Latest Posts
Showing posts with label mens health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mens health. Show all posts

Siesta Time. Wake Me when they finish whining..
Men Healthier, Live Longer. Feminists Outraged..

The endless attempts by feminists to argue that men are given priority over tests, surveys and studies is ofcourse their usual attempt at overstating any advantage they "feel" men might have, regardless how dishonest that statement may be. What better way to waylay or sidetrack the obvious discussion than making another false claim or partake in another false statistic which they do so well. Their self constructed, tunnel visioned purvey only demonstrates their well versed ignorance of reality..

Here we have the latest health survey from England which once again demonstrates that men and boys die due to complete lack of services while the privileged princesses wallow in more than they actually need..

Life expectancy has increased for men, but still not anywhere near the PP levels, but it will do so until it surpasses women as they now wallow in the area that have killed and maimed men for so long via mental breakdowns, suicides, heart attacks and other choice conditions that shorten the lifespan. They are welcome to it as we witness feminists besides themselves, explaining just how fabulous it really is to work yourself to death or how to survive until your retirement, for women it's early retirement ofcourse, as the princesses are not that into equality..

Men are paying attention to the new information available on health and wellbeing without having to stand on top of some skyscraper, screaming via a megaphone, just to tell all and sundry how good we are, leave that standard process to the other sex who have perfected it..

The suicide rate use to be about 1 to 4 ratio for females to males and that has apparently reduced unless they are lying about that as well and by readjusting the figures to ensure nothing more will be spent on men's services. If that is the case that male suicides are down, then we must have an increase in females suicide but the figures do not expose that. So there is definitely something weird going on and when that happens it will never advantage males, that is for certain..

By the way, when women or feminists make claim that their sex is responsible for this outcome just think back a decade or two where men were dying 7-8 years earlier (depending where you look) than women were, so that claim can automatically be tossed into the recycle bin before it 's even claimed..


Twenty-first century male life expectancy up 2.8 years

The MHF has welcomed the increase in male life expectancy announced in the latest National Statistics. But warned that this does not tell the whole story.
The figures show that life expectancy at birth in England reached 78.4 years for men and 82.4 years for women in 2008-10. For men, this is an increase of 2.8 years since 1999-01. Female life expectancy increased by 2 years over the same period. As the National Statistics Mortality Monitoring Bulletin puts it: 'Life expectancy is higher for females than for males, although the improvement over the ten years to 2008-10 was greater for males than females, so the gender difference has narrowed.'
However, MHF CEO Peter Baker warned that the headline figures mask some serious causes for concern. 'While there are clearly some improvements for men,' he said. 'There are still huge problems, not least in respect of the inequalities that exist between different groups of men and the growing problems for men in respect of certain conditions auch as diabetes, obesity and melanoma.'
The widening wealth divide in England is reflected in a widening health divide, particularly for women. The gap in male life expectancy between the national average and those in the poorest areas (the so calledSpearhead Group) is 2.1 years - down on recent years but up from the 1.9 year gap seen as recently as 2000-02. For women the divide is 1.7 years (up from 1.4 in 1995-7). Remember this is the gap between the poorest and the average not between richest and poorest.

Suicide rates no longer falling

The fall in suicide rates seems to have ended. But, despite the economic crisis, rates have not increased either. Rates for both males and females have shown a similar trend over the ten years to 2008-10, initially decreasing but remaining broadly unchanged over the last three years. The males rate remains consistently at least three times that for females. For 2008-10, the suicide and undetermined injury mortality rate for Engalnd was 12.2 deaths per 100,000 population for males. For females, the rate was 3.7 deaths per 100,000.
The Mortality Monitoring Bulletin notes that 'suicide mortality rates for recent years may be affected by the increase in the use of narrative verdicts by coroners. This may lead to some deaths being classified as accidental when they are more likely to be intentional, resulting in underestimation of the suicide rate. However, a review by ONS concluded that the impact on the England and Wales suicide rate up to 2009 had not been statistically significant.'
Perhaps the best news for men comes in the accidents statistics. The data for 2008-10 show that the accident mortality rate for England fell by 2.8% on 2007-09, mainly due to a fall in the rate for males. However, the accident mortality for females remains consistently less than half the rate for males. In 2008-10 the rates were 20.4 deaths per 100,000 population for males and 10.1 deaths per 100,000 for females.
The general trend in life expectancy is reflected in the mortality figures from cancer. While the cancer mortality rate is lower for females than for males (99.3 deaths per 100,000 for females compared with 121.9 deaths per 100,000 for males in 2008-10), the improvement in the mortality rate over the ten years to 2008-10 is greater for males than for females (a decrease of 15.7% since 1999-01 for males compared with 13.5% for females).
Mortality rates from circulatory disease -  heart problems and the like - are well down. In 2008-10, the rate in England was 95.2 deaths per 100,000 population for males, a decrease of 40.6% since 1999-01. However, again the circulatory diseases mortality rate for females remains consistently less than half the rate for males over the ten year period to 2008-10.

This is fantastic, more and more recognition after much effort by a lot of people and finally some result. Hopefully this will indeed spread like the "Movember" promotion that has worked so well..
Just a simple idea and to what affect ?..

LA goes blue for prostate cancer awareness monthby 

NCFM Member Ray Blumhorst and Prostate Cancer Blue Lights
October 14, 2011
By NCFM
Los Angeles City Hall going blue.

“Person by person, group by group, the prostate cancer blue movement appears to be taking root nicely.

LA City Hall is going blue for the first time ever September 16-18.

Prostate cancer advocates who have long yearned to see more blue each September as part of National Prostate Cancer Awareness month should be encouraged this year. It appears that, through pure determination and stubbornness, we are making progress. Next week in Los Angeles, major landmarks such as LA City Hall, the Capitol Records Building, Los Angeles International Airport, The Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel and others are lighting up blue to broadcast the message of awareness and the importance of early detection and treatment. The same is happening in Atlanta and other cities…

Ray Blumhorst is one of many American men who are shedding light on prostate cancer this year.

Ray Blumhorst

‘After cleaning my front porch fixture, and installing the new blue light bulb, I shot this photo using the camera’s self-timer. As I was taking one photo, some neighbors passed by and said, “Say cheese.” I didn’t say anything as the camera was timing down, but I think my little blue light bulb is already starting to bring some attention to the scourge of prostate cancer,” says Ray Blumhorst, who got his blue bulb up several days in advance of Prostate Cancer Awareness month.’”

You can read the rest of the article on prostate survivor Dan Zenka’s blog at click here. And, nice work Mr. Zenka… and, Mr. Blumhorst.


Source: click here

h/t to the Men's Rights Blog..

One of the reasons for my interest in this topic is that I have been trying to raise some awareness about this silent, insidious, killer that appears to be an irrelevancy in the stream of things as it only affects men and not women. It is therefore irrelevant and insignificant in chasing the vagina vote..

Over the last few years, some courageous guys have instigated efforts to raise funding as the gubmints were giving all and sundry away to the opposite sex and came up with a winner called "Movember". This is a winner and demonstrates clearly the need for it's recognition and funding but ignored ofcourse..

On top of that ofcourse is that we do not have a Men's Health Department and I wonder why ?


Blumhorst on prostate cancer



I was reading at the National Coalition For Men's website about an article by LA Chapter President Ray Blumhorst where he discusses prostate cancer. Here is what he said:

Prostate cancer strikes one in six men but gets very little funding for research
August 16, 2011
By NCFM
By Ray Blumhorst

President, NCFM Los Angeles

Here’s an important public service announcement from the Prostate Cancer Foundation called “Keep Dad in the Game. Keep Dad in the Game Youtube video

Prostate cancer strikes one out of six men, but prostate cancer research gets only a fraction of the annual funding that breast cancer research receives.

The number of men who contract prostate cancer is about the same as the number of women getting breast cancer. The disparity in annual, government research funding between the two cancers is striking and discriminatory, illustrating yet again the institutionalized misandry existing in Western societies, in my opinion.

This is an imbalance that must not be tolerated. We have to protest this imbalance.

Ray · 1 week ago
Of the fifteen leading causes of death in America: men lead in 12 categories, are tied in two with women, while women lead in only one category.

In America, there is an Office of Women's Health at the federal level, and one each at the state and county levels in Los Angeles , California. There is no Office of Men's Health in any of those places.

Why is men's health given such low priority in so many areas by so many social institutions?

Ray makes an interesting and valid point: why is there no health commission for men like there is for women? That's because it is up to us to make that happen. The only way we can make that happen is to lobby our elected leaders at the federal and state levels and protest this injustice;that we will not stand for it and we need to do this in large numbers if we are to be effective. Send in those emails today without delay.

Also at the state levels is different that the federal level. For example in the State Of California the only service available to men is prostate cancer screening and testing,which is great but prostate cancer is not the only cancer that befalls men. There is also penile and testicular cancer that rarely gets discussed,even by MRA's,but should be. Now compare that to the extensive Women's health section. The Men's Health page,the Women's Health page and a web page where both are listed. Let us not forget the State of California Office of Women's Health but no Office of Men's Health.Now that we can compare how the State Of California views men we can conclude that the State Of California doesn't give a fuck about men and the brothers in that state need to do some emailing to their elected officials and protest this injustice. Other states may be better or worse so yahoo or google to find out.

Here we have the typical anti male bias that government departments have introduced and maintain at all costs. The blatant sexism demonstrated must be overcome and equality must be reintroduced so both sexes have the same rights as each orther. Unfotunately, this is one issue that feminists fight every which way they can. They do not give a damn about Men's Health or violence against against men and boys in any way, shape or form, as all they are interested in is maintaining the status quo while men pay, in more ways that ever before..


 Mandate for DV Screening Is A Slap in the Face to Men.

Dear Christian,
  
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released its Women's Preventive Services requirements for qualified health plans yesterday. Some of the rules are reasonable, like screening for diabetes in pregnant women.

But the document requires that health plans conduct "screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence" on an annual basis for women...but not men:http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines 

The rule was issued exactly three weeks after Catherine Becker of California drugged and bound her husband. Then she severed and disposed of his genitalia. If he had sought medical care prior to the incident and the doctor had performed an abuse screening, it's possible the gruesome event never would have occurred.

When the rules were announced, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius explained, "These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature." Over 250 studies show women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner violence. A rule that mandates domestic violence screening only for women ignores science and ridicules the notion of gender equity.

Contact Secretary Sebelius RIGHT NOW atKathleen.sebelius@hhs.gov . Then call Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Howard Koh at 202-690-7694.

Respectfully tell them the DV screening requirement of the Women's Preventive Services guideines is unreasonable and a slap in the face to male victims of domestic violence. Tell them to promptly revise the discriminatory guideline to include both men and women.
  
Sincerely,

Teri



Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
  

P.S. Help us grow our efforts....forward this E-lert to a friend!