213
59 Views

Environmentalist Group: "Corona Is The Cure - Humans Are The Disease"

zerohedge News environmentalist group corona cure humans disease All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share

Environmentalist Group: "Corona Is The Cure - Humans Are The Disease"



 



 



Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,



 



 



 



 



A climate change group that aligns itself with Extinction Rebellion posted stickers claiming that coronavirus is a “cure” for the “disease” that is humanity.



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 

Read More


 



 


241
22 Views

Pandemic: The Invention Of A Disease Called Fear

zerohedge News pandemic invention disease called fear All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
Pandemic: The Invention Of A Disease Called Fear

Authored by Julain Rose via Counterpunch.org,



The word ‘pandemic’ bears a similarity to the word ‘panic’ and indeed ‘pandemonium’. In fact ‘pandemic’ evokes an almost instant flush of fear in those easily manipulated by mass media, before any details have even touched the surface or context in which the word is being used.



Those who plan the major moves

Read More
on the chess-board of covert human control know that by leading with the word ‘pandemic’ they have an instantly effective weapon at their disposal to psychologically weaken the resistance of individuals vulnerable to irrational and impressionistic mindsets.



So, in a world heavily conditioned by the proclamations of the mass media, the fear weapon has huge psychological power.





As we have all witnessed over the past months, the Coronavirus story has been unleashed with barely contained lascivious delight by news media under orders from the purveyors of malevolent missions against mankind. Pumped-up to maximum volume and dispersed globally, the deliberately designed fear message has the instant effect of making the majority of people feel powerless. The Big problem is at large – and we the people feel small. This is the beginning of entrapment which colors every aspect of daily life.



Most of humanity has undergone a process of education which depends for its effectiveness on the perceived power of some ‘authority’ to exert an unquestioned controlling influence over the general direction of life. A source of influence that depends for its continuing effectiveness on never being subjected to rational scrutiny, or genuine examination of any kind. Such is the beguiling power of full-on indoctrination.



In the battle now raging for ‘who controls the world’, some of the largely hidden or disguised controlling agents of planetary life – are now appearing on the surface. And that’s why chaos and fear are very much ‘flavor of the month’. The Corona Contagion is chock full of idiosyncrasies; in fact, there are so many nonsensical factors associated with media attempts to report on what’s going on, that one can only feel dazed and confused should one try and follow the script in real-time.



However, what has become all too clear is the fact that large numbers of people are being herded – and are not resisting. The scare tactics being employed are more dangerous than the virus that is the excuse for deploying them. Under this induced state of psychosis, all manner of tricks can be perpetrated on mankind – and that is precisely what we are witnessing at this time.



Many reading this will already be familiar with the ambitions of the controlling deep state ‘elite’ and will know that a pre-planned phase of social and economic chaos is a key factor in their attempted roll-out of totalitarian New World Order. We are now in this phase. Its success depends upon a large body of people following the instructions passed down by the political puppets of the deep state and by the cowardly repetition of these instructions by the mainstream media.



Once again, the fear card plays a key role. This time, in keeping a constant level of anxiety and hysteria on the boil, while working to ensure that those able to recognize the true nature of the scam are coerced into not stepping out of line, thereby risking their job, security or status within the rigidly enforced master/slave relationship of the status quo.



The whole sick edifice maintains its momentum based upon pure top-down deception and exploitation. Yet those at the receiving end largely choose to remain oblivious of the fact that they are being used and abused for the benefit of a fascist ideal. By not rebelling in the face of such treatment – but instead by complying with it – a mute populace establishes the basis of its own debasement and slavery.



These methods have been practiced over and over again in the history of the world, and each time hind-sight reveals the motivation to have been an obsession with power and control, and the perpetrators to be a small number of psychopathic despots. Whether taking the form of military might, religious dogma or modern-day corporate and banking control freaks, provided the drama has been well stage-managed and the ‘might has produced fright’, the hegemons get their way.



How well is the roll-out being stage-managed on this occasion – and what is the plan?



Owing to the trans-planetary link-ups that take place today, the ‘master plan’ is no longer a regional or national affair, but a global one. The main players have hatched the plot long before any of us get to know about it and gatherings like the Davos Economic Summit and Bildergerger meetings are used to gain consensus on the timing and methods to be deployed.



In the case of Covid-19, its appearance on the scene – or at least the spreading of the story about something nasty going under this name – is timed to divert attention from the speeding-up of the installation of what are deemed to be important spokes in the creation of a totalitarian New World Order. For example, the roll-out of 5G microwave modulated WiFi; a digitalised smart grid and ‘internet of things’; a robotic transport system; facial recognition population surveillance programmes; new strains of genetically modified organisms and vaccines, and so forth. However, the predominant game plan is to ‘re-set’ global finance so as to appear to be supporting the euphemistically named Green New Deal with its holy grail ‘Zero Carbon’.



The fact that China has likely been the initial bio-weapon target, does not detract from a more widespread aim to disrupt the world economy as a whole.



The effectiveness of this disruption depends upon the greater part of the populus being swept along in a bubble of blind belief in the authenticity of the ‘virtual’ story line. A line which disguises the very actual imposition of a fascist state.



I would say that the stage-management is pretty poor this time around. The plethora of contradictory and irrational clamp-down actions being imposed in the name of containing the bogey bug stretches the credibility of the operation to the braking point. In point of fact it’s a farce; but a farce which involves actual deaths and the support of a police state, cannot simply be laughed-off.



Instead, it can be put under the spotlight and be seen for what it is, a planned manipulation of the people and resources of this planet, whose main goading-tool consists of the well-rehearsed art of spreading fear and panic. And this, in turn, to undermine the rational and common sense based gift which we have all been blessed with from birth, and which – when in good order – can clearly see through the facade and hold the line of reason and truth.



Many have seen this ‘order out of chaos’ drama coming for years. The chaos bit is with us right now and very visible. The ‘order’ is to follow and consists in the emergence of a peacemaker – or peace plan – that involves the lead croupiers raking the chips off the roulette board and cashing them into their temporary satisfaction. Thus allowing for a little holiday period in which the weak-kneed can rejoice at their survival and bless the emergence of the ‘new order’, under the authority of no matter who or what, so long as they can believe that the world has been saved from anarchy and ruin.



Every one of us whose knees have not turned to jelly and whose brains have not turned to mind-controlled pulp must take this moment to declare ourselves, boldly and resolutely with these four words “We do not consent”.



There’s a surprise in store for the cowardly imposers of chaos – it is our time that’s coming and – not theirs. For ours is the True World Order which aligns with Universal Law, not the false laws of a manipulated status quo.



It is our re-emergent marriage with Universal Truth that is going to oust this scare loaded pandemic and all similar manifestations of dark-side deception that have gripped this planet for far too long. Our true-world-order is going to take on this obsessed and demonic dynasty, so that it stumbles, falls and fails to rise again.



Seize this auspicious moment – and let us be joined as one in an unwavering commitment to get off our knees and stand firm in the cause of defeating the ghosts of chaos and fear.




Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/23/2020 - 22:05
222
26 Views

Chang: China's Real Disease Is Not COVID-19

zerohedge News chang chinas real disease covid-19 All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
Chang: China's Real Disease Is Not COVID-19

Authored by Gordon Chang via The Gatestone Institute,



Last July, five American analysts who have been consistently wrong told us "China is not an enemy."



Actually, this time they were technically right. China's communism is not an enemy. It is the enemy.





After the coronavirus pandemic subsides, Americans s

Read More
hould not forget Beijing's malicious campaign against their country.



For more than a month, the central government's foreign ministry and the Communist Party's Global Times have been trying to tar the Trump administration. The campaign culminated in a series of tweets from rising Beijing star Zhao Lijian, foreign ministry spokesman and deputy director general of the ministry's Information Department.



On March 12, in a tweet, he accused U.S. officials of being "immoral." Hours before, he had tweeted that "patient zero" was in the U.S. and suggested that the U.S. Army had "brought the epidemic to Wuhan" -- intimating that America was conducting germ warfare.



Also that day, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, Zhao's boss, twisted testimony of Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to try to show that the coronavirus outbreak had started in America.



President Donald J. Trump, in his Rose Garden press conference the next day, March 13, downplayed the overtly hostile messages. He first noted his conversations with Chinese ruler Xi Jinping and then said, referring to Chinese leaders, "they know where it came from."



Actually, it is worse if Chinese officials in fact knew where the coronavirus originated. In this case, these officials, by going out of their way to blame the U.S., were demonstrating once again the inherent hostility of their system to America.



Unfortunately, Beijing cannot be deterred. The U.S. State Department on March 13 summoned Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai to protest the foreign ministry's disinformation campaign. Despite the warning, the Chinese ambassador to South Africa, Lin Songtian, on March 16 continued to promote the coronavirus-not-originated-in-China theory, with a tweet.



From here, it looks as if relations are only going to deteriorate. For one thing, Beijing's official Xinhua News Agency has been threatening to cut off "medical supplies," "plunging" America into a "mighty sea of coronavirus."



Beijing has, according to Trump's trade advisor Peter Navarro, already nationalized one American factory making medical masks. Moreover, Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo on air repeatedly said the Chinese forced at least one ship carrying masks, gloves, and other protective gear to the United States to return to China.



Beijing's threat to cut off supplies and harm Americans will only encourage the U.S. to cut trade with China, or, more precisely, to not allow trade to return to pre-coronavirus levels. Reducing commerce, some believe, is the only long-term solution for the U.S. as Chinese communists have tried to use their central role as a manufacturer to spread totalitarianism and advance other geopolitical goals anathema to the Western democracies.



The cutting of links will still leave trade at high levels, at least at first. Nonetheless, the large volume of commerce, often called the "ballast" of China-U.S. ties, probably will not stabilize relations.




"Does trade increase or decrease the likelihood of conflict?" Samuel Huntington, the late Harvard political scientist, asked in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.



"The assumption that it reduces the probability of war between nations is, at a minimum, not proven, and much evidence exists to the contrary."




High levels of trade did not prevent the First World War, he pointed out in that landmark book. As Huntington, building on the work of others, noted, what is important is expectation. "Economic interdependence fosters peace," he wrote, "only 'when states expect that high trade levels will continue into the foreseeable future.'" If, however, trade partners "do not expect high levels of interdependence to continue, war is likely to result."



Trump expects trade between the two nations to increase, saying on March 13 that China will be buying $250 billion more products pursuant to the Phase One trade deal signed January 15. Beijing in that agreement generally promised within a two-year period to increase purchases of U.S. goods and services by $200 billion over 2017 levels.



Trump's optimism is not shared in Beijing, however. China, using the epidemic as an excuse, is now pushing to change the agreement by deferring its purchase obligations, the heart of the arrangement as far as the U.S. is concerned.



The Global Times notes that the pandemic inhibits Chinese demand for American goods, but that is not necessarily a good reason for relief from the terms of the deal.



Why not? Xi Jinping, after all, knew about the coronavirus epidemic long before he authorized the signing of the deal in the White House. In February, he said he had chaired a meeting of the Party's Politburo Standing Committee on January 7 in which he issued orders to contain the epidemic. Xi's knowledge of the outbreak on January 15 and his push for relief now, therefore, makes him look cynical. In all probability, he had no intention of honoring his side of the bargain from the beginning. Recall that Xi broke his September 2015 pledges to former President Barack Obama not to militarize China's artificial islands and not to hack America for commercial purposes.



In any event, this year Sino-U.S. trade will almost certainly decline. Such a delinking would be in line with Trump's stated desire to bring manufacturing back home.



The president has evidently been thinking about these matters for a long time. On July 21, 2017, for instance, he issued his Executive Order on Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States. The Defense Industrial Base study, as it is known, exposed American vulnerabilities and led to actions to encourage manufacturing to return home. Trump can now use his sweeping powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to continue this essential process.



Of course, war does not inevitably result when countries "delink," "decouple," or "disengage" their economies. Yet China and the U.S. are also moving apart as Americans become wary of an increasingly belligerent Chinese state, one that already has demonstrated that it has, for instance, little reluctance to injure Americans.



China, as we now know, allowed the coronavirus to spread for six weeks in December and January before Xi publicly acknowledged the disease. So, it is no surprise that Americans — and the Chinese people, who are now demanding fundamental political change — realize that the real disease is communism.



Coronavirus proves that for America and the Free World, China's communism is the enemy -- the one that really counts.




Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/23/2020 - 00:00
235
52 Views

Fedophilia: The Intellectual Disease And Cure

zerohedge News fedophilia intellectual disease cure All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
Fedophilia: The Intellectual Disease And Cure

Authored by George Selgin via Alt-M.org,



Although the movement to “End the Fed” has a considerable popular following, only a very tiny number of economists—our illustrious contributors amongst them—take the possibility seriously. For the rest, the Federal Reserve System is, not an ideal currency system to be sure (for who would dare to call it that?), but, implicitly at leas

Read More
t, the best of all possible systems. And while there’s no shortage of proposals for reforming it almost all of them call only for mere tinkering. Tough though their love may be, the fact remains that most economists are stuck on the Fed.





This veneration of the Fed has long struck me as perverse. Its record can hardly be said, after all, to supply grounds for complacency, much less for the belief that no other system could possibly do better. (Indeed that record, as Bill Lastrapes, Larry White and I have shown, even makes it difficult to claim that the Fed has improved upon the evidently flawed National Currency system it replaced.) Further, as the Fed is both a monopoly and a central planning agency, one would expect economists’ general opposition to monopolies and to central planning, as informed by their welfare theorems and by the general collapse of socialism, to prejudice them against it. Yet instead of ganging up to look into market-based alternatives to the Fed, the profession, for the most part, has relegated such inquiries to its fringe.



Why? The question warrants an answer from those of us who insist that exploring alternatives to the Fed is worthwhile, if only to counter people’s natural but nevertheless mistaken inclination to assume that the rest of the profession isn’t interested in such alternatives because it has already carefully considered—and rejected—them.



It’s tempting to blame Fedophilia, and the more general phenomenon of what Larry White calls “status quo” bias in monetary research, on the Fed’s direct influence upon the economics profession. According to White, in 2005 the Fed employed about 27 percent more full-time macro- and monetary (including banking) economists than the top 50 US academic economics departments combined, while disseminating much of their research gratis through various in-house publications or as working papers. Perhaps not surprisingly, despite a thorough review of such publications, White could not find “a single Fed-published article that calls for eliminating, privatizing, or even restructuring the Fed.” That professional monetary economics journals are not much better may, in turn, reflect the fact, also documented by White, that Fed-affiliated economists also dominate those journals’ editorial boards.



But I doubt that a reluctance to bite the hand that feeds them is the only, or even the most important, reason why most economists seldom question the Fed’s desirability.



Another reason, I suppose, is their desire to distance themselves from… kooks. Let’s face it: more than a few persons who’d like to “End the Fed” want to do so because they think the Rothschilds run it, that it had JFK killed because he planned to revive the silver dollar, and that the basic plan for it was hatched not by the Congressional Committee in charge of monetary reform but by a cabal of Wall Street bankers at a top-secret meeting on Jekyll Island.



Oh, wait: the last claim is actually true. But claims like the others give reasonable and well-informed Fed critics a bad name, while giving others reason for wishing to put as much space as possible between themselves and the anti-Fed fringe.



I’m convinced that imagination, or the lack of it, also plays a part. To some extent, the problem is too much rather than too little imagination. With fiat money, and a discretionary central bank, it’s always theoretically possible to have the money stock (or some other nominal variable) behave just like it ought to, according to whichever macroeconomic theory or model one prefers. In other words, a modern central bank is always technically capable of doing the right thing, just as a chimpanzee jumping on a keyboard is technically capable of typing-out War and Peace.



Just as obviously, any conceivable alternative to a discretionary central bank, whether based on competition and a commodity standard or frozen fiat base or on some other “automatic” mechanisms, is bound to be imperfect, judged relative to some—indeed any—theoretical ideal. Consequently, an economist need only imagine that a central bank might somehow be managed according to his or her own particular monetary policy ideals to reckon it worthwhile to try and nudge it in that direction, but not to consider other conceivable arrangements.



That there’s a fallacy of composition of sorts at play here should be obvious, for a dozen economists might hold as many completely different monetary policy ideals; yet every one might be a Fedophile simply because the Fed could cater to his or her beliefs. In actual fact, of course, the Fed’s conduct can at most satisfy only one of them, and is indeed likely to satisfy none at all, and so might actually prove distinctly inferior to what some non-central bank alternative would achieve. So in letting their imaginations get the best of them, all twelve economists end up endorsing what’s really the inferior option.



If you don’t think economists are really capable of such naivete, I refer you to the literature on currency boards, in which one routinely encounters arguments to the effect that central banks are always better than currency boards because they might be better. Or how about those critics of the gold standard who, having first observed how, under such a standard, gold discoveries will cause inflation, go on to conclude, triumphantly, that a fiat-money issuing central-bank is better because it might keep prices stable?



But if economists let their imaginations run wild in having their ideal central banks stand in for the real McCoys, those same imaginations tend to run dry when it comes to contemplating radical alternatives to the monetary status quo. Regarding conventional beliefs concerning the need for government-run coin factories, which he (rightly) dismissed as so much poppycock, Herbert Spencer observed, “So much more does a realized fact influence us than an imagined one, that had the baking of bread been hitherto carried on by government agents, probably the supply of bread by private enterprise would scarcely be conceived possible, much less advantageous.” Economists who haven’t put any effort into imagining how non-central bank based monetary systems might work find it all too easy to simply suppose that they can’t work, or at least that they can’t work at all well. The workings of decentralized markets are often subtle; while such markets’ ability to solve many difficult coordination problems is, not only mysterious to untrained observers, but often difficult if not impossible even for experts to fathom except by means of painstaking investigations. In comparison monetary central planning is duck soup—on paper, anyway.



Nor does the way monetary economics is taught help. In other subjects, the welfare theorems are taken seriously. In classes on international trade, for example, time is always spent, early on, on the implications of free trade: never mind that the world has never witnessed perfectly free trade, and probably never will; it’s understood that the consequences of tariffs and other sorts of state interference can only be properly assessed by comparing them to the free trade alternative, and no one who hasn’t studied that alternative can expect to have his or her pronouncements about the virtues of protectionism taken seriously.



In classes in monetary economics, on the other hand, the presence of a central bank—a monetary central planner, that is—is assumed from the get-go, and no serious attention is given to the implications of “free trade in money and banking.” Consequently, when most monetary economists talk about the virtues of this or that central bank, they’re mostly talking through their hats, because they haven’t a clue concerning what other institutions might be present, and what they might be up to if the central bank wasn’t there.



Since monetary systems not managed by central banks, including some very successful ones, have in fact existed, economists’ inability to envision such systems is also evidence of their ignorance of economic history. That ignorance in turn, among younger economists at least, is a predictable consequence of the now-orthodox view that history can be safely boiled down to a bunch of correlation coefficients, so that they need only gather enough numbers and run enough regressions to discover everything worth knowing about the past.



Those who’ve been spared such “training,” on the other hand, often have a purblind view of the history of money and banks—one that brings to mind Saul Steinberg’s famous New Yorker cover depicting a 9th-Avenuer’s view of the world, with its almost uninhabited desert between the Hudson and the Pacific, and China, Japan, and Russia barely visible on the horizon. If he or she knows any monetary history at all, the typical (which is to say American) economist knows something about that history in the U.S., and perhaps considerably less about events in Great Britain. Theirs is, in short, just the right amount of knowledge to be very dangerous indeed.



And dangerous it has been. In particular, because the U.S. before 1914, and England before the Bank of England began acting as a lender of last resort, happened to suffer frequent financial crises, economists’ historical nearsightedness has given rise to the conventional wisdom that any fractional-reserve banking system lacking a lender of last resort must be crisis-prone, and two clever (if utterly fantastic) formal models serving to illustrate the same view (or, according to economists’ twisted rhetoric, to “prove” it “rigorously”). It has, correspondingly, led economists to ignore or at least to underestimate the extent to which legal restrictions, including unit banking laws in the U.S. and the six-partner rule in England, contributed to the deficiencies of those countries’ banking systems. Finally, and most regrettably, it has caused economists to overlook altogether the possibility that the monopolization of paper currency has itself been more a cause of than a cure for financial instability.



The good news is that Fedophilia is curable. Milton Friedman, for one, was a recovering Fedophile: later in his career, he repudiated the mostly-conventional arguments he’d once put forward in defense of a currency monopoly. Friedman, of course, was a special case: a famous proponent of free markets, he had more reason than most economists do to view claims of market failure with skepticism, even if he’d once subscribed to them himself. Even so, his was only a half-hearted change of heart, in part (I believe) because he still hadn’t drawn the lessons he might have from the banking experiences of countries other than the U.S. and England.



Friedman’s case suggests that it will take some pretty intense therapy to deprogram other Fed inamoratos, including a regimen of required readings.



Charles Conant’s History of Modern Banks of Issue will help them to overcome their historical parochialism.



Vera Smith’s The Rationale of Central Banking will do more of the same, while also exposing them to the lively debates that took place between advocates and opponents of currency monopolies before the former (supported by their governments’ ravenous Treasuries) swept the field. 



The Experience of Free Banking, edited by Kevin Dowd (with contributions by several Alt-M contributors including yours truly) gathers studies of a number of past, decentralized currency systems, showing how they tended to be more stable than their more centralized counterparts, while another collection, Rondo Cameron’s Banking in the Early Stages of Industrialization, shows that less centralized systems were also better at fostering economic development. Finally, instead of being allowed to merely pay lip service to Walter Bagehot’s Lombard Street, Fedophile’s should be forced, first to read it from cover to cover, and then to re-read out-loud those passages (there are several) in which Bagehot explains that there’d be no need for lenders of last resort had unwise legislation not created centralized (“one reserve”) currency systems in the first place. The last step works especially well in group therapy.



Of course, even the most vigorous deprogramming regimen is unlikely to alter the habits of hard-core Fed enthusiasts. But it might at the very least make them more inclined to engage in serious debate with the Fed’s critics, instead of allowing the Fed’s apologists to go on believing that they answer those critics convincingly simply by rolling their eyes.




Tyler Durden

Sun, 02/16/2020 - 21:00
228
46 Views

Opioid Abusers Also Face Higher Risks Of Death From Suicide, Disease & Car Accidents

zerohedge News opioid abusers also face higher risks death from suicide disease accidents All https://www.zerohedge.com   Discuss    Share
Opioid Abusers Also Face Higher Risks Of Death From Suicide, Disease & Car Accidents

The surge in drug overdose deaths linked to powerful opioids like fentanyl and other analogues will likely be remembered as the defining national health crisis of the 2010s. And as the decade draws to a close, one study found that people who use illicit opioids face an increased risk of other "deaths of despair."





According to CNN, which cited

Read More
findings from the study initially published Thursday in the medical journal JAMA Psychiatry (one of the more well-respected medical journals in the US) users of illicit opioids (i.e. everyone who uses them without a prescription) face an elevated risk of dying from noncommunicable diseases (like heart disease), infectious diseases and viruses (like HIV and Hep C), suicide and other unintentional injuries (like car accidents).





Suicide deaths among the sample group studied occurred at nearly 8x the expected rate, while unintentional injuries occurred at 7x the expected rate. Deaths from interpersonal violence, while still relatively infrequent, occurred at 9x the normal rate, which is also unsurprising. Heroin addicts will often take risks to get high, including trying to rob drug dealers, who often carry guns to ward off such attacks.




"People might be surprised that although overdose was the most common cause of death, it's far from the only cause of death that people using opioids outside a prescription experience at excessive rates," said Sarah Larney, lead author of the study and a senior research fellow at the University of New South Wales' National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in Australia.



"Smoking-related illnesses such as cancer and cardiovascular diseases are common. Trauma is another major factor. People are exposed to car accidents, assaults and other causes of injuries at greater than usual rates, and suicide is also much more common than in the broader population," she said. "It's really clear that although overdose prevention is critical, we also need to look at the range of poor outcomes that people are experiencing, and work to reduce other causes of excess mortality such as suicide, chronic diseases and infectious diseases."




Researchers looked at opioid users across 28 countries, and compared their data to data collected from 124 previously published studies, some that were conducted as far back as Jan. 2009.



Unsurprisingly, researchers found that men faced significantly higher rates of drug-related deaths than women (unsurprising since the majority of hard-drug users are men). Older users also faced significantly higher rates of drug-related deaths.



But among women examined in the study, deaths from HIV were particularly pronounced. That's hardly surprising, since female heroin users will often work as prostitutes to raise money to finance their addictions. Men who consume excessive amounts of alcohol, meanwhile, registered much higher rates of deaths related to liver disease.



Overall, while poisoning- or substance-related deaths were the most common cause of death among opioid users (accounting for 31.5% of deaths), noncommunicable diseases accounted for 24.1% of deaths, while infectious diseases accounted for 19.7% and physical traumas accounted for 18.1%.




"To me the most important message to take from this study is that we need to think beyond the drug. People using opioids are people first and foremost, and have complex health and social needs," Larney said. "Making sure people have access to essential medicines to treat HIV and Hepatitis C; encouraging smoking cessation through access to nicotine replacement therapies; and ensuring access to nutritious food and safe shelter would all go towards reducing the death toll in this population."




A report issued in September by the US Congress Joint Economic Committee entitled "Long-Term Trends in Deaths of Despair"  found that "mortality from deaths of despair far surpasses anything seen in America since the dawn of the 20th century...the recent increase has primarily been driven by an unprecedented epidemic of drug overdoses."



The explosion of opioid use and opioid-related deaths have been the primary drivers of a drop in overall life expectancy in the US for three straight years.



Most of those dying are relatively young white male adults.




Tyler Durden

Fri, 12/27/2019 - 20:45


Tags

Health Medical Pharma
Social Issues


Newsletter
Sign up for our newsletter


Unsubscribe at Anytime | Privacy Policy
Welcome, DisDroidians

Send a donation to get your link on the front page - send 0.5mBTC - Or your RSS feed - send 4mBTC.

Please Donate
Send a donation to get your link on the front page - send 0.2mBTC - Or your RSS feed - send 2mBTC here:

 
 
 

Banner

Most Viewed Stories
Latest Comments
Statistics
Disdroid.co.uk - ranking and value