Connect with us

Health and Wellness

We found that opposition to Voice is associated with poorer health for Indigenous people. And in some regions, the association is striking.

Published

on

Most Australians he voted “no” to an Indigenous Voice in Parliament. But if we dig into the data from the 2023 referendum, there is more to learn, particularly about the health of Indigenous Australians living in communities that strongly oppose the Voice.

It is a picture each striking and urgent.

In published studies Today For the first time, we’ve got shown that Indigenous Australians living in regions with stronger opposition to the Voice experience poorer health.

When we mapped community opposition to Voice on Australian health, we found that Indigenous Australians were more likely than non-Indigenous Australians to report poorer overall and mental health. But Indigenous Australians were less likely to use health services. These inequalities were greater in areas with greater opposition to Voice.

Our results likely reflect underlying negative attitudes towards Indigenous Australians and fewer culturally sensitive options for accessing health care in some regions, each of which impact the health of Indigenous Australians in multiple ways.

What we did and what we discovered

We began with a national map of voting patterns to discover regions with the highest levels of opposition to Voice (defined in this study as regions of Australia where greater than 72% of community members voted “no”).

We then compared regions with high and low levels of opposition to Voice with the health of Australians, using data from 2021. national surveywhich included details about general health, mental health and health care use over the last 12 months.

Our study found that, compared with Indigenous Australians living in areas with low opposition to Voice, Indigenous Australians living in communities with the highest opposition to Voice were more likely to report poor general and mental health, and were less likely to have used health care services in the past 12 months.

We didn’t observe the same disparities for non-Indigenous Australians.

For example, in areas with the strongest support for Voice, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians reported similar levels of poor mental health (16% for each Indigenous and non-Indigenous). While in areas with the strongest opposition to Voice, 27% of Indigenous Australians reported poor mental health compared with 15% of non-Indigenous Australians.

In areas with the best support for Voice, the proportion of Indigenous Australians who had seen any doctor was 78%, which was higher than the 71% for non-Indigenous people. However, in areas with the best opposition to Voice, the proportion seeing any doctor was significantly lower amongst Indigenous Australians (54%), but not amongst non-Indigenous people (68%).

All of this implies that, despite having poorer health outcomes, Indigenous Australians living in areas where there is stronger opposition to Voice are less likely to have access to healthcare.



Why is this happening?

There are several possible explanations for these results.

An incredible opportunity, in line with recent testswhether community-level opposition to Voice could also be capturing latent negative attitudes towards Indigenous Australians. So what we see may reflect the impact of such negative attitudes on people’s health over time.

This is in line with many international studies showing how stigma throughout the community and discriminatory environments lead to worse health condition amongst minorities and historically marginalized groups. Generally, we see this manifesting itself in higher rates smoking and drinkingand limited access to Healthcare.

These attitudes may have an effect on Indigenous Australians’ experiences of healthcare. For example, we all know of past experiences racism while access to healthcare scares away indigenous people engaging in mainstream healthcare. Alternatively, there might not be enough culturally protected healthcare options in regions where there is the best opposition to the Voice.

Indigenous leaders across Australia proceed to share their experiences of racism before, during and after referendum Voice. While the direct impact of racism is evident in the testimonies of those individuals, relatively little attention has been paid to the impact of structural racism at the community level.

But we will not say from our research what motivated people to vote “no,” and voting “no” cannot be taken as evidence of racism. But whatever the motivation for voting “no,” the health of Indigenous Australians is particularly affected in these high-opposition regions.

Where to from here?

Our results suggest that when it comes to future health policies and programs, we want to consider multiple solutions at the community level. In particular, we should always pay special attention to areas where opposition to Voice was greater, because these are areas associated with poorer health and lower health care utilization.

In these areas in particular, we want more culturally protected healthcareadapted care that is inclusive and free from racism. This enables patients to access appropriate and appropriate health services to improve their health.

We also need to take a look at the larger picture to change community attitudes towards Indigenous Australians if we’re to reduce systemic racismstigma and its impact on health.

Our results are only a snapshot

The Voice referendum highlighted how difficult it is for Indigenous Australians to address the challenges of promoting Indigenous self-determination as the best way to improve their livelihoods and health.

But our findings reflect just one moment in time. That’s why we want more research to higher understand the systemic nature of the health disparities we see.

Health and social policy must acknowledge these systemic issues and ultimately pay greater attention to how community-level attitudes may shape the health of Indigenous Australians.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Health and Wellness

Jury awarded $310 million to parents of teenager who died after falling on a ride at Florida amusement park – Essence

Published

on

By

Sun Sentinel/Getty Images

The family of Tire Sampson, the 14-yr-old who tragically died on an amusement park ride in Orlando, Florida, in 2022, has been awarded $310 million in a civil lawsuit.

Tire, who was visiting ICON Park along with his family on March 24, 2022, fell from the FreeFall drop tower. Although he was taken to a nearby hospital, he didn’t survive his injuries.

Now, greater than two years later, a jury has held the vehicle manufacturer, Austria-based Funtime Handels, responsible for the accident and awarded the Tire family $310 million. According to reports from local news stations WFTV AND KSDKthe jury reached its verdict after about an hour of deliberation.

Tyre’s parents will each receive $155 million, according to attorney spokesman Michael Haggard.

Attorneys Ben Crump and Natalie Jackson, who represented Tyre’s family, shared their thoughts on this landmark decision via X (formerly Twitter). “This ruling is a step forward in holding corporations accountable for the safety of their products,” they said in a statement.

Lawyers stressed that Tyre’s death was attributable to “gross negligence and a failure to put safety before profits.” They added that the ride’s manufacturer had “neglected its duty to protect passengers” and that the substantial award ensured it could “face the consequences of its decisions.”

Crump and Jackson said they hope the result will encourage change throughout the theme park industry. “We hope this will spur the entire industry to enforce more stringent safety measures,” they said. “Tire heritage will provide a safer future for drivers around the world.”

An investigation previously found that Tyre’s harness was locked through the descent, but he dislodged from his seat through the 430-foot fall when the magnets engaged. Tire’s death was ruled the result of “multiple injuries and trauma.”

ICON Park said at the time that it could “fully cooperate” with the authorities.

This article was originally published on : www.essence.com
Continue Reading

Health and Wellness

Tireless HIV/AIDS advocate A. Cornelius Baker dies

Published

on

By

HIV/AIDS Advocate, A. Cornelius Baker


A. Cornelius Baker, a tireless advocate of HIV and AIDS testing, research and vaccination, died Nov. 8 at his home in Washington, D.C., of hypertensive, atherosclerotic heart problems, in response to his partner, Gregory Nevins.

As previously reported, Baker was an early supporter for people living with HIV and AIDS within the Nineteen Eighties, when misinformation and fear-mongering in regards to the disease were rampant.

According to Douglas M. Brooks, director of the Office of National AIDS Policy under President Obama, it was Baker’s Christian faith that guided him toward compassion for others.

“He was very kind, very warm and inclusive – his circles, both professional and personal, were the most diverse I have ever seen, and he was guided by his Christian values,” Brooks told the outlet. “His ferocity was on display when people were marginalized, rejected or forgotten.”

In 1995, when he was executive director of the National AIDS Association, Baker pushed for June 27 to be designated National HIV Testing Day.

In 2012, he later wrote on the web site of the Global Health Advisor for which he was a technical advisor that: “These efforts were intended to help reduce the stigma associated with HIV testing and normalize it as part of regular screening.”

https://twitter.com/NBJContheMove/status/1856725113967632663?s=19

Baker also feared that men like himself, black gay men, and other men from marginalized communities were disproportionately affected by HIV and AIDS.

Baker pressured the Clinton administration to incorporate black and Latino people in clinical drug trials, and in 1994 he pointedly told the Clinton administration that he was bored with hearing guarantees but seeing no motion.

According to Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings, yes that daring attitude that defines Baker’s legacy in the world of ​​HIV/AIDS promotion.

“Cornelius was a legendary leader in the fight for equality for LGBTQ+ people and all people living with HIV,” Jennings said in a press release. “In the more than twenty years that I knew him, I was continually impressed not only by how effective he was as a leader, but also by how he managed to strike the balance between being fierce and kind at the same time. His loss is devastating.”

Jennings continued: “Cornelius’ leadership can’t be overstated. For many years, he was one in all the nation’s leading HIV/AIDS warriors, working locally, nationally and internationally. No matter where he went, he proudly supported the HIV/AIDS community from the Nineteen Eighties until his death, serving in various positions including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Association of Persons with Disabilities AIDS, and the Whitman-Walker Clinic . Jennings explained.

Jennings concluded: “His career also included several honors, including being the first recipient of the American Foundation for AIDS Research Foundation’s organization-building Courage Award. Our communities have lost a pillar in Cornelius, and as we mourn his death, we will be forever grateful for his decades of service to the community.”

Kaye Hayes, deputy assistant secretary for communicable diseases and director of the Office of Infectious Diseases and HIV/AIDS Policy, in her comment about his legacy, she called Baker “the North Star.”.

“It is difficult to overstate the impact his loss had on public health, the HIV/AIDS community or the place he held in my heart personally,” Hayes told Hiv.gov. “He was pushing us, charging us, pulling us, pushing us. With his unwavering commitment to the HIV movement, he represented the north star, constructing coalitions across sectors and dealing with leaders across the political spectrum to deal with health disparities and advocate for access to HIV treatment and look after all. He said, “The work isn’t done, the charge is still there, move on – you know what you have to do.” It’s in my ear and in my heart in the case of this job.

Hayes added: “His death is a significant loss to the public health community and to the many others who benefited from Cornelius’ vigilance. His legacy will continue to inspire and motivate us all.”

Baker is survived by his mother, Shirley Baker; his partner Nevins, who can be senior counsel at Lambda Legal; his sisters Chandrika Baker, Nadine Wallace and Yavodka Bishop; in addition to his two brothers, Kareem and Roosevelt Dowdell; along with the larger HIV/AIDS advocacy community.


This article was originally published on : www.blackenterprise.com
Continue Reading

Health and Wellness

Bovaer is added to cow feed to reduce methane emissions. Does it pass into milk and meat? And is it harmful to humans?

Published

on

By

There are growing concerns in regards to the use of feed supplements, Bowar 10to reduce methane production in cows.

Bovaer 10 consists of silicon dioxide (mainly sand), propylene glycol (food stabilizer approved by Food Safety Australia New Zealand) and lively substance 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP).

There has been an enormous amount of misinformation in regards to the safety of 3-NOP, with some milk from herds fed this additive being labeled “Frankenmilk”. Others feared it could get to humans through beef.

The most significant thing is that 3-NOP is secure. Let’s clear up some major misconceptions.

Why do we want to limit methane production?

In our attempts to limit global warming, we’ve placed the best emphasis on CO₂ because the major man-made greenhouse gas. But methane is also a greenhouse gas, and although we produce less of it, it is: a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂.

Agriculture is the largest a man-made source of methane. As cattle herds expand to meet our growing demand for meat and milk, reducing methane production from cows is a vital way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are several ways to do that. Stopping bacteria within the stomachs of cows that produce methane one approach is to produce methane.

The methane produced by cows and sheep doesn’t come from the animals themselves, but from the microbes living of their digestive systems. 3-NO stop the enzymes that perform the last step of methane synthesis in these microorganisms.

3-NOP is not the one compound tested as a feed additive. Australian product based on seaweed, Rumin8for instance, it is also in development. Saponins, soap-like chemicals present in plants, and essential oils as well has been examined.

However, 3-NOP is currently one of the popular effective treatments.

Nitrooxypropanol structure: red balls are oxygen, gray carbon, blue nitrogen and white hydrogen.
PubChem

But is not it poison?

There are concerns on social media that Bovaer is “poisoning our food.”

But, as we are saying in toxicology, it’s the dose that makes the poison. For example, arsenic is deadly 2–20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

In contrast, 3-NOP was not lethal on the doses utilized in safety studies, up to 600 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight. At a dose of 100 mg per kg body weight in rats, it didn’t cause any adversarial effects.

What about reproductive issues?

The effect of 3-NOP on the reproductive organs has generated numerous commentary.

Studies in rats and cows showed that doses of 300–500 mg per kg body weight caused: contraction of the ovaries and testicles.

In comparison, to achieve the identical exposure in humans, a 70 kg human would want to eat 21–35 grams (about 2 tablespoons) of pure 3-NOP every day for a lot of weeks to see this effect.

No human will likely be exposed to this amount because 3-NOP doesn’t pass into milk – is fully metabolized within the cow’s intestines.

No cow will likely be exposed to these levels either.

The cow licks itself
Cows will not be exposed to levels tested on animals in laboratory studies.
Ground photo/Shutterstock

What about cancer?

3-NOP is not genotoxic or mutagenicwhich implies it cannot damage DNA. Thus, the results of 3-NOP are dose-limited, meaning that small doses will not be harmful, while very high doses are (unlike radiation where there is no secure dose).

Scientists found that at a dose of 300 mg per kilogram of body weight benign tumors of the small intestine of female ratsbut not male rats, after 2 years of every day consumption. At a dose of 100 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight, no tumors were observed.

Cows eat lower than 2 grams of Bovaer 10 per day (of which only 10% or 0.2 grams is 3-NOP). This is about 1,000 times lower than the appropriate every day intake 1 mg 3-NOP per kg body weight per day for a cow weighing 450 kg.

This level of consumption will likely be not the result in cancer or any of them other adversarial effects.

So how much are people exposed to?

Milk and meat consumers will likely be exposed to zero 3-NOP. 3-NOP doesn’t penetrate milk and meat: is completely metabolized within the cow’s intestines.

Farmers could also be exposed to small amounts of the feed additive, and industrial employees producing 3-NOP will potentially be exposed to larger amounts. Farmers and industrial employees already wear personal protective equipment to reduce exposure to other agricultural chemicals – and it is advisable to do that with Bovear 10 as well.

Milk
3-NOP doesn’t penetrate milk and meat.
Shutterstock

How widely has it been tested?

3-NOP has been in development for 15 years and has been subject to multiple reviews by European Food Safety Authority, UK Food Safety Authority AND others.

It has been extensively tested over months of exposure to cattle and has produced no unintended effects. Some studies actually say so improves the standard of milk and meat.

Bovaer was approved for use in dairy cattle by the European Union from 2022 and Japan in 2024. It is also utilized in many other countries, including: in beef products, amongst others Australia.

A really small amount of 3-NOP enters the environment (lower than 0.2% of the dose taken), no accumulates and is easily decomposed subsequently, it doesn’t pose a threat to the environment.

Since humans will not be exposed to 3-NOP through milk and meat, long-term exposure is not an issue.

What does Bill Gates have to do with this?

Bill Gates has invested in a distinct feed processing method for methane, Australian seaweed-based Rumin8. But he has nothing to do with Bovaer 10.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded research grants to the corporate producing 3-NOP for malaria control researchnot for 3-NOP.

The bottom line is that adding 3-NOP to animal feed doesn’t pose any risk to consumers, animals or the environment.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending