Skip to content
My WebMD Sign In, Sign Up
Atherosclerosis in Mummies
avatar
bobby75703 posted:
Excellent article for all of us here. A stark reminder that atherosclerosis existed 3000 years ago, long before any modern day influences such as Fast Food, and Camel cigarettes.

http://podblog.blogs.hopkinsmedicine.org/2013/03/23/mummies-and-atherosclerosis/
Reply
FirstPrevious12NextLast
 
avatar
iride6606 responded:
Interesting, a prevalence rate of 34% overall with some societies at 60% while the most recent findings here show a prevalence rate of 8.3%, with the influence of fast foods and Camels. Why the difference? The air is dirtier, there is more stress so why would it be so much lower now than in the simpler days?

Must be those medical advances we seem to get back to.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
"...so why would it be so much lower now than in the simpler days?"


It wasn't lower in the 1950's and 1960's. On the big scale of time this was rather recent.


I see one common denominator between 3000 years ago and the 50's and 60's. That would be heavy by-products of combustion. Granted its only a theory, but it is a common link.


Once we have an association that warrants further investigation, it becomes time for science to prove the hypothesis.



 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
I'm sorry, you see a comparison between the amount of combustion by products between the ancient Egyptians and the 1960s America?

You keep saying it was higher in the 50s & 60s, I don't know if you seen the latest data from the NIH as provided by the CDC;



This just does not match what you keep posting.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Yes, this is the data I am referring to. One of many graphs.
The 1950's and 60's were the two decades that were the heavy smog decades.


The advent of the internal combustion engine shortly after 1900, and the rapid increase in production of these engines for Automobiles and aircraft, etc.

Industry was also on the upswing, with oil refineries increasing to meet the demand of fueling all those engines spewing out raw exhaust.

By the 50's and 60's, we had a real problem with smog. It was damaging crops it was so bad. This served as proof that smog could damage plant leaves.

The by-products of combustion from cigarettes, automobiles and indoor fires 3000 years ago are related with many common chemicals. They all produce toxic particulate very similar.

Positive changed took place in the USA after 1968. Not only did smoking decline, but also emissions declined.

The good news is America's smoking rate has declined from around 50% in 1968 to around 18% today, with strict public smoking laws reducing second hand exposure.

Cars burn 95% cleaner thanks to emissions equipment, and industry emissions have improved as well.

Something else cleaned up America's air. Shipping manufacturing jobs overseas. Factories in China are inducing heavy pollution in China. Beijing is experiencing rising cardiovascular problems.

More later, gotta go.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
I'm sorry, I just can wrap my head around this. You're saying that the toxicity in the air today which is the result of industry and the automobile is comparable to the fires used in Egypt 3,000 years ago by a desert people that lived primarily in the desert in tents. You feel that was worse which would explain why their prevalence rate was 34% compared to under 10% today?

I don't think I can agree with that.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
No, I am saying the toxicity of the air back in the 50's and 60's could be comparable to the toxicity of air with indoor fires and oil lamps from 3000 years ago. I was not referring to the air today.

Today's air in the States is great compared to where we were 50 years ago.

The article speculates indoor fires and oil lanterns as a possible cause of atherosclerosis in these 3000 year old mummies. Its a hypothesis and nothing more.

I simply connected the dots of the Article's hypothesis, and the 50's high air pollution with higher rates of heart disease. Really nothing more than that.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
I use death rate graphs. Deaths/100,000. Not number of deaths. Which is why our graphs didn't match.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
That's not the same graph, this is the new one;

[a name="gr7">
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Do you understand the graphs are identical with the exception of the updating of the last 3 years?

Whats happened in the last 3 years does not change history from 1900-1997.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
Correction: Meant to say from 1900-2007
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
I'm not talking about 1900 - 2007, I'm talking about the period of time between 200 and 2010, rates dropped, statin prescriptions peaked. Real simple. Also, I don't think the graphs are the same. The rate of decline is much more pronounced at the year 2000 in the latest data from the NIH than in the graph you pulled 3 years ago, I don't need to do this for a living to see that. Of course I would need to see the data base to confirm but it looks pretty different to me.




 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Either graph, it doesn't matter. The answer is the same. The AVERAGE rate of decline pre and post statins remained unchanged.

What about the first 10 years statins were on the market? We actually lost ground in the battle against the decline rate in heart disease.

The straight line averages over time demonstrate no change.


Bottom line:" Nothing changed that wasn't already happening before statins"

 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
I don't read this the same by any means, the graphs have a tremendous difference. There is a dramatic shift downwards in the latest graph not present before.

In either case, if the population is growing by 1% per year and less people are dying of CVD since 2000 then there has been a huge change.

The other issue is your use of the heart disease only line. In this line you are including all the diseases not related to atherosclerosis. If we are keeping more people alive that would have died from things like LVH or cardiac arrest then isn't likely that there has been a shift up in atherosclerosis related deaths? After all, it is in the "other" disease that there has been much more progress in medical treatment. Here's the chart excluding all genetic and non-atherosclerosis related deaths from 1979 thru 2008;



Note the big decline around 1987, this certainly does not look like a constant line to me.If you spread any data line out over 100 years it will lose the detail especially if you include additional data that in general is fixed. These are the filtered numbers so we're only looking at atherosclerosis related deaths, not all heart disease inclusive.

Here it is over a longer period;



The decline in atherosclerosis related deaths only start much later. The reason for the decline is still subject to interpretation.


Featuring Experts

There are no Expert stories for this community right now

Helpful Tips

statins
I stopped Crestor for 33 days. my lipids were: [br>TC 139 [br>HDL 35 [br>TRG 126 [br>LDL/HDL 2.3 [br>GLU 88 ... More
Was this Helpful?
0 of 1 found this helpful

Helpful Resources

Be the first to post a Resource!

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Related Drug Reviews

  • Drug Name User Reviews

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.