The Urban Grind

Not surprisingly, the trendiest Manhattan neighborhoods are where most of the STD’s are found, along with the South Bronx and Harlem.

Now I could go on and on with stories about my dating experiences with men who just wanted to get right down to business while I was living in Manhattan. One man I met on a Jewish dating site said right to my face that I needed a few nights of sex with a nerdy guy to “loosen me up.”

Anyway, with statistics like this, I’d rather be “uptight.”

Nightlife areas such as SoHo, Murray Hill and the Upper West Side are home to 10 times more syphilis-infected residents than the city’s average, according to the city Department of Health.

Roughly 125 people — taken from a sample of 100,000 — tested positive for the disease in those three neighborhoods.

But it’s not just the posh ZIP codes that make playing the field sound like playing with fire.

The Tremont section of The Bronx — where 43 percent of residents are below the federal poverty line — is home to the city’s highest STD rate, the study found.

In the report, which uses data from 2010, researchers also pinpoint areas with the highest rates of hepatitis B and C, chlamydia, gonorrhea and HIV.

The findings reveal:

* The Bronx is the borough where you’d least like to have a one-night stand. Roughly 68 percent of neighborhoods in the borough were found to have “high” rates of more than one STD.

* Staten Island is the healthiest place to hook up. Not a single neighborhood in the borough made the agency’s top-20 list for STDs.

* Thirteen out of 20 of the neighborhoods with the highest HIV and syphilis rates are in Manhattan.

* HIV and hepatitis C ran most rampant in gentrifying Bedford-Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Williamsburg and Harlem.

* Neighborhoods with the highest rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea include the South Bronx, central Brooklyn and northern Manhattan.

* Health officials note TB and hepatitis B are most prevalent in the city’s immigrant communities. More than half of Queens’ worst-ranked neighborhoods are home to predominantly foreign-born residents.

Areas with the highest hepatitis rates — including Chelsea and Morningside Heights — rank 10 times the city’s average.

I happen to be a big fan of sunscreens and sunblock. I wear some form of sunscreen 365 days a year, whether it’s raining, snowing, or sunny outside. And I just don’t understand women that continue to insist on tanning. I’ve seen first hand how sunbathing causes wrinkles, leathery skin, blotches, and general skin discoloration. It’s really not a pretty site.

Now unlike Western cultures, where a sun tan has come to mean you can afford to vacation in a glamorous tropical locale, the Chinese (and other Asians) have the opposite view. So they’ve taken sunblock to a new extreme with their face-kini craze.

One way to avoid the dangerous rays of the sun is to stay indoors, another is to apply a healthy layer of sun cream and slap on a wide-brimmed hat.

If you’re in China, however, there is a third option – a ‘Face-Kini’ complete with a body suit.

The name describes a protective head mask that is being used in Shandong province’s East China Sea coast by beach-goers who want to protect their skin from the sun.

Personally, I think they look middle aged bank robbers or G8 protesters. But I do like the idea of the body suit (for the purpose of modesty.)

What do you guys think?

Hat tip: Chris

More than half of New Yorkers polled by Quinnipac are opposed to Mayor Bloobergs proposals to ban large sugary soft drinks, and to hide baby formula from new mothers in hospitals.

Let me just say that I rarely drink soda. And I *never* drink sugary beverages. Sugar is known to be unhealthy in so many ways. Diet sodas aren’t much better either, as they can leech calcium out of your bones, and just make you crave more sweet foods. But I still don’t think it’s the Mayor’s place to propose a ban on these drinks. The same thing holds true for hiding baby formula. One thing I sort of agree on is the “stop and frisk” program. Being that we’ve refused to close down our borders for years, it’s the least the police can do.

A proposal before the city Board of Health would limit servings of sugary drinks to 16 ounces (473 ml) at most restaurants, theaters, delis, vending carts and stadium concessions. It is the first of its kind in the nation and has been vigorously opposed by the soda industry.

A separate initiative would encourage breast-feeding by making baby formula less available to new mothers.

{snip}

Voters oppose Bloomberg’s sugary soft drink proposal by a margin of 54 percent to 42 percent.

They oppose the breastfeeding initiative by an even greater margin, with 56 percent of voters opposed and 24 percent in favor. Six of 10 women oppose the initiative.

Obama’s media sycophants are hard at work promoting Obamacare.  So while they won’t necessarily be that blunt, these DNC organ publications like The New York Times, among others, will publish pieces on why certain so-called oncology associations believe that palliative care is the way to go in treating patients with aggessive cancer. They’ll also publish news of certain medical boards urging fewer diagnostic tests for patients. Furthermore, certain organizations like the United States Preventive Services Task Force will conveniently come out with news that all of the sudden, mammograms are unnecessary for women under 50.

Most recently, the Obama worshiping New York Times is now saying that annual physicals are not necessary, and even harmful! Now in case you’re wondering who’s behind all this, let’s just say the United States Preventive Services Task Force is at it again. Here’s some background on this quasi-governmental group.

Created in 1984, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF or Task Force) is an independent group of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that works to improve the health of all Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services such as screenings, counseling services, or preventive medications. The USPSTF is made up of 16 volunteer members who come from the fields of preventive medicine and primary care, including internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, behavioral health, obstetrics/gynecology, and nursing. All members volunteer their time to serve on the USPSTF, and most are practicing clinicians.

When Congress authorized the USPSTF, it required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support the Task Force’s work. The 1998 Public Health Service Act and the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act instruct AHRQ to provide administrative, research, technical, and communication support to the Task Force. As part of this support, AHRQ helps with day-to-day operations, coordinates the production of evidence reports, ensures consistent use of Task Force methods, and helps disseminate Task Force materials and recommendations. The Director of AHRQ also appoints new USPSTF members, with guidance from the Chair of the Task Force. While AHRQ staff supports the Task Force, it is important to note that the Task Force is an independent body, and its work does not require AHRQ or HHS approval.

You can read more about them here and here.

Anyway, getting to the New York Times article, here’s what Elizabeth Rosenthal has to say:

FOR decades, scientific research has shown that annual physical exams – and many of the screening tests that routinely accompany them – are in many ways pointless or (worse) dangerous, because they can lead to unneeded procedures. The last few years have produced a steady stream of new evidence against the utility of popular tests:

Prostate specific antigen blood tests to detect prostate cancer? No longer recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

Routine EKGs? No use.

Yearly Pap smears? Nope. (Every three years.)

So why do Americans, nearly alone on the planet, remain so devoted to the ritual physical exam and to all of these tests, and why do so many doctors continue to provide them? Indeed, the last decade has seen a boom in what hospitals and health care companies call “executive physicals” – batteries of screening exams for apparently healthy people, purporting to ferret out hidden disease with the zeal of Homeland Security officers searching for terrorists.

{snip}

The United States spends about twice as much per person as other developed countries on health care, generally without better results. A 2009 study of waste in the United States health care system pointed to “unwarranted use of medical care” – unneeded, unproven or redundant diagnosis or treatment – as the biggest single component, accounting for $250 billion to $325 billion a year.

In other words, us greedy Americans are consuming way too many limited resources, and we need to sacrifice so that everyone (except the elites) will have the same low standard of care. Remember it’s all about equality of outcome. So what’s the solution proposed by the beloved United States Preventive Services Task Force?

As of today, only a few screening tests are recommended as useful for healthy, asymptomatic people by the Preventive Services Task Force and some of those – like blood pressure checks – don’t require a doctor visit and could be performed in a pharmacy. “If you follow their recommendations you hardly do anything to patients,” said Dr. Brett, adding that the most important intervention doctors perform on healthy patients may be counseling about habits. For new patients, he still does the full head-to-toe medical exam – though he does not routinely order blood work – and regards some parts as more or less playacting.

In other words, ditch doctors, and just see a pharmacist to get your blood pressure checked. That way, we’ll all be “equal.”

Now let me add one more thing here.

Liberals love to go on and on about how health care is a basic right. But they’re lying. What they clearly want is rationing.

Once again, today’s dietollahs have been proven wrong.

I remember how they went on about how bad butter was, due to its saturated fat content. They insisted that people eat margarine instead. Dietary fat, they pontificated, was the big bad bogeyman. But they were wrong! It turns out that trans fats found in margarine and other processed foods were linked to approximately 30,000 deaths from heart disease.

Yet if you were to go to a Weight Watchers meeting or pick up any woman’s magazine, their dietollahs will continue to insist that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, no matter where it comes from. This is despite the fact that high fructose corn syrup, found in many low fat, low calories foods, is known to raise triglyceride levels.

These know it alls were also wrong about coffee, which has now been shown to lower a person’s risk of type 2 diabetes.

Anyway, a new study from Australia is now showing that women who reduce consumption of read meat and lamb are more likely to suffer from depression.

Professor Felice Jacka, who led the research by Deakin University, Victoria, said: “We had originally thought that red meat might not be good for mental health but it turns out that it actually may be quite important.

“When we looked at women consuming less than the recommended amount of red meat in our study, we found that they were twice as likely to have a diagnosed depressive or anxiety disorder as those consuming the recommended amount.

“Even when we took into account the overall healthiness of the women’s diets, as well as other factors such as their socioeconomic status, physical activity levels, smoking, weight and age, the relationship between low red meat intake and mental health remained.

{snip}

“Interestingly, there was no relationship between other forms of protein, such as chicken, pork, fish or plant-based proteins, and mental health. Vegetarianism was not the explanation either. Only nineteen women in the study were vegetarians, and the results were the same when they were excluded from the study analyses.”

This article was so ridiculous that I had to post it.

Let me just say that I think breast implants are totally disgusting. The whole of idea of a healthy woman having her breasts cut open to insert foreign bodies of silicone into them is just gross! Also it makes finding cancerous lumps more difficult, never mind nursing a baby.

On another note, what is so bad about being flat-chested. Models are all flat chested, and they easily wear backless dresses, halter tops, and gowns with spaghetti straps. So I just don’t understand where these women are coming from.

Also, if you’re going have cosmetic surgery, it should be *your* job to know what you’re getting into. (That’s not to say doctors shouldn’t be sued for malpractice.) So if you (I used this word in the general sense) are SO stupid and SO desperate for a larger cup size that you would let some doctor put mattress grade silicone into your breasts, why should the government/taxpayers have to foot the fill?

Paris (CNN) — The French government will pay for tens of thousands of women to have silicone breast implants removed over concerns about a possible link to a rare form of cancer, the Ministry of Health said Wednesday.

French health authorities are due to make a recommendation Friday about whether women with implants by a company called Poly Implant Prosthese (PIP) must have them removed.
The ministry says about 30,000 French women have PIP implants, which are not currently approved for use in the United States.
According to a news release from the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, PIP is now defunct. It says the company “used non-medical grade silicone believed by the manufacturers to be made for mattresses.”

The French government agency that evaluates the safety of medical products says 523 women have had them removed since a defect was discovered last year.
More than 1,000 implants have ruptured since then, the agency says.

{snip}

Women will only be reimbursed for new implants if they were originally for reconstructive surgery, the Health Ministry said.

What will these crazy French people think of next?

For those women with aggressive, metastatic breast cancer, who have been taking the drug Avastin, brace yourselves. The FDA, citing unfavorable side effects, recently yanked its approval of Avastin to treat breast cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that the agency is recommending removing the breast cancer indication from the label for Avastin (bevacizumab) because the drug has not been shown to be safe and effective for that use.

{snip}

The agency is making this recommendation after reviewing the results of four clinical studies of Avastin in women with breast cancer and determining that the data indicate that the drug does not prolong overall survival in breast cancer patients or provide a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients. These risks include severe high blood pressure; bleeding and hemorrhage; the development of perforations (or “holes”) in the body, including in the nose, stomach, and intestines; and heart attack or heart failure.

Uh hellloooo! Chemotherapy also has extremely nasty side effects. But it buys cancer patients time. Or sometimes it doesn’t work at all. Does that mean the FDA (who is most likely in cahoots with Obama and Donald Berwick) will yank approval for that too? It just makes no sense.

Obama’s mouthpieces at the MSM have also jumped on the band wagon by publishing a story about one woman’s bad experience with Avastin. Mind you, I feel bad for this woman or anyone who suffers from drastic side effects of medicine. But you have to remember that there’s always a risk involved. The matter of what kind of risks a patient wishes to take with drugs should be between that person and his/her doctor only.

However, I don’t believe that nasty side effects are the real reason Avastin, which has worked for many women, was yanked for treating breast cancer. I believe the more plausible explanation is that treatment costs $80,000.

Remember with the lack of FDA approval for the treatment of late stage breast cancer, Medicare and insurance companies will not cover this drug, unless they can come up with $80,000.

If you still think I’m being paranoid, you should know that Obama’s death panels are back. It’s been discretely put in a Medicare regulation.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

{snip}

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.

{snip}

Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009 — but not included in the final legislation — allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.

Notice how liberals always pontificate to conservatives that teenagers will have sex no matter what (as if they’re nothing more than animals in heat), and that the best thing to do is teach them about safety, since abstinence doesn’t work. That brought us public school lessons on how to put a condom on a banana and masturbation for children, among other things.

Now the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene spent $32,000 in tax money on a guide to “safe” intravenous drug use.

The city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene spent $32,000 of tax money on 70,000 copies that offer information on how to prepare drugs carefully and care for veins to avoid infection.

{snip}

The 16-page booklet features seven comics-like illustrations and offers such advice as “Warm your body (jump up and down) to show your veins,” and “Find the vein before you try to inject.”

A health official says the goal is to promote health and save lives. Assistant Commissioner Daliah Heller says instructions on how to perform injections were included because there’s “a less harmful way to inject.”

The illustrated guidebook offers information on HIV testing and the dangers of sharing needles.

This article caught my eye, being that I had laser vision correction surgery a few years ago. It’s something I highly recommend. I mean, why put up with constantly having eye glasses sitting on your nose, or with uncomfortable contact lenses? So if any of you need the name of excellent eye surgeon in Manhattan, email me.

But anyway, getting to the article, Doctors in Germany have managed to partially restore eye sight to blind people by grafting microchips with photo cells into the backs of their eyes.

German doctors are restoring partial sight to blind people by grafting microchips covered with photocells onto the backs of their eyes in a major medical breakthrough, news magazine Der Spiegel reported on Saturday.

The medical researchers at the University of Tübingen in the southern State of Baden-Württemberg have managed to help blind patients read printed words and recognise objects using the pioneering technique.

In a preview of its Monday edition, Spiegel quoted the medical team as saying that one patient, a 45-year-old Finnish patient named Miika, had improved to such an extent that he was no longer considered legally blind.

“With Miika, we can show that, with the help of the optical prosthesis, he has crossed the boundary beyond which he is no longer regarded as legally blind,” said the research leader, Eberhart Zrenner.

The technique involves grafting tiny microchips, measuring 3mm by 3mm and housing more than 1500 photo cells, onto the patients’ retinas.

The implantation requires a delicate, four-hour operation.

“The body tolerates the implant well,” said Zrenner. “We haven’t seen any serious problems such as inflammation.”

However the optical chips had to be removed after a few weeks according to the requirements of the university’s medical ethics committee.

The MSM loves to publish doomsday warnings against women who don’t have fat thighs and rears. According to these so-called “experts,” we’re more likely to drop dead from cancer and we’ll suffer a whole bunch of other ailments.

According to the latest research by these “experts”, women with thin thighs die sooner than their pear shaped sisters.