Wishing Upon a Miracle

Discovering a cure for Alzheimer’s Disease has been a wish made for the past century and those who wish are still awaiting a miracle. Researcher’s have spent countless hours dating back to 1906 conducting research in hope of discovering what Alzheimer’s really is. Like any other disease or illness, researchers are set out to discover a cure; unfortunately for patients with Alzheimer’s Disease, a cure has yet to come. Extensive research can be costly, but a world without Alzheimer’s Disease would pay great dividends to society. A vast majority of patients in assisting living facilities and nursing homes suffer from Alzheimer’s Disease.

Stated by MacGill, “Nearly 15 million Americans provide unpaid care to a person living with Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia (Alzheimer’s Association 2011 Facts & Figures).” Dr. Alois Alzheimer, a German psychiatrist and neuropathologist is credited with identifying the first published case of “presenile dementia” in 1907, a condition that is now called Alzheimer’s disease. Far too often, the family of a loved one are told by a doctor that their loved one is unfortunately diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease. Alzheimer’s Disease is a condition that causes abnormal changes in the brain, mainly affecting memory and other mental abilities which is not a normal part of aging. Loss of memory is the usual first symptom. As the disease progresses, the loss of reasoning ability, language, decision-making ability, judgment and other critical skills make navigating day-to-day living impossible without help from others, most often a family member or friend. Sometimes, but not always, difficult changes in personality and behavior occur. Aside from the patient, the relationships in the family are greatly affected by the disease. A grandchild, for instance, is usually very close to his/her grandparent. As Alzheimer’s progresses, the grandchild is torn as he/she watches as his/her grandparent’s brain becomes succumbed by Alzheimer’s.

Far too often, the family of a loved one are told by a doctor that their loved one is unfortunately diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease. Alzheimer’s Disease is a condition that causes abnormal changes in the brain, mainly affecting memory and other mental abilities which is not a normal part of aging. Loss of memory is the usual first symptom. As the disease progresses, the loss of reasoning ability, language, decision-making ability, judgment and other critical skills make navigating day-to-day living impossible without help from others, most often a family member or friend. Sometimes, but not always, difficult changes in personality and behavior occur. Aside from the patient, the relationships in the family are greatly affected by the disease. A grandchild, for instance, is usually very close to his/her grandparent. As Alzheimer’s progresses, the grandchild is torn as he/she watches as his/her grandparent’s brain becomes succumbed by Alzheimer’s. Alzheimer’s disease is called a family disease, because the chronic stress of watching a loved one slowly decline affects everyone. An effective treatment will address the needs of the entire family. Caregivers must focus on their own needs, take time for their own health and get support and respite from caregiving regularly to be able to sustain their well-being during this caregiving journey. Emotional and practical support, counseling, resource information and educational programs about Alzheimer’s disease all help a caregiver provide the best possible care for a loved one. Though families do their absolute best in caring, the stress causes tension between the entire family which in turn is even more stressful to the patient than the disease itself. By creating a cure for Alzheimer’s Disease, families can live in peace knowing that they will never need to experience such a tragic event.

Works Cited

“Breakthrough Drug for Patients.” The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2016.

“Definition of Alzheimer’s Disease.” Alzheimer’s Foundation of America – Definition of Alzheimer’s Disease. Alzhiemer’s Foundation of America, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2016.

MacGill, Markus. “Alzheimer’s Disease.” Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 29 Apr. 2016. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

The FDA Does Its’ Best

In order to make sure that  harmful products do not go the people, organizations such as the FDA-also known as the Food and Drug Administration-place very rigid requirements. However, regulatory associations such as the FDA are simply not enough to keep the influence of drug companies away from scientific studies.

Petter Hutt’s paper, “Untangling the Vioxx-Celebrex Controversy: A Story about Responsibility.” on the controversy describes the exact context on how the FDA approves a drug.  The FDA first requires what is known as an NDA or new drug application. The new drug then undergoes the Investigation New Drug, or IND, and three Phases. The IND test to see if the production and analyzation had, “protection of the human research project, animal studies completed and analyzed, scientific merit, and qualifications of the investigator.” From the IND, the drug then undergoes Phase I, II, and III. Phase I tests the drug on one subject to check for adverse side effects, which moves on to phase II if successful. Phase II administers the drug multiple times on a small group,, which will move on to phase III. In this phase the drug is given to thousands of patients with many different methodologies in order to check for drug interactions/reactions. It is estimated that this entire process takes around 7 to 13 years before the application is finished. After the application is submitted, the FDA then makes a committee to push the new drug and either authorize the drug or stop the process there.

This very methodical authorization system should be able to handle drug after numerous checks. However,the unreliability of the FDA is completely exposed with the Vioxx controversy. DrugWatch, in the web article “Vioxx Recall – Merck and FDA,” discusses the painkiller Vioxx and how it was spread to many different doctors with the primary goal of giving the drug to as many patients as possible. However, in only 5 years ,this seemingly harmless drug was found to more the double the risk of heart attacks and death. Eventually, in 2004 Merck recalled Vioxx after being put in the spotlight for their drug. DrugWatch described the havoc Vioxx  caused, with over 38,000 deaths, as potentially, “ the worst drug disaster in history”

The drug went through the entire rigid appeal process of the FDA and was approved in 1999. Not once did the FDA stop the drug until the symptoms the heart issues started to appear and an anylazation was made. But by the time the FDA caught on, Vioxx already damaged thousands of lives. The reason why this disaster even occurred was due manipulating data. In order for the Merck scientists to show that the drug was safe enough for use, they omitted the detrimental data pertaining to patients with heart complications or else the drug couldn’t have been released.  In fact Hutt stated that, “the General Accounting Office found that of 198 drugs approved by the FDA between 1976-1985, about half had serious post-approval problems.”

Not only that, but this controversy also shed light on corruption of the FDA. It was noted that Merck persuaded the FDA to remove warning labels for digestive issue with Vioxx even before the drug was approved. The FDA also ignored the doctors claims of patients’ hearts problem until in 2002 a study that showed the relationship between heart complications and Vioxx. When that integral piece of information came out, all the FDA did was simply add a label.

The FDA had numerous times to prevent a disaster from happening and the organization was built to do just that. However, the bias that Merck was push forward to push their product slipped through, which means shows even the FDA struggles to mitigate the effect of bias in scientific studies.

Works Cited:

Hutt, Peter Barton. “Untangling the Vioxx-Celebrex Controversy: A Story about Responsibility.”Tran, Lan. N.p., 4 May 2005. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

“Vioxx Recall – Merck and FDA.” DrugWatch. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

A lot of time and money is invested to creating the safest sporting equipment possible. The pads are made to work when they fit properly. Athletes should be taught how to choose the correct size equipment. If they are using pads too big or too small, the pads will be covering the wrong areas which can result in serious injury. When worn the correct way, the pads will absorb majority of the physical blow and leave you unharmed.

The rate of career ending injuries is on the rise so finally the heads of different leagues are putting stricter penalties for vicious hits that are known to cause harm to an individual. For example in hockey, the leading cause of concussions is due to a hit from behind into the boards.

The USA Hockey Rulebook clearly states that a major penalty plus a game misconduct penalty, or match penalty, must be called in the following instances:

(1)    In every instance where a player forcefully checks an opponent who is standing along the boards (back toward the middle of the ice).

(2)    In every instance where a player is thrust head first into the boards or goal frame.

(3)    In every instance where injury results from a check from behind, regardless of whether or not board contact is made.

A match penalty must be assessed in all instances when a player clearly checks an opponent from behind with excessive force while the opponent is in a vulnerable position.

Checking from behind is senseless and extremely dangerous. On-Ice Officials must be sensitive to all checks from behind that occur within the “danger zone,” which is the area approximately ten feet out from the boards. Players who are checked from behind in this area and who then crash into the boards may be at high risk of receiving a serious and possibly life altering injury.

Similar rules have been put into place in football as well. The helmet to helmet, often referred to as targeting, hits are often life altering so the NFL had to do something about this epidemic. A large fine is given to the guilty player as well as a game misconduct. This is just one of many rule changes the NFL has passed in 2016. A few other new rules posted on NFL.com are:

• Make all chop blocks illegal.
• Expand the horse collar rule
• A player who is penalized twice in one game for certain types of unsportsmanlike conduct fouls will be disqualified.
• Eliminate the five-yard penalty for when an eligible receiver illegally touches a forward pass after being out of bounds and re-establishing himself inbounds. The owners voted to make it a loss of down.

These rules are all imposed to help lower the injury rate to these athletes and make the sport all around safer without losing the interest from the audience.

works cited

Casebook.” USA Hockey Officiating Rulebook Mobile Site. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2016-rules-changes-and-points-of-emphasis/

My Worthy Opponent is Wrong

People have debated what the root of the problem is behind gun related crimes, wither the gun control laws have been too strict or have they been too loose. In doing some research, I discovered some articles that stated how gun control laws have not been the problem, rather the factors around gun control laws are why gun related crimes still occur. Some of these factors would include the location of the states, as well as the guns that are involved in the crimes that are being committed. Furthermore, there are articles were people make the claim that how the idea that gun control is the problem is considerably appalling.

The most frequent argument people have proposed that support gun control, state over the years gun homicide has decreased. This comparison was the back bone for one article, because throughout the article the author provides graphs that the change America has gone through from the 1990s until the present day. From this article one graph showed that from 1993 to 2013 gun homicide has decreased while guns per person has increased. Later in this same article, the author provided a graph that stated the gun homicide rate has declined from 1993 to 2013. Rather the gun control being the focal point the article reveals the progression America has been able to produce over the years. Some possibilities that are apart of America’s decline in homicide rates over the years could be the location of states and passing laws that unite states better to terminate gun related crimes. For example some states have started to recognized other state firearm license so that officers do not wrongfully convict people who have the proper license for their firearm.

Additionally, in alternative solution would be to issue more guns as well as stricter gun laws. The reasoning behind issuing more guns would be because by giving people guns it allows them to protect themselves. When reading this article the author shows that when people are being shot it rather than to try to cower behind something and hope for the best. In a situation were someone is being shot at by them firing back in self defense they are more likely to survive and protect themselves. Another reason issuing more guns would be a benefit it because when comparing the number of crimes of concealed carry permit holders to the general population, people who have a concealed carry permit holders have lower rate of committing crimes. The article showed how people who have the permit holders tend not to commit crimes because just because of them owing a gun but because majority of the holders have admitted they believe in gun control laws and abide by them.

Works Cited

The Case For More Guns (and More Gun Control)

Chart of the day: More guns less gun violence 1993 to 2013

Racial profiling still exists on the roads in today’s society. Nevertheless, there are many rebuttals that arise from this hot topic. To name a few, some may argue that many traffic stops including black drivers are just a coincidence that they are minorities and actually did something illegal to get pulled over. Others say that a large contributing factor into this issue is what race the officer is that is making the stop. For example, it could be considered to have less discriminatory intent if a black officer pulls over a black man. With all of this being said, both of these are legitimate points and do occur, but yet, they do not nearly account for the majority of stops with an African American in the car.

As far as the color of the police officer goes, it affects how society and the driver view the situation in a way that can seem less discriminatory, but still it is not that way one-hundred percent of the time. An African American officer can still discriminate against a man or woman of the same race. It may seem less suspicious seeing it, but it can not be overlooked. The color of a person’s skin does not always go hand in hand with their mindset and outlook on life. There is no saying that a black man and white man cannot share the same stereotypical mindset towards black people.

In addition to the rebuttal of same-race officers and drivers, people who disagree with the claim that racial profiling while driving is a real issue may counter the argument by saying any one of the stops that happen daily could be a coincidence. The thought is that these black drivers could be pulled over simply because they are breaking the law. While this may hold true for a fair amount of instances, it does not explain why nearly 2 percent more blacks (4.7%) are pulled over without a reason than whites (2.6%), according to Christopher Ingraham in his article titled “You Really Can Get Pulled Over For Driving While Black, Federal Statistics Show.” That statistic is unsettling because if somebody deserves to be pulled over for their driving, regardless of race, then so be it. But with that being said, minorities should not double the amount of whites in a category like this. They are called minorities for a reason, and that is because there are less of them in this country. Therefore, to lead substantially in that category leads to a much worse ratio than whites also getting pulled over without a reason.

Another example of the skewed ratios reported by Kim Soften in her article, “The Big Question About Why Police Pull Over So Many Black Drivers,” is that “a study of Connecticut traffic stops in 2014 and 2015 — among the states with the most recent data — found that 14 percent of traffic stops targeted black drivers, despite them making up only 9 percent of the state’s population.” Yet again, this supports the claim that these stops are not all simply coincidental. This is also a very recent study, so as we think we made tremendous progress with an African American president over the last 8 years, which we did to an extent, many people still continued to turn a blind eye to racism and discrimination in its various different forms.

In conclusion, there are logical and understandable rebuttals to this issue in society. Nevertheless, they can be refuted as well. People who pretend it is not real and deny certain statistics may be part of the problem. If more people in this country were open-minded and socially aware we would have a better opportunity to push for change, justice, and equality.

Works Cited

Ingraham, Christopher. “You Really Can Get Pulled Over For Driving While Black, Federal Statistics Show” The Washington Post. 09 Sept. 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2016

Soften, Kim. “The Big Question About Why Police Pull Over So Many Black Drivers” The Washington Post. 08 July 2016. Web. 30 Oct. 2016

It’s as if people would rather be comforted with a lie than blasted with the truth.  “You look great!” as they take another bite of the greasy cheese steak when is enough..enough? Instead of teasing our youth with eating out, and unhealthy regularly we should stop this bad habit before it even starts.  One thing is for sure and that is what you eat when you are young is something you need to really think about devouring when you are older.  According to conventional wisdom “your resting metabolic rate tends to drop as you age because you lose a small amount of muscle each year.”  As you age whether you realize it or not your metabolism changes drastically over time.  You also get weaker as you get older.  This is why you see professional athletes retire when they no longer have the energy or muscle endurance they did just a few years back.  For example older people tend to have a lower metabolic rate, and also eat and exercise significantly less.  Instead of letting them face the consequences later lets start a healthier habit before an unhealthy one even starts.

Children, and adults are both fall victim to peer pressure but children are more easier to manipulate then adults for the most part.  According to SFgate “The old adage “you are what you eat” couldn’t be more accurate in an age where unhealthy food is far more accessible than healthy choices for many American children. Over one-third of American children are now overweight and at risk for various associated diseases.”  Most children nowadays go home after school eat what they find in the fridge and wait until their parents get home for work or are tasked with another block of instructions.  Majority of parents, like their children would rather prepare or eat something quick compared to something healthy and beneficial to their bodies.  For children a big reason for this is because it is either easier accessible, or it is just what his or her parents said they were going to eat and if they do not eat what is given they most likely will not eat.  The parents should be held responsible for their child, and childhood obesity should be considered a crime because if they are dependent on their parents they have no control of what they eat.

It is time parents are held responsible for their child now more than ever.  Not only does unhealthy eating habits affect them in their youth but carries on to cause serious health problems down the road.  Just like that a bad habit and more times than not an unhealthy tradition is started or continued.  Unhealthy can be prevented more times than not and it should be the parent’s responsibility not only to acknowledge this but to act on it.  The media targets children in more ways than not.  Moynihan a medical faculty member at the University of Newcastle states “In a study of 4–7-year-old American children, Galst & White (1976) showed that the more commercial television that was viewed, the more food requests were made to the parent.”  The media whether you like it or not can be manipulating.  Whether it is a commercial for television or a billboard on the highway little things like this can impact your decision.  Media isn’t all bad lets get that straight but something should be done to start promoting healthier living or getting out more and active compared to today where every other commercial is a fast food, or just anything quick, and cheap.  Sounds pretty American to me.  For example you may be driving back from class or work you want to get food but do not know what to get.  You flip the radio on and hear a sprite commercial with Lebron James telling you to buy it, just as that happens you drive past a Mcdonald’s billboard and suddenly that sounds really good.  The thing is that it’s not and obesity is a serious problem that is affecting way more people than it should.  With that being said parents should be responsible for their child and assist them in living a healthy lifestyle.  Perpetrators who fail to meet these requirements should face some sort of punishment.  Possibly a rehab for weight loss or take a personal training class and pass so they can be a better parent.  Being heavy is not the problem being unhealthy is.  It’s time we do something to reduce this increasingly big problem the United States faces currently today.

Works Cited

                           “Sound Body Sound Mind, Los Angeles, CA.” Sound Body Sound Mind, Los Angeles, CA. UCLAhealth, n.d. Web. 21 Nov.2016.         

I’m having trouble citing the google scholar cites I chose I will ask for feedback in class class