408-854-1883 starts at $30 per hr home care

Affordable in home care | starts at $28 per hr

Hire caregiver, find care home, schedule transport, seek nutrition consult

Call Text 408-854-1883 or (650) 946-3368 or email motherhealth@gmail.com if you need the following in the bay area:

Hire a caregiver

Caregivers for 24-hr care or 4-hr care are trained and monitored by case managers to match your needs and caregiving tasks include: assistance in daily living, medication management, cooking, light housekeeping, massage, help with exercise, driving, companion and other non-medical home care tasks to support your independence and health goals.

Find a care home, assisted living facility, nursing home or a senior care facility

A care home consist of 6 clients with 2-3 caregivers for 24-hr care in a residential facility, mostly non medical care.

An assisted living facility has many perks, a dining, a concierge, a nursing staff and in same facility can combine with a nursing facility. In some assisted living facilities, all the amenities of a senior center, high end apartment and care facility is combined in one place.

Nursing home is staffed with medical staff from nurses to doctors to provide 24/7  medical care.  After staying in this facility with a rehab facility combined, a senior can go home provided an in home caregiver is available for 24-hr care. Some clients in this facility are needing hospice care and are  terminally ill.

Schedule a transport

We can schedule Uber, a non medical transport or a medical transport for you.

Seek nutrition consult

We work with your primary care doctor to know what medications and foods are allowed and add more holistic approach and personalized menu plan and monitoring for your needs.

Buy a health product/tools

We can deliver diapers, lotion, gloves, and other tools such as anti-oxidant scanner, glucose meter and other health care products including tests (blood tests, EXOME DNA tests, Gut Microbiome tests) that you need as a doctor or as a health consumer.

card motherhealth

Trump’s Horrifying Long Island Speech Is Straight Out Of Hitler’s Playbook

You Might Like

Infants Know What We Like Best

Infants Know What We Like Best

Summary: Researchers discover infants as young as 8 months look for consistent behavioral patterns and are able to make judgments about other people’s preferences based on probabilities calculated from observed events.

Source: WUSTL.

Behind the chubby cheeks and bright eyes of babies as young as 8 months lies the smoothly whirring mind of a social statistician, logging our every move and making odds on what a person is most likely to do next, suggests new research in the journal Infancy.

“Even before they can talk, babies are keeping close track of what’s going on in front of them and looking for patterns of activity that may suggest preferences,” said study co-author Lori Markson, associate professor of psychological and brain sciences and director of the Cognition & Development Lab at Washington University in St. Louis. “Make the same choice three or four times in a row, and babies as young as 8 months come to view that consistent behavior as a preference.”

The findings demonstrated that infants look for consistent patterns of behavior and make judgments about people’s preferences based on simple probabilities calculated from observed events and actions.

Co-led by Yuyan Luo, an associate professor of psychological sciences at the University of Missouri-Columbia, the study may shed light on how infants and young children learn about people’s preferences for a certain kind of food, toy or activity. It might also explain why kids always seem to want the toy that someone else is playing with.

“Consistency seems to be an important factor for infants in helping them sort out what’s happening in the world around them,” Markson said. “Our findings suggest that, if a person does something different even a single time, it undoes the notion of someone having a clear preference and changes an infant’s expectations for that individual’s behavior. In other words, if you break the routine, all bets are off in terms of what they expect from you.”

The findings confirmed that infants as young as 8 months are already developing the ability to see the world through someone else’s eyes, to sense what another person may or may not know, think or believe about a situation.

Because babies can’t tell us what they’re thinking, researchers had previously speculated that the ability to see life from someone else’s perspective did not develop until about 4 years of age. But more recent research over the past decade gets around this spoken-language barrier by relying on a proven premise — that babies spend much more time looking at events they consider to be new and unusual.

In this study, Markson and Luo conducted a series of experiments to track how infant “looking times” changed when an actor made an unexpected choice between one of two stuffed-animal toys displayed before the infant on a small puppet stage.

They corroborated these findings using a similar experiment that tracked whether infants, when asked to give a toy to the actor, would reach more often for the toy consistently chosen by the actor in previous trials, thus implying that the infant understood the actor’s preference.

The experiments were conducted on a sample of 60 healthy, full-term infants with an even split of males and females ranging in age from 7 to 9 months and an average age of 8 1/2 months.

Seated on a parent’s lap, the infants watched as a young woman reached out and grabbed one of two stuffed animals on the stage, either a white-and-brown dog or a yellow duck with orange beak and a purple bonnet.

During the “familiarization” phase of these experiments, the toy selection process was repeated four times under three separate conditions.

Image shows a baby.

In the “consistent” condition, a woman in a blue or black shirt picked up the yellow duck four times in a row. In the “inconsistent” condition, the same woman picked up the duck three times and the dog once. And, in the “two actor” condition, the woman in the blue shirt selected the duck three times, while another woman in a white shirt selected the dog once.

After each four-trial familiarization phase, the researcher observed the babies’ reactions as the women reappeared on the stage and made a fifth selection, either going back to the previously targeted duck or making a new selection of the dog.

Two trained observers watched the babies’ reactions through concealed peepholes and independently coded the babies’ “looking time” responses based on seconds spent watching each toy-selection event. Video cameras captured both the babies’ reactions and the toy-selection process so that response time coding could be further analyzed and confirmed.

Findings confirmed that the babies spent about 50 percent more time looking at selections that represented a break from consistent patterns made in the familiarization trials.

“Infants who saw someone make the same choice three or four times in a row showed clear signs of being surprised when that person did not follow the same pattern in the future,” Markson said. “They obviously paid more attention to actions that did not fit their assumptions about what toys the women appeared to prefer most.”

In a second phase of the study, researchers reaffirmed their findings using a variation on the experiment in which the women who had chosen the stuffed animals during the trial phase asked the infant to choose between two toys by saying: “Can you give it to me? Can you give me the toy?”

In this variation, the infants also seemed to have made assumptions about the women’s toy preferences, reaching for the stuffed animal that had been consistently chosen by the woman during the trial phase.

“Our study is the first one to show how inconsistent choices affect infants’ understanding about others’ preferences,” Markson said. “Based on these findings, we hope to further explore how ratios of consistent/inconsistent choices matter to infants and eventually compare infants’ understanding to adults’ knowledge about others’ choices.”

ABOUT THIS NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH ARTICLE

Other co-authors include Laura Hennefield, a postdoctoral research associate at Washington University; and Yi Mou and Kristy van Marle of the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Source: Chuck Finder – WUSTL
Image Source: NeuroscienceNews.com image is adapted from the WUSTL news release.
Video Source: Video credited to Washington University in St. Louis.
Original Research: Full open access research for “Infants’ Understanding of Preferences When Agents Make Inconsistent Choices” by Yuyan Luo, Laura Hennefield, Yi Mou, Kristy vanMarle, and Lori Markson in Infancy. Published online May 26 2017 doi:10.1111/infa.12194

CITE THIS NEUROSCIENCENEWS.COM ARTICLE
WUSTL “Infants Know What We Like Best.” NeuroscienceNews. NeuroscienceNews, 28 July 2017.
<http://neurosciencenews.com/social-behavior-infants-7201/&gt;.

Abstract

Infants’ Understanding of Preferences When Agents Make Inconsistent Choices

This study showed that 8.5-month-old infants seemed to consider the consistency of an agent’s choices in attributing preferences to her. When the agent consistently chose one object over another, three or four times consecutively, infants acted as if they had interpreted her actions as evidence for her preference. In contrast, when the agent inconsistently chose between the two objects, at the ratio of 1:3, infants did not seem to interpret her actions as suggesting her preference. Converging evidence was obtained from infants’ responses across a looking-time task and an action task. The results are discussed in terms of how infants might use frequencies of agents’ actions directed toward different objects to understand agents’ preferences.

“Infants’ Understanding of Preferences When Agents Make Inconsistent Choices” by Yuyan Luo, Laura Hennefield, Yi Mou, Kristy vanMarle, and Lori Markson in Infancy. Published online May 26 2017 doi:10.1111/infa.12194

What do we do if Trump really is crazy?

Most Read
  • 1

    Trump names Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly as White House chief of staff, ousting Reince Priebus
  • 2

    PerspectiveMark this date: Donald Trump is now a lame-duck president
  • 3

    AnalysisThe Daily 202: Trump’s hardball tactics backfire as ‘skinny repeal’ goes down
  • 4

    AnalysisTrump’s speech encouraging police to be ‘rough,’ annotated
  • 5

    The night John McCain killed the GOP’s health-care fight

Binding or cross linking of glucose to protein damages tissues

The role of collagen crosslinks in ageing and diabetes – the good, the bad, and the ugly

Jess G. Snedeker1 and Alfonso Gautieri2

Summary
The non-enzymatic reaction of proteins with glucose (glycation) is a topic of rapidly growing importance in human health and medicine. There is increasing evidence that this reaction plays a central role in ageing and disease of connective tissues. Of particular interest are changes in type-I collagens, long-lived proteins that form the mechanical backbone of connective tissues in nearly every human organ. Despite considerable correlative evidence relating extracellular matrix (ECM) glycation to disease, little is known of how ECM modification by glucose impacts matrix mechanics and damage, cell-matrix interactions, and matrix turnover during aging.

More daunting is to understand how these factors interact to cumulatively affect local repair of matrix damage, progression of tissue disease, or systemic health and longevity. This focused review will summarize what is currently known regarding collagen glycation as a potential driver of connective tissue disease. We concentrate attention on tendon as an affected connective tissue with large clinical relevance, and as a tissue that can serve as a useful model tissue for investigation into glycation as a potentially critical player in tissue fibrosis related to ageing and diabetes.

Keywords: collagen, advanced glycation end-products, crosslinks, tendon mechanics, diabetes, ageing

Setting the stage: central functional roles of collagen

The term collagen comes from the Greek word κολλα (kolla, meaning “glue”), due to the use of animal skin and collagen-rich tissues a glue source1. In a broader sense, collagen is in fact the “glue” of our body, holding it together by providing elasticity and strength to most tissues where mechanical function is essential, such as skin, cartilage, tendons and bones 2,3.

The collagen family of proteins is the most abundant in the human body – representing a basic building block within nearly every tissue and organ. Collagen structures form largely by cell-mediated self-assembly of small collagen molecules (300 nm in length; circumscribable with an approximate 1.5 nm diameter)4. During the process of collagen self-assembly, various types of inter-molecular crosslinks stabilize the helical supramolecular structures that form. Collagen crosslinks can be conceptually classed as either enzymatic or non-enzymatic, with enzymatic crosslinking representing an essential step in the development and repair of collagen connective tissues. Whether in the early stages of embryonic tendon development or the late stages of connective tissue disease, collagen crosslinks play a key role in tissue mechanics, cell signaling, matrix damage accumulation, and tissue repair.

Cell-matrix interactions involving collagen include a wide range of classical receptor-ligand mediated signaling pathways5. Nonetheless the main functional feature of most collagens (this review will focus on type-I collagen) is mechanical load bearing of tensile force.The mechanical function of any connective tissue results from often highly sophisticated architectural arrangement of collagen substructures, along with other elastic extracellular matrix proteins such as elastin, and water binding proteoglycans. Although soft connective tissues of the body are composed of nearly identical basic molecular building blocks, their varied arrangement makes possible an exquisite range of potential tissue mechanical properties. The cells that mediate the functional assembly of these building blocks do so according to their epigenetic pre-program as guided by the mechanical demands on the tissue.

Within any collagenous connective tissue, the functional building blocks that provide tensile strength and elasticity are called collagen “fibrils”. The collagen fibril is a helically arranged supramolecular structure that can range in diameter from a few to several hundred nanometers, with lengths that can run on the order of centimeters6. How collagen molecules are accrued into these structures (a process known as fibrillogenesis) relies on sequences of elegant intracellular and extracellular events that, while fascinating, are outside the scope of the present review. Current evidence suggests that the mature collagen fibrils resulting from fibrillogenesis are highly elastic structures – meaning that they mechanically load and unload in a mostly reversible fashion. To be able to reversibly load and unload, without damage, is the defining functional requirement of these protein superstructures. Collagen cross linking is a central enabler (and potential disabler) of this function.

The good: enzyme mediated collagen cros-slinking

The mechanical competence of individual type-I collagen fibrils heavily depends on the enzyme lysyl oxidase, which regulates the robust formation of stable inter-molecular collagen crosslinks during maturation7. The absence of these head to tail chemical bonds drastically diminishes collagen fibril strength and whole tissue function8,9. Lysyl oxidase specifically acts on lysine or hydroxylysine in the telopeptide region of the collagen molecule, and results in a divalent, immature crosslink with an opposing amino-acid in the triple-helical region10. These immature crosslinks later spontaneously convert into more stable trivalent crosslinks that increase collagen interconnectivity, fibril stability and whole tendon mechanical integrity (for excellent reviews)7,11.

Simple biochemical correlations of native crosslink content with tendon mechanical properties are rather weak12–15, reflecting the likely confounding influence of other dominant structural or compositional factors16. The essential functional role of crosslinking in collagen fibril stability and whole tissue integrity, however, is clearly demonstrated in the severely compromised connective tissues of animals subjected to dietary inhibition of lysyl oxidase, which results in collagen fibrils and tendons with reduced strength8,9. The importance of crosslinks to fibril integrity has been indicated theoretically17 and demonstrated experimentally9,18 by balancing molecular slip and stretch under load.

The importance of crosslinking in preventing molecular slippage and resultant fibrillar damage can also be inferred from the decreased thermal stability of ten-dons that is known to take place after sub-maximal tissue overload19. Given that lysyl oxidase mediated crosslinks are so essential to the proper development of fibril structure and mechanical integrity, these are perhaps the best-characterized collagen crosslinkers.

The bad: advanced glycation endproduct crosslinking

While enzyme driven crosslinking plateaus at maturation, connective tissue stiffness has been shown to further increase with age and diabetes20–26. This tissue stiffening has been associated with non-enzymatic, oxidative reactions between glucose and collagen which lead to the formation of so-called advanced glycation end-products (AGEs)27,28. AGE accumulation is particularly high in long-lived proteins, such as collagen. Indeed, collagen half-life varies between tissues but remains generally large, from 1–2 years for bone collagen to about 10 years for type I in skin29. The low biological turnover of collagen makes it therefore susceptible to interaction with metabolites, primarily glucose. Aside from protein longevity, another factor that influences the formation of AGEs is the glucose level in the blood stream. Hyperglycemia related to diabetes is suspected to strongly predispose tissues of these patients to accumulation of AGEs30,31.

The glycation reaction initiates with the formation of a reversible Schiff base between a carbohydrate – typically glucose – and a protein amino group (e.g., a collagen lysine side-chain) (Fig. 1). The unstable Schiff base becomes a stable intermediate keto amine, often designated asa so-called Amadori product. Afterwards, a complex series of reactions (over the course of months or years) lead to various metabolic by-products of glycolysis including the products glyoxal, methyl glyoxal (MGO) and 3-deoxyglucosone, all of which can interact with extracellular proteins to form AGEs32. Some AGEs can bridge between the free amino groups of neigh boring proteins to form inter-molecular crosslinks, while others known as ‘adducts’ affect only a single protein33. Among the different AGEs, the most abundant in collagen tissues has been recently found to be glucosepane, a lysinearginine crosslink34,35.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
(Left) Schematic of the sequence of metabolic chemical reactions behind AGE formation (e.g. pentosidine)72 and (Right) how such products may form adducts and/or crosslinks on collagen structures39.
So far, there is no direct experimental evidence linking AGEs with increases in collagen fibril stiffness, which in turn would cause increased stiffness at higher levels of tissue architecture. Although the mechanical effects of AGEs at the molecular and supramolecular levels are poorly understood, this link seems plausible and has been widely presumed to exist on the basis of the well documented correlation between AGE markers (pentosidine; auto-fluorescence) and increasing tissue stiffness36.

The ugly: functional consequences of AGEs in connective tissue

Despite the recognized importance of AGEs in the development of age – and diabetes – related conditions, there are still several important open questions regarding their role in the onset and progression of connective tissue disease. These can be broadly divided into two functional classes, biological and bio-mechanical.

The biological aspect relates primarily to collagen-protein and collagen-cell interactions. Here, the formation of AGEs (adducts or crosslinks) on specific amino acids involved in intermolecular recognition could lead to the dramatic modification of the interaction of collagen with other molecules such as proteoglycans (PGs), enzymes (e.g., collagenase) and cell integrins. AGEs modify the collagen surface and are known to affect cell-matrix interactions in a manner leading to inhibited wound repair and exacerbated inflammation37,38. A recent modeling study39 based on atomistic model of collagen40 has shown that collagen amino acids that are most likely prone to form glucosepane crosslinks (due to their position and configuration) are found close to collagenase and cell integrin binding sites, as well as near interaction domain for heparin and keratansulphate. These findings resonate with experimental investigations showing that collagen glycation induces a reduced affinity for heparin and keratansulphate proteoglycans (but not for dermatansulphate and decorin) as well as reduced endothelial cell migration41. Protein glycation ultimately stimulate cellular production of reactive oxygen species, and the activation of inflammatory signaling cascades via AGE signaling receptors (RAGEs)42.

On the other hand, nonenzymatic intermolecular crosslinking are believed to alter the biomechanics of collagenous tissue. Glucose reaction with the amino acid side-chains, and subsequent further reaction to form a crosslink with an adjacent collagen molecule, results in a modification of the physical properties of the collagen, but the detailed effects of AGEs on collagen mechanics at the different hierarchical scales are still poorly understood.

While these intermolecular crosslinks have been tied to higher failure loads, stiffness, and denaturation temperatures, they are also associated with increased mechanical fragility of the tissue. AGE crosslinks have also been implicated in reduced remodeling capacity, a concept that has been demonstrated in vitro as reduced sensitivity to collagenase.

How collagen crosslinks affect whole tendon function is complex, as indicated by an increased failure load of individual collagen fibers that paradoxically yields diminished tissue failure properties. The picture is further muddied by contradictory reports in the literature that have inconsistently correlated crosslink density to tissue stiffness13,44,47–52. In an attempt to eliminate potentially confounding effects of genotype, systemic alterations due to age or disease state, and lifestyle, some studies have investigated the effects of crosslinking by direct incubation of tendon with a range of sugars and/or aldehydes solutions, serving as valuable models for ageing and diabetes (Fig. 2).

These studies have generally well-mimicked the structural changes of collagen fibrils that have been found in vivo, but these studies clearly associate AGE crosslinks to tissue stiffening and brittleness.

Such changes are potentially critical, since altered extracellular matrix mechanics will subsequently affect the mechanical stimuli that drive resident cell behavior and regulate cellular repair of matrix damage. It is more than feasible that age-related mechanical changes in the collagen matrix could thus play a role in loss of tissue homeostasis and ability to cope with the micro-damage that accumulates in everyday life27,28.
Crosslinking by AGEs induces various physical changes in type-I collagen dominated tissues. In the left-most panels, it can be seen that incubation of rat tail tendon fascicles in high concentrations of metabolite methylglyoxal (MGO) clearly affects tissue …
Clinical experience suggests that aged and diabetic connective tissues appear stiffer to the touch than healthy tissues, although changes in stiffness cannot be explained by increased collagen content alone.

Aged and diabetic tissues are also accompanied by characteristic yellowing of the collagen matrix that accords with experimental evidence indicating age-related decreases in collagen solubility and heightened collagen resistance to protease breakdown. These phenomena have been causally linked to non-enzymatic glycation of proteins.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4241420/

 

Suicides rates per countries in 2015

Suicides per 100,000 people per year (age standardized)
Both sexes
rank
Country Both sexes Male
rank
Male Female
rank
Female Male to Female
ratio
1  Sri Lanka (more info) 34.6 1 58.8 9 13.3 4.42
2  Guyana (more info) 30.6 5 46.0 1 15.5 2.97
3  Mongolia 28.1 2 48.2 21 9.2 5.24
4  Kazakhstan (more info) 27.5 3 48.1 17 9.6 5.01
5  Cote d’Ivoire 27.2 8 38.8 3 14.4 2.69
6  Suriname 26.9 6 41.6 11 12.6 3.3
7  Equatorial Guinea 26.6 7 39.1 10 13.2 2.96
8  Lithuania (more info) 26.1 4 47.1 30 8.1 5.81
9  Angola 25.9 9 38.1 5 14.3 2.66
10  South Korea (more info) 24.1 10 36.1 8 13.4 2.69
11  Sierra Leone 22.1 16 29.7 2 14.7 2.02
12  Bolivia 20.5 21 26.7 3 14.4 1.85
13  Central African Republic 19.6 15 30.3 20 9.3 3.26
14  Belarus 19.1 11 35.0 81 5.4 6.48
15  Poland 18.5 12 32.7 93 4.9 6.67
16  Zimbabwe 18.0 20 26.9 12 10.3 2.61
17  Russia (more info) 17.9 13 32.2 72 5.6 5.75
17  Swaziland 17.9 18 27.3 17 9.6 2.84
19  Cameroon 17.5 19 27.1 26 8.5 3.19
20  Latvia 17.4 14 31.9 95 4.8 6.65
21  Ukraine (more info) 16.6 17 28.7 54 6.2 4.63
22  Burkina Faso 16.5 25 25.1 13 10.1 2.49
23  Belgium 16.1 30 23.4 23 9.1 2.57
24  India (more info) 16.0 65 17.9 7 14.2 1.26
25  Hungary 15.7 23 25.8 42 6.9 3.74
26  Japan (more info) 15.4 36 21.7 21 9.2 2.36
26  Togo 15.4 32 23.1 25 8.7 2.66
28  Uruguay 15.2 24 25.2 49 6.3 4.0
28  North Korea 15.2 72 17.3 6 14.3 1.21
30  Nigeria 15.1 42 20.3 14 9.9 2.05
31  Slovenia 15.0 26 24.5 60 6.0 4.08
31  Benin 15.0 33 22.7 28 8.4 2.7
33  Estonia 14.9 22 26.4 95 4.8 5.5
34  Kiribati 14.8 29 23.6 46 6.6 3.58
35  Finland 14.2 37 21.4 39 7.2 2.97
35  Chad 14.2 38 20.9 32 7.9 2.65
37  Laos 14.0 53 18.5 14 9.9 1.87
38  Argentina 13.9 28 23.7 95 4.8 4.94
39  Lesotho 13.6 45 19.9 29 8.2 2.43
40  Eritrea 13.2 30 23.4 81 5.4 4.33
40  Trinidad and Tobago 13.2 34 22.4 103 4.5 4.98
42  Burundi 13.0 42 20.3 49 6.3 3.22
43  Mozambique (more info) 12.9 41 20.5 43 6.7 3.06
44  Ethiopia 12.8 39 20.7 72 5.6 3.7
44  Cambodia 12.8 65 17.9 26 8.5 2.11
46  Thailand 12.7 58 18.2 33 7.7 2.36
46  Sweden 12.7 68 17.8 35 7.6 2.34
48  Uganda 12.6 56 18.3 35 7.6 2.41
48  United States (more info) 12.6 46 19.5 66 5.8 3.36
48  Rwanda 12.6 27 24.3 119 3.5 6.94
48  Botswana 12.6 46 19.5 54 6.2 3.15
52  Moldova 12.5 35 22.3 112 3.9 5.72
52  Gabon 12.5 60 18.1 40 7.0 2.59
54  Comoros 12.3 74 17.2 31 8.0 2.15
54  France (more info) 12.3 51 19.0 64 5.9 3.22
54  New Zealand 12.3 52 18.7 49 6.3 2.97
54  South Africa 12.3 39 20.7 90 5.1 4.06
58  Democratic Republic of the Congo 12.2 72 17.3 38 7.3 2.37
59  Bhutan (more info) 12.1 100 13.9 14 9.9 1.4
59  Serbia 12.1 46 19.5 77 5.5 3.55
59  Croatia 12.1 49 19.2 69 5.7 3.37
62  Papua New Guinea 11.9 60 18.1 64 5.9 3.07
62  Congo 11.9 65 17.9 58 6.1 2.93
62  Cape Verde 11.9 53 18.5 40 7.0 2.64
65  Iceland 11.8 74 17.2 49 6.3 2.73
65  Senegal 11.8 44 20.2 86 5.2 3.88
67  Austria 11.7 53 18.5 84 5.3 3.49
67  Haiti 11.7 70 17.7 60 6.0 2.95
69  Gambia 11.6 87 15.5 33 7.7 2.01
70  Sudan 11.4 78 16.6 49 6.3 2.63
70  Guinea 11.4 87 15.5 37 7.5 2.07
72  Zambia 11.2 58 18.2 91 5.0 3.64
72  Bulgaria 11.2 56 18.3 95 4.8 3.81
72  Micronesia 11.2 85 15.7 43 6.7 2.34
75  Ireland 11.1 63 18.0 108 4.2 4.29
76  Tanzania 11.0 79 16.5 66 5.8 2.84
76  El Salvador 11.0 49 19.2 106 4.4 4.36
76  Maldives 11.0 110 13.1 24 8.9 1.47
79  Ghana 10.9 68 17.8 112 3.9 4.56
80  Malawi 10.8 63 18.0 95 4.8 3.75
80  Djibouti 10.8 90 15.4 48 6.5 2.37
82   Switzerland 10.7 87 15.5 60 6.0 2.58
83  Czech Republic 10.6 70 17.7 112 3.9 4.54
84  Kenya 10.5 76 17.1 103 4.5 3.8
84  Cuba 10.5 77 17.0 108 4.2 4.05
84  Mali 10.5 95 14.5 43 6.7 2.16
87  Australia 10.4 91 15.3 72 5.6 2.73
87  Canada (more info) 10.4 91 15.3 72 5.6 2.73
87  Namibia 10.4 80 16.4 77 5.5 2.98
90  Turkmenistan 10.3 84 15.8 86 5.2 3.04
90  Liberia 10.3 82 16.1 93 4.9 3.29
92  Slovakia 9.9 60 18.1 141 2.5 7.24
92  Paraguay 9.9 102 13.7 58 6.1 2.25
94  Nicaragua 9.8 83 15.9 108 4.2 3.79
94  Mauritania 9.8 95 14.5 69 5.7 2.54
96  South Sudan 9.6 97 14.3 81 5.4 2.65
97  Guinea-Bissau 9.5 104 13.6 66 5.8 2.34
98  Solomon Islands 9.4 102 13.7 91 5.0 2.74
98  Netherlands 9.4 111 12.9 60 6.0 2.15
98  Timor-Leste 9.4 109 13.2 72 5.6 2.36
98  Yemen 9.4 114 12.6 54 6.2 2.03
102  Norway 9.3 111 12.9 69 5.7 2.26
103  Romania 9.2 80 16.4 141 2.5 6.56
103  Uzbekistan 9.2 104 13.6 86 5.2 2.62
105  Chile 9.1 91 15.3 125 3.3 4.64
105  Germany 9.1 100 13.9 103 4.5 3.09
105  Denmark 9.1 106 13.5 101 4.7 2.87
108  Fiji 8.9 106 13.5 107 4.3 3.14
109  Mauritius 8.8 99 14.0 116 3.7 3.78
110  Montenegro 8.7 118 12.4 84 5.3 2.34
110  Seychelles 8.7 85 15.7 158 1.9 8.26
112  Somalia 8.6 113 12.7 95 4.8 2.65
112  Turkey 8.6 114 12.6 101 4.7 2.68
112  Singapore 8.6 121 11.9 77 5.5 2.16
115  Luxembourg 8.5 123 11.6 86 5.2 2.23
115  Portugal 8.5 97 14.3 116 3.7 3.86
115  China (more info) 8.5 146 7.7 19 9.5 0.811
115  Niger 8.5 124 11.5 77 5.5 2.09
119  Belize 8.3 94 14.7 153 2.0 7.35
120  Kyrgyzstan 8.2 108 13.4 122 3.4 3.94
121  Madagascar 8.0 117 12.5 112 3.9 3.21
122  Ecuador 7.6 124 11.5 116 3.7 3.11
123  United Kingdom (more info) 7.4 122 11.7 129 3.2 3.66
124  Costa Rica 7.3 114 12.6 153 2.0 6.3
124  Dominican Republic 7.3 119 12.2 139 2.6 4.69
126    Nepal (more info) 7.2 142 8.2 54 6.2 1.32
126  Vietnam 7.2 127 11.3 122 3.4 3.32
128  Afghanistan 7.1 128 10.9 130 3.1 3.52
129  Samoa 7.0 126 11.4 136 2.8 4.07
129  Vanuatu 7.0 129 10.8 125 3.3 3.27
131  Bahrain 6.9 135 9.5 132 2.9 3.28
132  Saint Lucia 6.7 120 12.0 164 1.6 7.5
133  Malaysia 6.5 135 9.5 122 3.4 2.79
134  Republic of Macedonia 6.4 132 9.9 130 3.1 3.19
135  Bangladesh (more info) 6.0 161 5.3 46 6.6 0.803
135  Brazil 6.0 134 9.6 138 2.7 3.56
135  Colombia 6.0 130 10.1 150 2.1 4.81
135  Spain 6.0 137 9.4 132 2.9 3.24
135  Peru 6.0 138 9.2 132 2.9 3.17
135  Libya 6.0 138 9.2 136 2.8 3.29
141  Qatar 5.7 147 7.3 170 1.2 6.08
142  Panama 5.6 130 10.1 173 1.1 9.18
143  Israel 5.4 140 8.7 147 2.3 3.78
143  Italy 5.4 140 8.7 148 2.2 3.95
143  Tunisia 5.4 151 6.7 111 4.1 1.63
146  Georgia 5.3 133 9.7 166 1.5 6.47
147  Morocco 5.2 150 7.0 119 3.5 2.0
148  Malta 5.0 142 8.2 153 2.0 4.1
148  Mexico 5.0 144 8.1 150 2.1 3.86
150  Tajikistan 4.9 148 7.2 141 2.5 2.88
151  Oman 4.8 153 6.4 153 2.0 3.2
152  Armenia 4.6 145 8.0 161 1.8 4.44
153  Myanmar 4.5 154 5.9 125 3.3 1.79
154  Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.4 149 7.1 159 1.9 3.74
155  Honduras 4.2 155 5.8 139 2.6 2.23
156  Iraq 4.1 169 4.8 119 3.5 1.37
156  Kuwait 4.1 157 5.7 150 2.1 2.71
156  Tonga 4.1 166 5.1 125 3.3 1.55
159  Cyprus 3.9 151 6.7 176 1.0 6.7
159  Jordan 3.9 161 5.3 144 2.4 2.21
159  Saudi Arabia 3.9 158 5.5 148 2.2 2.5
162  Albania 3.8 161 5.3 144 2.4 2.21
162  Philippines 3.8 155 5.8 159 1.9 3.05
164  Iran 3.6 172 4.2 132 2.9 1.45
165  Greece 3.2 159 5.4 170 1.2 4.5
165  Syria 3.2 165 5.2 170 1.2 4.33
167  Venezuela 3.1 159 5.4 173 1.1 4.91
167  Algeria 3.1 167 5.0 168 1.3 3.85
167  Egypt 3.1 170 4.5 161 1.8 2.5
167  Azerbaijan 3.1 161 5.3 173 1.1 4.82
167  Lebanon 3.1 174 4.0 153 2.0 2.0
172  Indonesia 3.0 170 4.5 164 1.6 2.81
173  United Arab Emirates 2.8 175 3.6 177 0.9 4.0
174  Guatemala 2.7 172 4.2 166 1.5 2.8
175  Sao Tome and Principe 2.6 175 3.6 163 1.7 2.12
175  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2.6 168 4.9 179 0.4 12.2
177  Pakistan 2.5 179 2.5 144 2.4 1.04
178  Bahamas 1.6 177 2.9 180 0.4 7.25
179  Brunei 1.4 180 1.4 168 1.3 1.08
179  Jamaica 1.4 178 2.6 181 0.3 8.67
181  Grenada 0.4 182 0.0 178 0.5 0.0
182  Barbados 0.3 181 0.5 182 0.1 5.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

1996-97 number of discharged Medicare enrollees in California

discharge.JPG

There are 1,815,410 per 1000 Medicare enrollees discharged in 1997 in California.

There are 1,870,050 per 1000 Medicare enrollees discharged in 1996 in California.

Is there any reason for the reduction in numbers? Email motherhealth@gmail.com

https://data.world/dartmouthatlas/medical-discharge-rates-by-state-level?utm_source=autopilot&utm_medium=email&utm_content=170728&utm_campaign=data_digest

 

New sanctions bill that Congress sent to President Donald Trump

SMALL DIPLOMACY: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wants fewer U.S. diplomats and fewer meetings at the U.N. General Assembly, FP’s Colum Lynch writes: Read more
2
TO THE BATTLEFIELD: The unprecedented, massive new sanctions bill that Congress sent to President Donald Trump on Thursday is an overt effort to seize the national security reigns from the president, Shadow Government’s Elizabeth Rosenberg writes: Read more
3
FROM TOP TO BOTTOM: The State Department withdrew from a prestigious recruitment program and didn’t bother to tell employees or the fellows themselves, FP’s Robbie Gramer writes: Read more
4
ISRAEL-AMERICAN RIFT: Are American Jews giving up on Israel? FP’s Debra Kamin writes: Read more
5
‘DREADNOUGHT STRATEGY’: Slow-rolling technology research and development can help the U.S. military prevent the rise of dangerous rivals, Stephen Rodriguez, Leo Blanken, and Jason Lepore write: Read more

Criminal investigation into Donald Trump Jr

PETITION:Sign your name to demand an IMMEDIATE criminal investigation into Donald Trump Jr:

SIGN YOUR NAME →

Are people ALREADY forgetting about this?!

Slate: Donald Trump Jr. Organized a Meeting With Kremlin-Linked Lawyer During CampaignTrump Jr. admitted to meeting with Russian officials to obtain damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

President Trump is desperately trying to sell this as merely a simple “inappropriate indiscretion.”

But we disagree — there’s a good chance Trump Jr. committed treason, and the American people deserve to know the truth.

This is important: Sign your name NOW to call for a criminal investigation into Donald Trump Jr:

Add your name: INVESTIGATE DONALD TRUMP JR.

SUPPORTER: Connie Dello Buono
PETITION STATUS: *NO SIGNATURE*

SIGN YOUR NAME NOW →

U.S. campaign finance laws are 100% clear:

Foreign nationals are not allowed to contribute ANYTHING of value that would help a candidate win an election.

Additionally — and this is important — no American citizens “shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation.”[1]

On top of that, if Russia is deemed an “enemy” of the United States, Trump Jr. may have committed TREASON by helping advance Russian interests while compromising our democracy.

The American people deserve answers. We must unite to issue adeafening call to action, and remind our nation’s leaders that they are NOT above the law.

LOCK HIM UP: Add your name to investigate Donald Trump Jr. →

http://go.turnoutpac.org/Investigate-Trump-Jr

Bring the Trumps to justice,

– The Progressive Turnout Project

Common side effects of Gabapentin

Common side effects of Gabapentin

Sleepiness
Dizziness
Fatigue
Clumsiness while walking
Visual changes, including double vision
Tremor
Runny nose
Weight gain
Indigestion or nausea
Nervousness
Muscle ache
Dry mouth or sore throat
Memory loss
Headache
Unusual thoughts
Diarrhea or constipation
Swelling of hands or feet
Fever
Itchy eyes
Serious side effects can also occur. If you have any of these side effects, call your doctor right away:

Thoughts of suicide or harming yourself
Fever or swelling of lymph nodes
Severe rash
Swelling of the face, lips, or tongue
Difficulty breathing or swallowing
Seizure

What Is Gabapentin (Neurontin)?

Gabapentin is a prescription drug, marketed as Neurontin and Horizant, that’s used to treat epilepsy.

Doctors can prescribe gabapentin to treat epilepsy in people older than 12, and partial seizures in children ages 3 to 12.

Gabapentin may also be prescribed to treat restless legs syndrome (RLS), to relieve numbness and tingling related to diabetes, to prevent hot flashes, and to relieve pain that can accompany shingles (known as postherpetic neuralgia).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved gabapentin in 1993 under the brand name Neurontin for the drug manufacturer Pfizer.

In 2003, the FDA approved generic gabapentin, and it’s now made by several drug companies.

An extended-release form of gabapentin is available under the brand name Horizant.

In 2004, the drug maker Pfizer settled charges for marketing Neurontin for unapproved uses, and agreed to pay $430 million.

While it’s legal for a doctor to prescribe drugs for off-label purposes, it’s illegal for a drug manufacturer to actively promote off-label uses.

A study in the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia in 2013 revealed that gabapentin may help ease moderate to high levels of anxiety among people about to have surgery.

The researchers noted that doctors are increasingly using the drug to treat pain after surgery as well as a variety of psychiatric diseases, such as chronic anxiety disorders.

Gabapentin Warnings

You should know that gabapentin may increase the risk for suicide.

Suicidal thoughts or behavior occurs in about one in 500 people taking medications like gabapentin. This risk may begin within a week of starting treatment.

Let your doctor know if you experience:

Thoughts of suicide
Symptoms of depression
Aggression
Irritability
Panic attacks
Extreme worry
Restlessness
Acting without thinking
Abnormal excitement
You should also let friends and family members know about these symptoms.

If you have any thoughts of suicide, or if a friend or family member thinks you are acting strange, call your doctor right away.

Children ages 3 to 12 may experience behavior changes while taking gabapentin.

These changes could include restlessness, inability to pay attention, poor performance at school, and angry or aggressive behavior.

Children younger than age 3 should not take gabapentin to treat seizures.

Also, children should not take gabapentin to treat postherpetic neuralgia.

If you are older than 75 or have kidney disease, use caution when taking gabapentin.

Drinking alcohol may make some side effects of gabapentin more severe.

Once you start taking gabapentin, don’t stop suddenly or you could experience withdrawal symptoms including anxiety, sleep disturbance, nausea, pain, and sweating.

You need to reduce your dose of gabapentin gradually over a period of at least one week.

Tell your doctor if you are taking any prescription pain medications called opiates. These medications may increase drowsiness or dizziness when you also take gabapentin.

Your doctor will also want to know if you have kidney disease, if you have any surgery planned (including dental), or if you have ever had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse.

Gabapentin ‘High’ and Abuse

  • Numerous reports suggest that gabapentin has become a widely abused drug that gives users a euphoric “high.”
  • A 2014 study found that almost one-fourth of people in substance-abuse clinics reported abuse of gabapentin.
  • Not only is abuse of gabapentin likely to result in serious side effects, it may also lead to severe withdrawal symptoms in users.

Gabapentin and Pregnancy

Researchers don’t know if gabapentin is safe to take during pregnancy.

If you are pregnant or may become pregnant, talk with your doctor before taking gabapentin.

Gabapentin can pass into breast milk, and the effects on breastfeeding babies are unknown.

Ask your doctor if the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh the potential risks of gabapentin to your infant.

 Gabapentin Interactions

It’s very important to let your doctor know about all drugs you are taking, including illegal or recreational drugs, over-the-counter medications, herbs, or supplements.

Types of drugs that are known to interact with gabapentin and may cause problems include:

Opiate pain medications, including Vicodin and morphine, among others
Naproxen (also known as the brands Aleve, Naprosyn, and others)
Medications used for heartburn, including Mylanta, Maalox, and cimetidine
If you do dipstick tests to check your urine for protein, tell your doctor. Gabapentin may affect the results of some of these types of tests.

Gabapentin and Alcohol

Drinking alcohol may make some side effects of gabapentin more severe.

Some doctors recommend drinking little or no alcohol while taking gabapentin.

In 2014, a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that gabapentin holds promise as a treatment for alcohol dependence.

The drug improved people’s ability to remain abstinent from alcohol. It also reduced symptoms related to relapse, like insomnia and cravings for alcohol.

The study’s findings are particularly important because there are relatively few medications available to help treat alcohol dependence.

Gabapentin and Other Interactions

Gabapentin may make you feel drowsy and could affect your judgment.

Until you know how gabapentin will affect you, do not drive or operate machinery.

Gabapentin may affect the results of tests to check your urine for protein.