- #1
Jin S Zhang
- 20
- 0
WHat is the worst and formidable disease ever in human history? Why?
Ivan Seeking said:Addiction
As near as I can tell, malaria kills about 1 million people a year; alcohol kills about 1.8 million; tobacco kills about 4 million each year, worldwide.
Ivan Seeking said:What is funny about that? In the US, at least, addiction is considered to be a disease.
Moonbear said:I suspect the OP is referring to infectious disease (i.e. caused by a pathogen), rather than disorders, which technically aren't disease, but are still medical conditions. In common usage, the two are often used synonymously, but in medicine, disease would mean something different from a disorder. The OP will need to clarify on that point.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171131/nav/tap3/...As a psychiatrist who treats heroin addicts and a psychologist long interested in the philosophical meaning of disease, we have chafed at the "brain disease" rhetoric since it was first promulgated by NIDA in 1995. Granted, the rationale behind it is well-intentioned. Nevertheless, we believe that the brain disease concept is bad for the public's mental health literacy.[continued]
http://time-blog.com/eye_on_science/2007/07/addiction_is_not_a_disease.htmlThis clueless pair doesn't argue that the neurochemistry of an addict's brain is no different from that of a non-addict. They can't, because it demonstrably is. Instead, they offer gems of wisdom like this:
"Characterizing addiction as a brain disease misappropriates language more properly used to describe conditions such as multiple sclerosis or schizophrenia—afflictions that are neither brought on by sufferers themselves nor modifiable by their desire to be well."
This presumes that there's no underlying neurological basis that predisposes someone to addiction. Those who actually know something about it know this is a false presumption. Addiction, as Satel and Lilienfeld have somehow failed to learn, is not simply the behavior of abusing drugs—if it were, then all of the college students who drink too much would be alcoholics. Most aren't; they grow out of it.
Addiction is actually a disorder in which the brain's reward system is conditioned to value the reward of getting high over pretty much anything else. It's a disorder, in other words, in which the brain is malfunctioning. [continued]
A new bill sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., would change the name of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the National Institute on Diseases of Addiction and change the name of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to the National Institute on Alcohol Disorders and Health. Called the Recognizing Addiction As a Disease Act of 2007, it explains, "The pejorative term 'abuse' used in connection with diseases of addiction has the adverse effect of increasing social stigma and personal shame, both of which are so often barriers to an individual's decision to seek treatment." Addiction should be known as a brain disease, the bill proclaims, "because drugs change the brain's structure and manner in which it functions. These brain changes can be long lasting, and can lead to the harmful behaviors seen in people who abuse drugs."
Ivan Seeking said:I knew that this wasn't just a casual reference so I checked. It seems that the National Institute on Drug Abuse are the ones who promoted the idea that addiction is a disease of the brain - I think along the lines of a genetic disease. But that idea is losing favor.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171131/nav/tap3/
Also, this, which is a reply to the article above:
http://time-blog.com/eye_on_science/2007/07/addiction_is_not_a_disease.html
In the end it seems that this is a political issue as much as a medical one.
Again, from the first link:
Is diabetes a disease or a disorder?
mgb_phys said:According to the WHO - top 10 causes of death:
Developed countries:
Ischaemic heart disease 3,512,000
Stroke 3,346,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 1,829,000
Lower respiratory infections 1,180,000
Lung cancer 938,000
Car accident 669,000
Stomach cancer 657,000
High blood pressure 635,000
Tuberculosis 571,000
Suicide 499,000
3rd world:
HIV-AIDS 2,678,000
Lower respiratory infections 2,643,000
Ischaemic heart disease 2,484,000
Diarrhea 1,793,000
Cerebrovascular disease 1,381,000
Childhood diseases 1,217,000
Malaria 1,103,000
Tuberculosis 1,021,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 748,000
Measles 674,000
gravenewworld said:Smoking is still the #1 leading cause of preventable death world wide. Not obesity, not alcholism, not AIDS, not malaria, not TB, not obesity. SMOKING STILL #1.
Stupid.
The top 3 killers worldwide are
1.) heart disease
2.) stroke
3.) lung cancer.
Smoking contributes to ALL 3 of the top 3 killers worldwide.
henxan said:What is the problem with this.. We are running into some critical overpopulation problems now, what's the problem?
gravenewworld said:Smoking is still the #1 leading cause of preventable death world wide. Not obesity, not alcholism, not AIDS, not malaria, not TB, not obesity. SMOKING STILL #1.
NoTime said:I don't know about that obesity thing.
I read a comment in a research article that being 10lbs overweight was equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day in terms of health risk.
Last I checked the insurance companies docked you 5 years off your life expectancy.
So in terms of years of life lost it doesn't seem to be a big deal compared to something like malaria where children tend to be the victim.
gravenewworld said:PREVENTABLE death. It costs everyone money when it shouldn't.
henxan said:It costs everyone a lot of money? What is this, youre a greedy bastard?
So I have been told.Well, firstly, I would like to point out that you have what could be misinterpreted arrogant attitude.
You know what is also good for the economy? Consuming as much as possible. I guess we should continue to consume as much as possible regardless of the disastrous effects it may have on the environment.ctually Poland did a research on this subject, and wouldn't you know it, its actually good for the economy! People die earlier, ergo less expenses for treatment the elderly. This actually by a great deal outweighs the negative consequences you mentioned. Another extremely positive factor is the relative high taxes being put on tobacco sales. This depends on the individual countries, but for instance for Norway, which I come from, have put taxes in the range of several hundreds of percent on the tobacco.
Where did I ever mention the word 'ban' ? Get a friggin clue dude.Therefore, as a conclusion, there is no economic negative aspect to tobacco. If one is to state a reason for banning tobacco, it would be on a basis of telling people of how they should live their life. Like in a communistic system. Is that ok?
gravenewworld said:LOL, so what is better spending tons of filthy lucre on treating PREVENTABLE DISEASES or spending all of that money on AIDS research?
OmCheeto said:Most of the modern diseases affect mostly older people who would not have been alive at their age a couple of hundred years ago.
No AIDS is still transferable from non sexual contact.NoTime said:Lol. Preventable?
You could eliminate AIDS if everyone stopped having sex.
As an added benefit this would solve all enviromental problems in about 60 years.
You could solve the malaria problem just by moving all people out of the tropics.
You should read this book then that was published by MITPS: While I don't have any handy links I've seen other studies that indicate smokers die cheaper.
Even though Malaria in the US is rare (and considered to be eradicated in the US) there are still reported cases of Malaria infections from people who didn't even travel outside of the US.You could solve the malaria problem just by moving all people out of the tropics.