Connection between Cardiovascular disease and air pollution?

When I was browsing the internet looking for appropriate research articles,based on cardiovascular disease (CVD), I managed to find an article that is quite intriguing and enlightening. Though  many of you would not take this article into deep consideration, I think it is befitting for this topic and may be informative.

So what is this Research article based upon and what message does it convey?

The research article called 'Effects of Particle Air Pollution on Cardiovascular Disease', by Jing Feng and Wei Yang (2012), observes the effects of Particulate matter (PM) air pollution as a important  and modifiable risk factor for heart disease. Though there are still gaps regarding this genre of this study, Feng and Yang's goal is to  shed more light and fill these gaps in this study.

Feng and Wei's initial methods were create separate categories of data of which included, Individual-level data, Ambient air pollution data, Geostatistical and Statistical analysis. In the Individual-level, Feng and Yang obtained their data from the U.S. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). This system uses a random digit dialing system, in which adults 18+ ( non-institutionalized) were asked if they were ever told by a certified health professional (i.e. nurse, doctor etc.) that they suffer a form of CVD, recording racial gradients and percents over several years.

The second method was to measure the concentration of pollutants in the air quality. This was extracted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality System, over the duration of 6 years (1999-2005)

Now combining these data sets, Risks for individual CVD were estimated via mixed-effects logistic regression line with a maximum likelihood method. This data set was to be categorized into gender, race, type of CVD etc. and when performed, the probability of contracting CVD was analyzed.

Feng and Yang's results from their research showed that approximately 11% of the population that they surveyed were positive for high risk CVD and when broken down people who lived in polluted dense areas composed the majority of the 11%.

In conclusion Feng and Yang mention that this is only data based on U.S and further research is needed to prove that people living in higher polluted areas have higher chances of contracting CVD, reiterating that this was a simple research observation to help encourage similar observations and to help close the gap on this uprising problem.

In all, I just wanted to share this to you so that you are just more self aware and maybe live a greener lifestyle, by that lowering greenhouse emissions caused by people commuting etc.

acetylsalicylic acid, does it help prevent Cardiovascular disease?

Now when we are thinking about Cardiovascular disease, it is quite often one has heard that taking this  particular medication called acetylsalicylic acid in pill form, potentially reduces two major cardiovascular diseases. Notice how I said the word "potentially", many debates have been disputed over this topic, where some people advocate the use of this medication as a type of treatment, while others persist that acetylsalicylic acid should not be used for this health problem. However, before I go on with this topic we first need to know, "what is acetylsalicylic acid?".


Acetylsalicylic acid is a medication intended to relieve minor headaches and pains, was discovered by German chemist Arthur Eichengrün. Before it was even created into pill structure, people ingested willow bark, which in all contains the similar chemical compounds. Now if you haven't already figured out what this medication is, I will give you the answer, it is Aspirin.



Lets take a look of both sides of the argument, taking in account the history of this issue. Those who advocate the use of aspirin as a treatment for some cardiovascular diseases, persist that those who are diagnosed with cardiovascular disease can reduce their chances of having heart attacks or ischemic strokes due to reduction of coronary clots. This reduction is caused by the inhibition of blood platelets, which is the major cell which causes blood to clot. Thus with lower clotting ratios in the body, we essentially reduce the chances of having heart attacks or ischemic strokes.


Yet those who oppose, argue that although it reduces platelet count, it is like a "double edged blade". In which it is more dangerous if taken for the purpose of reducing cardiovascular disease because with lower amounts of platelets thus we increase the chances of having a hemorrhagic stroke.Also, with the reduction of platelet count in the blood system, people who do suffer an hemorrhagic stroke are likely to be terminal because, with the inability to clot surgeons are unable to operate because the victim would bleed out. Thus enforcing the reason of only taking aspirin for its intended use.

Now in my opinion, both arguments are valid, however I support the idea of using aspirin as a type of simple treatment to prevent blood clots from forming. The reason is that, those who are prone, or have already experienced an ischemic stroke should be given options in ways of treating their conditions. Due to this economy not many people are given the option to either pay for surgery or "enough time" to be on the wait list. Thus using aspirin is cheap and efficient. However, I would only recommend this style of treatment to those who know the risks and who use this treatment in moderation.

Helpful and meaningful website or "It's a Trap!"

When we are surfing the net for health advice and assistance, I can always say,in my opinion, that there will always be 3 types of websites dedicated towards this genre.

1.)-Dedicated websites that are actually devoted to enlightening those who are willing to attain knowledge, by providing statistical data, facts based on experiments etc.

2.)-Blogs and websites that aim to aid and provide basic knowledge just to make the public aware.

3.)-Blog and websites which are entirely biased, which provide bias information and or have a hidden intention to their site.

Now reverting to my topic of cardiovascular disease, what makes a site creditable towards this topic? Is it due to a website listing factual evidence, providing data or even just having ".org" part of the URL? Hence this post will be analyzing and differentiating websites dedicated towards cardiovascular disease.


The following website (Neuroaid) is a great example of point number 3.)

1. At the home page of the website, immediately you can notice how this site lacks description of this health problem (cerebroavscular acciendet), while mainly elaborating on a oral product which enhances recovery and rehabilitation.

2. If you were to watch the video on the homepage you will notice at 1:20 into it, it mentions how taking this oral product is "the first treatment for stroke recovery", implying that this product is a necessity prior to a stroke.

3. In the "why take" tab, this website provides percentages and statistics of people recovering and motor improvements. Yet where is the physical records or experimental documents that show these percentages or statistics are factual. For all I know, they could have just wrote down a few words to make this product look legitimate.

4. Another eyebrow raiser is the link to their "information for medical professionals", if you were to hit this link, it immediately and subtly ask if you are a medical professional. Upon hitting no, you would be redirected back to the homepage. If one were to hit yes, then this site  provides information and data to help promote this product for retail.

5. This site encourages to take this product as prevention of this health disorder, "in fact  both vitro and animal testing indicated a prolongation of the lifespan of neurons against natural aging and further protections against external event aggressions. It has also shown that the surviving neurons are stronger and healthier."



Now when observing a renown Canadian website, The Heart and Stroke Foundation, we notice that, this website counters some of the information given by the bias site. For example the bias site opens with a brief description of the disorder and mainly advertise the product. However, in the Heart and Stroke Foundation, not only do they describe what a "stroke" is by definition, but they provide the different types, each having their own category, and subcategories for further comprehension.

Another contradictory fact that I noticed is, in the biased site, as mentioned, how taking the oral pill is the primary step to recovery, yet when referring to The Heart and Stroke Foundation, the utmost first step is to "partake in tests to determine your ability thus allowing a healthcare team help develop a proper recovery plan" So, which is more reasonable, to take a pill for the sake of assumption or to asses the situation and develop a strategy?


With this in mind, I hope that I have open peoples eyes to see past words and be wary for any "traps"
.
-C.W.

Why make this blog and who I am.

So if you are reading this blog and wondering "who is this emerging character and what is so special about this blog and why should I care?", well for one thing, the reason I created this blog for academic purposes. However, the topic that I have embraced is quite personal and is quite common and unnerving.

My name is C.Wong, I am post-secondary  undergraduate in the department of science. I myself have not experienced a style of cardiovascular disease however, I knew someone dear to me who had. With this  indirect exposure, I wish to further comprehend this disease.



This blog is mainly to discuss issues revolving around this contemporary health topic. How can we reduce the chances of contracting this disease, how does this disease manifest itself in our bodies and what do we do if we are diagnosed. Hence my goal is to aid those who know of a friend, family member or even themselves that have or had experienced any style of cardiovascular disease and wish to gain moral support or a clearer insight on this predicament.

As a community we can strive to further educate ourselves with this growing situation, providing one another with new knowledge, may it be factual or false (even if an advertised pill can cure your disease is false, we know that it is a scam.), or maybe discussing different methods used to contend this problem in a healthy manner.

(no copy right infringement intended)

This in mind, feel free to post any feedback and/or thoughts revolving around this topic.

-C.W.