Currently 5.7 million people in the US suffer from the debilitating cause of dementia and the CDC estimates close to 14 million will be affected by the year 2060.

As we’re surviving other illnesses that could take our lives sooner, such as heart disease and cancer, we as a population are living to an age where brain changes can occur.

Alzheimer’s is the 5th leading cause of death and scientists still struggle to find a cure or means to stave it off.

 

top-10-global-causes-of-deaths-2016.jpg

 

The average age of symptom revelation is 65, but researchers believe the disease may set in sooner. Over 200,000 currently suffer from early onset Alzheimer’s, or onset before age 65.

I believe nightly oxygen or CPAP therapy (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) might be worth researching as its been postulated that lack of oxygenation can accelerate dementia.

 

What is Alzheimer’s?

 

Alzheimer’s, a progressive disease in which the brain loses function, is most commonly associated with memory loss. As abnormal proteins build up in the brain (beta-amyloid and tau), the plaques and neurofibrillary tangles within the nerve cell (neuron), disrupt communication between nerve cells, so memory can easily start to falter. Many people affected with Alzheimer’s lose newer memories first and then progressively lose old ones.

Normal_vs_Alzheimers_Brain.jpg

However, since the brain is such a dynamic and brilliantly complex organ, a disease that alters its tissue could manifest in a variety of symptoms, beyond memory loss.

These can include:

  • Personality changes
  • Difficulty completing once simple tasks
  • Social withdrawal
  • Labile moods
  • Misplacing commonly used objects
  • Lack of appropriate judgement
  • Issues with problem solving
  • Lack of understanding of spatial and timing concepts

Hence if a family member appears to lose his way driving home, has difficulty dressing himself appropriately, avoids family gatherings, appears to get angry for no apparent reason, or even offers a young baby an object for a much older individual, these may be signs of a dementia such as Alzheimer’s.

Although Caucasians comprise the majority of cases overall, the CDC found among those over 65, African-Americans have the highest rate at nearly 14%, and Hispanics at 12%.

In a recent study, researchers from Northwestern University’s Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer’s Disease Center found four additional symptoms that may be early signs of Alzheimer’s. These include:

  • Difficulty with speech, vocabulary pool, process and articulating what one wants to say (aphasia)
  • Difficulty writing from a motor and conceptual standpoint
  • Difficulty reading, including comprehension
  • Displaying exaggerated confidence

The study authors state these signs may be overlooked and could be very telling of one’s early disease progression.

To diagnose Alzheimer’s, the medical provider may employ a variety of testing measures including basic history and physical, blood tests to rule out thyroid and vitamin deficiencies, lumbar puncture, CT Scans to rule out bleeds, masses, or stroke, MRI Brain scans, neuropsychological tests, and amyloid PET scans.

Although currently a cure for Alzheimer’s does not exist, there are many  medications being researched to slow down the progression of the disease and a variety of environmental and behavioral interventions could allow the patient to navigate easier with their challenges.

Can Daily Ibuprofen Prevent Alzheimer’s?

How to prevent Alzheimer’s remains up for debate, but healthy diet, weight, exercise, and control of one’s blood pressure and blood sugar have been suggested.

The earlier Alzheimer’s is diagnosed, the easier it may be to manage, hence family members need to learn and look out for the above symptoms.

----

 

 

 

Daliah Wachs is a guest contributor to GCN news, her views and opinions, medical or otherwise, if expressed, are her own. Doctor Wachs is an MD,  FAAFP and a Board Certified Family Physician.  The Dr. Daliah Show , is nationally syndicated M-F from 11:00 am - 2:00 pm and Saturday from Noon-1:00 pm (all central times) at GCN.

 

 

 

 

 

“Was is it on a football field or in a boxing ring that your God-given rights were won? Or was it on a battlefield where men sacrificed themselves to give it?”

Americans can attempt to deceive themselves into believing, with the use of sophistries by the corporate-owned and operated media, that they are given correct and right information. Most of you know that they are not telling you the truth concerning any matter, if, in fact, the topic even matters.  Unless, of course, it works to their own ends (Psalm 101:3).

You are taught that if you question their narrative, somehow, that you are just conspiratorial (Romans 1:18).

 

You can send your children to schools where you know the indoctrinators are the “proselytizers of a new faith,” where their books have been revised and fabricated with intentional propaganda (Article 10 of the Bill of Rights; Hosea 4:6).

Yet, you are taught that everyone else is doing it, and you do not want to be ostracized for raising up your own children (Proverbs 22:6), but happily submit to bring them to an agent of the state who is illegally indoctrinating them.

 

We're in an ever-changing con-game (circus of politics) that is being played out through the mouths of corrupt politicians (Luke 22:48) in hopes of incrementally and unconstitutionally creating a new world which looks and runs contrary to the original God-ordained model and purpose.

Yet again, you have been taught that if you dare take a stand against corruption you might look like you are an anarchist, or anti-government (1 Kings 18:17-18).

 

Most Americans have been good, little subjects when it comes to their masters' directives.

Americans have even gone so far as to believe the “fictitious” when it comes to Hollywood and their productions in an attempt to create a world in which they want to live in by ignoring reality (Jeremiah 8:5).

 

The truth of the matter is that the Lord God is bringing a reality to your front door, like it or not, and the issues at hand must be dealt with lawfully (Isaiah 51:4).

I know that to some, the truth is stranger than fiction.  Yet, it matters not (Amos 7:8), no more than one has to believe in trucks.  If you stand in front of a moving one, the rest will take its course, believing in trucks or not.

You cannot do the wrong thing and expect the right results (Galatians 6:7). You can never be doing the right thing by attempting to change God's reality and fighting against His spiritual truths (Exodus 20; Romans 7:12).

You must submit and adhere to His model, and that model is Jesus Christ (John 14:6), and Christ is for us to emulate (John 14:21).

I remember, in passing, I noticed a news anchor on a television broadcast addressing politicians that just violated constitutional law, and in response, he said that it was “nothing personal.” When I heard that and understood the offense (scandals, lies, illegal and unconstitutional bills passed etc…), I said it is “totally offensive.” Does he not understand the price paid for American freedoms too flippantly give a pass to these criminals!?

 

When a game is played (football, hockey, baseball, soccer boxing etc…) and an offense occurs according to the said rules, often times you will see the two players shake hands, pat each other on the back and continue on as if it never happened.

Yet, when it comes to laws and transgression of constitutional laws, we must keep in mind that these laws are to be magnified against crimes.  They are there to ensure our God-given rights; rights in which are blood bought, for “justice is the guardian of liberty" (Psalm 9:16).

As a matter of fact, to show you how this is played out in politics, I remember our trip to the federal floor in Washington D.C. Our guide said that around here, you just go along to get along. Apparently, these politicians have forgotten the awful price paid to give them the opportunity to serve!

Do Americans have any idea as to how many unconstitutional bills have been passed in such a fashion?  Go along to get along?

I wonder, did our veterans compromise to go along to get along when many were maimed, shot or killed on the battlefield ratifying the Constitution against an enemy to the United States?

Were our veterans fighting for their favorite unconstitutional party line, the Democrats or the Republicans?

Did our veterans, when fighting for our God-given rights, play diplomatic games with the enemies of our country when being shot at?  And to think, many of our veterans that came home after fighting for the corrupt politicians and their unconstitutional wars were being protested by their own people at the airports while the compromised politicians that sent them did nothing to stop it. Apparently, they were to busy diplomatically fraternizing with America’s enemies within.  After all, they have to go along to get along.

 

The price of freedom is always a sacrifice of heroic souls on the behalf of their people (John 15:13). The price is always been blood (Hebrews 9:22).

If you look to Calvary, where the Son of Man took to the battlefield in defeating sin on the behalf of man (1 Peter 3:18),  you can see that He was crucified and set forth as the propitiation of the sins of the world (1 John 2:2) as the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

Take heed concerning the cost of redemption and spiritual freedom, which is always a great expense of blood.  The lesson is to be learned in the natural (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Next time someone wants to use sophistries or tries to teach you a lesson of “sportsmanlike conduct” in an attempt to add strength to tyranny, consider the severity of the price paid for your freedoms (John 3:16).

--

 

Bradlee Dean is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not reflect the views and opinions of the Genesis Communication Network. Bradlee's radio program, The Sons of Liberty broadcasts live M - Sat here at GCN. This op-ed was originally published by Sons of Liberty Media at www.sonsoflibertyradio.com. Reprinted with permission. 

 

 

%PM, %21 %763 %2018 %17:%Sep

Solving Football's Place-kicking Problem

Written by

I, thankfully, didn’t watch all of the Week 2 matchup between the Minnesota Vikings and Green Bay Packers on Sunday. That’s the case more and more these days, when in the past I’d hardly miss a second of a Vikings game. Rookie kicker Daniel Carlson, who the Vikings selected in the fifth round of the draft five months prior to waiving him Monday, missed three field goals to waste a valiant, 13-point comeback led by new quarterback Kirk Cousins in Green Bay. I stopped watching after the first two series of the second half with the Vikings down 20–7, and I couldn’t be happier with that decision given the resulting tie.

The Problem with Place-kicking in Football

It bothers me that games featuring more than 100 athletes too big to be able to run as fast as they do repeatedly colliding into each other to obtain property like they’re at war are often decided by the least athletic of the 53 players on National Football League (NFL) rosters. NFL kickers are like generals sitting a comfortable distance from enemy lines sipping on Gatorade awaiting a request for an air strike from their foot soldiers taking heavy fire only to bomb their own troops on occasion.

Last season, 22.5 percent of all NFL games (including the postseason) were either decided by three or fewer points or featured scoring exclusively by kickers. Almost a quarter of regular season games played in 2016 were decided by three or fewer points. Between 2003 and 2015, 27.9 percent of games were decided by three or fewer points. As of this writing, 25 percent of 2018 NFL games have been decided by a field goal or less, and the average margin of victory in the NFL continues to fall. Whether it’s one in five or one in four games decided by kickers, one game decided by the least athletic player and the player seeing the least playing time is one game too many.

There were more field goals attempted and made last season than in any other time in the history of professional football, according to Pro Football Reference. The result was 3,664 points scored by kickers in 2017, or almost an even third (32.96 percent) of all NFL scoring. That’s an increase in kicker-exclusive scoring of 5.65 percent over the last 50 years.

Kickers have been ruining the game of football at all levels, especially youth levels, since the game’s inception. Finding someone who could kick and punt the ball were always the hardest positions to fill on our youth teams, and while kickers have gotten better over the years according to FiveThirtyEight, the problem of kickers over-influencing outcomes and under-entertaining fans has worsened with the implementation of longer point-after attempts and uneventful kickoffs.

Instead of stand-still kickoffs that were implemented this year, punters should simply punt the ball as they would on a free kick after a safety. Their teammates wouldn’t get a running start to protect players’ health, but free kicks would result in fewer touchbacks and a higher potential for kick return touchdowns — once the most exciting play in the sport now all but extinct. Most importantly, though, free kicks would make place-kickers entirely unnecessary.

My research found kickers were the exclusive scorers in six NFL games last year, and the touchdown-to-field-goal ratio has declined by almost an entire touchdown per successful field goal since 1975. While these ridiculous roughing-the-passer penalties will assuredly increase the touchdown-to-field-goal ratio, achieving the all-time high of 2.5 touchdowns scored per successful field goal converted is not probable unless kickers are removed from the game.

Solving Football’s Place-Kicking Problem

The more fourth-down plays there are in games, the more intriguing those games will be. Games’ outcomes need to swing on one play every series instead of one play every half. Football is not providing enough moments of perceived momentum shifting from one team to the other. Without place-kicking, fans would be on the edge of their seats more often, as the Dan Bailey bailout would be unavailable to the Vikings or anyone else, forcing coaches to utilize more forward passes — the play that saved American football from extinction and made it the behemoth it is today. There would also be fewer breaks in the action for commercials, but what’s the best option for solving football’s place-kicking problem?

Removing place-kickers from the game doesn’t necessarily mean field goals have to go away. While I think goal posts unnecessarily obstruct the views of fans, we don’t have to tear them down (although it’d be cool if they were moved behind the fans so they could go home with souvenir footballs). They are a symbol of the sport after all, and what would college students do on Saturdays after a big win if they couldn’t tear down the goalposts? They’d probably be at higher risk for alcohol poisoning if they didn’t exert that effort.

If the NFL wanted to continue employing place-kickers and make games more exciting, it could simply make field goals worth two points instead of three. How a field goal is worth more than a safety is disrespectful to defenses everywhere, even though your offense gets the ball back after the defense scores a safety. While kicking was highly emphasized when the game was conceived, the field goal’s point value decreased from five in 1883, to four in 1904 and three points in 1909, three years after what many believe to be the first legally completed forward pass.

After more than 100 years without a change to the field goal’s point value, I’d say we’re long overdue. But lowering the point value of a field goal does not affect the risk in attempting a field goal, which is the actual problem. Kicking is a bailout in football. Both punts and field goal attempts bail out an offense incapable of scoring touchdowns. I’ve got no problem with punters. I’ve seen punters make plays, but I’d prefer to watch the NFL’s place-kickers play soccer if they’re capable of running and kicking a moving ball. Removing place-kickers from football would enhance the intrigue of games by forcing coaches to be more creative and take more chances on both sides of the ball. That brings me to Rule 1 of football re-imagined without kickers.

“All teams must attempt a two-point conversion after scoring a touchdown.”

That’s where games should be won and lost — in the trenches between lineman at the goal lines. The men risking the most should determine the outcomes of games, but field goals wouldn’t necessarily have to disappear. They could just be altered. The NFL simply needs to make the field goal attempt a less enticing option for coaches — make the bailout riskier.

I recommend the NFL adopt something like the drop goal in rugby, where a player can drop the ball on the ground and kick it through the uprights on any down. The quarterback could avoid a sack and dropkick the ball through the uprights on second down for three points. That might be a big enough change to eliminate field goals altogether, but punters would eventually get the hang of drop-kicking to make it a less riskier option. It’s not as though they have much else to do during practice.

To up the ante even further, the ball’s placement on the field should depend on how close you get to the goal line. The closer a team gets to scoring, the more difficult a drop goal attempt should become. That’s why I recommend the hash marks running down the middle of a football field get wider and wider as they get closer and closer to the goal line. This might even be enough to keep place-kicking in the sport while minimizing kickers’ control over games’ outcomes.

The new football field in a post-place-kicking NFL.

An American football field is 160 feet wide. NFL hash marks are 70 feet, nine inches from the sidelines. That’s where they’d remain between the 40-yard lines on each side of the field because 50-plus-yard field goals are hard enough. At the 39-yard line, however, the ball would be placed on the hash mark 69 feet, nine inches from the sideline closest to the completion of the previous play. At the 38, the ball would be spotted on the hash mark 68 feet, nine inches from the nearest sideline, and so on. At the one-yard line, the ball would be snapped 31 feet, nine inches from the sideline nearest the last completed play. This would result in some new, creative formations, more fourth down plays as well as some drop goals attempted from truly amazing angles. This would make “four-down territory” even larger, increasing excitement even if it results in less scoring.

Counteracting a Potential Decrease in Scoring

While we’re not eliminating a third of all scoring in football, points will be harder to come by in the game without kickers. A point-after attempt and two-point attempt have almost the exact same expected value, so forcing teams to go for two would result in almost the exact number of points as point-after attempts. But field goals alone accounted for 23.37 percent of points scored in 2017, and teams won’t be trading those field goals for drop goals or touchdowns at a 1:1 or even 1:2 ratio. That said, an effort should be made to counteract a potential decrease in scoring by providing more scoring opportunities.

Football and rugby are unique in that they offer multiple means of scoring points. You only score in baseball when you touch home plate. You only score in basketball when you put the ball through the hoop, and you only score in soccer and hockey by putting the ball or puck in the net. Scoring in football involves either kicking the ball through goal posts or taking it across a goal line (or downing it there in the case of a safety). But why stop at two means of scoring points? That brings me to Rule 2 of football re-imagined without kickers.

“Award one point for each sack or tackle for loss.”

Awarding one point for sacks and tackles for loss would almost replace every point scored by NFL kickers. Based on 2016 totals, there were 1,118 sacks and 2,218 tackles for loss, totalling 3,336 potential points. Kickers accounted for 3,669 points in 2016, and spreading those points around to players playing and sacrificing most makes for a more democratic game. And frankly, defensive players deserve to score more.

Defensive players seldom score, especially big defensive players. An offensive lineman can at least declare himself eligible and catch a touchdown pass. Defensive players have to either force a fumble, pick it up and run into the end zone, grab an interception and run into the end zone or tackle the ball carrier in their own end zone for a safety. And now that defensive players have to defy physics and somehow stop more than half of their body weight from falling on the quarterback during a sack, their team should at least get a point if it’s likely the sack will result in a 15-yard penalty and automatic first down for the offense.

While this rule might result in more coaches challenging the spot of the ball, I’d rather watch a replay of a quarterback sack or tackle for loss to determine if the ball carrier reached the line of scrimmage than watch a kicker come on the field and make or miss a kick sandwiched between commercials. And the NFL is far past due for placing sensors on the ends of the football and on the players’ knees and elbows to determine the exact location of the ball when the ball carrier is down by contact. But that’s another Grandstand Central story for another day.

Imagine the Vikings just scored a touchdown to tie the Packers with no time left on the clock and only the two-point conversion left to be played. With this rule, either team could win or lose the game right there at the goal line. The Vikings could either convert the two-point attempt to win or take a sack or tackle for loss to give the Packers the win. Green Bay could also intercept the ball or recover a fumble and return it for two points as well. That’s a whole lot more exciting than bringing a kicker onto the field to attempt an extra point converted 94 percent of the time in 2017. It’s also more indicative of which is the better team.

Unless the NFL takes place-kicking out of the game, I’m boycotting the league upon the end of Cousins’s tenure with the Vikings or if the Vikings win the Super Bowl — whichever happens first. And I’m not just saying that because of the Vikings’ rich history of kicking woes in big games. They are the franchise who had a kicker who shall not be named go an entire season without missing a kick only to miss one that would have sent them to the Super Bowl. More recently, they had a kicker who shall also go unnamed miss a 27-yard field goal that would have extended their playoff run in 2016. I just can’t bring myself to pay attention to the game of football anymore. The kickers keep kicking my attention elsewhere.

In large part, the success with the iPhone in recent years was fueled by the release of larger handsets, starting with the iPhone 6 series, with one model at 4.7 niches and a “Plus” variant at 5.5 inches. Supposedly, then, all iPhone uses were expected to adapt.

 

But that’s not quite how things worked out. There are still many users who don’t want the larger displays an the difficulties involved in single-handed use. This is why Apple came out with the iPhone SE in 2016, which had most of the features and performance of the iPhone 6s installed in what was essentially the case of an iPhone 5s.

 

Although there has been speculation about an iPhone SE2, with specs matching the more recent models, it hasn’t happened. As of last week’s announcements about a new iPhone lineup, the SE has been removed from the lineup, with no word on when or if a replacement will come.

 

This isn’t to say the iPhone SE is a bad phone, or necessarily obsolete. Sure, it doesn’t have Face ID, but it’s small, slim, lightweight and more than enough phone for many people. With iOS 12, performance is more than sufficient to satisfy most people, so why did Apple bid it farewell?

For several years, Mrs. Steinberg made do with an iPhone 5c because it fit comfortably into her tiny purses. A larger iPhone would be a squeeze, but a closeout SE might be just the ticket for her if they can be found. Let’s face it, her present iPhone is obsolete, being saddled with iOS 10, and it feels mighty sluggish compared to more recent models. It also became a problem when we stayed at a motel where reception on the AT&T network wasn’t so good, which meant that she’d miss half the calls, because they’d go to voicemail.

 

Will Apple reconsider an SE successor? If there was a market for it, perhaps. But it may just be that sales of the existing model, available for $349 (the cheapest iPhone ever), just didn’t sell terribly well.

 

This weekend, we presented a thorough look at tech, microchip credit cards, and identity theft with credit repair specialist Darius Norman, author of “Rewriting Financial Rules.” Following the introduction of microchip equipped credit cards in 2015 in the United States, which make the cards difficult to counterfeit, criminals focused on new forms of account fraud. We are also seeing thieves going after our children’s social security numbers to do this, so our children are in danger and may never know until they are old enough to apply for credit themselves. What do we do? Darius also focused on what you should do in the event your credit history or identity are compromised, as Gene revealed some of his personal experiences.

 

You also heard from tech editor Bryan Chaffin, co-founder and co-publisher of The Mac Observer. During this segment, Bryan talked at length about Apple’s September 12th media event, in which three new iPhone X variants were demonstrated. Bryan covered his experiences in ordering one of the new smartphones, plus an Apple Watch Series 4. As a long-time user of luxury watches, Bryan related his experience with an Apple Watch Series 2 and his expectations for the Series 4, which includes more health-related features, such as an ECG to measure the health of your heart. There was also some talk about iOS 12. which was released on September 17th.

 

On this week’s episode of our other radio show, The Paracast: Gene and Randall presented Bryan Bonner of the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society. For over two decades Bryan, with a healthy dose of skepticism,  has examined a wide range of reported paranormal phenomena, including ghosts, poltergeists, psychics, UFOs, conspiracy theories, urban legends, and much more. Unlike others in the field, Bryan has made sure not to run around cemeteries, screaming and scaring the group with overactive imaginations.  From the field to the lab, he tests bizarre beliefs and practices, conducts experiments and on-site investigations, and recreates unusual events. He has confronted hauntings, Ouija board activity, levitation, psychic readings, alien abductions, and telephones that try to talk to the dead.

 

A PREDICTABLE APPLE MEDIA EVENT WITH A PREDICTABLE OUTCOME

 

In the run-up to Apple’s September 12th media event last week, there was speculation aplenty. But most of it coalesced on three new iPhones and an Apple Watch Series 4, the new operating systems under test since June — and not much else.

 

This is not to say that Apple’s announcements were disappointing. The new products are tempting, particularly one reasonably affordable iPhone that I’ll mention shortly. But it may well be that the Apple Watch Series 4 turned out to be the star of the show.

 

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

 

So as predicted, there are three new iPhones fashioned after last year’s iPhone X. Typical of Apple’s mostly usual approach, there’s the tick-tock pattern. The brand new design one year, the minor refresh the next.

 

So this year, the iPhone X was replaced with the iPhone XS. Despite predictions that it would be $100 cheaper, it remains at $999. Based on Apple’s report that it has been the best-selling smartphone on the planet for months, Apple had no reason to change its pricing strategy.

 

In addition to the 5.8-inch model, there is a “Plus” model, dubbed iPhone XS Max, which offers a 6.5-inch display and retails for $1,099 for the 64GB model. But since Samsung offers a maxed out Galaxy Note9 for $1,249, Apple is not really going overboard, although its maxed out Max costs even more.

 

Being an “S” model, just what do you get that wasn’t on last year’s iPhone X? Well, there’s of course the A12 Bionic CPU, with the promise of 15% faster performance with 40% greater power efficiency. The four-core graphics processor offers 50% greater performance than its predecessor according to Apple.

 

But the one feature that has true geek appeal is the fact that the A12 is fabricated on a 7-nanometer manufacturing process, with some 6.9 billion transistors. This comes at the same time that Intel is reportedly encountering problems building chips with a 14-nanometer process. Indeed, I read a story that Intel might actually outsource support to one of Apple’s key CPU makers, TSMC.

 

There are the usual improvements in camera quality and processing features, along with tougher glass, reputedly Corning Gorilla Glass 6, and improved water- and dust-proofing. More power efficiency means that the iPhone XS will offer the promise of 30 minutes longer battery life; it’s up to an hour and a half more on the iPhone XS Max.

 

Yet the real star of the new lineup may very well be the 6.1-inch LCD version dubbed iPhone XR. At a starting price of $749, it provides most of the features of its bigger brothers, and the tradeoffs seem sensible enough.

 

So the new display doesn’t offer HDR, which promises richer colors with the right content, and a single camera rather than two, although there will evidently still be a way to take portrait-style photos. 3D touch is missing in action, as if anyone cares. Also you can only safely dunk it in one meter of water rather than two meters.

 

But the XR still comes equipped with Face ID and an edge-to-edge display complete with the famous notch. Since it’s also equipped with the A12 CPU, performance should be identical to its big brothers. It also comes with a less expensive case design and a wider choice of colors.

 

The original iPhone X is gone.  The iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 remain in the product lineup at cheaper prices to give customers more options, but there’s nothing to match the $349 iPhone SE.

 

Assuming the XR’s Liquid Retina display is as good as Apple claims, and you can live with the few tradeoffs, $749 is far friendlier than $999 and up, even if you consider a monthly payment plan. But you’ll have to wait, since it won’t arrive until roughly a month after the rest of the lineup.

 

Predictions for the Apple Watch Series 4 were quite in line with predictions. It’s slimmer with narrower screen bezels, thus allowing for larger displays. One of the most important health-related features is an FDA-certified electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor. So is the Apple Watch now a Tricorder or does it need some additional health-tracking features to make the grade?

 

It can also call emergency services you fall and you can’t get up for a minute or longer. Prices start at $399, and the version with an LTE radio is $100 more.

 

The two OLED iPhones and the Apple Watch Series 4 ship this weekend, and have already garnered mostly positive reviews.

 

Golden Masters of the various Apple OS upgrades were seeded to developers and public beta testers last week, and final version so everything but macOS Mojave shipped on September 17th. The macOS Mojave upgrade will arrive next week, but the GM should pretty much be it except for a possible last-minute change before the final release.

 

All in all, Apple did what it expected to do. I can’t say I’m prepared to buy any of the new gear for the time being, but I am using the GMs of iOS 12 and macOS Mojave with mostly good success so far. And, yes, I still have my $12.88 stainless steel Walmart calendar watch. An Apple Watch is not on the horizon for me.

Peace,

 

Gene

 

----


Gene Steinberg is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own. Gene hosts The Tech Night Owl LIVE - broadcast on Saturday from 9:00 pm - Midnight (CST), and The Paracast - broadcast on Sunday from 3:00am - 6:00am (CST). Both shows nationally syndicated through GCNlive. Gene’s Tech Night Owl Newsletter is a weekly information service of Making The Impossible, Inc. -- Copyright © 1999-2018. Click here to subscribe to Tech Night Owl Newsletter. This article was originally published at Technightowl.com -- reprinted with permission.

 

 

Reports have surfaced that Coca-Cola is eyeing a deal with Aurora Cannabis, which may result in the production of a cannabis-infused cola drink.

The talks between the Canadian cannabis company and the famous Atlanta-based cola corporation was reported by Bloomberg.

They write:

“We are closely watching the growth of non-psychoactive CBD as an ingredient in functional wellness beverages around the world,” Coca-Cola spokesman Kent Landers said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg News. “The space is evolving quickly. No decisions have been made at this time.”

 

Cannabis-infused foods have been a favorite in legalized markets where consumers wish to avoid inhaling the plant.

A legalized market coupled with a high demand for such a beverage could send shares “flying.”

However its safety, such as when mixed with alcohol, raises concerns.

Marijuana Medical Benefits are Strain Specific

 

Cannabis plants produce cannabinoids, or chemicals that can induce an effect on the body. When cannabinoids are produced by a plant they are called phytocannabinoids. Humans produce their own cannabinoids, called endogenous cannabinoids.  Laboratory  or synthetically produced cannabinoids are called synthetic cannabinoids.

The human body has a very intricate endocannabinoid (endogenous cannabinoid) system, with receptors throughout our brain, organs, glands, and immune system. Hence a wide variety of physiological responses, occur when these receptors are stimulated by cannabinoids.  These include responses to sleep, memory, appetite, pain, immune response, mood, and cell damage repair and death, Research is currently investigating what endogenous chemicals the human body produces, but the majority of medical discussions surrounding cannabinoids includes the phytocannabinoids.

Cannabis plants produce many phytocannabinoids, but the most well-known and studied include CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol).  The latter is psychoactive, meaning it can give the user a feeling of euphoria.   The former, CBD, in non-psychoactive and researched more than others for its medicinal benefits.

Now plants, just like animals, are classified from Kingdom (Plantae) down to Genus and species.  Cannabis comes in a variety of species, including the major ones:  C. sativa, C. indica and C. ruderalis.

 

57e622c231eb042b35e775bc0742ad54.png

 

C. ruderalis is less popular as it has a lower THC content. However it has “autoflowering” qualities, making them useful to cultivators, and if bred with C. sativa or C. indica could enhance the new hybrid in its reproduction.

C. sativa has a higher THC/CBD ratio, hence can provide more euphoria.  It reportedly helps decrease anxiety, treat depression and increase appetite.  It’s been touted to increase energy and boost creativity.  It's also used to help manage attention deficit disorder.  Although not approved yet in the US, an oral spray, nabiximol, has been developed and sold in multiple countries to treat neuropathic cancer pain.  Its brand name is sold, by prescription, as Sativex® .

C. indica has a higher CBD content and has been used for its sedative properties.  It's also used to help anxiety and induce appetite, but will additionally be used to treat pain and muscle spasms.

 

Indica-vs-satica-how-it-feels-different_large

Epidiolex has received FDA approval to treat some seizures.  Its high CBD component is credited for its anti-seizure activity.

There are multiple other strains, each touted to have their own unique properties.  420medbook.com provides the below table.

 

c3b884b5b55e954d1619cae5addb556f.jpg

 

The challenge, however, is the lack of medical research in each of the different strains.  And when a study does come out discussing the medical advantages or disadvantages to using cannabis medicinally, the specific strain may not be mentioned or easily found in the report.

I believe that various strains do have unique properties and there is an art to the field of medical marijuana but more research needs to be done and quickly to avoid random use of cannabis products for treatment of medical conditions.

 

----

 

 

 

Daliah Wachs is a guest contributor to GCN news, her views and opinions, medical or otherwise, if expressed, are her own. Doctor Wachs is an MD,  FAAFP and a Board Certified Family Physician.  The Dr. Daliah Show , is nationally syndicated M-F from 11:00 am - 2:00 pm and Saturday from Noon-1:00 pm (all central times) at GCN.

 

 

I am probably like you in that - I hardly ever watch the Emmy Awards. And why is that? Well, for starters there was a run of 20 years where the exact same network shows won year after year. And if it wasn’t the exact same show it was, well, kind of the same type of show. Hill Street Blues, LA Law, NYPD Blue, The Practice, West Wing, the Sopranos. Seriously, that was like - 20 years! The same shows.

And what about those same 20 years in comedy? Well - Cheers, Murphy Brown and Frasier basically dominated from 83-98. Fifteen years and three shows pretty much won year after year.

And that gets pretty dull.

Don’t get me wrong. The morning after the Emmy’s I would always check in to see who won. But I don’t think I saw the show once between maybe 1988 and 2005. Or maybe I saw it once, or twice. But not often.

And that seems to be par for the course for most Americans. Now, keep in mind that the Emmy awards never kept track of viewers until 1990 and for about a decade viewership remained consistently within the 15-20 million range; however, ever since Ryan Seacrest took over the Emmy awards in 2007 (where The Sopranos and 30 Rock won top honors) the Emmys have struggled to get more than 12 million viewers.

There was one highlight in 2013 where show host Neil Patrick Harris brought in almost 18 million viewers (I watched that one!) but for the most part viewership has been declining for the past decade.

This seems odd to me. Once the “Golden Age of Television” began, about - ten years ago, I assumed that a wider variety of nominated shows would bring in a wider audience. For those not in the know, the “Golden Age of Television” has kind of universally been known as the rise of the cable programing and the decline of network TV all within the past decade.

Basically, all it suggests is that extremely high quality, high concept, original and sophisticated TV is universally found on cable stations these days, with the networks picking up a rare gem but usually floundering in the dark with dead fish, after dead fish.

Again, I assumed that a wider net cast by the Emmys would pull in a bigger catch. But, I was wrong. (And enough with the fish metaphors).

The most Emmy nominations by network for 2018 (2017 was similar with Netflix and HBO swapping places):  

  • Netflix 112
  • HBO 108
  • NBC 78
  • FX Network 50
  • CBS 34
  • ABC 31
  • Hulu 27
  • Prime Video 22
  • Showtime 21
  • National Geographic 17

 

Wow. So Netflix received almost as many nominations as all three major networks combined. Of course, with the amount of original content that Netflix pumps out, I guess I am not surprised (I confess I get a little overwhelmed when decided what to watch on Netflix). But still. How long are the networks going to broadcast the Emmy awards when the prime time networks hardly win any Emmys?

In the past ten years, all the best drama winners have been from cable stations (mainly AMC and HBO). Best variety show has been a cable show since 2003 (Comedy Central has dominated this category until HBO took over very recently).  Admittedly, 6 of the past 10 comedy winners were from the networks but that was because Modern Family won for 5 years in a row until Veep (HBO) took over for three years. Glancing over all acting categories I would say there is a pretty even mix of network to cable stations winning.

So, yes, there is a network that wins here there and everywhere but those number dwindle as the years pass. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to see where this is heading.

Anyway, it has been reported everywhere that this year was the lowest rated Emmy awards ever. I don’t know why. Perhaps audiences have grown tired of the same old cable shows winning again and again. And I guess I can’t blame them. It’s the very same reason I stopped watching in the first place.

Also, it should be noted. I didn’t watch the Emmy awards this year, either. But the morning after I looked over the winners and I did watch the opening monologue, which I thought that was pretty good. So I attached it.

And for those that are interested in such things, here is a list of all the nominations and winners:

Outstanding supporting actor in a comedy series

Louie Anderson," Baskets"

Alec Baldwin, "Saturday Night Live"

Tituss Burgess, "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt"

Brian Tyree Henry, "Atlanta"

Tony Shalhoub, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"

Kenan Thompson, "Saturday Night Live"

Henry Winkler, "Barry" *WINNER

Outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series

Zazie Beetz, "Atlanta"

Alex Borstein, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" *WINNER

Aidy Bryant, "Saturday Night Live"

Betty Gilpin, "GLOW"

Leslie Jones, "Saturday Night Live"

Kate McKinnon, "Saturday Night Live"

Laurie Metcalf, "Roseanne"

Megan Mullally, "Will & Grace"

 

Outstanding lead actor in a limited series or TV movie

Antonio Banderas, "Genius: Picasso"

Darren Criss, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story" *WINNER

Benedict Cumberbatch, "Patrick Melrose"

Jeff Daniels, "The Looming Tower"

John Legend, "Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert"

Jesse Plemons, "USS Callister (Black Mirror)"

Outstanding lead actress in a limited series or TV movie

Jessica Biel, "The Sinner"

Laura Dern, "The Tale"

Michelle Dockery, "Godless"

Edie Falco, "Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders"

Regina King, "Seven Seconds" *WINNER

Sarah Paulson, "American Horror Story: Cult"

Outstanding lead actor in a comedy series

Anthony Anderson, "Black-ish"

Ted Danson, "The Good Place"

Larry David, "Curb Your Enthusiasm"

Donald Glover, "Atlanta"

Bill Hader, "Barry" *WINNER

William H. Macy, "Shameless"

Outstanding lead actress in a comedy series

Pamela Adlon, "Better Things"

Rachel Brosnahan, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" *WINNER

Allison Janney, "Mom"

Issa Rae, "Insecure"

Tracee Ellis Ross, "Black-ish"

Lily Tomlin, "Grace and Frankie"

Outstanding supporting actress in a limited series or movie

Sara Bareilles, "Jesus Christ Superstar Live In Concert"

Penelope Cruz, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"

Judith Light, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"

Adina Porter, "American Horror Story: Cult"

Merritt Wever, "Godless" *WINNER

Letitia Wright,"Black Mirror (Black Museum)"

Outstanding supporting actor in a limited series or movie

Jeff Daniels, "Godless" *WINNER

Brandon Victor Dixon,"Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert"

John Leguizamo, "Waco"

Ricky Martin, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"

Edgar Ramirez, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"

Michael Stuhlbarg, "The Looming Tower"

Finn Wittrock, "The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story"

Outstanding lead actor in a drama series

Jason Bateman, "Ozark"

Sterling K. Brown, "This Is Us"

Ed Harris, "Westworld"

Matthew Rhys, "The Americans" *WINNER

Milo Ventimiglia, "This Is Us"

Jeffrey Wright, "Westworld"

Outstanding lead actress in a drama series

Claire Foy, "The Crown" *WINNER

Tatiana Maslany, "Orphan Black"

Elisabeth Moss, "The Handmaid's Tale"

Sandra Oh, "Killing Eve"

Keri Russell, "The Americans"

Evan Rachel Wood, "Westworld"

Outstanding supporting actor in a drama series

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, "Game of Thrones"

Peter Dinklage, "Game of Thrones" *WINNER

Joseph Fiennes, "The Handmaid's Tale"

David Harbour, "Stranger Things"

Mandy Patinkin, "Homeland"

Matt Smith, "The Crown"

 

Outstanding supporting actress in a drama series

Alexis Bledel, "The Handmaid's Tale"

Millie Bobby Brown, "Stranger Things"

Ann Dowd, "The Handmaid's Tale"

Lena Headey,"Game of Thrones"

Vanessa Kirby, "The Crown"

Thandie Newton, "Westworld" *WINNER

Yvonne Strahovski, "The Handmaid's Tale"

Outstanding reality/competition series

"The Amazing Race"

"American Ninja Warrior"

"Project Runway"

"RuPaul's Drag Race" *WINNER

"Top Chef"

"The Voice"

Outstanding variety sketch series

"At Home with Amy Sedaris"

"Drunk History"

"I Love You, America"

"Portlandia"

"Saturday Night Live" *WINNER

"Tracey Ullman's Show"

Outstanding variety talk series

"Full Frontal with Samantha Bee"

"Jimmy Kimmel Live!"

"Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" *WINNER

"The Daily Show with Trevor Noah"

"The Late Late Show with James Corden"

"The Late Show with Stephen Colbert"

Outstanding limited Series

"The Alienist"

"The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story" *WINNER

"Genius: Picasso"

"Godless"

"Patrick Melrose"

Outstanding comedy series

"Atlanta"

"Barry"

"Black-ish"

"Curb Your Enthusiasm"

"GLOW"

"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" *WINNER

"Silicon Valley"

"Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt"

Outstanding drama series

"Game of Thrones" *WINNER

"The Handmaid's Tale"

"Stranger Things"

"The Americans"

"This Is Us"

"Westworld"

 

%PM, %15 %807 %2018 %18:%Sep

Hurricane Florence: How You Can Help

Written by

The Category 1 hurricane that hit the Carolinas on Friday is expected to cause “widespread devastation” to multiple states.

Five people, including an infant, have been reportedly killed within the first 12 hours of  Hurricane Florence’s landfall.

Torrential downpours are expected to continue and power outages, floods, raging waters, and the potential for tornadoes threaten coastal and inland residents.

Risks of drowning, crush injuries, infection, malnourishment, chemical exposure, hypothermia are just a few of the grave issues residents are facing.

Malnourishment

 

Many of those who did prepare for the storm may not have stored plenty of food, especially healthy fresh food. Those trapped in their homes may find the food they did store contaminated by flood water.

 

food-bank-flooded-today-tease-161214_549ce953fa05d997cba48dc74ac69a99.today-inline-large.jpg

GREATER BATON ROUGE FOOD BANK 2016

 

Infectious disease

 

The World Health Organization states that floods bring water-borne diseases such as cholera, typhoid fever, leptospirosis and Hepatitis A. Vector-borne diseases include Zika, malaria, dengue hemorrhagic fever, yellow fever, and West Nile.

 

Homepage-Mosquito-1024x689

 

Mosquitos initially get washed away during the storm, but the resulting puddles of water take weeks to dry and make ideal breeding grounds for insects.

The water gets dirty pretty quickly. People touching the flood water need to wash their hands thoroughly before eating or preparing food.

Moreover due to the moisture that seeped into walls and floors of houses, mold can grow and cause a variety of respiratory issues among other physical ailments. Massive disinfecting needs to take place before coming home to flood water contaminated residencies.

 

toxic-black-mold.jpg

 

Chemical exposure

 

Chemicals from garages and fuel seeping into flood water expose victims to many compounds such as benzene, toluene and xylene that can cause a multitude of health effects including those that affect breathing, skin, the gut, balance, thought, and memory.

Safety

 

Multiple looters in North Carolina have already been arrested.  During Hurricane Harvey, a Cajun Navy rescuer told CNN that looters fired shots at him and his comrades, trying to take their rescue boat, which had actually broken down.

Panic fuels dangerous behavior and those without resources may try to take from those who prepared.

Sexual assault crimes can rise as predators find the chaos and lack of video surveillance ideal conditions to find victims who can’t yell for help.

 

Psychological

 

When one loses their home, neighborhood, income, treasured belongings and more, its devastating. Post-traumatic stress disorder may ensue.

To combat these risks, medical personnel and the CDC are preparing. Among food, shelter and clothes, paper products, sanitizer, cleaning supplies, tetanus vaccinations and counselors will be needed is mass quantities.

 

path.jpg

 

Hurricane Florence, although weakening, is expected to hover over the next few days bringing more deadly conditions.

 

How can we help?

 

Army Emergency Relief is taking donations here to help victims of natural disasters.

Save the Children‘s Hurricane Florence Children’s Relief Fund site can be found here.

Blood supplies will be needed as residents who routinely donate have evacuated the area. Donating blood at your local blood bank may be shipped to the area in need.

United Blood Services have locations throughout the country that can accept your blood Donation. Contact UBS here.

The American Red Cross is accepting monetary and blood donations. Financial donations can be given here or on their website at redcross.org. Moreover one can call 1-800-RED-CROSS or text the word REDCROSS to 90999 to make a $10 donation.

The Salvation Army is also accepting donations online here and by calling 1-800-SAL-ARMY (725-2769).

The Red Cross and Salvation Army may also need local volunteers to help set up shelters.  Contact the above numbers.

Local volunteers are asked to donate supplies to nearby recreation centers for housing evacuees.

Supply drives in out-of-state locations may not be accepted directly but could help local charities who need to ship supplies to the affected area.

----

 

 

 

Daliah Wachs is a guest contributor to GCN news, her views and opinions, medical or otherwise, if expressed, are her own. Doctor Wachs is an MD,  FAAFP and a Board Certified Family Physician.  The Dr. Daliah Show , is nationally syndicated M-F from 11:00 am - 2:00 pm and Saturday from Noon-1:00 pm (all central times) at GCN.

 

According to a recently updated information from the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) Thriller has been surpassed as the number one selling album of all time. Which, as an 80’s kid, makes me a little sad. =(

 

The last time the RIAA compiled data on this subject was way back in the ancient time of 2006, when digital sales were hardly a thing. Well, now the RIAA has caught up with the rest of modern society, added in digital sales, and updated the Best Selling Albums of All Time List for the first time in twelve years! And, to be honest, most of the results are not surprising, except, of course - for the ones that are totally surprising!  I’m looking right at you #9!

 

Before I reveal this list, allow me a moment to reminisce. I was in grade school when Thriller was released. We, and I mean every last kid, teacher, mother and grandfather was madly in love with Billie Jean and Beat It and Wanna Be Startin Somethin and The Girl is Mine and, of course, Thriller (The Lady in My Life - meh, not so much). But, mainly Billie Jean, Beat It and Thriller. Ahhhh - nostalgia. And youth and dancing in front of the mirror.

 

Oh, that’s right. I danced in front of the mirror to Billie Jean. For, like - years. #comeatmebro!

 

I guess new generations can express their childhood love for modern day pop tarts and boy bands - but their love is misplaced because Thriller is still the big boy on the block!

 

Only, not any longer.

 

But actually, it still kind of is because the new list CHEATS!!!!

 

You see, the new #1 selling “album” of all time is … a compilation of greatest hits. So, even though this compilation of greatest hits has now outsold Thriller by 5 million albums - Thriller is still the top selling, non compilation record of all time.

 

Make sense?

 

Anyway … here are the top 20 best selling albums of all time:

 

  1. The Eagles, Greatest Hits 1971-1975 (38 million).
  2. Michael Jackson, Thriller (33 million).
  3. The Eagles, Hotel California (26 million).
  4. Billy Joel, Greatest Hits Volume I & II (23 million).
  5. Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin IV (23 million).
  6. Pink Floyd, The Wall (23 million).
  7. AC/DC, Back in Black (22 million).
  8. Garth Brooks, Double Live (21 million).
  9. Hootie & The Blowfish, Cracked Rear View (21 million).
  10. Fleetwood Mac, Rumours (20 million).
  11. Shania Twain, Come On Over (20 million).
  12. The Beatles, The Beatles - "The White Album" (19 million).
  13. Guns N’ Roses, Appetite for Destruction (18 million).
  14. Whitney Houston, The Bodyguard (Soundtrack) (18 million).
  15. Boston, Boston (17 million).
  16. Elton John, Greatest Hits (17 million).
  17. Garth Brooks, No Fences (17 million).
  18. The Beatles, The Beatles 1967-1970 (17 million).
  19. Alanis Morissette, Jagged Little Pill (16 million).
  20. Bee Gees, Saturday Night Fever (Soundtrack) (16 million).

 

%PM, %14 %738 %2018 %16:%Sep

Are pap smears going away?

Written by

For some yes, as new cancer screening guidelines suggest swapping the embarrassing procedure with HPV only tests. These HPV only tests can even be done in the privacy of one’s home.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) suggest women between the ages of 30-65 may be screened for cervical cancer by testing for the HPV virus, high risk strains, every 5 years without undergoing a concurrent Pap smear. This is opposed to the “co-testing” recommended up until now. Women can, however, if desired, choose to have Pap smears every 3 years. These guidelines do not pertain to those who have cervical cancer or symptoms that could suggest a malignant process such as pain, bleeding and weight loss.

However one concern many physicians have is the lack of other testing being done during a “Pap Smear” visit.  Pelvic exams evaluating for gynecological pathology, breast exams, counseling and preventative health recommendations are often done during a woman’s physical and extending the testing intervals to twice a decade could put one at risk of another illness being missed.

Moreover, would an at home HPV test be sufficient enough to screen for cancer?  Smoking may also predispose one for cervical cancer so testing for the HPV virus alone may not be enough.

What is the cervix and what is cervical cancer?

 

The uterus looks similar to a light bulb.  The larger top portion being where the fetus develops, and the bottom, narrower area, the cervix.  The cervix thins and dilates during childbirth, as you’ve heard in the movies “she’s only 7 cm!” and then after childbirth becomes narrow again.  It affects nearly 12,000 and kills 4,000 women each year.  It can affect women of any age but is more common between 20 and 50.

 

375x321_cervix

HTTP://WWW.WEBMD.COM/WOMEN

 

What causes cervical cancer?

 

The most common cause is HPV (Human Papillomavirus), especially HPV-16 and HPV-18.  This is acquired through unprotected sex, so condom use is encouraged. Thus it's one of the most preventable causes of cancer.  Additionally, there are 3 vaccines for HPV currently approved by the FDA, Gardasil, Gardasil 9, and Cervarix.

What are the symptoms of cervical cancer?

 

Early cervical cancer may not be symptomatic but as it develops it may cause an odor, pain with urination, pelvic pain and bleeding. This bleeding may occur after sex, a pelvic exam, or intermittent bleeding not associated with a menstrual cycle.

Is cervical cancer treatable?

 

Yes.  Early detection is key and can be done by a Pap Smear, explained below.  Multiple treatments are available including surgery, chemotherapy,  radiation therapy, and targeted therapy such as Bevacizumab (Avastin®) which prevents new blood vessel growth that can feed a tumor.

Who should get screened for Cervical Cancer?

 

The USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force) recommended the following:

Women aged 21 to 65 years

The USPSTF recommends for cervical cancer every 3 years with cervical cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years. For women aged 30 to 65 years, the USPSTF recommends screening every 3 years with cervical cytology alone, every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing alone, or every 5 years with hrHPV testing in combination with cytology (cotesting).

 

See the Clinical Considerations section for the relative benefits and harms of alternative screening strategies for women 21 years or older.

A

Women older than 65 years

The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer.

 

See the Clinical Considerations section for discussion of adequate prior screening and risk factors that support screening after age 65 years.

D

Women younger than 21 years

The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women younger than 21 years.

D

Women who have had a hysterectomy

The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and do not have a history of a high-grade precancerous lesion (ie, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 2 or 3) or cervical cancer.

The first 3 recommendations apply to individuals who have a cervix, regardless of their sexual history or HPV vaccination status. These recommendations do not apply to individuals who have been diagnosed with a high-grade precancerous cervical lesion or cervical cancer. These recommendations also do not apply to individuals with in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol or those who have a compromised immune system (eg, women living with HIV).

 

What is a Pap Smear?

 

It is the cytology (cell analysis) of the cervix. Years ago, a cytobrush would collect the cells and the medical provider would “smear” it onto a slide, place fixative, and then send it to the laboratory for the pathologist to analyze it. Now ThinPrep® Pap tests are used more commonly as the cells from the brush are placed into a container with fixative, and this vial is sent to the pathologist to spin down and analyze.

 

cervical-smear-test-equipment-97358274-575db1493df78c98dc633c53

TEK IMAGE/SPL / GETTY IMAGES

 

In order to obtain the cells from the cervix, the medical provider needs to use a speculum to open the vaginal canal and allow access to the uterus.  A woman may be in the lithotomy position…lying on one’s back on the exam table with her feet in stirrups and knees bent. During the speculum exam, the medical provider may take cultures to test for common vaginal infections such as yeast, bacteria vaginosis, or sexually transmitted illnesses such as gonorrhea and chlamydia.  After the speculum exam, the provider may perform a pelvic exam with her gloved hand to examine the uterus and ovaries, evaluating for tenderness, shape, size and masses.

How is an HPV test done?

 

An HPV test can be done with the cells obtained during the Pap Smear.  At home tests require the patient to swab their vagina (female) or urethra (male) or rectum and then mail the swab to the lab.  The laboratory evaluates the cells to see if the HPV virus that causes cervical cancer is present.

In summary the thousands of deaths that occur each year to cervical cancer can be prevented with simple testing, such as the Pap Smear.  Discuss with your medical provider when cervical cancer screening is best for you.

----

 

 

 

Daliah Wachs is a guest contributor to GCN news, her views and opinions, medical or otherwise, if expressed, are her own. Doctor Wachs is an MD,  FAAFP and a Board Certified Family Physician.  The Dr. Daliah Show , is nationally syndicated M-F from 11:00 am - 2:00 pm and Saturday from Noon-1:00 pm (all central times) at GCN.

 

 

%PM, %13 %883 %2018 %20:%Sep

Hurricane Florence arrives

Written by

Hurricane Florence begins its long assault on the Georgia, Carolina(s) coastline. My understanding of Florence is that it is an anomaly amongst storms, the main reason being - it’s both wide and slow. Florence is much wider than a typical hurricane and is only travelling at about 2-3 miles per hour. Which isn’t even as fast as a regular person can walk.

 

What this means is that the force of the storm will linger twice or three times as long as a typical hurricane. And, perhaps obviously - the longer your area is battered with 100 mile an hour winds, the more damage the storm will potentially inflict.

 

Now, it’s true that in the last several days the storm has dropped from a Category 4 to a Category 3 and now hits the shores as a Category 2. (Go here for a breakdown on the differences between categories of hurricanes) But just because Florence has been downgraded to a C2 doesn’t mean that everyone can now breathe a sigh of relief. The danger is far from over. A C2 hurricane can and will cause significant damage. Again, because the storm is slow it will affect your area much, much longer than a typical storm.

 

Plus, one hundred mile an hour winds aside, there will still be 30 to 40 inches of rain in a large part of the Carolinas and the coastline is expected to have massive flooding of - get this - anywhere from 6-13 feet of water.

 

If you can’t imagine what 100 mph wind feels like, think of this - Hurricane Floyd, which also hit the Carolinas in 1999 brought 60 hours of rain (in some areas), massive flooding, caused 74 deaths and approx. $6 billion in damage. And since $100 in 1999 is equal to $147 today (adjusted for inflation) - that would be approx. $9 billion in damage today.

 

Okay. But Florence is so wide and so damn slow - it’s possible that some areas can expect to be affected by the hurricane twice or three times as long as what happened in Floyd. Imagine that - 120-180 hours of rain! That’s six to seven and a half days of pouring rain!

 

But that’s not all! Meteorologists have tracked waves 20 feet high and up to 80 feet long heading toward the coastline. Earlier reports suggested the waves were 80 feet high but weathermen (and women)  around the country quickly corrected them. I mean, an 80 foot tall wave is 2004 Indonesia Tsunami high and that wiped out entire cities and swept a quarter of a million people into the ocean. Thankfully, Florence does not have 8o foot high waves.

 

But still, an 80 foot long wave has tremendous force and once it hits the shore will push inland for a very long time. That, coupled with the rain means - massive flooding. Probably, unlike the Carolinas (and Georgia) have ever experienced.

 

Florence is expected to be full force from late Thursday until early Sunday. Approx. 36 hours of hurricane gale hitting affected areas. And then - additional rain (for days). I certainly hope most folks heeded their Governor’s warnings to evacuate the area.

 

Of course, I say that and I am not trying to sound glib. There are plenty of reasons where one might not evacuate. Living in poverty with nowhere else to go comes to mind. I understand there are people who might not be able to evacuate and there are always folks who chose to stay for various reasons. I understand.

 

But man, if I had the means I would be so out of there.

 

So, what happens after the storm? Well, as usual the best way that you or I can help is to donate to the American Red Cross. From the Fed side of things there is the Disaster Relief Fund. Of course, President Trump has recently made news because - during the height of Hurricane Florence worry - the President transferred almost $10 million from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement).

 

Now, thankfully, the money President Trump transferred out of FEMA wasn’t part of the Disaster Relief Fund as some have reported. Of course, as reported by Vox.com, this still complicates things. From their Is Trump Using Hurricane Relief Money to fund ICE? Not exactly:

 

“The Trump administration points out that the $9.8 million transferred from FEMA didn’t come out of the Disaster Relief Fund that is specifically appropriated for major disasters. Instead, it came out of the agency’s “operations and support” fund. DHS (Dept. Homeland Security) characterizes that fund as used for administrative expenses: Examples listed by a DHS official included “employee travel expenses, training, basic purchase cards, office supplies, HQ overhead support.”

 

What complicates this slightly is that one of the things funded by FEMA “operations and support” is the agency’s Office of Response and Recovery, which organizes the agency’s emergency operations and rebuilding efforts. About $2.5 million of the transferred funds came out of the response and recovery budgets.”

 

Lovely! So the exact office that organizes the Disaster Relief Fund just had a budget cut of $2.5 million - all during the Florence build up! Think about it this way - what happens in your office when you suddenly lose a significant percentage of your work force and / or work support? You know what happens. Suddenly lots of people double up on jobs that they don’t have any experience in and things are more expensive to process and take twice as long to figure out! Which, is totally what we want to happen when people need the Disaster Relief Fund, right? We all want to make it as hard as possible for people to receive assistance! Right? (Please, note the sarcasm).

 

*sigh* It’s almost like we have a President who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about people.

 

Anyway, all that being said. I wish the best for the folks of the Carolinas and Georgia.

 

 

This is an updating story. We will publish more about disaster relief, where to find it and how best to help, ASAP.

 

Page 14 of 56