Time for real talk.

As the debate on whether or not abstinence-only education works wears on (here’s a hint — it doesn’t), we allow too many of our teenagers, particularly teen girls, to be put at risk.

The Center for Disease Control has issued a report and the results are alarming — as many as 1 in 4 teenage girls in the U.S. have a sexually-transmitted disease.

Even more alarming is how this breaks down along racial lines — as many as 48% of African American teenage girls vs. as many as 20% of white teenage girls have an STD.

I think, sometimes, we don’t think about what having an STD can really mean so, I found this part of the article particularly illuminating:

HPV and chlamydia are the most common STDs found among teenage girls, (Dr. Sara) Forhan said. “Almost one in five overall had a strain of HPV associated with cervical cancer or genital warts,” she said.

“We need to be screening adolescent girls who are sexually active and providing them with HPV vaccine,” (Dr. Elizabeth) Alderman said. “The recommendations are to screen sexually active girls, but many girls don’t disclose to their health-care provider that they are sexually active, even when asked,” she said.

As for chlamydia, 4 percent of teenaged girls had this STD, Forhan said. “The majority of chlamydia infections do not have symptoms. If left untreated, it can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, which leaves these young women at risk for atopic pregnancy, chronic pelvic pain or infertility,” she said.

In addition, the study found that 2.9 percent of young women had trichomoniasis, and 2 percent were infected with genital herpes, Forhan said.

So, this is no small matter. Let’s get real with our kids because so much of their futures depend on it.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Growing up, I knew, as a black person, I was going to have to fight harder for what I wanted. However, I never considered that it would include health care.

Strangely enough, I hadn’t given too much thought to racial disparities in medical treatment until very recently in life. Honestly, I don’t know why. If racial disparities can exist in other areas of life, why not health care delivery?

Nonetheless, I was floored to read the results of a recent study on cancer treatment. It states that many black cancer patients are not receiving health care any better than they had 10 years prior:

The researchers assessed the type of treatment given to more than 143,000 Americans over age 65 for lung, breast, colon, rectal and prostate cancer from 1992 to 2002 under the Medicare government health insurance program.

Black patients were consistently less likely than whites to receive the recommended types of treatment, the study found, and the problem was just as bad in 2002 as in 1992.

The solution? Fight for everything. Sadly, though I think that the last thing a sick person should have to do is fight for the same health care that other people get by virtue of skin color, this is just what seems necessary. Better yet, those of us who are still healthy need to stand up for those who are not because, without a doubt, some of us will be in those same shoes one day.

Popularity: 20% [?]

This is something that should cause us, as black people, to seriously consider issues of health.

A mutation BCRA1 gene is known to increase the likelihood of breast cancer in women. A study was recently done that look at the prevalence of this mutation and the results were enough to raise some eyebrows. The study looked at women of different ethnicities with breast cancer. What it was looking for was the percentage of women with breast cancer who also had this mutation. In Hispanic women, 3.5 percent of patients had this mutation. 8.3 percent of Ashkenazi Jewish women had this mutation. 2.2 percent of non-Hispanic white women and 0.5 percent of Asian-American women also had this mutation.

Overall, black women, right now, only comprise 1.3 percent of cancer patients with this mutation. However, among those diagnosed before age 35, 16.7 percent of those studied had the mutation. This clearly shows that there is real risk, of which black folks should be concerned.

This study also highlights the reality of medical racism. Consider the words of the following two researchers:

“Traditionally, studies have focused on white women,” said Esther John, a research scientist at the cancer center and lead author of the study. “There is a great need to study racial minorities in the United States.”

Although testing for the BRCA1 mutation has been available for a decade, it has not been applied much to minority populations, said Dr. Olufunmilayo Olopade, professor of medicine and human genetics at the University of Chicago.

“A lot of young women die of breast cancer because they’re not even aware that lump in their breast could be cancer,” said Olopade, who wrote an editorial accompanying the paper in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association. “If you know you’re at high risk, you’ll get that evaluated.”

Honestly, the first woman I ever knew with breast cancer was a white woman who I considered the salt of the earth. So, at least viscerally, I know the toll this disease can take on women and their families (Note: men can develop breast cancer, too, and we need to be diligent, as well). However, it is clear that the research of this disease needs to be better funded and more comprehensive to be more inclusive of patients of all colors.

Popularity: 28% [?]

Just in time for Christmas, George Bush again proves that, while wasting hundreds of billions in Iraq, he thinks that spending money helping kids at home is too expensive:

The Bush administration yesterday eliminated about $700 million a year in Medicaid reimbursements to schools, sidestepping an attempt by Congress to block such a move.

The new rule, issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is expected to save the federal government $3.6 billion over five years, transferring those costs to school districts.

Lawmakers this week passed legislation to place a six-month moratorium on Medicaid implementing the rule change, but President Bush had not signed the bill.

A wide range of medical services, such as speech and physical therapy, are furnished to students in schools. Medicaid, the government’s health insurance program for the poor, will continue to pay for those services for low-income children.
ad_icon

But the new rule will restrict when schools can bill the federal government for clerical work associated with providing health care. For example, schools can no longer expect Medicaid reimbursement for planning student immunizations. Schools also will not get paid for transporting students getting speech or physical therapy to school or back home.

So, while Republicans bemoan the fake “war on Christmas” and claim that people are forgetting the meaning of the holiday, here’s a prime example of what the holiday is not about and smacks of the very antithesis of what Jesus was about.

So much for good will toward men or, in this case, children.

Popularity: 28% [?]

One thing that the Bush era brought us was a big push for government-funded abstinence-only education. Ironically enough, what we also saw was a rise in teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. You see, some kids, not wanting to be caught buying condoms (or just not knowing how to use them properly), still wanted to have sex, resulting in pregnancy. Even worse, some kids were left to believe that oral and anal sex were real sex so, they engaged in these activities and contracted venereal diseases.

Now that the numbers are more clear on this, a lot of states are waking up and either opting out of the funding or saying they’ll take the money but teach abstinence as a part a more comprehensive sex education program. They see the numbers and it’s clear — teaching abstinence only and kids abstaining do not appear to go hand-in-hand.

But, guess what — when kids are given more information, not less, they tend to delay engaging in sexual intercourse. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which tracked these statistics, helped kids under the age of 15 make much better decisions regarding sex:

Earlier last month, a study lead by Douglas Kirby of the ETR Associates revealed that two thirds of 48 comprehensive sex education programs have had a good impact on teenagers. They delayed the initiation of sex, reduced its frequency and the number of sexual partners.

“Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect,” said the report.

On the other hand, other studies made in November as well, have said that these abstinence programs have little effect on the teenage sexual behavior, because, as the report discovered, 47 percent of high school students have engaged in sex at least once and 63 percent have said that they have sex during the spring semester of their senior year.

This time, researchers found that teenage boys who had sex education in school were 71 percent less likely to have intercourse before age 15 and girls who had formal sex education were 59 percent less likely to have sex before the age 15. The researchers also discovered that sex education reduced by 91 percent the risk that African-American females in school would have sex before age 15.

Like I tell people when asked about my opinions on sexual education — I plan on telling my son everything I can in an age-appropriate way. I plan on telling him what my mother told me –my preference is that he abstain but, if he gives in to temptation, I want him to make sure that he uses protection because pregnancy and disease are real possibilities. I plan on doing so because I love my son so much that I am willing to be real with him on the issue of sex.

Popularity: 34% [?]

My wife was sharing with me a story about somebody we know and was telling me how this person is asking that all the gifts that people give her child not be made in China. Given the volume of items made in China, that is an awesome challenge. My wife conveyed to me that she thought the request was kind of funny but, personally, I agree with this mother.

As I have posted here before, just because our government won’t acknowledge it, toy safety is a big concern. In recent news, we have seen story after story about toys manufactured in China containing lead paint. I even heard about a kids C.S.I. game that contained asbestos. As a parent, this bothers me greatly. A kid could inhale something or accidentally consume paint chips and, over time, develop some serious problems.

Recently, tests on more than 1,200 childrens’ products yielded some horrifying results. Researchers from 9 states, along with the national Center for Health, Environment and Justice encountered the following:

Tests on more than 1,200 children’s products, most of them still on store shelves, found that 35 percent contain lead — many with levels far above the federal recall standard used for lead paint.

A Hannah Montana card game case, a Go Diego Go! backpack and Circo brand shoes were among the items with excessive lead levels in the tests performed by a coalition of environmental health groups across the country.

Only 20 percent of the toys and other products had no trace of lead or harmful chemicals…

…Easthope said 17 percent of the children’s products tested had levels of lead above the 600 parts per million federal standard that would trigger a recall of lead paint. Jewelry products were the most likely to contain the high levels of lead, the center said, with 33.5 percent containing levels above 600 ppm. Among the toys that tested above that limit was a Hannah Montana Pop Star Card Game, whose case tested at 3,056 ppm.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a level of 40 ppm of lead as the maximum that should be allowed in children’s products. Lead poisoning can cause irreversible learning disabilities and behavioral problems and, at very high levels, seizures, coma, and even death.

This is something to think about as we purchase toys for our little ones this year.

UPDATE: You can find more information at www.healthytoys.org. Right now, the site seems to be experiencing high traffic so, you may not get in right away.

Popularity: 26% [?]

As we approach World AIDS Day 2007 (December 1), we need to be mindful of just how serious a concern HIV/AIDS really is. With all that’s going on in the world, we seem to overlook this serious issue, despite that it’s a big problem in this country, as well.

In the past, I had read articles about the AIDS rate in Washington, D.C. but, I hadn’t really paid attention to the numbers — until today. Where the national average for AIDS cases is 14 per 100,000 people, D.C. has a rate of 128 per 100,000 (over 9 times the national average). Furthermore, in 2005, a full 9% of pediatric AIDS cases in the United States were in D.C.

City officials say that people aren’t going in for testing so, infections are not detected until they develop into full-blown AIDS.

Again, World AIDS Day is this Saturday. Get tested and be safe.

Popularity: 19% [?]

Last week, I shared the comments of Dr. James Watson. Dr. Watson, in a interview with the Sunday Times, made comments labeling black people intellectually inferior.

At the time, Britain’s Science Museum canceled a talk he was scheduled to have there. Now, he is dealing with further backlash over his statements. Watson has been suspended from his research position at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long Island, New York. According to the institution’s trustee board, this step is being taken “pending further deliberation by the board.”

For his part, Dr. Watson must have felt the heat because he offered the following:

“I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have,” he said.

“To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly.

“That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

Shamefully, this man knew, with all his credentials, that his opinions on intellectual capacity as they relate to genetics would carry weight. Now, because he is facing heat for his words, he’s sorry.

I, for one, am not buying it.

Popularity: 43% [?]

Living in Cincinnati, OH, I have a lot of co-workers who are right-wingers. One thing that is common is that most of them readily mock any notion of needed to be better at conservation and looking at other options to oil.

For example, I am trying to better myself where I can in this regard and started by flourescent bulbs as bulbs burn out in my home. In addition to not having to change bulbs as often, they use less energy so, I save money on both ends. But, some mocked me for doing so. Now, you would think saving money would be appealing but, so many of us a brainwashed by talking points that we go against our own best interests.

But, there is news out today that will, hopefully, grab our attention.

I’ll share with you the words from the article in London’s Guardian newspaper:

The German-based Energy Watch Group will release its study in London today saying that global oil production peaked in 2006 - much earlier than most experts had expected. The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel.

“The world soon will not be able to produce all the oil it needs as demand is rising while supply is falling. This is a huge problem for the world economy,” said Hans-Josef Fell, EWG’s founder and the German MP behind the country’s successful support system for renewable energy.

The report’s author, Joerg Schindler, said its most alarming finding was the steep decline in oil production after its peak, which he says is now behind us.

The results are in contrast to projections from the International Energy Agency, which says there is little reason to worry about oil supplies at the moment.

However, the EWG study relies more on actual oil production data which, it says, are more reliable than estimates of reserves still in the ground. The group says official industry estimates put global reserves at about 1.255 gigabarrels - equivalent to 42 years’ supply at current consumption rates. But it thinks the figure is only about two thirds of that.

So, what could this mean? Well, if we’re willing to wage war over oil now, what will 10 years from now look like, if we do make some changes. Also, do you think that China and Russia, with all their energy needs, won’t be actively fighting against us for their share?

In other words, if we don’t look to other options, what we see in Iraq could be the normal course of business.

So, don’t you think we need a change?

Popularity: 53% [?]

This was a fun one. It’s a test of whether or not you’re more prone to think with your right brain or left brain.

If you see it moving clockwise, you are thinking with your right brain (creativity and feeling). If it’s counterclockwise,you’re thinking more with the left brain (logic and facts).

Now, try to make it turn the other way!

Popularity: 31% [?]