Skip to content

Category: Uncategorized

Published on Leave a comment on Air Pollution Can Kill You

Another study finding negative health effects from air pollution. This year I've posted several studies that found negative effects on the brain (and even cognition) from air pollution for people of all ages. Now this latest study found that in areas with air pollution, long-term exposure to outdoor fine particulate matter (PM2.5),which are fine particles in the air, are linked to an overall increase in risk of death, especially due to cardiovascular disease. The fine particles in the air contribute to the development of potentially fatal heart and lung diseases because they slip past the body's defenses and can be absorbed deep into the lungs and bloodstream. They are not sneezed or coughed out the way larger natural particles, like airborne soil and sand, are removed from the body's airways. From Science Daily:

Link between air pollution, increased deaths and increased deaths from heart disease affirmed

In what is believed to be the largest, most detailed study of its kind in the United States, scientists at NYU Langone Medical Center and elsewhere have confirmed that tiny chemical particles in the air we breathe are linked to an overall increase in risk of death. The researchers say this kind of air pollution involves particles so small they are invisible to the human eye (at less than one ten-thousandth of an inch in diameter, or no more than 2.5 micrometers across).

In a report on the findings, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives online Sept. 15, the scientists conclude that even minuscule increases in the amount of these particles (by 10 micrograms per cubic meter of air, for example) lead to an overall increased risk of death from all causes by 3 percent -- and roughly a 10 percent increase in risk of death due to heart disease. For nonsmokers, the risk increase rises to 27 percent in cases of death due to respiratory disease.

"Our data add to a growing body of evidence that particulate matter is really harmful to health, increasing overall mortality, mostly deaths from cardiovascular disease, as well as deaths from respiratory disease in nonsmokers," says lead study investigator and health epidemiologist George Thurston, ScD, a professor of population health and environmental medicine at NYU Langone. "Our study is particularly notable because all the data used in our analysis comes from government- and independently held sources."

According to Thurston, fine particles can contribute to the development of potentially fatal heart and lung diseases because they slip past the body's defenses and can be absorbed deep into the lungs and bloodstream. They are not sneezed or coughed out the way larger natural particles, like airborne soil and sand, are removed from the body's airways. Moreover, Thurston says, fine particles are usually made of harmful chemicals such as arsenic, selenium, and mercury, and can also transport gaseous pollutants, including sulfur and nitrogen oxides, with them into the lungs.

For their research, Thurston and his colleagues evaluated data from a detailed health and diet survey conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). The NIH-AARP study involved 566,000 male and female volunteers, ages 50 to 71, from California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and the metropolitan areas of Atlanta and Detroit. Analyzing information gathered about the participants between 2000 and 2009,....

Indeed, the team did not find any significant difference in the effect of particulate matter exposure between different sexes or age groups or by level of education. The researchers also noted that limiting the analysis to only the state of California, which has the most rigorous controls on air pollution, did not produce a different overall level of risk; instead, they found the same association between particulate matter exposure and increase in risk of death from all nonaccidental causes and from cardiovascular disease.

Published on Leave a comment on How Many Healthy Years Do You Have Left?

The following article posted average life expectancies for both men and women in countries throughout the world. But what was interesting is that it also gave the average years that a person would be healthy and also unhealthy (which is typically the last years of life). And no matter which country one looks at and the average life expectancy of men and women, it turns out that on average people spend about one eighth of their life in a disabled or unhealthy state. Or between 10 to 20% of their life disabled or unhealthy.

So looking at the United States, it is expected that the average women will live 81 years, but about 13 of those years will be in poor health. Men in the USA will live on average 76 years, but of that about 11 years will be unhealthy. Which means, don't wait until retirement to travel and do all those things you want to do, because you may have health issues preventing you from doing those things - so get out there NOW and DO IT ALL. The "bucket list" should be started now. (Note: I only copied information for 5 countries, but the actual chart has 188 countries. Do go check it out.) From NPR News:

Check Out Life Spans Around The World — And Likely Years Of Ill Health

How Long Will You Live — And How Many Of Those Years Will Be Healthy?

Here are the life expectancies in 188 countries — and the number of unhealthy years a person faces. No matter where you live, the range for years of healthy life is 80 to 90 percent.

Life expectancy compared with global average:

COUNTRY       MALE    UNHEALTHY YEARS       FEMALE       UNHEALTHY YEARS

GLOBAL            68                  8                                     74                       10

CANADA           79                 10                                     83                       12

CHINA               73                   8                                     79                         9

MEXICO             72                  9                                      78                       11

RUSSIA               65                 7                                       76                       10

USA                    76                 11                                      81                       13


Credit: Christopher Groskopf and Alyson Hurt/NPR     Notes: — Life expectancies are estimated for individuals born in 2013.  

Source: Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990–2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition

It's one of those good news/bad news stories. A study in the medical journal The Lancet found that people around the world — in countries rich, poor and in the middle — are living longer. But here's the rub. You can't count on living those extra years in good health.

In the first of what will be an annual look at health along with life span around the world called the Global Burden of Disease Study, researchers found that between 1990 and 2013, life expectancy rose by 6.2 years. The average life span at birth across the globe is now 71.5 years, though rates vary tremendously by region. People live the longest, according to the Lancet study, in Andorra, in southwestern Europe, or an average of 83.9 years. People die the youngest, an average of 48.3 years, in Lesotho, in Africa.

But regardless of socioeconomics, geography or total number of years lived, the study shows what appears to be a universal part of the human condition: people live an average of one-eighth of their lives in a disabled or unhealthy state.

"What's interesting is that wherever you go around the world, about seven-eighths of life expectancy is healthy," says Peter Byass, professor of global health at UmeaUniversity in Sweden. "I'm not sure we totally understand why.We probably can't do a lot about decreasing this part of life that's not healthy," he adds. "That pretty much appears to be a part of being human."

Healthy life — the measure researchers used, called HALE, or healthy life expectancy years — ranged from a high of 73.4 years in Japan to a low, again in Lesotho, of 42 years. Not much is known about when those years of ill health occur. "A lot of the unhealthy stuff is around end of life," says Byass.

Spending more money on health care doesn't seem to reduce the proportion of life spent in ill health. The study was based on regional data and showed that in high-income North America, men live an average of 76.64 years, but only 66.17 of those years are healthy; women live an average of 81.62 years, but experience good health in only 68.85 of those years. The United States, which spends more on health care than any other country, is part of that high-income region. "This is seen even in places where there's a high investment in health care," says Byass, who wrote a commentary accompanying the Lancet study.

Countries where people die the youngest have the highest rates of communicable diseases like AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis as well as high rates of maternal and childhood mortality and malnutrition. "If we want to have a healthier global population, more equal health, the world has got to invest in getting rid of those avoidable problems in poorer countries, mainly in Africa," says Byass.

Published on Leave a comment on Nearly 70% of Prostate Cancers Can Just Be Watched?

The issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment has recently been in the news, especially when discussing breast cancer, prostate cancer, and thyroid cancer. Meaning too much unnecessary treatment with harms, when the best approach would have been to do nothing, as studies have suggested or actually shown. Now here is an article in Medscape suggesting that rather than be quick to operate or treat, the best approach for nearly 70% of prostate cancers may be just "watching".

The U.S. Preventive Task Force, which analyzes the value of screening tests, in May 2012 recommended AGAINST routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer for all age groups. According to them, studies do not show that benefits of routine screening of asymptomatic prostate cancer and the resulting treatment outweigh the harms of treatment (e.g., surgical complications including death from surgery, erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, bowel dysfunction, and bladder dysfunction), or that prostate cancer treatment even reduces mortality (deaths).

They point out that: "There is convincing evidence that PSA-based screening programs result in the detection of many cases of asymptomatic prostate cancer. There is also convincing evidence that a substantial percentage of men who have asymptomatic cancer detected by PSA screening have a tumor that either will not progress or will progress so slowly that it would have remained asymptomatic for the man's lifetime. The terms "overdiagnosis" or "pseudo-disease" are used to describe both situations." (NOTE: others have argued against this recommendation)

When reading the full Medscape article, it was pointed out that in the study being discussed, one person who was offered active surveillance but declined and was treated with an immediate radical prostatectomy, still died of metastatic prostate cancer. This was an example of a case where when the disease is truly aggressive, it may have spread "like a bird" throughout the body (in Dr. H. Gilbert Welch's terms in his books Overdiagnosed and Less Medicine, More Health) from the very beginning, and may be unstoppable no matter what is done.

I have also noticed reading other prostate cancer studies that a certain percentage of prostate cancers regress from the point of diagnosis (the PSA test and biopsy). In other words, researchers are finding that cancer can have different paths: regresses, stays the same, grows slowly (and can be treated when symptoms appear), or grows very quickly and is so aggressive and unstoppable that it goes through the body "like a bird". And we don't know which will be the aggressive ones when we first find them, thus the controversies over what to do: screen or not?, and treat or not?  ...continue reading "Nearly 70% of Prostate Cancers Can Just Be Watched?"

Published on

Again, more benefits of vitamin D. Think of it as the sunshine vitamin, but supplements also work, especially vitamin D3 (rather than D2). This time higher levels of vitamin D in the blood (as measured by the vitamin D biomarker, 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D) are linked to lower incidence of macular degeneration among those women genetically prone to it.

Macular degeneration is thought to have both genetic (inherited) and environmental components. Currently macular degeneration is the leading cause of vision loss and affects about 2.07 million Americans (this is according to the National Eye Institute). Note that this number is very different than that given by the American Macular Degeneration Foundation in the article. From Medical Xpress:

Vitamin D may play key role in preventing macular degeneration

Vitamin D has been studied extensively in relation to bone health as well as cancer. Now, a team led by a researcher at the University at Buffalo has discovered that vitamin D may play a significant role in eye health, specifically in the possible prevention of age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, among women who are more genetically prone to developing the sight-damaging disease.

In a paper published today (Aug. 27) in JAMA Ophthalmology online, Amy Millen, associate professor of epidemiology and environmental health in UB's School of Public Health and Health Professions, and her team found that women who are deficient in vitamin D and have a specific high-risk genotype are 6.7 times more likely to develop AMD than women with sufficient vitamin D status and no high risk genotype.

Macular degeneration is characterized by the deterioration of the macula, a small part of the central retina where the eye's photoreceptors (rods and cones) are most highly concentrated. The leading cause of legal blindness, macular degeneration affects more than 10 million Americans—more than cataracts and glaucoma combined—according to the American Macular Degeneration Foundation. The disease affects a person's central vision, which is needed for common tasks such as reading and driving. The effect is similar to that of a rain drop on the center of a camera lens.

Researchers analyzed data compiled on 1,230 women ages 54 to 74 who participated in the Carotenoids in Age-related Eye Disease Study (CAREDS),..... CAREDS was conducted among participants at three of the centers: University of Wisconsin (Madison), the University of Iowa (Iowa City) and the Kaiser Center for Health Research (Portland, Oregon). Researchers were able to determine participants' vitamin D status by analyzing serum samples for a vitamin D biomarker, 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], which provided a glimpse into vitamin D intake through all sources: diet, supplements and sunlight.

Human skin can synthesize vitamin D when exposed to ultraviolet light, Millen explains. However, for many people, 15 to 30 minutes a day with 10 percent of their skin exposed might be sufficient. In winter months, when there is a lower solar angle, sun exposure may not be not sufficient to maintain blood level for people who live north of a line from about Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles. At these times and locations, dietary intake may be needed. Dietary sources of vitamin D include fortified foods such as milk and foods that naturally contain vitamin D such as fatty fish like salmon and mackerel.

"Macular degeneration has been found to be strongly associated with genetic risk," Millen says. Among many genes linked to AMD, one of the strongest is a specific genetic variant (Y402H) in the complement factor H gene, called CFH for short. This gene codes for the CFH protein that is involved in the body's immune response to destroy bacteria and viruses. Inflammation is believed to be involved in the development of macular degeneration.  "People who have early stage AMD develop drusen, lipid and protein deposits that build up in the eye. Your body sees this drusen as a foreign substance and attacks it, in part via the complement cascade response," explains Millen.

Vitamin D shows promise for protecting against because of its anti-inflammatory and antiangiogenic properties; antiangiogenic refers to slowing the growth of new blood vessels, often seen in late stages of AMD."Our message is not that achieving really high levels of vitamin D are good for the eye, but that having deficient vitamin D levels may be unhealthy for your eyes," Millen says. 

Although the odds of having AMD was higher in women who were deficient for vitamin D, with 25(OH)D levels below 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L), increasing vitamin D levels beyond 12 ng/mL did not further lower the odds of AMD to any meaningful extent, she explains.

Published on

Several recent studies have found that constant exposure to high levels of air pollution has negative effects on the brain. The last post described negative effects on the gray matter in brains (resulting in smaller brain volumes) of elderly women from air pollution, but this study found negative effects (lower grade point averages) in young children from high air pollution. From Environmental Health News:

Bad air means lower grade point averages in Texas

Fourth and fifth graders in El Paso, Texas, are more likely to have lower grade point averages if heavily exposed to contaminated air at home, according to a new study.It bolsters a growing body of evidence that air pollution can impair success in school.

They found that for all types of air pollution sources, more exposure corresponded with lower grade point averages. Only one type of pollution—point sources such as factories—was not significantly linked to lower grade point averages.University of Texas at El Paso researchers analyzed the grade point averages of 1,895 children and, using their home location, estimated their exposure to air toxics—such as benzene, arsenic, lead, mercury, hydrochloric acid, toluene, vinyl bromide, xylenes, and diesel particulate matter—using federal data.

“Effects appear to be insidious, since they are mild, unlikely to be perceived, and, hence, unlikely to be addressed in any way … seemingly trivial effects on children’s development may translate into substantial impacts throughout the life course in terms of physical and mental health and personal success,” the authors wrote.The researchers did control for some other things that can affect children’s grades such as poverty, mother’s age, education and ability to speak English, and the child’s race and sex.

Still, the study doesn’t prove that dirty air makes kids do worse in school. It does, however, suggest children’s developing bodies are more susceptible to air pollution, which can harm their respiratory systems and brain.Air pollution might hamper kids’ grades via two primary ways: Illnesses, mostly respiratory, that would make them miss school, and developmental problems resulting from long-term exposure, said Sara Grineski, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at El Paso and co-author of the new study.

Others have found similar links between air pollution and academic performance. Three months ago Columbia University's Perera and colleagues reported that New York City children born to mothers in poverty and exposed to certain air toxics during pregnancy had lower IQs.  Perera, tracking the mothers and children since before birth, said the pollution exposure prior to birth is more strongly linked to learning and behavioral problems. 

In the current study it’s unclear if the children were exposed in their mothers’ womb—an exposure window that is critical to brain development, Perera said....Other studies support this—in February Calderón-Garcidueñas and colleagues reported Mexico City smog was linked to impaired short-term memory and IQ in children.

The city is more than 80 percent Hispanic....Previous studies have shown that El Paso’s minorities are disproportionately impacted by toxics, Grineski said. The city of 675,000 is one of the worst when it comes to particulate matter—a mix of substances emitted by combustion sources, including cars, trucks, industrial plants and wood burning—especially coarse particulates, PM10, those between 2.5 and 10 micrometers (from about 25 to 100 times thinner than a human hair, according to the EPA). El Paso’s 24-hour PM10 average is about 233 micrograms per cubic meter of air, according to the latest EPA data from 2013, which was eighth highest among more than 500 U.S. cities. El Paso, along with Laredo, has the highest carbon monoxide levels in Texas.

Published on

Several recent studies found that air pollution has a negative effect on the brain. This study of elderly women in North Carolina found that long-term exposure to higher levels of air pollution (specifically fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers (called PM2.5) resulted in smaller brain volumes (especially the brain's white matter). They studied elderly women (aged 71 to 89), but the findings should be of concern to everyone exposed to high levels of air pollution.  White matter connects brain regions (with nerve fibers that pass signals throughout the brain) and determines how information is processed in the brain. The researchers pointed out that other recent studies reported that high air pollution is linked to cognitive decline and accelerated brain aging. From Futurity:

AIR POLLUTION MAY SHRINK BRAIN’S WHITE MATTER

Exposure to air pollution may have a negative impact on how the brain’s white matter ages. Older women who lived in geographic locations with higher levels of fine particulate matter in ambient air had significantly smaller white matter volumes across a wide range of brain areas, new research shows.

Fine particulate matter is smaller than 2.5 micrometers and is known as PM2.5, a form of pollution that easily enters the lungs and possibly the bloodstream. White matter connects brain regions and determines how information is processed in the brain....“Our study provides convincing evidence that several parts of the aging brain, especially the white matter, are an important target of neurotoxic effects induced by long-term exposure to fine particles in the air.”

The study found that older women ages 71 to 89 who had lived in places with greater PM2.5 exposures had significantly smaller volumes of white matter and that this could not be explained by the geographic region where they lived, their race or ethnic background, socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or medical conditions that may also influence brain volumes.

The researchers performed brain magnetic resonance imaging scans of 1,403 women who are part of the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS), a nationwide report based at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, NC. The researchers also used residential histories and air monitoring data to estimate the participants’ exposure to air pollution in the previous six to seven years.

White matter contains nerve fibers and connects brain regions with each other by traveling deep within and passing nerve signals throughout the brain. Gray matter is primarily composed of neuronal cell bodies, dendrites, glial cells, and capillaries. The study did not find impacts from exposure to air pollution in participants’ gray matter.

Published on

 The following article supported what I have been reading over the past few years: that medical tests and treatments also have downsides, that it is possible to "know too much", that more harm than benefits can occur from certain tests, procedures, and medicines, and lifestyle changes (eat a less processed more plant-based diet, move more, and don't smoke) can be better than some medicines or certain procedures. The doctor mentioned in this article (Dr. H. Gilbert Welch) recently published a book aimed at the general public which I just read and highly recommend: Less Medicine, More Health. Dr. Welch is an academic physician, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School, and a nationally recognized expert on the effects of medical testing. In 2012 he published the well regarded and more technical and in-depth book on this issue: Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health. From The Atlantic:

The Downside of Medical Screening

If you had a disease, and you could find out sooner rather than later, why wouldn’t you?Medicine has long focused on early detection of diseases as part of a move toward preventive care. But imperfect tests, false positives, and overdiagnosis mean that sometimes the tests do more harm than good, and in recent years, there have been more recommendations to reduce some kinds of screening, including pap smears, colonoscopies, mammograms, and even annual pelvic exams.

“This is something we all need to understand, the two sides of early detection. It does help people, but it’s almost guaranteed to harm others,” said H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine, public policy, and business administration at Dartmouth College, and author of the book Should I Be Tested for Cancer? (He reveals his answer in the book’s subtitle: “Maybe not.”)

The more you look for disease, the more you find it. And in the case of cancer, it’s hard for doctors to know if what they find is dangerous and needs to be addressed, or if it’s just a small tumor that won’t grow and poses no threat. “We can’t be sure which is which, so we treat everybody,” Welch explained at the Aspen Ideas Festival’s Spotlight Health session. “That means we’re treating people who will never experience problems from their disease.”

But they may experience problems from the treatment.The panel gave the example of prostate cancer, which is very common in men—one in seven American men will be diagnosed with it in their lifetimes. “But it turns out a lot of these cancers are very indolent,” said Jessica Herzstein, a preventive-medicine consultant and member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Around 30 to 40 percent of men who’ve been treated for prostate cancer likely had “slow-growing tumors that would never have become a threat to the man’s lifespan or health,” according to the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

In other words, “you’re going to die with them, not of them,” Herzstein said, “and the treatments are very very harmful.” Radiation therapy, for example, can cause incontinence and erectile dysfunction, and hormone therapy can cause osteoporosis and depression.

The possibility of a false positive is another downside. Not only could it lead to more invasive follow-up tests or treatments that aren’t needed, but it can also give patients unnecessary anxiety.“If we resolve the test by saying ‘The test was wrong, you’re fine!’, that’s one thing,” Welch said. “But most false alarms aren’t resolved that way. [It’s more like] ‘You don’t have cancer, but you have some abnormality that possibly puts you at a higher risk for cancer, but we’re not going to do anything about it. I think that’s where there can be [mental] harm.”

Ultimately, it comes down to a weighing of the benefits and the harms, and, in the absence of clear evidence, the preferences of the patient. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force helps identify which tests are beneficial by evaluating and grading them. It gives tests an A if there’s a high certainty of substantial benefit, a B if there’s moderate certainty of substantial benefit, a C if there’s moderate certainty of a small benefit, a D if there’s moderate or high certainty of no benefit, and an I if the evidence is just too insufficient to say.

The task force gave prostate cancer screening a D. HIV screening got an A. For breast cancer screening, an always-controversial topic, the results vary. Breast self-exams got a D. Mammograms got a B, but only for women between 50 and 74 years old. For women in their 40s, the grade is a C, meaning the task force recommends patients and physicians discuss and decide together.

Before getting a screening test, patients should think about what would happen if they get a positive result, and if they’d be ready for it, Welch advised. “If I were to go through this, and have this diagnosis, would I want to have this surgery?” Herzstein asked, posing a hypothetical. Would you want to undergo the biopsy, the chemo, whatever treatments come next? “Maybe you don’t even want to go there if there is no treatment for the disease,” she added. Welch gives an example. “With Alzheimer’s disease that’s a fundamental question: What are you going to do with a positive result?” he asked. 

Published on

Huh - all that talk and research for years about the first born being the smartest and most responsible. Yes...but according to this large study comparing 377,00 high school students from different families, the differences are so small as to be meaningless (1 IQ point!). Researchers looking within-families (studying siblings within families) say that the effects are larger. Depends on who you want to believe. And this study did not look at the siblings later in life - at achievements, etc. From Medical Xpress:

Birth order has no meaningful effect on personality or IQ, massive study reports

For those who believe that birth order influences traits like personality and intelligence, a study of 377,000 high school students offers some good news: Yes, the study found, first-borns do have higher IQs and consistently different personality traits than those born later in the family chronology. However, researchers say, the differences between first-borns and "later-borns" are so small that they have no practical relevance to people's lives. The analysis found - as a previous large-scale study did - that first-borns enjoy a one-IQ-point advantage over later-borns, Damian said. The difference is statistically significant but meaningless, she said.

The analysis also revealed consistent differences in personality traits between first-borns and later-borns - first-borns tended to be more extroverted, agreeable and conscientious, and had less anxiety than later-borns, for example - but those differences were "infinitesimally small," amounting to a correlation of 0.02, Roberts said. "But in terms of personality traits and how you rate them, a 0.02 correlation doesn't get you anything of note. You are not going to be able to see it with the naked eye. You're not going to be able to sit two people down next to each other and see the differences between them.."

The study controlled for potentially confounding factors - such as a family's economic status, the number of children and the relative age of the siblings at the time of the analysis - that might skew the results, Damian said. For example, wealthier families tend to have fewer children than other families, and so have a higher proportion of first-borns who also have access to more resources that may influence their IQ or personality, she said.

Many previous studies of birth order suffered from small sample sizes, Damian said. Many compared children with their siblings - a "within-family" design that some assert is better than comparing children from different families, as the new analysis did.

The team also evaluated a subset of the children in the study - those with exactly two siblings and living with two parents. This allowed the researchers to look for specific differences between first- and second-borns, or second- and third-borns. The findings confirmed those seen in the larger study, with specific differences between the oldest and a second child, and between second and third children. But the magnitude of the differences was, again, "minuscule," Roberts said.

Published on

There used to be alternative medicine, but it has evolved to what is now called integrative medicine. There are integrative centers even at some if the most prestigious medical institutions in the USA (Harvard, Mayo Clinic,etc). Integrative medicine is part of the medical establishment, so there is an emphasis on treatments that can be scientifically investigated, and conventional medical treatments are also used as needed. But there is a concern with wellness, with looking at the whole body, at prevention and treating chronic diseases (such as heart disease and diabetes) that take years to develop and are tied to the ways people think, feel, and live their everyday lives (so they look at stress, diet, lifestyles).

What I especially like is the quote taught in medical schools: “A common homily we tell our students is that in five years, half of what we taught them will be wrong. We just don’t know which half.” That alone is a good reason for a person to take responsibility for living the most healthy lifestyle that they can (to focus on wellness and prevention), rather than depending on medicines for "treatments" and "cures". Excerpts from The Atlantic:

The Evolution of Alternative Medicine

Back in the 1990s, the word “alternative” was a synonym for hip and forward-thinking.... That was the decade when doctors started to realize just how many Americans were using alternative medicine, starting with a 1993 paper published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The paper reported that one in three Americans were using some kind of “unconventional therapy.” Only 28 percent of them were telling their primary-care doctors about it.

Enough Americans had similar interests that, in the early 1990s, Congress established an Office of Alternative Medicine within the National Institutes of Health. Seven years later, that office expanded into the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), with a $50 million budget dedicated to studying just about every treatment that didn’t involve pharmaceuticals or surgery—traditional systems like Ayurveda and acupuncture along with more esoteric things like homeopathy and energy healing.Some thought the NCCAM’s work was too far outside the mainstream....

In an email, Briggs confirmed that her center’s mission has shifted over the years...”That change became more pronounced a few months ago, when Congress removed the word “alternative” from the NCCAM’s name, redubbing it the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). 

The idea of alternative medicine—an outsider movement challenging the medical status quo—has fallen out of favor since my youth. Plenty of people still identify strongly with the label, but these days, they’re often the most extreme advocates, the ones who believe in using homeopathy instead of vaccines, “liver flushes” instead of HIV drugs, and garlic instead of chemotherapy. In contrast, integrative doctors see themselves as part of the medical establishment. “I don’t like the term ‘alternative medicine,’” says Mimi Guarneri, a longtime cardiologist and researcher who founded the Academy of Integrative Health and Medicine as well as the integrative center at Scripps. 

After visiting the NIH center and talking to leading integrative physicians, I can say pretty definitively that integrative health is not just another name for alternative medicine. There are 50 institutions around the country that have integrative in their name, at places like Harvard, Stanford, Duke, and the Mayo Clinic. Most of them offer treatments like acupuncture, massage, and nutrition counseling, along with conventional drugs and surgery.

The actual treatments they use vary, but what ties integrative doctors together is their focus on chronic disease and their effort to create an abstract condition called wellness. In the process, they’re scrutinizing many therapies that were once considered alternative, subjecting them to the scientific method and then using them the same way they’d incorporate any other evidence-based medicine.

It’s hard to talk about integrative health without using abstract terms like wellness, vitality, and healing...For a long time, though, the medical profession was so busy treating acute illness that it didn’t put as much attention on preventing heart disease, diabetes, or cancer...The bigger problem, says Hyman, is that most doctors aren’t well equipped to treat chronic disease. “We have an acute-disease system for a chronic-disease population,” he told me. “The whole approach is to suppress and inhibit the manifestations of disease.” 

The question is how integrative doctors try to restore balance—and the answer varies. Many of them focus on diet to a degree that goes far beyond the usual guidelines about avoiding salt or trans fat. They’ll look for undiagnosed food sensitivities or hormonal imbalances, with the idea that these problems account for many chronic health complaints and cause even more serious breakdowns over time. There’s a lot of emphasis on intestinal bacteria. “We now know that so many separate things are linked to what’s going on in the gut,” Hyman told me, alluding to a growing body of literature linking the microbiome to everything from cancer to mood disorders. Guarneri, the cardiologist who founded the integrative center at Scripps, told me integrative health is highly personalized. 

Integrative doctors tend to favor treatments that are—as Briggs, the NCCIH director, put it—“amenable to scientific investigation.” Several of the doctors I interviewed told me they don’t prescribe homeopathic remedies, for instance, because there’s no evidence to support them....When integrative doctors do employ alternative-seeming treatments, it’s usually to manage pain or reduce stress. 

Aside from these variations, there’s another reason it’s hard to define integrative health: It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Its practitioners are part of the same medical establishment as other doctors, going to the same conferences and publishing in the same journals. They’ve influenced and been influenced by major trends in medicine—for instance, the movement toward patient-centered medicine, or the backlash against the overuse of drugs and surgery that the New Yorker writer Atul Gawande calls “the epidemic of unnecessary care.”

Data: CDC Report on Multiple Chronic Conditions Among Adults; Chart: Lauren Giordano / The Atlantic

When Blackwelder teaches family medicine at East Tennessee University, he says he reminds his students to stay open to treatments that once seemed esoteric, as long as they show some promise. “A common homily we tell our students is that in five years, half of what we taught them will be wrong. We just don’t know which half,” he says. “We find things out by remaining inquisitive, being open to exploring new ideas when a question is asked. We should never just say we’ve got it all figured out, because we rarely do.”At a time when one in two American adults has at least one chronic disease, it’s safe to say there are a lot of things medicine still hasn’t figured out. 

Published on

Elderly people (average age was 77 years) who have been married a long time (average length of marriage was 44 years, but one couple was married 76 years!) give advice on marriage and love. The gerontologist  Karl Pillemer details the finding of the Cornell Marriage Advice Project in his book, "30 Lessons for Loving: Advice from the Wisest Americans on Love, Relationships, and Marriage."  From Science Daily:

Love, factually: Gerontologist finds the formula to a happy marriage

A gerontologist has uncovered common advice for couples walking down the aisle or decades into marriage. To capture the voice of lived experience, the study included a random national survey of nearly 400 Americans age 65 and older, asking how to find a compatible partner and other advice on love and relationships. In subsequent in-person interviews with more than 300 long-wedded individuals -- those in unions of 30, 40, 50, or more years -- the study captured more insights for overcoming common marriage troubles. The team of researchers interviewed divorced individuals, too, asking how others might avoid marital breakups.

Pillemer uncovered common advice for couples walking down the aisle or decades into marriage. The top five lessons from the elders..:

Learn to communicate: "For a good marriage, the elders overwhelmingly tell us to 'talk, talk, talk.' They believe most marital problems can be solved through open communication, and conversely many whose marriages dissolved blamed lack of communication."

Get to know your partner very well before marrying: "Many of the elders I surveyed married very young; despite that fact, they recommend the opposite.

Treat marriage as an unbreakable, lifelong commitment

Learn to work as a team: ...Concretely, this viewpoint involves seeing problems as collective to the couple, rather than the domain of one partner. Any difficulty, illness, or setback experienced by one member of the couple is the other partner's responsibility."

Chose a partner who is very similar to you: "Marriage is difficult at times for everyone, the elders assert, but it's much easier with someone who shares your interests, background and orientation. The most critical need for similarity is in core values regarding potentially contentious issues like child-rearing, how money should be spent and religion."