Health

Air Pollution Kills More People Annually Than Covid-19 Has Since 2019

Pollution Kills More People Annually Than All Covid-19 Deaths Combined

New research suggests air pollution is responsible for 9 million deaths worldwide each year. This is attributed to a 55% increase in deaths attributed to dirty air from cars, trucks, and industry since 2000.

The annual pollution deaths are actually 68.89% higher than the total number of people who have died from the covid-19 coronavirus.

Since the novel virus was first identified during an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, 6.27 million people have died to date from the novel covid-19 coronavirus. On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and a pandemic on 11 March 2020.

A study published in The Lancet indicates that the United States is the only fully industrialized nation in the top 10 nations for total pollution deaths. The US ranks 7th with 142,883 deaths related to pollution in 2019, sandwiched between Bangladesh and Ethiopia.

The pre-pandemic study was based on calculations from the Global Burden of Disease database and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle. With nearly 2.4 million and almost 2.2 million pollution-related deaths a year, respectively, India and China are the world’s two most populous nations.

In terms of death rates per 100,000 people, the United States ranks 31st from the bottom with 43.6 pollution deaths. With pollution death rates around 300 per 100,000 in Chad and CAR, more than half of which are due to tainted water, Brunei, Qatar, and Iceland have the lowest pollution death rates, ranging from 15 to 23.

Globally, there are 117 pollution-related deaths per 100,000 people.

According to the study, pollution kills as many people around the world as cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke combined.

Philip Landrigan, director of Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and Global Pollution Observatory, says 9 million deaths is a lot.

“The bad news is that it doesn’t appear to be decreasing,” Landrigan said. “We are making progress with easy things, but the more difficult things, like ambient (outdoor industrial air pollution) and chemical pollution, are still increasing.”

Researchers said this doesn’t have to be the case.

“These are preventable deaths. The deaths of every single one of them are unnecessary,” said Dr. Lynn Goldman, dean of the George Washington University School of Public Health, who was not involved in the study.

She told the Associated Press that the calculations made sense and, if anything, they were so conservative about what has been attributed to the pollution that the real death toll is likely higher.

The death certificates for these people don’t mention pollution. Landrigan said that multiple epidemiological studies had linked pollution to heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, other lung issues, and diabetes.

Researchers then combine these with the number of deaths by cause, the exposure to pollution weighted for various factors, and then complicated exposure-response calculations derived from large epidemiological studies that studied thousands of people for decades.

In the same way, scientists can say cigarettes cause cancer and heart disease deaths.

Landrigan said that this cannon of the information constitutes causality. He said, “That’s how we do it.”

Burning of fossil fuels

Several experts in public health and air pollution, including Goldman, said the study is in line with mainstream scientific thinking. The American Heart Association determined over ten years ago that exposure to tiny PM2.5 particles like those generated from the burning of fossil fuels is causal to heart disease and death, said Dr. Renee Salas, an emergency room physician and Harvard professor who wasn’t part of the study.

Salas said that although people focus on lowering their blood pressure and cholesterol, few realize that the removal of air pollution is an imperative prescription for improving heart health.

Over three-quarters of the deaths from air pollution were caused by stationary sources such as coal-fired power plants and steel mills and mobile sources like cars, trucks, and buses. A public health physician, Dr. Landrigan, said, “And it’s a global problem.”. “And it’s getting worse as countries develop and cities grow.”

In New Delhi, India, air pollution peaks in the winter months, and last year the city saw just two days when the air wasn’t considered polluted. It was the first time in four years that the city experienced a clean air day during the winter months.

Anumita Roychowdhury, a director at the advocacy group Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi, said the finding that air pollution remains the leading cause of death in South Asia confirms what is already known, but the increase in these deaths means that toxic emissions from vehicles and energy generation are increasing.

Problem worse in densely populated areas

The data is a reminder of what’s wrong, but it’s also an opportunity to fix it, Roychoudhury said. According to experts, pollution deaths are soaring in the poorest areas.

Health Effects Institute president Dan Greenbaum, who was not involved with the study, said: “This problem is worse in areas with dense populations (e.g., Asia) and where financial and government resources to address the pollution problem are limited. At the same time, a host of other challenges need to be addressed, including health care and diet.

Globally, about 2.9 million people died from industrial air pollution in 2000. According to the study, it increased to 4.2 million in 2015 and to 4.5 million by 2019. The study also found that household air pollution, mostly from inefficient primitive stoves, caused air pollution to kill 6.7 million people in 2019.

Approximately 900,000 people die each year from lead pollution – some are from lead additives removed from gasoline in all countries and from old paint, recycling batteries, and other manufacturing processes. Around 1.4 million deaths are caused by water pollution each year. Another 870,000 are caused by occupational health pollution.

Air Pollution clean-up programs

Landrigan said that approximately 20,000 people in the United States die every year from lead poisoning-induced hypertension, heart disease, and kidney disease, mostly caused by occupational hazards.

He said lead and asbestos are America’s biggest chemical occupational hazards, killing about 65,000 people each year. According to the study, the number of air pollution deaths in the United States in 2019 reached 60,229, far more than the number of deaths on American roads, which reached a 16-year high of nearly 43,000.

Despite modern forms of pollution rising in most countries, especially developing ones, they declined in the United States, the European Union, and Ethiopia between 2000 and 2019.

The study co-author Richard Fuller, president of Pure Earth, a non-profit that works on pollution clean-up programs in about a dozen countries, says the Ethiopian numbers might be a reporting issue.

In their study, the authors outlined eight recommendations to reduce pollution deaths, emphasizing the need for better monitoring, better reporting, and stronger government regulations of cars and industry.

Health

Report Causes Pfizer Stock to Climb Approximately $1 Billion Acquired by Starboard

(VOR News) – According to a rumor that activist investor Pfizer Starboard Value has taken a holding in the struggling pharmaceutical business that is expected to be worth around one billion dollars, the stock of Pfizer (PFE) is on the increase in premarket trading on Monday.

This comes after the report was made public. The report was made available to the general public following this. Starboard Value was successful in moving forward with the acquisition of the position.

Starboard is said to have approached Ian Read, a former chief executive officer of Pfizer, and Frank D’Amelio, a former chief financial officer, in order to seek assistance with its goals of boosting the performance of the company, according to the Wall Street Journal. Read and D’Amelio are both former Pfizer executives.

The purpose of this is to facilitate the accomplishment of its objectives, which include enhancing the overall performance of the firm.

In their previous jobs, D’Amelio and Read were chief financial officers.

It is stated in the report that the hedge fund is of the opinion that Pfizer, which is currently being managed by Albert Bourla, who succeeded Read as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in 2019, does not demonstrate the same level of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) discipline that Read did. Bourla took over for Read in 2019. Read was succeeded by Bourla in the year 2019.

Pfizer, a multinational pharmaceutical conglomerate, has made substantial investments in the acquisition of more companies that are involved in the research and development of cancer medicines.

These businesses have been acquired for billions of dollars. The biotechnology company Seagen, which was acquired by Pfizer in the previous year for a price of $43 billion, is included in this category. One of the businesses that can be classified as belonging to this category is Seagen.

In spite of the fact that the S&P 500 Index experienced a 21% increase in 2024.

No major trading occurred in Pfizer stock that year.

Due to the fact that the demand for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines fell after the firm reached its pandemic peak in 2021, the share price of the corporation has decreased by over fifty percent since that time.

This drop has occurred ever since the company’s shares reached their maximum peak, which was during the time that this decline occurred. Not only have they not changed at all, but they have also remained essentially stable. This is in contrast to the S&P 500, which has gained 21% since the beginning of this year.

Recently, the corporation was forced to take a hit when it decided to recall all of the sickle cell illness medications that it had distributed all over the world.

Fears that the prescription could lead patients to experience severe agony and possibly even death were the impetus for the decision to recall the product. In spite of the fact that Pfizer’s stock is increasing by almost three percent as a result of the news that followed the company’s decision, this is the circumstance that has come about.

SOURCE: IPN

Health

New Study Reveals Drinking Soda Pop Increases the Risk of Stroke

If you drink too much soda, fruit juice and coffee, beware!

A recent report from global research indicates that excessive consumption of coffee or soda pop is associated with an increased risk of stroke, although the intake of black and green tea is correlated with a reduced risk. Excessive consumption of soda pop or coffee warrants caution!

Recent research indicates that it may substantially elevate the risk of stroke.

Consuming four cups of coffee daily elevates the risk of stroke, according to studies, although ingesting 3-4 cups of black or green tea daily typically offers protection against stroke. Additionally, consume more coffee; it may reduce your risk of mortality.

Recent findings from global research studies co-led by the University of Galway and McMaster University, alongside an international consortium of stroke researchers, indicate that soda, encompassing both sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened variants such as diet or zero sugar, is associated with a 22 percent heightened risk of stroke. The risk escalated significantly with the consumption of two or more of these beverages daily.

Stroke Risk Fizzy Drinks and Soda Pop

The correlation between fizzy drinks consumption and stroke risk was most pronounced in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Women exhibit the most elevated risk of stroke from bleeding (intracranial hemorrhage) associated with fruit juice beverages. Consuming over 7 cups of water daily diminishes the likelihood of stroke due to a clot.

Researchers observed that numerous items advertised as fruit juice are derived from concentrates and have added sugars and preservatives, potentially negating the advantages often associated with fresh fruit and instead elevating stroke risk.

Fruit juice beverages were associated with a 37 percent heightened risk of stroke resulting from bleeding (intracranial hemorrhage). Consuming two of these beverages daily increases the risk thrice.

Consuming over four cups of coffee daily elevates the risk of stroke by 37 percent, although lower consumption levels do not correlate with stroke risk. Conversely, tea consumption was associated with an 18-20 percent reduction in stroke risk. Additionally, consuming 3-4 cups daily of black tea, such as Breakfast and Earl Grey varieties, excluding green and herbal teas, was associated with a 29 percent reduced risk of stroke.

Consuming 3-4 cups of green tea daily was associated with a 27 percent reduction in stroke risk. Notably, the addition of milk may diminish or inhibit the advantageous effects of antioxidants present in tea. The lower risk of stroke associated with tea consumption was negated for individuals who added milk.

Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for informational reasons and should not be considered a replacement for professional medical counsel. Consistently consult your physician regarding any inquiries pertaining to a medical problem.

Starbucks Faces Sales Decline Amid Price Fatigue and Rising Competition

Starbucks Faces Sales Decline Amid Price Fatigue and Rising Competition

Health

Following a Diagnosis of Breast Cancer, What Else Should You Know?

(VOR News) – Even though breast cancer affects one in eight American women, receiving a diagnosis can make a woman feel isolated.

Experts in breast cancer from the American College of Physicians (ACS) advise patients on how to manage their disease so that they may better cope with this awful information.

First, the kind and stage of breast cancer dictates the course of your care.

In addition to immunotherapy and chemotherapy, there are various surgical options available for the treatment of breast cancer.

Women of African descent are disproportionately affected by triple-negative breast cancer, an extremely aggressive form of the disease that has never proven easy to treat.

According to the American Cancer Society, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), an immunotherapy, has been shown to be helpful when combined with chemotherapy and is currently the recommended course of treatment for certain combinations of triple-negative breast cancer.

In her presentation, Dr. Katharine Yao said, “It’s really important that the patient and physician discuss the patient’s preferences and values when deciding what type of treatment to pursue and that they have an honest, individualized discussion with their care team.”

She is currently responsible for developing breast cancer treatment recommendations for more than 575 hospitals and institutions nationwide in her role as chair of the American College of Surgeons’ National Accreditation Program for Breast Institutions (NAPBC).

Yao, vice chair of research at Endeavor Health NorthShore Hospitals in New York, pointed out that each decision made about a patient’s treatment plan should take her preferences and diagnosis into consideration.

She ought to think about whether she would prefer a mastectomy—a surgical procedure that involves removing the entire breast with or without reconstruction—or a lumpectomy, which involves a surgical procedure that spares part of the breast tissue.

She stated that “the breast cancer you have may be very different from the breast cancer you hear about in your neighbor, colleague, or friend” in a press release issued by the American Cancer Society (ACS).

“Consider that while discussing breast cancer with others.”

Throughout your journey, it is critical that you look after your emotional health because having breast cancer may have a detrimental impact on your mental health.

“Getting a cancer diagnosis does not mean that everything in your life stops to be normal.” Director of the Fellowship in the Diseases of the Breast program at the Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute at the University of Arkansas and state head of the American Cancer Society Commission on Cancer for Arkansas, Dr. Daniela Ochoa She thinks adding the burden of a cancer diagnosis and treatment to all the other pressures in life may be taxing.

“Managing stress and emotional health is vital component of a treatment plan.”

Ochoa recommends clinically trained psychologists and social workers who have assisted people in coping with cancer to anyone receiving treatment. Learning coping techniques might also be facilitated by joining cancer support groups or cancer wellness initiatives.

Breast cancer specialists say your care team is crucial.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) defines comprehensive care as having support at every stage of the procedure from surgeons, oncologists, patient navigators, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and other specialists.

After receiving a breast cancer diagnosis, women should see a surgeon or medical oncologist to explore their options; nevertheless, treatment shouldn’t be discontinued after just one appointment or after surgery is over.

Additionally, you can ask trustworthy friends or family members to accompany you to appointments and aid you with research or notes. They could serve as a network of support for you.

Yao stated in his talk that “one of the most important things is that patients should search out a team they have confidence in, that they trust will have their back when they need it, and a team they feel they can get access to and that will help them when they are in need.”

SOURCE: MP