September 19, 2016 - Limp handshakes, social media fronting & the decline of decency ...

 

November 9, 2016 - Social media alone understood the Donald Trump story

November 29, 2016 - 5 Ways Millennial Social Media Habits Will Change In 2017

Overall millennial social media usage will start to decline. According to Infusionsoft, 90% of millennials currently use social media, but research suggests that for more than half of us, social media is a chronic source of unhappinessat least in some situations.

Millennials who have practically grown up with social media are starting to recognize this, and are beginning to see the platforms they used when they were younger as more juvenile and less significant than they were previously. Accordingly, we may see a significant drop-off in total social media use among millennials; some will stop using social media altogether, while many will start using social media less frequently throughout the day.

 

December 10, 2016 - FACEBOOK BRAND PAGES SUFFER 44% DECLINE IN REACH SINCE DECEMBER 1

Ignite analysts reviewed 689 posts across 21 brand pages (all of significant size, across a variety of industries) and found that, in the week since December 1, organic reach and organic reach percentage have each declined by 44% on average, with some pages seeing declines as high as 88%. Only one page in the analysis had improved reach, which came in at 5.6%.As reach declined, the raw number of engaged users plunged as well, falling on average by 35%. Some pages saw engaged users fall as much as 76%. Only one page in the data set had an increase in the number of engaged users,

 

December 23, 2016 - Are Teens Replacing Drugs With Social Media? - Rolling Stone

 

December 28, 2016 - Why Social Media Use Could Decline - Website Magazine

 

February 15, 2017 - Rise Of Fake News, Decline Of Social Media? 

"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" Thomas Paine 

March 20, 2017
2:09 pm
Jeff
Member
Forum Posts: 1597
Member Since:
December 22, 2007
Offline

The game is turning, has turned. The most recent story below, from late last month, is headlined "Why I've ditched my smartphone for a dumb old Nokia".

The story's from the U.K., and notes that actor Eddie Redmayne also ditched his Ssmart phone. The author notes that "going back to the 'dumb phone’ or 'basic burner’ could soon be a bit like the retreat to vinyl records or 70s drop handled racing bikes."

I've mentioned the return to vinyl many times in this thread. I'm an avid cyclist, and have never gotten rid of my 'old' bikes. My newest was a 1991, and when it got stolen, I'm now back on a 1986. I'm not being sentimental, I think they're made better, feel better. People said "$500 - or much more - for a crappy-quality new modern bike, or $100 on Craigslist for a beautiful old English bike, I know the smart move, here."

I've also talked a lot about off-the-front famous people ditching their Ssmart phones. "Eddie’s reason for swapping his iPhone for an old fashioned handset was an attempt to stop constantly checking his emails and start to 'live in the moment’, exactly the same as mine. It feels like a total release."

It is! A release that is at once social, biophysical, neurobiological, and quite possibly spiritual. In that, in the case of demonic possession, one must invite the entity in.

You know how this thread is named "Rising Female Death Rate"? Here's another data point for you, bold, italics mine:

"In addition I’ve some serious work in America impending and my girlfriend said "you’ll need a 'proper phone’ for that" and spent £650 on one for me for Christmas. I can see it now, still sitting in its box. It’s beautifully packaged, I haven’t unwrapped it yet."

The author, elsewhere in the article: "We’ve all been sucked into an ever-increasing spiral of Emperors New Clothes Must Have Consumerism of modern digital communication technology. This in itself is actually madness."

Yes, like in cars, like in bikes, like in everything, or so the folks running things would hope. Famous actors on both sides of the Atlantic, getting it. The author of the featured article, getting it.

Remember, when the school of fish, the flock of birds turns, they do so apparently as one.

 

 

August 18, 2016 - Mobile phone sales drop as smartphone buyers bide their time

 

November 29, 2016 - Report: Third Quarter Smartphone Sales Dropped By 1.8 percent...

 

January 11, 2017 - Personal Computer Shipments Dropped 5.7% In 2016, Says IDC ...

 

January 18, 2017 - New iPhone Sales Set For Disappointing Decline - Forbes

 

January 24, 2017 - Samsung mobile phone sales fall to lowest level in five years

It was the third consecutive annual decline in mobile sales at Samsung Electronic

 

February 27, 2017 - Why I've ditched my smartphone for a dumb old Nokia

When I take my small black plastic £10 Nokia phone out of my pocket it solicits a variety of responses, none of which you could file under Impressed. They include: “Is that a joke?” “How old is that?” and “Wow, do they still make those things?”

I get these questions every week accompanied by a look of disbelief and amazement – as if not having a smart phone means I’ve totally lost it. At least I am not alone – film star Eddie Redmayne has spoken of his decision to ditch his smart phone. Going back to the 'dumb phone’ or 'basic burner’ could soon be a bit like the retreat to vinyl records or 70s drop handled racing bikes.

Eddie’s reason for swapping his iPhone for an old fashioned handset was an attempt to stop constantly checking his emails and start to 'live in the moment’, exactly the same as mine. It feels like a total release.

Last August my phone broke twice and Apple refused to exchange it for a new one because I’d once had the screen repaired by a small independent supplier. While it was out of action, I bought a cheap Nokia instead and realised I quite liked it.

At first I was particularly conscious of having it in business meetings. Part of my work is in digital media with leading brands and ad agencies, one minute I’d be explaining our web-site, Sabotage Times, has two million unique page views a month and a very active Twitter following and the next I’d be making a call on something that looks like the toy phone my two-year-old has.

I’d go through the motions of telling everyone that I’d picked it up when my iPhone was in for repair and that I enjoyed the freedom from social media. When I explained this to an advertising conference recently, so many people tweeted about it that I ended up doing an interview about it on Radio 4; “Yes, it’s true, I don’t have a smart phone any more.”

Living without a smart phone isn’t as hard as you think it might be. I can text on my little Nokia, it has a torch, oh, and the battery lasts a week. If I need a battery when I’m travelling I just buy a new phone for a tenner from a high street retailer. It’s like Jack Reacher’s approach to clothing.

And should I ever drop my phone it simply falls apart, nothing breaks and I snap it back together. But I don’t drop it very often because I don’t have it in my hand all the time constantly glancing at it.

Sure I can’t go on social media and email (which is a bonus), but I’ve only missed one £100 job and that didn’t financially cripple me. Also it turns out people don’t actually mind if you don’t immediately reply to an email.

The peace of mind this has given me has been exhilarating. I choose when I go online and when I don’t. It’s a genuine pleasure similar to that feeling when you leave a city and go to the country. Less cluttered.

I do miss not having a camera in my phone and early on I found myself needing the map, but now before I leave my home I look up my destination on my laptop and remember the directions. Also there’s no shortage of other people around with smart phones. All offices have computers.

We’ve all been sucked into an ever-increasing spiral of Emperors New Clothes Must Have Consumerism of modern digital communication technology. This in itself is actually madness. The apparent need to slightly increase your camera speed every autumn prompts the replacement of an otherwise fully functioning device. Apart from the screen.

Because, let’s face it, the screen on your smart phone is often cracked – it’s almost a sign of the brand. To get more stuff into it and to keep the design 'fresh’ they moved on from the perfectly formed finger fitting Pebble design to something heavier with harder edges. People drop them a lot.

Where else would you tolerate a screen that kept breaking? A car windscreen with a jagged massive crack? A TV with a hundred sticks of broken glass obscuring the programming?

People believe smartphones can whisk you away to somewhere else better, funnier, more stimulating and more immediate. But like Eddie, I’m now happily enjoying being in the space where I actually am. I notice a lot more.

I’m not sure how long this will last. I recently sent a text on a mate’s iPhone screen and it just felt so easy compared to my old fashioned push buttons.

In addition I’ve some serious work in America impending and my girlfriend said "you’ll need a 'proper phone’ for that" and spent £650 on one for me for Christmas. I can see it now, still sitting in its box. It’s beautifully packaged, I haven’t unwrapped it yet.

You see I’ve become peculiarly attached to my old fashioned piece of black plastic. I could buy 65 for the same price as the smart phone and have telephones and batteries for life and no-one would change the headphone socket.

Yes, they even have headphone sockets!

"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" Thomas Paine 

March 21, 2017
3:14 pm
Jeff
Member
Forum Posts: 1597
Member Since:
December 22, 2007
Offline
90

"Who controls the present controls the past," said O'Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. "Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?"

George Orwell, from "1984"

 

September 29, 2014 - "The United States has a higher infant mortality rate than any of the other 27 wealthy countries"

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

August 6, 2016 - U.S. Infant Mortality Rate Stays High, Government Report Finds

March 21, 2017 - From 2005 to 2014, the infant mortality rate in the US dropped 15%

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 

 

It's March, 2017, and the infant mortality rate is higher in the US than in any of the other 27 wealthy countries. Why is it so high, here? What do we consume the most of, among all other nations?

An article from October 5 of last year clarifies that "global rates for maternal mortality have fallen by close to one-half, except in the U.S., where the number of women who die related to their pregnancy has significantly increased."

Maternal mortality has fallen by half elsewhere, but has more than doubled in the U.S. Why? What's the variable? What are we consuming a lot more of here, that people aren't consuming so much of, elsewhere?

It must be something signal.

An article from today's newspaper says that SIDS, or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, declined 29% from 2005 to 2014. SIDS is frequently used as a cover story for Death cult shenanigans, so this could mean a couple of things. One (the most positive), that the rate of sudden death of living infants has decreased significantly, however directly contrary to the highest rate of infant mortality in the developed world.

That seems illogical, it doesn't follow.

The 29% decline could be because a generally-rising awareness of Death cult shenanigan coverups is leading to a cumulative 29% decrease in their ability to successfully foist same upon the public.

Or it could be a bullshit statistic. We'll presume it's legit.

I'm going to keep adding all the data I can find to this thread, so I and y'all can figure out if that statistic, or this statistic are bullshit:

"From 2005 to 2014, the infant mortality rate in the US dropped 15%, from 6.86 infant deaths per 1,000 live births to 5.82."

For now, we can run with the most-optimistic surmise, that the rate did, in fact, drop 15% here in the U.S. But we'd need to state that in the context where it dropped by more than half in the rest of the world. So things are generally getting better, across the globe, even here. The crime rate's been dropping precipitously from 1991 to present, even here.

Yet despite that, things are worse here by a wide margin, in terms of the general deathliness level. Among birthing mothers, and babies, in utero, at birth, and after birth. And don't forget the sudden general rise in mortality across the populace. Why? What's the deadly variable, that the general populace consumes or is exposed to in a general way?

Whatever it is that's driving up Death rates, it's macro level. It's like it's in the air, here in the U.S.

I believe it would be logical to presume that whatever it is, if it's agreed that it's taken up by the populace in a very broad way, it would be cumulative and dose-dependent. It would take awhile to impact everyone - certainly years - with a slow worsening. Otherwise the populace would catch on, if it were sudden, or quick in onset.

I don't think the folks who designed this Death-increase-driver would let it become truly epidemic, and thus identifiable, but rather they want it to be a deep, wide, addictive malaise, to add to our many others.

Those who consumed the most of this generally-consumed toxins the longest would be the worst off.

I shouldn't have to prove anything beyond "phone signals cause your blood-brain barrier to leak, leading to later Alzheimer's", but this is an interesting exercise.

I'm going to close and research SIDS and infant mortality.

 

 

September 29, 2014 - Our infant mortality rate is a national embarrassment

The United States has a higher infant mortality rate than any of the other 27 wealthy countries, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control.

 

August 6, 2016 - U.S. Infant Mortality Rate Stays High, Report Finds - NBC News

The U.S. infant mortality rate has stalled, the latest government report finds, giving Americans one of the worst rates in the developed world.

 

October 5, 2016 - Maternal and Infant Mortality Rates in the US Are a Tragic Embarrassment

Global rates for maternal mortality have fallen by close to one-half, except in the U.S., where the number of women who die related to their pregnancy has significantly increased.

In a similar fashion, infant mortality rates are higher than any of the other 27 wealthy countries reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Cost for medical care in the U.S. is the highest in the world. Unfortunately, high medical expenditures do not translate into better outcomes for mothers and infants. In fact, the number of infant deaths in the U.S. for every 1,000 live births is higher than in Bosnia, Slovenia, Cuba and Belarus.

According to data released from the Institute of Health Metrics, there are 28 maternal deaths for every 100,000 births in the U.S. This number is a drastic 22 percent increase, up from 23 deaths in 2003. Compared to 1990, the maternal death rate in the U.S. has more than DOUBLED.

 

October 13, 2016 - Why American infant mortality rates are so high

Texas A&M University

Summary:

In the U.S., more than 23,000 American infants died in 2014, or about 6 for every 1,000 live births, putting us on par with countries like Serbia and Malaysia. Most other developed countries have lower rates.

 

March 21, 2017 - US infant mortality rates down 15%

By Robert Jimison, CNN

According to a report, infant mortality rates declined in most states since 2005.

(CNN) Infant mortality rates have reached new lows, according to a report released by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday.

From 2005 to 2014, the infant mortality rate in the US dropped 15%, from 6.86 infant deaths per 1,000 live births to 5.82. Sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, declined by 29%, and there were drops in infant mortality rates across most racial groups.

"It's good news, but on the other hand, we have so much more to do," said Dr. Paul Jarris, chief medical officer for the March of Dimes, a nonprofit focused on the health of mothers and babies. "What is concerning, though, is that the inequities between non-Hispanic blacks and American Indians and the Caucasian population have persisted."

The largest drop among racial groups, 21%, was in Asian and Pacific Islander populations. All race and Hispanic subgroups experienced reductions in infant mortality rates except American Indians or Alaska Natives, among whom there was not a statistically significant change. The report shows significant declines among non-Hispanic black populations as well as women of Cuban descent.

However, those reductions were not broad enough to close the racial gap. Infants born to non-Hispanic black women have a mortality rate more than double that of non-Hispanic white women. Among Hispanic subgroups, the highest rates are seen in Puerto Ricans, 6.68 per 1,000, while the lowest, 3.95, are in populations of Cuban descent.

"I think there was a public health push in the past decade to figure out ways to lower this rate, and it has made an impact," said report author T.J. Matthews, a demographer at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. "We know that there have been a lot of efforts across the country in cities and states where they're trying to figure out ways where they can lower the infant mortality rate."
Rates for four of the five leading causes of infant death went down. Congenital malformations, the primary cause of infant death, dropped 11%. Deaths from short gestation and low birthweight declined 8%, deaths due to maternal complications fell 7%, and cases of SIDS fell 29%. Deaths caused by unintentional injuries increased 11%, from 26.2 in 2005 to 29.2 in 2014.

One source of the decline, Jarris said, is the push to end medically unnecessary induced labor. "These are when a woman is induced to cause labor when there is no medical indication. They were very common around 2003 to 2005, and we have done a good job as a nation of reducing these dramatically so that women aren't delivering early when there's no need."

Declines in infant mortality rates were observed in two-thirds of all US states and the District of Columbia, and no state reported a statistically significant increase. Infant deaths declined 11% percent or more in Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

"Overall, 33 states and the District of Columbia had significant declines," Matthews said. "Some states with fairly high rates, such as South Carolina and Mississippi, are in those categories where they had some of the sharpest declines."

Although the report does not share details on how those states achieved lower rates, in the case of South Carolina, Jarris said the deliberate effort is key. "They have a strong partnership between the state Department of Health, the state Medicaid office, Blue Cross Blue Shield and the hospital association in which they are coordinating their efforts."

The decline, Matthews says, is a public health success.

According to the National Institutes of Health, since 1962, infant death rates in the United States have dropped more than 70%. Although rates continue to fall, the United States maintains one of the highest rates of infant death among developed countries.

"In terms of preterm birth and infant mortality, the United States has the highest rates of any of the developed nations," Jarris said. "Our rates are more similar to that of developing nations. So the message, from my point of view, is that we cannot be complacent."

"O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" Thomas Paine 

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 208

Currently Online:
21 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Jeff: 1597

Silvius: 623

Anonymous: 582

Mrs O: 546

Egoli.buster: 486

louis onder: 455

EricCarlsen1: 423

Carlos Silva: 342

Owuor Chris: 340

Gare: 339

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 6

Members: 312

Moderators: 0

Admins: 6

Forum Stats:

Groups: 5

Forums: 14

Topics: 5246

Posts: 20457

Newest Members: Marjo Hopeakivi, Nancy J, Switchback, Lydiane, Angel Cross, Steve H, Orgoniteireland, ReNature, suziesunshine, David Topman

Administrators: azt1magnetiko: 5, Don Croft: 3831, fran: 240, dooney: 116, Azti Magnetiko: 188, Cassandria: 36