Watch out: Health Statistics cause dementia!
The World Alzheimer Report claims that dementia costs 1% of the world gross domestic product.
I have a few questions to begin with:
- Is the World Alzheimer Report demented itself?
- How exactly do you measure the world gross domestic product? I assume you just google it.
- How exactly do you measure costs of dementia (taking into consideration that many demented people would need care for other diseases or handicaps)?
- Since when is the world "domestic"?
It can hardly be a constructive approach to stigmatize dementia patients by publishing imaginary numbers of the costs they cause. The Alzheimer Report looks like a product of economists who like to put numbers on everything: Look how much old people cost us! It's unnecessary to measure each and any illness with numbers. We know that dementia is not great. We find out by meeting people who are affected by it, not national economies. It doesn't make a difference if some organization claims it knows the exact costs. Who cares about the economic cost of diseases except people that make or lose money by it? If I have AIDS or the flu, my last concern are economic impacts.
The conclusion that "70% of the costs occur in Western Europe and North America" says it all: it's not about the people affected, it's just about money, money, money.
Sure, the report is aimed at governments to raise awareness of the problem. But at the same time it perpetuates a strictly economic way of thinking that leaves the people aside. What people need is quality, not quantity.
I have found data about the effects of health statistics like this on the population:
Interesting, the graphs run parallel to each other.
Thus, it seems likely that such health statistics are the main reason for dementia in the first place. If we added up the numbers for all diseases, the costs caused by them would probably run somewhere close to the gross domestic product of the United States and China combined. Whatever that means...
And now this Alzheimer organization wants the World Health Organization to make dementia a priority. Just like cancer organizations want cancer to be a priority, AIDS organizations AIDS, Alcoholics Anonymous alcoholism, and so on. Big deal. By the way, personally, I think the World Health Organization should make it a top priority to go fuck themselves. Also, I suggest that organizations like Alzheimer's Disease International quit publishing such demented numbers in order to prevent further aggravation of the problem.
Here's a selection of diseases that health statistics can cause:
Humans should be empowered to understand human problems without statistics that compare random things. The only thing these numbers do, is make us scream: fire!
And what does a number like $604bn tell you? Not a whole lot I guess. Because it's not related to anything in our lives. If anything, it distracts us from the core of the problem. Nobody wants dementia. Alzheimer's Disease International should rather find ways to facilitate in-family care and publish information about how not do get demented.
Here are a few factors that diminish the risk of dementia, according to the Universal Institute for Prevention of Statistics-Related Diseases of by Prof. Th. Inkforyou Rself:
- Avoid health statistics.
- Eat healthy.
- Don't watch too much television (because television is dangerous).
- Keep contact with fellow humans.
- Don't get nuts for random numbers that media is throwing at you.
- Go swimming.
- Use your goddamn head and don't give up using it.
- Do the exact opposite of anything the World Health Organization says, if it makes you happy.
Oh, and if you read anything like "Smoking after age 65 increases your chances of developing Alzheimer’s by 79%" - don't buy it!
That's a typical misinterpretation of statistic correlation. Correlation is not causation. In the numbers, it might turn out that more smokers have Alzheimer's disease. But that doesn't actually mean that smoking causes it. It could as well mean that these people exercise little, are malnourished and don't use their brains enough to keep them going. Usually, these smoking correlations can be replaced with income: people from low-income households smoke more than richer people. So whenever you see a statistic like this, you can safely replace the factor "smoking" by "bad education and lack of opportunities" and get equal results (the same applies to the risk factor "obesity").
So how's about educating people in order to avoid all sorts of diseases? I doubt that the World Health Organization would like that. Because if people begin thinking for themselves, there will be no more need for the WHO.