Most US citizens are not putting two and two together in 5G Smart Cities, global health systems tied to telemedicine, and net neutrality. This is because those dastardly ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT FAKE LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE groups keep bringing the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE out to protest the wrong public policy issues----being silent on the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM issues.
We discussed in detail 10 years ago how both Bush and Obama and their FCC were killing not only our strongest in world history broad and free press/media----but now building barriers to internet access leading to only global corporate campuses having access and 99% of WE THE PEOPLE having NO ACCESS. Obama used Affordable Care Act to expand global internet infrastructure for ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID---he privatized massive air wave spectrum to the same global online/internet corporations----he handed email ISP control ---that is the login we all use to get online or accessing our email---to a global committee---out of our US national sovereignty.
The damage to internet neutrality was done for the most part during OBAMA even as FAKE ACTIVISTS pretended to get a net neutrality win. As we stated, the net neutrality win was for FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO INTERNET AS ALL OTHER CORPORATIONS INSIDE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. So, the win during Obama was for that same global 1% and their 2% bringing foreign corporations to compete in US cities like Baltimore. NO WIN FOR US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE during OBAMA and his FCC.
Here in Baltimore we just heard our BILL COLE OF BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT welcome our newest global corporation from UK in software development to Baltimore----as overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES in Asia filled with global corporations from other nations now saying----wait we have made ourselves a COLONIAL ENTITY with these FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
'We have a danger of India becoming a digital colony: Pai
short by Aditi Verma / 07:55 pm on 21 Nov 2017,Tuesday
Talking about the IT sector in India, former Infosys CFO Mohandas Pai has said that "We have a danger of this country becoming a digital colony." Adding that currently all unicorn companies are "substantially owned by foreigners", Pai emphasised that companies have to be drawn to India. Pai also said that by 2025, India will have about one lakh startups'.
'A telecommunications lawyer who has served on the FCC since May 2012, Pai is a free-market advocate who has been sharply critical of new regulations adopted by Democrats in recent years'.
Above we see one of EAST INDIA'S BILLIONAIRES from techology industry saying just that and look it is billionaire PAI-------with that global 1% having those global 2% PAI installed in our US government during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. When we shake our fist at Trump who was installed simply to MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ----we are not fighting the right public policy issues. We love global 99% labor pool including our East Indian immigrants---we do not want our government national, state, and local being filled with global 2% ---and this is what is happening as US foreign economic zones MOVE FORWARD.
Trump names new FCC chairman: Ajit Pai, who wants to take a 'weed whacker' to net neutrality
By Jim Puzzanghera
Jan 23, 2017
President Trump on Monday designated Ajit Pai, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission and an outspoken opponent of new net neutrality rules, to be the agency's new chairman.
Pai, 44, would take over for Tom Wheeler, a Democrat who stepped down on Friday. Wheeler's term had not expired but Trump gets to designate a new chairman as Republicans gain the FCC majority.
"I look forward to working with the new administration, my colleagues at the commission, members of Congress, and the American public to bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans," Pai said.
A telecommunications lawyer who has served on the FCC since May 2012, Pai is a free-market advocate who has been sharply critical of new regulations adopted by Democrats in recent years.
He takes the chairman's office amid reports that Trump's advisors want to scale back the FCC's authority.
"We need to fire up the weed whacker and remove those rules that are holding back investment, innovation and job creation," Pai said in a speech last month looking ahead to Republican control of the FCC.
Pai, whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from India, was associate general counsel of Verizon Communications Inc. from 2001-03 before working as a staffer at the U.S. Senate, the Justice Department and the FCC.
He sprinkles his speeches with pop-culture references and is adept at social media. During the net neutrality debate, he tweeted a photo of himself with the 332-page proposal and lamented that FCC rules didn't allow him to make it public. Pai has pushed for FCC proposals to be released before commissioners vote on them.
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a Georgetown University law professor and longtime consumer advocate, said Pai would be a "formidable opponent" for public interest groups.
"He is not only an outspoken detractor from many of the important advances we obtained under Chairman Wheeler, but he is also extremely smart and knowledgeable," Schwartzman said.
OH, REALLY SCHWARTZMAN-----PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS MAKING IMPORTANT ADVANCES DURING OBAMA?
Chief among Pai's targets will be the net neutrality online traffic rules the FCC adopted on a partisan 3-2 vote in 2015.
The regulations are designed to ensure the free flow of online data by barring Internet service providers from discriminating against legal content flowing through their networks. To do that, the FCC imposed utility-like oversight of broadband providers.
Former President Obama, his fellow Democrats and consumer activists pushed for the tough regulations. But the move was strongly opposed by Pai and the FCC’s other Republican, Michael O’Rielly, as well as GOP lawmakers and broadband providers.
Trump also spoke out against the rules, tweeting in November 2014, "Obama's attack on the Internet is another top-down power grab."
A federal appeals court upheld the rules last year after a legal challenge from AT&T Inc., other telecom companies and industry trade groups. But in a Dec. 7 speech to the Free State Foundation, a free-market think tank, Pai said he was "more confident than ever" that the "days are numbered" for the net neutrality regulations.
Craig Aaron, president of Free Press, a digital rights group, said Pai "looks out for the corporate interests he used to represent in the private sector."
"Millions of Americans from across the political spectrum have looked to the FCC to protect their rights to connect and communicate and cheered decisions like the historic net neutrality ruling, and Pai threatens to undo all of that important work," Aaron said. "Those millions will rise up again to oppose his reactionary agenda."
Removing the net neutrality regulations could take a while as the FCC probably would have to go through a formal rule-making process.
"We made a decision on the record. The court supported that decision rather convincingly," Wheeler said in an interview this week. "I think it's going to be difficult to just waltz in and say, 'We're going to overturn everything.'"
Trump met with Pai at Trump Tower last week, fueling speculation that the new president would choose him to lead the agency.
The five-member commission has two vacancies after the departures of Wheeler and Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel.
NO DEMOCRATS HERE----GLOBAL 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS MOVING FORWARD SAME ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1%.
______________________________________________
So, PAI as Trump as Clinton as Bush all working to install their global corporations inside US Foreign Economic Zones and global telemedicine is top industry. When 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are all microchipped, nanoboted, vaccinated, and plumb for being new medical testing human capital -----we will find ourselves connected to a global Johns Hopkins facility in UPPER MONGOLIA having implanted medicine filling our bodies and no ability to control what telemedicine is doing.
All nations tied to Foreign Economic Zones are now building these infrastructure for ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL TELEMEDICINE and as in US it's all about helping the poor and rural 99% of citizens reach health care. Here in US our rural and poor know they accessed public health just fine last century-----East India had one of the strongest public health systems now defunded and dismantled to be replaced by telemedicine. Just as with corporate call centers leaving the US for nations like India-------these telemedicine operations being tied to US 99% and our global 99% will operate from WHO KNOWS WHERE by WHO KNOWS WHO controlled by global 1% and 99% of citizens will have no control over what this health care will look like. It will be mandated through Affordable Care Act health system insurance corporations and those global health corporation executives assigned to be that BOARD OF DECIDERS.
As we stated MOVING FORWARD in US has already filled many of these boards with global 1% and their 2%-----NEPOTISM by the same global 1% having moved all US wealth to the top during ROBBER BARON few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. This PAI now Trump's FCC head first entered government during Clinton era as CLINTON INITIATIVE pushed US corporations and operations into EAST INDIA.
If we look at East India and its move from being global call center technology to global telemedicine and global health tourism that nation has FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES designated for mostly that health industry just as US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES do the same----Maryland and Baltimore are being made into HEALTH AND TECHNOLOGY FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and Trump's FCC PAI is in position to make sure his family in India can come to US cities and operate with equal access to our ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID.
When Trump's PAI calls for FREE MARKET INTERNET-----he is not calling for free market for 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE----he is calling for global free market for global 1% foreign corporations inside US cities. There will be NO FREE MARKET for small businesses, regional businesses operated by 99% of US citizens black, white, and brown citizens......that net neutrality was lost under OBAMA FCC public policies.
Healthcare Industry in India
Latest update: November, 2017
Last Updated: November, 2017
SECTORAL REPORT | November, 2017
Introduction
Healthcare has become one of India’s largest sectors - both in terms of revenue and employment. Healthcare comprises hospitals, medical devices, clinical trials, outsourcing, telemedicine, medical tourism, health insurance and medical equipment. The Indian healthcare sector is growing at a brisk pace due to its strengthening coverage, services and increasing expenditure by public as well private players.
Indian healthcare delivery system is categorised into two major components - public and private. The Government, i.e. public healthcare system comprises limited secondary and tertiary care institutions in key cities and focuses on providing basic healthcare facilities in the form of primary healthcare centres (PHCs) in rural areas. The private sector provides majority of secondary, tertiary and quaternary care institutions with a major concentration in metros, tier I and tier II cities.
India's competitive advantage lies in its large pool of well-trained medical professionals. India is also cost competitive compared to its peers in Asia and Western countries. The cost of surgery in India is about one-tenth of that in the US or Western Europe.
Market Size
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India has predicted that with increased digital adoption, the Indian healthcare market, which is worth around US$ 100 billion, will likely grow at a CAGR of 23 per cent to US$ 280 billion by 2020.
The revenue of India’s corporate healthcare sector is estimated to grow at 15 per cent in FY 2017-18.*
India is experiencing 22-25 per cent growth in medical tourism and the industry is expected to double its size from present (April 2017) US$ 3 billion to US$ 6 billion by 2018. Medical tourist arrivals in India increased more than 50 per cent to 200,000 in 2016 from 130,000 in 2015.
The Healthcare Information Technology (IT) market is valued at US$ 1 billion currently (April 2016) and is expected to grow 1.5 times by 2020. #
Over 80 per cent of the antiretroviral drugs used globally to combat AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome) are supplied by Indian pharmaceutical firms^.
There is a significant scope for enhancing healthcare services considering that healthcare spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is rising. Rural India, which accounts for over 70 per cent of the population, is set to emerge as a potential demand source.
A total of 3,598 hospitals and 25,723 dispensaries across the country offer AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy) treatment, thus ensuring availability of alternative medicine and treatment to the people.
Investment
The hospital and diagnostic centres attracted Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) worth US$ 4.34 billion between April 2000 and March 2017, according to data released by the Department of Industrial
Policy and Promotion (DIPP). Some of the major investments in the Indian healthcare industry are as follows:
Government Initiatives
Some of the major initiatives taken by the Government of India to promote Indian healthcare industry are as follows:
India is a land full of opportunities for players in the medical devices industry. India’s healthcare industry is one of the fastest growing sectors and in the coming 10 years it is expected to reach $275 billion. The country has also become one of the leading destinations for high-end diagnostic services with tremendous capital investment for advanced diagnostic facilities, thus catering to a greater proportion of population. Besides, Indian medical service consumers have become more conscious towards their healthcare upkeep.
Indian healthcare sector is much diversified and is full of opportunities in every segment which includes providers, payers and medical technology. With the increase in the competition, businesses are looking to explore for the latest dynamics and trends which will have positive impact on their business.
India's competitive advantage also lies in the increased success rate of Indian companies in getting Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) approvals. India also offers vast opportunities in R&D as well as medical tourism. To sum up, there are vast opportunities for investment in healthcare infrastructure in both urban and rural India.
Exchange Rate Used: INR 1 = US$ 0.015 as of October 06, 2017.
_______________________________________________
As US 99% of citizens think they are being HIP AND COOL tied to all the latest technology products ---touting all those WELLNESS TALKING POINTS sent down by OBAMA'S Affordable Care Act-------99% of US citizens are on their way to being tied to implanted or wrap-around medical products sending medical data to MEGA-DATA computers where a global 1% corporate board of health executives direct what to pump into 99% of global citizens. This is crazy stuff folks---when we allow our bodies to be completely controlled on all matters of health by computer technology we really have become HUMAN CAPITAL.
Try as global 1% might to make US citizens feel that telemedicine and global health tourism will remain tied to our local hospitals---our local public medical universities-----IT WILL NOT. They all will be tied to designer medical research and development that only the global 1% and their 2% will be able to afford.
It was OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS using the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT that did two things-----deregulated all local public health and Federal health oversight and accountability---handing it to those dastardly global 1% health corporation executives having fleeced trillions from our MEDICARE AND MEDICAID ----and it mandated everyone be tied to buying health insurance with annual visits to primary care doctor wherever in the world he/she may be. This was NOT LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE----this was FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY LIBERTARIAN MARXISM. Global corporations and global 1% only want to take care of their human capital.
Our global labor pool and foreign students coming to US Foreign Economic Zones from Asia often have no idea what these GOALS of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% are ----even those coming from global 1% and their 2% families ----we are glad when we hear from our FB foreign friends they understand what is happening in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE cities like BALTIMORE.
The wonder drug
A digital revolution in health care is speeding up
Telemedicine, predictive diagnostics, wearable sensors and a host of new apps will transform how people manage their health
WHEN someone goes into cardiac arrest, survival depends on how quickly the heart can be restarted. Enter Amazon’s Echo, a voice-driven computer that answers to the name of Alexa, which can recite life-saving instructions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, a skill taught to it by the American Heart Association. Alexa is accumulating other health-care skills, too, including acting as a companion for the elderly and answering questions about children’s illnesses. In the near future she will probably help doctors with grubby hands to take notes and to request scans, as well as remind patients to take their pills.
Alexa is one manifestation of a drive to disrupt an industry that has so far largely failed to deliver on the potential of digital information. Health care is over-regulated and expensive to innovate in, and has a history of failing to implement ambitious IT projects. But the momentum towards a digital future is gathering pace. Investment into digital health care has soared (see chart).
One reason for that is the scale of potential cost-savings. Last year Americans spent an amount equivalent to about 18% of GDP on health care. That is an extreme, but other countries face rising cost pressures from health spending as populations age. Much of this expenditure is inefficient. Spending on administration varies sevenfold between rich countries. There are huge differences in the cost of medical procedures. In rich countries about one-fifth of spending on health care goes to waste, for example on wrong or unnecessary treatments. Eliminating a fraction of this sum is a huge opportunity.
Consumers seem readier to accept digital products than just a few years ago. The field includes mobile apps, telemedicine—health care provided using electronic communications—and predictive analytics (using statistical methods to sift data on outcomes for patients). Other areas are automated diagnoses and wearable sensors to measure things like blood pressure.
If there is to be a health-care revolution, it will create winners and losers. Andy Richards, an investor in digital health, argues that three groups are fighting a war for control of the “health-care value chain”.
One group comprises “traditional innovators”—pharmaceutical firms, hospitals and medical-technology companies such as GE Healthcare, Siemens, Medtronic and Philips. A second category is made up of “incumbent players”, which include health insurers, pharmacy-benefit managers (which buy drugs in bulk), and as single-payer health-care systems such as Britain’s NHS. The third group are the technology “insurgents”, including Google, Apple, Amazon and a host of hungry entrepreneurs that are creating apps, predictive-diagnostics systems and new devices. These firms may well profit most handsomely from the shift to digital.
The threat to the traditional innovators is that as medical records are digitised and new kinds of patient data arrive from genomic sequencing, sensors and even from social media, insurers and governments can get much better insight into which treatments work. These buyers are increasingly demanding “value-based” reimbursement—meaning that if a drug or device doesn’t function well, it will not be bought.
The big question is whether drug companies will be big losers, says Marc Sluijs, an adviser on investment in digital health. More data will not only identify those drugs that do not work. Digital health care will also give rise to new services that might involve taking no drugs at all.
Lunches eaten
Diabetes is an obvious problem for the pharma business in this regard, says Dan Mahony, a partner at Polar Capital, an investment firm. Since evidence shows that exercise gives diabetics better control of their disease (and helps most pre-diabetics not to get sick at all), there is an opening for new services. UnitedHealthcare, a big American insurer, for example, has a prevention programme that connects pre-diabetics with special coaches at gyms.
An app or a wearable device that persuades people to walk a certain distance every day would be far cheaper for insurers and governments to provide than years of visits to doctors, hospitals and drugs. Although Fitbits are frequently derided for ending up in the back of a drawer, people can be motivated to get off the sofa. Players of Pokémon Go have collectively walked nearly 9bn kilometres since the smartphone game was released last year.
That is the backdrop to a new firm called Onduo, a joint venture that Google’s health-care venture, Verily Life Sciences, and Sanofi, a French drug firm, set up last year. Onduo will start by developing ways to help diabetics make better decisions about their use of drugs and their lifestyle habits. Later on, Onduo wants to help those who are at risk of diabetes not to develop it. The startup is a good hedge for Sanofi, which faces a slowdown in sales of its blockbuster insulin medication, Lantus, which lost patent protection in 2015.
This kind of thinking does not come easily to drug firms. Switzerland’s Novartis is one of the few to have acknowledged that digital innovation will mean selling products based on patient outcomes. But if pharma firms do not design solutions that put the patient, rather than drug sales, at the centre of their strategy, they risk losing relevance, says Mr Sluijs.
Large hospitals, some of which count as both incumbents and traditional innovators, will also be affected. The rise of telemedicine, predictive analytics and earlier diagnoses of illnesses are expected to reduce admissions, particularly of the emergency kind that are most lucrative in commercial systems. The sickest patients can be targeted by specialist services, such as Evolution Health, a firm in Texas that cares for 2m of the most-ill patients across 15 states. It claims to be able to reduce the use of emergency rooms by a fifth, and inpatient stays in hospitals by two-fifths.
Rapid medical and diagnostic innovation will disrupt all businesses that rely heavily on physical facilities and staff. A mobile ultrasound scanner made by Philips, called Lumify, means that a far larger number of patients can be seen by their own doctors. As for data-based diagnostics, one potential example of its power to change business models is Guardant Health, a startup that is analysing large quantities of medical data in order to develop a way of diagnosing cancer from blood tests. If the firm can devise an early test for breast cancer, demand for mammograms and the machines that take them would fall, along with the need for expensive drugs and spells in hospital.
From ER to AI
There is also good news for hospitals, however. Increasingly, machine-learning programs are able to make diagnoses from scans and from test results. An intriguing recent project has been to stream and analyse live health data and deliver alerts on an app that is carried around by doctors and nurses at the Royal Free Hospital in London. The app, which is the work of DeepMind, a British artificial-intelligence (AI) research firm owned by Google, identifies the patients at greatest risk of a sudden and fatal loss of kidney function. The Royal Free says that the app is already saving nurses’ time.
Naturally enough, the health-care entrepreneurs have the boldest visions. The point of care will move rapidly into the home, they say. People will monitor their heart conditions, detect concussions, monitor the progress of diseases and check up on moles or ear infections using apps, mobile phones and sensors. Last year the FDA approved 36 connected health apps and devices. A new app, called Natural Cycles, was recently approved in Europe for use as a contraceptive. Its failure rate for typical use was equivalent to that of popular contraceptive pills. A smartphone may eventually be able to predict the onset of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or even the menopause (if the information is wanted).
In emerging economies, where regulations on health data are less onerous and where people often already expect to pay to see a doctor, there is faster growth and innovation. China, which is building 400 hospitals a year, saw its two largest VC investments in digital health care last year. One went into a Chinese medical-service app, Ping An Good Doctor, which raised $500m; a video-consultations app called Chunyu Yisheng raised $183m. India is another innovator. To take one example, LiveHealth, based in Pune, is an app that lets patients assemble all their health records in one place, see test results and communicate with doctors.
In the short term, the greatest disruption will come from a growing array of apps in many countries around the world that give consumers direct access to qualified GPS on their mobile phones. Overall, telemedicine is expected to grow rapidly. In America, GPs will conduct 5.4m video consultations a year by 2020, says IHS Markit, a research firm. Britain’s NHS is testing a medical AI from a London-based startup called Babylon which can field patients’ questions about their health. A paid service called Push Doctor offers an online appointment almost immediately for £20 ($24). The firm maximises the efficiency of its doctors by reducing the time they spend on administrative duties. They spend 93% of their time with patients compared with only 61% in Britain’s public sector. Babylon reckons that 85% of consultations do not need to be in person.
In the longer term, the biggest upheaval may come from the large technology firms. Amazon and Google are not the only giants to be stalking health care. Apple has expressed a strong interest in it, though it is taking time to decide exactly what it wants to do. For several years it has provided a way of bringing together health data on its iPhone, and tools for health researchers to build apps. As personal-health records accumulate on its platform, from sensors such as Fitbits to medical-grade devices, it will encourage more app development.
An app using data from an iPhone or another smartphone might be able to warn users that a sedentary lifestyle will exacerbate a heart condition or that, based on social-media patterns, they are at risk of depression, for example. Apple and other tech firms may also be able to help patients take greater control of their existing health records. For now medical records mostly remain under the guard of those who provided the care, but this is expected to change. If patients do gain proper access to their own data, Apple is in a particularly strong position. Its platform is locked and fairly secure, and the apps that run on it are all screened by the firm.
None of this will materialise quickly. Regulated health-care systems will take time to deal with concerns over accuracy, security and privacy. In Britain the Royal Free is already under scrutiny over how it shared its patients’ data. That suggests a broader worry: that technology companies are too cavalier with their users’ data. Such firms typically use long agreements on data rights that are hard for individuals to understand. The medical world places importance on informed consent, so a clash of cultures seems unavoidable.
Yet enormous change looks inevitable. Investors hope for billion-dollar health-tech “unicorns”. Payers eye equally sizeable savings. Amid such talk it is worth remembering that the biggest winners from digital health care will be the patients who receive better treatment, and those who avoid becoming patients at all.
_____________________________________________
What Trump and PAI are MOVING FORWARD after the Obama privatization of all US air waves to global technology corporations is this-----they are installing laws meant to keep 99% US WE THE PEOPLE from demanding equal opportunity access for all US citizens black, white, and brown citizens compromising the ability of foreign corporations inside US cities to have all the access THEY NEED to operate globally.
PAI was installed and confirmed by US Presidents and Congress to do just that.
'Correction: Pai needs to be reconfirmed by the Senate this year before receiving a new five-year term. This story has also been updated to clarify that the majority party can only hold three out of the commission’s five seats'.
Remember, no amount of 5G et al will allow such data-heavy global corporations to have more internet access than they need-----MOVING FORWARD will require all internet space to global corporations like GLOBAL TELEMEDICINE AND HEALTH TOURISM----meaning 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE get no access and same is true for global 99% inside their own nations......Africa, Asia, South Pacific Islands, Latin America------FREE MARKET INTERNET MEANS ONLY GLOBAL 1% CORPORATIONS.
Here we see the media outlet THE VERGE pretending these net neutrality issues are about access for the US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
Trump’s new FCC chief is Ajit Pai, and he wants to destroy net neutrality
by Jacob Kastrenakes Jan 23, 2017, 4:45pm EST VERGE
Donald Trump has elevated Ajit Pai to chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, giving control over the agency to a reliable conservative who’s been opposed to pretty much every big action the commission has taken in recent years, from establishing net neutrality to protecting consumer privacy to restricting major cable mergers.
Pai has been a commissioner at the FCC since 2012, when he was appointed by then-President Obama and confirmed by the Senate. Though an Obama appointee, Pai does not share Obama’s progressive views and is by no means someone Obama would have chosen to lead the commission. Rather, there’s a tradition of letting the minority party pick two commissioners, since the majority can only legally hold three seats; in nominating Pai — at the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican — Obama was sticking to that tradition.
Pai has said net neutrality will be “reversed by Congress or overturned by a future commission”Shortly after Trump’s election, Pai indicated that a top priority under the new administration would be dismantling net neutrality. In a letter, he wrote that he intended to “revisit ... the Title II Net Neutrality proceeding ... as soon as possible.”
Pai has long been critical of net neutrality, saying that the problem it’s trying to solve — big internet providers acting as gatekeepers to what we see and do online — doesn’t exist. He recently reiterated a prediction that the commission’s Open Internet Order, which established net neutrality, would be reversed or overturned in one way or another. He’ll now have the chance to play a role in that.
“On the day that the Title II Order was adopted, I said that ‘I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered,’” Pai said. “Today, I am more confident than ever that this prediction will come true.”
Open internet advocates are already concerned about where Pai will take the agency. “Pai has been an effective obstructionist who looks out for the corporate interests he used to represent in the private sector,” says Craig Aaron, the president of a nonprofit called Free Press that’s fought for net neutrality, in an emailed statement. “If the new president really wanted an FCC chairman who’d stand up against the runaway media consolidation that Trump himself decried in the AT&T–Time Warner deal, Pai would have been his last choice — though corporate lobbyists across the capital are probably thrilled.”
"Some of the things we've seen in his record are certainly problematic for consumers and for competition," Chris Lewis, vice president of the communications advocacy nonprofit Public Knowledge, tells The Verge. "Whether it's his opposition to open internet rules, or opposition to basic privacy online, or opposition to the effort to extend the Lifeline program subsidies to broadband so that low income Americans have access to basic 21st century communications."
Pai’s core stance is a traditionally Republican one: free market, minimal regulation. He’s been opposed to requiring ISPs to implement stricter privacy protections for consumers, opposed to increasing broadband benchmarks to promote higher speeds, opposed to regulating mergers, and even indicated a Republican-controlled commission might have let the Comcast–Time Warner Cable merger go through.
AND YET OBAMA APPOINTED PAI AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL SENATE APPROVED HIM SETTING THE STAGE FOR THIS LEADERSHIP APPOINTMENT BY TRUMP.
Pai has criticized his predecessor’s partisan approach to rulemakingThat said, he has not been opposed to absolutely everything done under Obama’s FCC. He recently voted in favor of a bipartisan proposal that will enable the the support of real-time texting for people with disabilities, allowing text to be transmitted letter by letter, rather than requiring a user to hit “send.” He has also voiced support for rules that would reduce the outrageous rates inmates must pay to place calls in many states, though he voted against a proposal that would do this, citing legal concerns (the rules are currently caught up in court).
One of the FCC’s mandates is to promote broadband deployment, and Pai has emphasized his dissatisfaction with current policies. He said last year that he believes the commission’s actions “over the last seven years just haven’t worked,” and he’s made suggestions — including adding tax credits and removing regulations that protect older technologies, like copper wire, that some communities rely on — that he thinks will speed up the process of closing “the digital divide between rural and urban America.”
Pai has also been critical of the FCC’s willingness to pass partisan proposals under the leadership of Tom Wheeler, who was chairman during Obama’s final three years in office. Commissioners from the opposing party were given more deference under previous leaders, he says, and prior leaders were willing to negotiate bipartisan solutions.
“The commission is much stronger when it speaks with a unified voice,” Pai told Morning Consult nearly a year ago. “It gets a lot more congressional support, it’s more likely to be held up in the courts and ultimately accepted by the American people.”
Prior to working at the FCC, Pai worked as a lawyer throughout government, at the FCC, the Department of Justice, and the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also served as counsel for Verizon between 2001 and 2003, focusing on antitrust and regulatory matters.
Pai’s tenure at the commission is set to expire this year, so he’ll need to be reconfirmed by the Senate if Republicans want him to stick around past 2017. That means Trump effectively gets to test out Pai for a bit before deciding whether to keep him around for much longer. If reconfirmed, he’d get an additional five-year stay that could keep him on through Trump’s term.
Correction: Pai needs to be reconfirmed by the Senate this year before receiving a new five-year term. This story has also been updated to clarify that the majority party can only hold three out of the commission’s five seats.
________________________________________________
"A pill count simply isn't enough to determine the value of vitamin E," Frei said. "We need to select people for trials properly, make sure they are taking the right form of the vitamin, at the right levels and at the right time, and then verify the metabolic results with laboratory testing."
The Vitamin A/Beta Carotene studies of 1990s included 200,000 to 400,000 participants studied over a decade with blood monitoring regularly ----placebo vs vitamin. The size of these studies allowed for broad population group participation and the lengthy time allowed for effects and efficacy over time.
As we stated---it was found in 1990s from these clinical trials that manufactured vitamins are not taken into body in ways that are medically helpful as eating foods having those vitamins do. This is why most doctors do not tell patients to take vitamins---they saw eat correct food groups.
What we are seeing today MOVING FORWARD US medical research as corporate R AND D-----is in this article. We see them trying to say they need a controlled intake, timed, reported in real time-----to get real results. Add some FAT MEAL to vitamin E to correct for failure to intake manufactured vitamins.
WHAT ALL THAT RESEARCH MEDICAL MUMBO-JUMBO IS SAYING IS THIS----WE NEED NANOBOTS AND MICROCHIPS RELEASING AND RECORDING DATA IMMEDIATELY ON SITE FOR ACCURATE RESULTS.
They are selling these TELEMEDICINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS AND PROCEDURES----not real medical research data.
Oregon State vs Brigham Young vs PENN STATE all are hyper-corporate universities as our University of Maryland Baltimore Medical campus is quickly becoming------they are promoting the need for medical products to better research results-------
Please be educated about medical research these days and find someone that is still a real patient advocate as opposed to being a corporate cog.
Vitamin E Trials 'Fatally Flawed'
Date:
September 26, 2007
Source:
Oregon State University
Summary:
Generations of studies on vitamin E may be largely meaningless, scientists say, because new research has demonstrated that the levels of this micronutrient necessary to reduce oxidative stress are far higher than those that have been commonly used in clinical trials. Researchers recently concluded that the levels of vitamin E necessary to reduce oxidative stress are about 1,600 to 3,200 I.U. daily, or four to eight times higher than those used in almost all past clinical trials.
Generations of studies on vitamin E may be largely meaningless, scientists say, because new research has demonstrated that the levels of this micronutrient necessary to reduce oxidative stress are far higher than those that have been commonly used in clinical trials.
In a new study and commentary in Free Radical Biology and Medicine, researchers concluded that the levels of vitamin E necessary to reduce oxidative stress -- as measured by accepted biomarkers of lipid peroxidation -- are about 1,600 to 3,200 I.U. daily, or four to eight times higher than those used in almost all past clinical trials.
This could help explain the inconsistent results of many vitamin E trials for its value in preventing or treating cardiovascular disease, said Balz Frei, professor and director of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, and co-author of the new commentary along with Jeffrey Blumberg, at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University.
"The methodology used in almost all past clinical trials of vitamin E has been fatally flawed," said Frei, one of the world's leading experts on antioxidants and disease. "These trials supposedly addressed the hypothesis that reducing oxidative stress could reduce cardiovascular disease. But oxidative stress was never measured in these trials, and therefore we don't know whether it was actually reduced or not. The hypothesis was never really tested."
The level of vitamin E that clearly can be shown to reduce oxidative stress, new research is showing, is far higher than the level that could be obtained in any diet, and is also above the "tolerable upper intake level" outlined by the Institute of Medicine, which is 1,000 I.U. a day. OSU researchers are not yet recommending that people should routinely take such high levels, but they do say that controlled clinical trials studying this issue should be aware of the latest findings and seriously consider using much higher vitamin E supplement levels in their studies.
In lab, animal or human studies, there's evidence that vitamin E can reduce oxidative stress, inhibit formation of atherosclerotic lesions, slow aortic thickening, lower inflammation, and reduce platelet adhesion. Some human studies using lower levels of vitamin E supplements, such as 100 to 400 I.U. a day, have shown benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk, and others have not. An underlying assumption was that these levels were more than adequate to reduce oxidative stress, since they far exceeded the "recommended dietary allowance" or RDA for the vitamin, a level adequate to prevent deficiency disease.
"What's now clear is that the amount of vitamin E than can conclusively be shown to reduce oxidative stress is higher than we realized," Frei said. "And almost none of the studies done with vitamin E actually measured the beginning level or reduction of oxidative stress."
Proper studies of vitamin E, researchers say, must be done carefully and take into account the newest findings about this micronutrient. It's now known that natural forms of the vitamin are far more readily absorbed than synthetic types. It's also been discovered that supplements taken without a fat-containing meal are largely useless, because in the absence of dietary fat vitamin E is not absorbed.
Some clinical trials may wish to study the long term effect of vitamins on healthy individuals. But if a clinical trial seeks to learn the value of reducing oxidative stress, they should select patients in advance for those who have high, measurable oxidative stress -- often people who are older or have a range of heart disease risk factors, such as obesity, poor diet, hypertension or other problems. Cognizance should also be taken of people with health issues that may further increase their vitamin needs, such as smokers.
"A pill count simply isn't enough to determine the value of vitamin E," Frei said. "We need to select people for trials properly, make sure they are taking the right form of the vitamin, at the right levels and at the right time, and then verify the metabolic results with laboratory testing."
"Only when we do these studies right will we answer questions about the value of vitamin E in addressing cardiovascular disease," he said. "So far we've been flying blind."
A parallel, Frei said, would be presuming to test the value of a statin drug, which lowers cholesterol, without ever measuring cholesterol levels in the test subjects, neither at the beginning nor at the end of the study. Such trials would be ridiculed in the science community.
So far, that's the way vitamin E has been studied.
The use and intake of vitamins, experts say, has traditionally been thought of in terms of overt deficiency -- for example, not enough vitamin C causes scurvy. Much less research has been done on the levels that can help create optimum health. The issue is of special importance with modern populations that have very different diets, activity levels and increased lifespan, and are dying from much different causes -- predominantly heart disease and cancer -- than people of past generations.
__________________________________________
Whether a citizens likes the FOOD PYRAMID or PLATE ------we have known because of medical research over thousands of years what foods in what proportions work best for any one culture or population. We have analyzed and now post food nutrient content for each kind of meal-------we know what caloric intact to shoot for----we know how to manage that intake with wellness and exercise -----
WE DO NOT NEED MICROCHIPPING, NANBOTING, VACCINATING DONE WITH TELEMEDICINE DOING ALL THAT FOR 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
We have no doubt that research using micro-robotics and biologics will be progressive and useful-----it is the absolute control in MOVING FORWARD handed to global 1% that WE THE PEOPLE THE GLOBAL 99% NEED TO WAKE UP and pay attention to.
We have no doubt HARVARD'S PUBLIC HEALTH is right behind JOHNS HOPKINS' PUBLIC HEALTH in US News and World Report listing for global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE university corporations and their medical campuses and research----that is why we KNOW THAT BIAS--
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Harvard shield-Public Health.png
Coat of arms of the School
Former names Harvard School of Public Health
Established 1913
Type Graduate school
School of Public Health
Parent institution Harvard University
Location Boston, Massachusetts, United StatesCoordinates: 42.335390°N 71.102793°W
Dean Michelle Williams
Academic staff 480
Students 1,140
Doctoral students 474
Alumni 11,060
Website hsph.harvard.edu
HSPH Courtyard Entrance from Harvard Medical School
The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (formerly Harvard School of Public Health) is the public health graduate school of Harvard University, located in the Longwood Medical Area of Boston, Massachusetts adjacent Harvard Medical School. The Chan School is considered a preeminent school of public health in the United States. The school grew out of the Harvard-MIT School for Health Officers,[1][2][3][4][5] the nation's first graduate training program in population health, which was founded in 1913 and became the Harvard School of Public Health in 1922. Michelle Williams, faculty and chair of the school's Department of Epidemiology, became the school's dean in July 2016, following the departure of former dean Julio Frenk and interim service of acting dean David Hunter.[6] She then became the first African American individual to head a Harvard faculty.[7]
As of 2015, the school is ranked second in the nation (after the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and tied with UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health) in the U.S. News & World Report.[8] U.S. News consistently ranks Harvard #1 in Health Policy and Management.[9]
History
The School traces its origins to the Harvard-MIT School for Health Officers, founded in 1913; Harvard calls it "the nation's first graduate training program in public health." In 1922, the School for Health Officers became the Harvard School of Public Health, and in 1946 it was split off from the medical school and became a separate faculty of Harvard University.[10] It was renamed the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in 2014 after receiving a $350 million donation, the largest gift in Harvard's history at the time, from the Morningside Foundation.[11] The Morningside Foundation is headed by Harvard School of Public Health alumnus Dr. Gerald Chan, SM '75, SD '79, the son of T.H. Chan[12], and younger brother of Ronnie Chan who runs Hang Lung Group
Hang Lung Group (SEHK: 10), established in 1960, is listed in Hong Kong, engaging in property development for sales and leasing, car park management, property management, and dry cleaning businesses. Its subsidiary Hang Lung Properties is one of the largest property developers in Hong Kong, which also invests in the Mainland China market.
History
Hang Lung Group Limited was founded by Chan Tseng-Hsi on 13 September 1960,[1] and is now one of Hong Kong's biggest real estate developers.
These US IVY LEAGUES are no longer our once strong academic universities---they are simply global hedge fund corporate R and D branches-------
Healthy Eating Plate & Healthy Eating Pyramid
The Healthy Eating Plate, created by nutrition experts at Harvard School of Public Health and editors at Harvard Health Publications, was designed to address deficiencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s MyPlate. The Healthy Eating Plate provides detailed guidance, in a simple format, to help people make the best eating choices.
Use The Healthy Eating Plate as a guide for creating healthy, balanced meals—whether served on a plate or packed in a lunch box. Put a copy on the refrigerator as a daily reminder to create healthy, balanced meals!
The main message of the Healthy Eating Plate is to focus on diet quality.
Your Questions Answered
Are the relative sizes of the Healthy Eating Plate sections based on calories or volume?
The Healthy Eating Plate does not define a certain number of calories or servings per day from each food group. The relative section sizes suggest approximate relative proportions of each of the food groups to include on a healthy plate. They are not based on specific calorie amounts, and they are not meant to prescribe a certain number of calories or servings per day, since individuals’ calorie and nutrient needs vary based on age, gender, body size, and level of activity.
What about alcohol? Isn’t alcohol supposed to be good for you in small amounts?
Alcohol in moderation is beneficial, and it’s illustrated in Harvard’s Healthy Eating Pyramid from 2005. But it’s not for everyone, which is why it is not included in the Healthy Eating Plate.
Will the Healthy Eating Pyramid be going away?
Generations of Americans are accustomed to the food pyramid design, and it’s not going away. In fact, the Healthy Eating Pyramid and the Healthy Eating Plate complement each other.
Consumers can think of the Healthy Eating Pyramid as a grocery list:
When was the USDA Food Guide Pyramid first created?
In 1992, the USDA created a powerful icon: the Food Guide Pyramid. This simple illustration conveyed what the USDA said were the elements of a healthy diet. The Pyramid was taught in schools, appeared in countless media articles and brochures, and was plastered on cereal boxes and food labels.
However, the information embodied in this pyramid was based on shaky scientific evidence, and it was seldom updated to reflect major advances in our understanding of the connection between diet and health.
The USDA retired the Food Guide Pyramid in 2005 and replaced it with MyPyramid. Critics complained that the symbol was vague and confusing, so in June 2011 the USDA replaced MyPyramid with a new and simpler icon, MyPlate.
The USDA’s pyramids and MyPlate had many contributors. Some are obvious—USDA scientists, nutrition experts, staff members, and consultants. Others aren’t. Intense lobbying efforts from a variety of food industries also helped shape the pyramid and the plate.
As an alternative to the USDA’s nutrition advice, faculty members at the Harvard School of Public Health created first the Healthy Eating Pyramid and more recently the Healthy Eating Plate. Just as the Healthy Eating Pyramid rectifies the mistakes of the USDA’s Food Guide Pyramid, the Healthy Eating Plate addresses flaws in the USDA’s MyPlate. Both the Healthy Eating Pyramid and the Healthy Eating Plate are based on the latest science about how our food, drink, and activity choices affect our health.
Will following the Healthy Eating Pyramid and Healthy Eating Plate guidelines really make me healthier?
According to research done at Harvard School of Public Health and elsewhere (1-3), following the Healthy Eating Pyramid and Healthy Eating Plate guidelines can lead to a lower risk of heart disease and premature death:
We discussed in detail 10 years ago how both Bush and Obama and their FCC were killing not only our strongest in world history broad and free press/media----but now building barriers to internet access leading to only global corporate campuses having access and 99% of WE THE PEOPLE having NO ACCESS. Obama used Affordable Care Act to expand global internet infrastructure for ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID---he privatized massive air wave spectrum to the same global online/internet corporations----he handed email ISP control ---that is the login we all use to get online or accessing our email---to a global committee---out of our US national sovereignty.
The damage to internet neutrality was done for the most part during OBAMA even as FAKE ACTIVISTS pretended to get a net neutrality win. As we stated, the net neutrality win was for FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO INTERNET AS ALL OTHER CORPORATIONS INSIDE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. So, the win during Obama was for that same global 1% and their 2% bringing foreign corporations to compete in US cities like Baltimore. NO WIN FOR US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE during OBAMA and his FCC.
Here in Baltimore we just heard our BILL COLE OF BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT welcome our newest global corporation from UK in software development to Baltimore----as overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES in Asia filled with global corporations from other nations now saying----wait we have made ourselves a COLONIAL ENTITY with these FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
'We have a danger of India becoming a digital colony: Pai
short by Aditi Verma / 07:55 pm on 21 Nov 2017,Tuesday
Talking about the IT sector in India, former Infosys CFO Mohandas Pai has said that "We have a danger of this country becoming a digital colony." Adding that currently all unicorn companies are "substantially owned by foreigners", Pai emphasised that companies have to be drawn to India. Pai also said that by 2025, India will have about one lakh startups'.
'A telecommunications lawyer who has served on the FCC since May 2012, Pai is a free-market advocate who has been sharply critical of new regulations adopted by Democrats in recent years'.
Above we see one of EAST INDIA'S BILLIONAIRES from techology industry saying just that and look it is billionaire PAI-------with that global 1% having those global 2% PAI installed in our US government during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. When we shake our fist at Trump who was installed simply to MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ----we are not fighting the right public policy issues. We love global 99% labor pool including our East Indian immigrants---we do not want our government national, state, and local being filled with global 2% ---and this is what is happening as US foreign economic zones MOVE FORWARD.
Trump names new FCC chairman: Ajit Pai, who wants to take a 'weed whacker' to net neutrality
By Jim Puzzanghera
Jan 23, 2017
President Trump on Monday designated Ajit Pai, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission and an outspoken opponent of new net neutrality rules, to be the agency's new chairman.
Pai, 44, would take over for Tom Wheeler, a Democrat who stepped down on Friday. Wheeler's term had not expired but Trump gets to designate a new chairman as Republicans gain the FCC majority.
"I look forward to working with the new administration, my colleagues at the commission, members of Congress, and the American public to bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans," Pai said.
A telecommunications lawyer who has served on the FCC since May 2012, Pai is a free-market advocate who has been sharply critical of new regulations adopted by Democrats in recent years.
He takes the chairman's office amid reports that Trump's advisors want to scale back the FCC's authority.
"We need to fire up the weed whacker and remove those rules that are holding back investment, innovation and job creation," Pai said in a speech last month looking ahead to Republican control of the FCC.
Pai, whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from India, was associate general counsel of Verizon Communications Inc. from 2001-03 before working as a staffer at the U.S. Senate, the Justice Department and the FCC.
He sprinkles his speeches with pop-culture references and is adept at social media. During the net neutrality debate, he tweeted a photo of himself with the 332-page proposal and lamented that FCC rules didn't allow him to make it public. Pai has pushed for FCC proposals to be released before commissioners vote on them.
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a Georgetown University law professor and longtime consumer advocate, said Pai would be a "formidable opponent" for public interest groups.
"He is not only an outspoken detractor from many of the important advances we obtained under Chairman Wheeler, but he is also extremely smart and knowledgeable," Schwartzman said.
OH, REALLY SCHWARTZMAN-----PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS MAKING IMPORTANT ADVANCES DURING OBAMA?
Chief among Pai's targets will be the net neutrality online traffic rules the FCC adopted on a partisan 3-2 vote in 2015.
The regulations are designed to ensure the free flow of online data by barring Internet service providers from discriminating against legal content flowing through their networks. To do that, the FCC imposed utility-like oversight of broadband providers.
Former President Obama, his fellow Democrats and consumer activists pushed for the tough regulations. But the move was strongly opposed by Pai and the FCC’s other Republican, Michael O’Rielly, as well as GOP lawmakers and broadband providers.
Trump also spoke out against the rules, tweeting in November 2014, "Obama's attack on the Internet is another top-down power grab."
A federal appeals court upheld the rules last year after a legal challenge from AT&T Inc., other telecom companies and industry trade groups. But in a Dec. 7 speech to the Free State Foundation, a free-market think tank, Pai said he was "more confident than ever" that the "days are numbered" for the net neutrality regulations.
Craig Aaron, president of Free Press, a digital rights group, said Pai "looks out for the corporate interests he used to represent in the private sector."
"Millions of Americans from across the political spectrum have looked to the FCC to protect their rights to connect and communicate and cheered decisions like the historic net neutrality ruling, and Pai threatens to undo all of that important work," Aaron said. "Those millions will rise up again to oppose his reactionary agenda."
Removing the net neutrality regulations could take a while as the FCC probably would have to go through a formal rule-making process.
"We made a decision on the record. The court supported that decision rather convincingly," Wheeler said in an interview this week. "I think it's going to be difficult to just waltz in and say, 'We're going to overturn everything.'"
Trump met with Pai at Trump Tower last week, fueling speculation that the new president would choose him to lead the agency.
The five-member commission has two vacancies after the departures of Wheeler and Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel.
NO DEMOCRATS HERE----GLOBAL 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS MOVING FORWARD SAME ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1%.
______________________________________________
So, PAI as Trump as Clinton as Bush all working to install their global corporations inside US Foreign Economic Zones and global telemedicine is top industry. When 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are all microchipped, nanoboted, vaccinated, and plumb for being new medical testing human capital -----we will find ourselves connected to a global Johns Hopkins facility in UPPER MONGOLIA having implanted medicine filling our bodies and no ability to control what telemedicine is doing.
All nations tied to Foreign Economic Zones are now building these infrastructure for ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL TELEMEDICINE and as in US it's all about helping the poor and rural 99% of citizens reach health care. Here in US our rural and poor know they accessed public health just fine last century-----East India had one of the strongest public health systems now defunded and dismantled to be replaced by telemedicine. Just as with corporate call centers leaving the US for nations like India-------these telemedicine operations being tied to US 99% and our global 99% will operate from WHO KNOWS WHERE by WHO KNOWS WHO controlled by global 1% and 99% of citizens will have no control over what this health care will look like. It will be mandated through Affordable Care Act health system insurance corporations and those global health corporation executives assigned to be that BOARD OF DECIDERS.
As we stated MOVING FORWARD in US has already filled many of these boards with global 1% and their 2%-----NEPOTISM by the same global 1% having moved all US wealth to the top during ROBBER BARON few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. This PAI now Trump's FCC head first entered government during Clinton era as CLINTON INITIATIVE pushed US corporations and operations into EAST INDIA.
If we look at East India and its move from being global call center technology to global telemedicine and global health tourism that nation has FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES designated for mostly that health industry just as US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES do the same----Maryland and Baltimore are being made into HEALTH AND TECHNOLOGY FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and Trump's FCC PAI is in position to make sure his family in India can come to US cities and operate with equal access to our ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID.
When Trump's PAI calls for FREE MARKET INTERNET-----he is not calling for free market for 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE----he is calling for global free market for global 1% foreign corporations inside US cities. There will be NO FREE MARKET for small businesses, regional businesses operated by 99% of US citizens black, white, and brown citizens......that net neutrality was lost under OBAMA FCC public policies.
Healthcare Industry in India
Latest update: November, 2017
- Healthcare has become one of India's largest sectors both in terms of revenue & employment. The industry is growing at a tremendous pace owing to its strengthening coverage, services and increasing expenditure by public as well private players
- During 2008-20, the market is expected to record a CAGR of 16.5 per cent
- The total industry size is expected to touch USD160 billion by 2017 & USD280 billion by 2020
- As per the Ministry of Health, development of 50 technologies has been targeted in the FY16, for the treatment of diseases like Cancer & TB
- Government is emphasising on the eHealth initiatives such as Mother & Child Tracking System (MCTS) & Facilitation Centre (MCTFC)
- Indian companies are entering into merger & acquisitions with domestic & foreign companies to drive growth & gain new markets.
Last Updated: November, 2017
SECTORAL REPORT | November, 2017
Introduction
Healthcare has become one of India’s largest sectors - both in terms of revenue and employment. Healthcare comprises hospitals, medical devices, clinical trials, outsourcing, telemedicine, medical tourism, health insurance and medical equipment. The Indian healthcare sector is growing at a brisk pace due to its strengthening coverage, services and increasing expenditure by public as well private players.
Indian healthcare delivery system is categorised into two major components - public and private. The Government, i.e. public healthcare system comprises limited secondary and tertiary care institutions in key cities and focuses on providing basic healthcare facilities in the form of primary healthcare centres (PHCs) in rural areas. The private sector provides majority of secondary, tertiary and quaternary care institutions with a major concentration in metros, tier I and tier II cities.
India's competitive advantage lies in its large pool of well-trained medical professionals. India is also cost competitive compared to its peers in Asia and Western countries. The cost of surgery in India is about one-tenth of that in the US or Western Europe.
Market Size
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India has predicted that with increased digital adoption, the Indian healthcare market, which is worth around US$ 100 billion, will likely grow at a CAGR of 23 per cent to US$ 280 billion by 2020.
The revenue of India’s corporate healthcare sector is estimated to grow at 15 per cent in FY 2017-18.*
India is experiencing 22-25 per cent growth in medical tourism and the industry is expected to double its size from present (April 2017) US$ 3 billion to US$ 6 billion by 2018. Medical tourist arrivals in India increased more than 50 per cent to 200,000 in 2016 from 130,000 in 2015.
The Healthcare Information Technology (IT) market is valued at US$ 1 billion currently (April 2016) and is expected to grow 1.5 times by 2020. #
Over 80 per cent of the antiretroviral drugs used globally to combat AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome) are supplied by Indian pharmaceutical firms^.
There is a significant scope for enhancing healthcare services considering that healthcare spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is rising. Rural India, which accounts for over 70 per cent of the population, is set to emerge as a potential demand source.
A total of 3,598 hospitals and 25,723 dispensaries across the country offer AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy) treatment, thus ensuring availability of alternative medicine and treatment to the people.
Investment
The hospital and diagnostic centres attracted Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) worth US$ 4.34 billion between April 2000 and March 2017, according to data released by the Department of Industrial
Policy and Promotion (DIPP). Some of the major investments in the Indian healthcare industry are as follows:
- Singapore's Temasek will acquire a 16 per cent stake worth Rs 1,000 crore (US$ 156.16 million) in Bengaluru based private healthcare network Manipal Hospitals, which runs a hospital chain of around 5,000 beds.
- Indian cancer treatment startup, OncoStem Diagnostics has received US$ 6 million in funding from Sequoia Capital India Advisors, which will be used for increasing its research & development efforts.
- Indian online pharmacy and healthcare services company, 1mg Technologies, has raised US$ 15 million in a series C funding round from existing investor HBM Healthcare Investments AG for launching new predictive healthcare and corporate wellness products.
- Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) has raised US$ 200 million from True North, a private equity fund, for a 40 per cent stake in the company, which will be utilised towards funding its growth plans.
- Syngene, a subsidiary of Biocon Ltd, has acquired a contract from HerbalLife Nutrition, a nutrition company, to develop nutrition based products that can be sold by Herbalife in India.
- CureFit, a healthcare and fitness start-up, has acquired Kristys Kitchen, an online health-food delivery company, in a cash and stock deal.
- STEER Engineering has announced research collaboration with Merck, a German healthcare and life sciences firm, for creating a technology useful for processing special effect pigments for the plastic industry.
- Max Healthcare, a healthcare institute based in New Delhi, has plans to invest Rs 320 crore (US$ 48 million) to build a cancer care hospital in Delhi, being a part of Max's larger plan to develop its hospital in Saket.
- Thyrocare Technologies, a diagnostic laboratory chain, plans to expand its lab centres from 7 to 25 and franchisees from 1,200 to 5,000 to achieve a target revenue of Rs 1,000 crore (US$ 150 million) by 2020.
- OrbiMed, a healthcare-dedicated investment firm, plans to invest around US$ 40 million in Kolkata-based pathology and radiology services chain Suraksha Diagnostics for expanding the diagnostics chain's laboratory network across India and enhancing its equipment technology backbone.
- International Finance Corporation (IFC), the investment arm of World Bank, has invested around Rs 450 crore (US$ 67.5 million) for a 29 per cent stake in Healthcare major Apollo Group’s subsidiary Apollo Health and Lifestyle Ltd for funding Apollo's expansion activities.
- Abraaj Group, a Dubai-based private equity investment firm, is in advanced discussions to acquire a controlling stake in south India’s leading diagnostics services provider Medall Healthcare Pvt Ltd, at an enterprise value of around Rs 1,500 crore (US$ 225 million).
- Practo Technologies Pvt Ltd, a digital healthcare start-up, has raised US$ 55 million in series D round of funding led by Chinese investment holding company, Tencent Holdings Ltd, which will be used for expanding its product portfolio.
- Japanese financial services firm Orix Corp. is in talks to buy a minority stake in Bengaluru-based fertility clinic chain Nova IVI Fertility, from the company’s promoters and existing private equity investors for Rs 250-300 crore (US$ 37.5-45 million).
- UAE-based Gamma Group has outlined plans of investing around Rs 3,000 crore (US$ 449.68 million) in the infrastructure, health and education sectors of Kerala, which is expected to generate around 2,000 indirect and direct jobs in the state.
Government Initiatives
Some of the major initiatives taken by the Government of India to promote Indian healthcare industry are as follows:
- The Government of India's think-tank, Niti Aayog, has entered into a partnership with the state governments of Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Karnataka for improving healthcare delivery. In the Union Budget 2017-18, the overall health budget increased from INR 39,879 crore (US$ 5.96 billion) (1.97% of total Union Budget) to INR 48,878 crore (US$ 7.3 billion) (2.27% of total Union Budget). In addition, the Government of India made following announcements in the Union Budget 2017-18:
- Harmonise policies and rules for the medical devices industry to encourage local manufacturing and move towards improving affordability for patients.
- Modify the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to promote generics and reduce the cost of medicines.
- Set up two new All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Gujarat and Jharkhand.
- Convert 1.5 lakh sub centres in Indian villages to health and wellness centres
- Set short and medium term targets for key health indicators and bring down the Maternal Mortality Rate to 100 by 2018-2020 and Infant Mortality Rate to 28 by 2019.
- Prepare action plans to eliminate Kala Azar and Filariasis by 2017, leprosy by 2018, measles by 2020 and tuberculosis (TB) by 2025.
- The Union Cabinet, Government of India, has approved the National Health Policy 2017, which will provide the policy framework for achieving universal health coverage and delivering quality health care services to all at an affordable cost.
- The Government of India plans to set up a single window approval system for innovation in medical research, in order to grant permission/approvals within 30 days from the date of application to Indian innovation projects who have applied for global patent.
- Mr Shripad Naik, Minister of State with Independent Charge for AYUSH, has verified that the AYUSH Ministry is working with various agencies, institutions and Ayurveda researchers and practitioners across the globe to turn India into a global hub for knowledge, research, practice and developmental projects on traditional medicines.
- The Government of Assam has launched the Atal-Amrit Abhiyan health insurance scheme, which would offer comprehensive coverage for six disease groups to below-poverty line (BPL) and above-poverty line (APL) families, with annual income below Rs 500,000 (US$ 7,500).
- The Government of India and the Government of the State of Nagaland signed financing agreement and project agreement respectively with The World Bank, for the ‘Nagaland Health Project’ for US$ 48 million, which aims to improve health services and increase their utilisation by communities in targeted locations in the state.
India is a land full of opportunities for players in the medical devices industry. India’s healthcare industry is one of the fastest growing sectors and in the coming 10 years it is expected to reach $275 billion. The country has also become one of the leading destinations for high-end diagnostic services with tremendous capital investment for advanced diagnostic facilities, thus catering to a greater proportion of population. Besides, Indian medical service consumers have become more conscious towards their healthcare upkeep.
Indian healthcare sector is much diversified and is full of opportunities in every segment which includes providers, payers and medical technology. With the increase in the competition, businesses are looking to explore for the latest dynamics and trends which will have positive impact on their business.
India's competitive advantage also lies in the increased success rate of Indian companies in getting Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) approvals. India also offers vast opportunities in R&D as well as medical tourism. To sum up, there are vast opportunities for investment in healthcare infrastructure in both urban and rural India.
Exchange Rate Used: INR 1 = US$ 0.015 as of October 06, 2017.
_______________________________________________
As US 99% of citizens think they are being HIP AND COOL tied to all the latest technology products ---touting all those WELLNESS TALKING POINTS sent down by OBAMA'S Affordable Care Act-------99% of US citizens are on their way to being tied to implanted or wrap-around medical products sending medical data to MEGA-DATA computers where a global 1% corporate board of health executives direct what to pump into 99% of global citizens. This is crazy stuff folks---when we allow our bodies to be completely controlled on all matters of health by computer technology we really have become HUMAN CAPITAL.
Try as global 1% might to make US citizens feel that telemedicine and global health tourism will remain tied to our local hospitals---our local public medical universities-----IT WILL NOT. They all will be tied to designer medical research and development that only the global 1% and their 2% will be able to afford.
It was OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS using the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT that did two things-----deregulated all local public health and Federal health oversight and accountability---handing it to those dastardly global 1% health corporation executives having fleeced trillions from our MEDICARE AND MEDICAID ----and it mandated everyone be tied to buying health insurance with annual visits to primary care doctor wherever in the world he/she may be. This was NOT LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE----this was FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY LIBERTARIAN MARXISM. Global corporations and global 1% only want to take care of their human capital.
Our global labor pool and foreign students coming to US Foreign Economic Zones from Asia often have no idea what these GOALS of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% are ----even those coming from global 1% and their 2% families ----we are glad when we hear from our FB foreign friends they understand what is happening in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE cities like BALTIMORE.
The wonder drug
A digital revolution in health care is speeding up
Telemedicine, predictive diagnostics, wearable sensors and a host of new apps will transform how people manage their health
WHEN someone goes into cardiac arrest, survival depends on how quickly the heart can be restarted. Enter Amazon’s Echo, a voice-driven computer that answers to the name of Alexa, which can recite life-saving instructions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, a skill taught to it by the American Heart Association. Alexa is accumulating other health-care skills, too, including acting as a companion for the elderly and answering questions about children’s illnesses. In the near future she will probably help doctors with grubby hands to take notes and to request scans, as well as remind patients to take their pills.
Alexa is one manifestation of a drive to disrupt an industry that has so far largely failed to deliver on the potential of digital information. Health care is over-regulated and expensive to innovate in, and has a history of failing to implement ambitious IT projects. But the momentum towards a digital future is gathering pace. Investment into digital health care has soared (see chart).
One reason for that is the scale of potential cost-savings. Last year Americans spent an amount equivalent to about 18% of GDP on health care. That is an extreme, but other countries face rising cost pressures from health spending as populations age. Much of this expenditure is inefficient. Spending on administration varies sevenfold between rich countries. There are huge differences in the cost of medical procedures. In rich countries about one-fifth of spending on health care goes to waste, for example on wrong or unnecessary treatments. Eliminating a fraction of this sum is a huge opportunity.
Consumers seem readier to accept digital products than just a few years ago. The field includes mobile apps, telemedicine—health care provided using electronic communications—and predictive analytics (using statistical methods to sift data on outcomes for patients). Other areas are automated diagnoses and wearable sensors to measure things like blood pressure.
If there is to be a health-care revolution, it will create winners and losers. Andy Richards, an investor in digital health, argues that three groups are fighting a war for control of the “health-care value chain”.
One group comprises “traditional innovators”—pharmaceutical firms, hospitals and medical-technology companies such as GE Healthcare, Siemens, Medtronic and Philips. A second category is made up of “incumbent players”, which include health insurers, pharmacy-benefit managers (which buy drugs in bulk), and as single-payer health-care systems such as Britain’s NHS. The third group are the technology “insurgents”, including Google, Apple, Amazon and a host of hungry entrepreneurs that are creating apps, predictive-diagnostics systems and new devices. These firms may well profit most handsomely from the shift to digital.
The threat to the traditional innovators is that as medical records are digitised and new kinds of patient data arrive from genomic sequencing, sensors and even from social media, insurers and governments can get much better insight into which treatments work. These buyers are increasingly demanding “value-based” reimbursement—meaning that if a drug or device doesn’t function well, it will not be bought.
The big question is whether drug companies will be big losers, says Marc Sluijs, an adviser on investment in digital health. More data will not only identify those drugs that do not work. Digital health care will also give rise to new services that might involve taking no drugs at all.
Lunches eaten
Diabetes is an obvious problem for the pharma business in this regard, says Dan Mahony, a partner at Polar Capital, an investment firm. Since evidence shows that exercise gives diabetics better control of their disease (and helps most pre-diabetics not to get sick at all), there is an opening for new services. UnitedHealthcare, a big American insurer, for example, has a prevention programme that connects pre-diabetics with special coaches at gyms.
An app or a wearable device that persuades people to walk a certain distance every day would be far cheaper for insurers and governments to provide than years of visits to doctors, hospitals and drugs. Although Fitbits are frequently derided for ending up in the back of a drawer, people can be motivated to get off the sofa. Players of Pokémon Go have collectively walked nearly 9bn kilometres since the smartphone game was released last year.
That is the backdrop to a new firm called Onduo, a joint venture that Google’s health-care venture, Verily Life Sciences, and Sanofi, a French drug firm, set up last year. Onduo will start by developing ways to help diabetics make better decisions about their use of drugs and their lifestyle habits. Later on, Onduo wants to help those who are at risk of diabetes not to develop it. The startup is a good hedge for Sanofi, which faces a slowdown in sales of its blockbuster insulin medication, Lantus, which lost patent protection in 2015.
This kind of thinking does not come easily to drug firms. Switzerland’s Novartis is one of the few to have acknowledged that digital innovation will mean selling products based on patient outcomes. But if pharma firms do not design solutions that put the patient, rather than drug sales, at the centre of their strategy, they risk losing relevance, says Mr Sluijs.
Large hospitals, some of which count as both incumbents and traditional innovators, will also be affected. The rise of telemedicine, predictive analytics and earlier diagnoses of illnesses are expected to reduce admissions, particularly of the emergency kind that are most lucrative in commercial systems. The sickest patients can be targeted by specialist services, such as Evolution Health, a firm in Texas that cares for 2m of the most-ill patients across 15 states. It claims to be able to reduce the use of emergency rooms by a fifth, and inpatient stays in hospitals by two-fifths.
Rapid medical and diagnostic innovation will disrupt all businesses that rely heavily on physical facilities and staff. A mobile ultrasound scanner made by Philips, called Lumify, means that a far larger number of patients can be seen by their own doctors. As for data-based diagnostics, one potential example of its power to change business models is Guardant Health, a startup that is analysing large quantities of medical data in order to develop a way of diagnosing cancer from blood tests. If the firm can devise an early test for breast cancer, demand for mammograms and the machines that take them would fall, along with the need for expensive drugs and spells in hospital.
From ER to AI
There is also good news for hospitals, however. Increasingly, machine-learning programs are able to make diagnoses from scans and from test results. An intriguing recent project has been to stream and analyse live health data and deliver alerts on an app that is carried around by doctors and nurses at the Royal Free Hospital in London. The app, which is the work of DeepMind, a British artificial-intelligence (AI) research firm owned by Google, identifies the patients at greatest risk of a sudden and fatal loss of kidney function. The Royal Free says that the app is already saving nurses’ time.
Naturally enough, the health-care entrepreneurs have the boldest visions. The point of care will move rapidly into the home, they say. People will monitor their heart conditions, detect concussions, monitor the progress of diseases and check up on moles or ear infections using apps, mobile phones and sensors. Last year the FDA approved 36 connected health apps and devices. A new app, called Natural Cycles, was recently approved in Europe for use as a contraceptive. Its failure rate for typical use was equivalent to that of popular contraceptive pills. A smartphone may eventually be able to predict the onset of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or even the menopause (if the information is wanted).
In emerging economies, where regulations on health data are less onerous and where people often already expect to pay to see a doctor, there is faster growth and innovation. China, which is building 400 hospitals a year, saw its two largest VC investments in digital health care last year. One went into a Chinese medical-service app, Ping An Good Doctor, which raised $500m; a video-consultations app called Chunyu Yisheng raised $183m. India is another innovator. To take one example, LiveHealth, based in Pune, is an app that lets patients assemble all their health records in one place, see test results and communicate with doctors.
In the short term, the greatest disruption will come from a growing array of apps in many countries around the world that give consumers direct access to qualified GPS on their mobile phones. Overall, telemedicine is expected to grow rapidly. In America, GPs will conduct 5.4m video consultations a year by 2020, says IHS Markit, a research firm. Britain’s NHS is testing a medical AI from a London-based startup called Babylon which can field patients’ questions about their health. A paid service called Push Doctor offers an online appointment almost immediately for £20 ($24). The firm maximises the efficiency of its doctors by reducing the time they spend on administrative duties. They spend 93% of their time with patients compared with only 61% in Britain’s public sector. Babylon reckons that 85% of consultations do not need to be in person.
In the longer term, the biggest upheaval may come from the large technology firms. Amazon and Google are not the only giants to be stalking health care. Apple has expressed a strong interest in it, though it is taking time to decide exactly what it wants to do. For several years it has provided a way of bringing together health data on its iPhone, and tools for health researchers to build apps. As personal-health records accumulate on its platform, from sensors such as Fitbits to medical-grade devices, it will encourage more app development.
An app using data from an iPhone or another smartphone might be able to warn users that a sedentary lifestyle will exacerbate a heart condition or that, based on social-media patterns, they are at risk of depression, for example. Apple and other tech firms may also be able to help patients take greater control of their existing health records. For now medical records mostly remain under the guard of those who provided the care, but this is expected to change. If patients do gain proper access to their own data, Apple is in a particularly strong position. Its platform is locked and fairly secure, and the apps that run on it are all screened by the firm.
None of this will materialise quickly. Regulated health-care systems will take time to deal with concerns over accuracy, security and privacy. In Britain the Royal Free is already under scrutiny over how it shared its patients’ data. That suggests a broader worry: that technology companies are too cavalier with their users’ data. Such firms typically use long agreements on data rights that are hard for individuals to understand. The medical world places importance on informed consent, so a clash of cultures seems unavoidable.
Yet enormous change looks inevitable. Investors hope for billion-dollar health-tech “unicorns”. Payers eye equally sizeable savings. Amid such talk it is worth remembering that the biggest winners from digital health care will be the patients who receive better treatment, and those who avoid becoming patients at all.
_____________________________________________
What Trump and PAI are MOVING FORWARD after the Obama privatization of all US air waves to global technology corporations is this-----they are installing laws meant to keep 99% US WE THE PEOPLE from demanding equal opportunity access for all US citizens black, white, and brown citizens compromising the ability of foreign corporations inside US cities to have all the access THEY NEED to operate globally.
PAI was installed and confirmed by US Presidents and Congress to do just that.
'Correction: Pai needs to be reconfirmed by the Senate this year before receiving a new five-year term. This story has also been updated to clarify that the majority party can only hold three out of the commission’s five seats'.
Remember, no amount of 5G et al will allow such data-heavy global corporations to have more internet access than they need-----MOVING FORWARD will require all internet space to global corporations like GLOBAL TELEMEDICINE AND HEALTH TOURISM----meaning 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE get no access and same is true for global 99% inside their own nations......Africa, Asia, South Pacific Islands, Latin America------FREE MARKET INTERNET MEANS ONLY GLOBAL 1% CORPORATIONS.
Here we see the media outlet THE VERGE pretending these net neutrality issues are about access for the US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
Trump’s new FCC chief is Ajit Pai, and he wants to destroy net neutrality
by Jacob Kastrenakes Jan 23, 2017, 4:45pm EST VERGE
Donald Trump has elevated Ajit Pai to chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, giving control over the agency to a reliable conservative who’s been opposed to pretty much every big action the commission has taken in recent years, from establishing net neutrality to protecting consumer privacy to restricting major cable mergers.
Pai has been a commissioner at the FCC since 2012, when he was appointed by then-President Obama and confirmed by the Senate. Though an Obama appointee, Pai does not share Obama’s progressive views and is by no means someone Obama would have chosen to lead the commission. Rather, there’s a tradition of letting the minority party pick two commissioners, since the majority can only legally hold three seats; in nominating Pai — at the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican — Obama was sticking to that tradition.
Pai has said net neutrality will be “reversed by Congress or overturned by a future commission”Shortly after Trump’s election, Pai indicated that a top priority under the new administration would be dismantling net neutrality. In a letter, he wrote that he intended to “revisit ... the Title II Net Neutrality proceeding ... as soon as possible.”
Pai has long been critical of net neutrality, saying that the problem it’s trying to solve — big internet providers acting as gatekeepers to what we see and do online — doesn’t exist. He recently reiterated a prediction that the commission’s Open Internet Order, which established net neutrality, would be reversed or overturned in one way or another. He’ll now have the chance to play a role in that.
“On the day that the Title II Order was adopted, I said that ‘I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered,’” Pai said. “Today, I am more confident than ever that this prediction will come true.”
Open internet advocates are already concerned about where Pai will take the agency. “Pai has been an effective obstructionist who looks out for the corporate interests he used to represent in the private sector,” says Craig Aaron, the president of a nonprofit called Free Press that’s fought for net neutrality, in an emailed statement. “If the new president really wanted an FCC chairman who’d stand up against the runaway media consolidation that Trump himself decried in the AT&T–Time Warner deal, Pai would have been his last choice — though corporate lobbyists across the capital are probably thrilled.”
"Some of the things we've seen in his record are certainly problematic for consumers and for competition," Chris Lewis, vice president of the communications advocacy nonprofit Public Knowledge, tells The Verge. "Whether it's his opposition to open internet rules, or opposition to basic privacy online, or opposition to the effort to extend the Lifeline program subsidies to broadband so that low income Americans have access to basic 21st century communications."
Pai’s core stance is a traditionally Republican one: free market, minimal regulation. He’s been opposed to requiring ISPs to implement stricter privacy protections for consumers, opposed to increasing broadband benchmarks to promote higher speeds, opposed to regulating mergers, and even indicated a Republican-controlled commission might have let the Comcast–Time Warner Cable merger go through.
AND YET OBAMA APPOINTED PAI AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL SENATE APPROVED HIM SETTING THE STAGE FOR THIS LEADERSHIP APPOINTMENT BY TRUMP.
Pai has criticized his predecessor’s partisan approach to rulemakingThat said, he has not been opposed to absolutely everything done under Obama’s FCC. He recently voted in favor of a bipartisan proposal that will enable the the support of real-time texting for people with disabilities, allowing text to be transmitted letter by letter, rather than requiring a user to hit “send.” He has also voiced support for rules that would reduce the outrageous rates inmates must pay to place calls in many states, though he voted against a proposal that would do this, citing legal concerns (the rules are currently caught up in court).
One of the FCC’s mandates is to promote broadband deployment, and Pai has emphasized his dissatisfaction with current policies. He said last year that he believes the commission’s actions “over the last seven years just haven’t worked,” and he’s made suggestions — including adding tax credits and removing regulations that protect older technologies, like copper wire, that some communities rely on — that he thinks will speed up the process of closing “the digital divide between rural and urban America.”
Pai has also been critical of the FCC’s willingness to pass partisan proposals under the leadership of Tom Wheeler, who was chairman during Obama’s final three years in office. Commissioners from the opposing party were given more deference under previous leaders, he says, and prior leaders were willing to negotiate bipartisan solutions.
“The commission is much stronger when it speaks with a unified voice,” Pai told Morning Consult nearly a year ago. “It gets a lot more congressional support, it’s more likely to be held up in the courts and ultimately accepted by the American people.”
Prior to working at the FCC, Pai worked as a lawyer throughout government, at the FCC, the Department of Justice, and the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also served as counsel for Verizon between 2001 and 2003, focusing on antitrust and regulatory matters.
Pai’s tenure at the commission is set to expire this year, so he’ll need to be reconfirmed by the Senate if Republicans want him to stick around past 2017. That means Trump effectively gets to test out Pai for a bit before deciding whether to keep him around for much longer. If reconfirmed, he’d get an additional five-year stay that could keep him on through Trump’s term.
Correction: Pai needs to be reconfirmed by the Senate this year before receiving a new five-year term. This story has also been updated to clarify that the majority party can only hold three out of the commission’s five seats.
________________________________________________
"A pill count simply isn't enough to determine the value of vitamin E," Frei said. "We need to select people for trials properly, make sure they are taking the right form of the vitamin, at the right levels and at the right time, and then verify the metabolic results with laboratory testing."
The Vitamin A/Beta Carotene studies of 1990s included 200,000 to 400,000 participants studied over a decade with blood monitoring regularly ----placebo vs vitamin. The size of these studies allowed for broad population group participation and the lengthy time allowed for effects and efficacy over time.
As we stated---it was found in 1990s from these clinical trials that manufactured vitamins are not taken into body in ways that are medically helpful as eating foods having those vitamins do. This is why most doctors do not tell patients to take vitamins---they saw eat correct food groups.
What we are seeing today MOVING FORWARD US medical research as corporate R AND D-----is in this article. We see them trying to say they need a controlled intake, timed, reported in real time-----to get real results. Add some FAT MEAL to vitamin E to correct for failure to intake manufactured vitamins.
WHAT ALL THAT RESEARCH MEDICAL MUMBO-JUMBO IS SAYING IS THIS----WE NEED NANOBOTS AND MICROCHIPS RELEASING AND RECORDING DATA IMMEDIATELY ON SITE FOR ACCURATE RESULTS.
They are selling these TELEMEDICINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS AND PROCEDURES----not real medical research data.
Oregon State vs Brigham Young vs PENN STATE all are hyper-corporate universities as our University of Maryland Baltimore Medical campus is quickly becoming------they are promoting the need for medical products to better research results-------
Please be educated about medical research these days and find someone that is still a real patient advocate as opposed to being a corporate cog.
Vitamin E Trials 'Fatally Flawed'
Date:
September 26, 2007
Source:
Oregon State University
Summary:
Generations of studies on vitamin E may be largely meaningless, scientists say, because new research has demonstrated that the levels of this micronutrient necessary to reduce oxidative stress are far higher than those that have been commonly used in clinical trials. Researchers recently concluded that the levels of vitamin E necessary to reduce oxidative stress are about 1,600 to 3,200 I.U. daily, or four to eight times higher than those used in almost all past clinical trials.
Generations of studies on vitamin E may be largely meaningless, scientists say, because new research has demonstrated that the levels of this micronutrient necessary to reduce oxidative stress are far higher than those that have been commonly used in clinical trials.
In a new study and commentary in Free Radical Biology and Medicine, researchers concluded that the levels of vitamin E necessary to reduce oxidative stress -- as measured by accepted biomarkers of lipid peroxidation -- are about 1,600 to 3,200 I.U. daily, or four to eight times higher than those used in almost all past clinical trials.
This could help explain the inconsistent results of many vitamin E trials for its value in preventing or treating cardiovascular disease, said Balz Frei, professor and director of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, and co-author of the new commentary along with Jeffrey Blumberg, at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University.
"The methodology used in almost all past clinical trials of vitamin E has been fatally flawed," said Frei, one of the world's leading experts on antioxidants and disease. "These trials supposedly addressed the hypothesis that reducing oxidative stress could reduce cardiovascular disease. But oxidative stress was never measured in these trials, and therefore we don't know whether it was actually reduced or not. The hypothesis was never really tested."
The level of vitamin E that clearly can be shown to reduce oxidative stress, new research is showing, is far higher than the level that could be obtained in any diet, and is also above the "tolerable upper intake level" outlined by the Institute of Medicine, which is 1,000 I.U. a day. OSU researchers are not yet recommending that people should routinely take such high levels, but they do say that controlled clinical trials studying this issue should be aware of the latest findings and seriously consider using much higher vitamin E supplement levels in their studies.
In lab, animal or human studies, there's evidence that vitamin E can reduce oxidative stress, inhibit formation of atherosclerotic lesions, slow aortic thickening, lower inflammation, and reduce platelet adhesion. Some human studies using lower levels of vitamin E supplements, such as 100 to 400 I.U. a day, have shown benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk, and others have not. An underlying assumption was that these levels were more than adequate to reduce oxidative stress, since they far exceeded the "recommended dietary allowance" or RDA for the vitamin, a level adequate to prevent deficiency disease.
"What's now clear is that the amount of vitamin E than can conclusively be shown to reduce oxidative stress is higher than we realized," Frei said. "And almost none of the studies done with vitamin E actually measured the beginning level or reduction of oxidative stress."
Proper studies of vitamin E, researchers say, must be done carefully and take into account the newest findings about this micronutrient. It's now known that natural forms of the vitamin are far more readily absorbed than synthetic types. It's also been discovered that supplements taken without a fat-containing meal are largely useless, because in the absence of dietary fat vitamin E is not absorbed.
Some clinical trials may wish to study the long term effect of vitamins on healthy individuals. But if a clinical trial seeks to learn the value of reducing oxidative stress, they should select patients in advance for those who have high, measurable oxidative stress -- often people who are older or have a range of heart disease risk factors, such as obesity, poor diet, hypertension or other problems. Cognizance should also be taken of people with health issues that may further increase their vitamin needs, such as smokers.
"A pill count simply isn't enough to determine the value of vitamin E," Frei said. "We need to select people for trials properly, make sure they are taking the right form of the vitamin, at the right levels and at the right time, and then verify the metabolic results with laboratory testing."
"Only when we do these studies right will we answer questions about the value of vitamin E in addressing cardiovascular disease," he said. "So far we've been flying blind."
A parallel, Frei said, would be presuming to test the value of a statin drug, which lowers cholesterol, without ever measuring cholesterol levels in the test subjects, neither at the beginning nor at the end of the study. Such trials would be ridiculed in the science community.
So far, that's the way vitamin E has been studied.
The use and intake of vitamins, experts say, has traditionally been thought of in terms of overt deficiency -- for example, not enough vitamin C causes scurvy. Much less research has been done on the levels that can help create optimum health. The issue is of special importance with modern populations that have very different diets, activity levels and increased lifespan, and are dying from much different causes -- predominantly heart disease and cancer -- than people of past generations.
__________________________________________
Whether a citizens likes the FOOD PYRAMID or PLATE ------we have known because of medical research over thousands of years what foods in what proportions work best for any one culture or population. We have analyzed and now post food nutrient content for each kind of meal-------we know what caloric intact to shoot for----we know how to manage that intake with wellness and exercise -----
WE DO NOT NEED MICROCHIPPING, NANBOTING, VACCINATING DONE WITH TELEMEDICINE DOING ALL THAT FOR 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
We have no doubt that research using micro-robotics and biologics will be progressive and useful-----it is the absolute control in MOVING FORWARD handed to global 1% that WE THE PEOPLE THE GLOBAL 99% NEED TO WAKE UP and pay attention to.
We have no doubt HARVARD'S PUBLIC HEALTH is right behind JOHNS HOPKINS' PUBLIC HEALTH in US News and World Report listing for global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE university corporations and their medical campuses and research----that is why we KNOW THAT BIAS--
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Harvard shield-Public Health.png
Coat of arms of the School
Former names Harvard School of Public Health
Established 1913
Type Graduate school
School of Public Health
Parent institution Harvard University
Location Boston, Massachusetts, United StatesCoordinates: 42.335390°N 71.102793°W
Dean Michelle Williams
Academic staff 480
Students 1,140
Doctoral students 474
Alumni 11,060
Website hsph.harvard.edu
HSPH Courtyard Entrance from Harvard Medical School
The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (formerly Harvard School of Public Health) is the public health graduate school of Harvard University, located in the Longwood Medical Area of Boston, Massachusetts adjacent Harvard Medical School. The Chan School is considered a preeminent school of public health in the United States. The school grew out of the Harvard-MIT School for Health Officers,[1][2][3][4][5] the nation's first graduate training program in population health, which was founded in 1913 and became the Harvard School of Public Health in 1922. Michelle Williams, faculty and chair of the school's Department of Epidemiology, became the school's dean in July 2016, following the departure of former dean Julio Frenk and interim service of acting dean David Hunter.[6] She then became the first African American individual to head a Harvard faculty.[7]
As of 2015, the school is ranked second in the nation (after the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and tied with UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health) in the U.S. News & World Report.[8] U.S. News consistently ranks Harvard #1 in Health Policy and Management.[9]
History
The School traces its origins to the Harvard-MIT School for Health Officers, founded in 1913; Harvard calls it "the nation's first graduate training program in public health." In 1922, the School for Health Officers became the Harvard School of Public Health, and in 1946 it was split off from the medical school and became a separate faculty of Harvard University.[10] It was renamed the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in 2014 after receiving a $350 million donation, the largest gift in Harvard's history at the time, from the Morningside Foundation.[11] The Morningside Foundation is headed by Harvard School of Public Health alumnus Dr. Gerald Chan, SM '75, SD '79, the son of T.H. Chan[12], and younger brother of Ronnie Chan who runs Hang Lung Group
Hang Lung Group (SEHK: 10), established in 1960, is listed in Hong Kong, engaging in property development for sales and leasing, car park management, property management, and dry cleaning businesses. Its subsidiary Hang Lung Properties is one of the largest property developers in Hong Kong, which also invests in the Mainland China market.
History
Hang Lung Group Limited was founded by Chan Tseng-Hsi on 13 September 1960,[1] and is now one of Hong Kong's biggest real estate developers.
These US IVY LEAGUES are no longer our once strong academic universities---they are simply global hedge fund corporate R and D branches-------
Healthy Eating Plate & Healthy Eating Pyramid
The Healthy Eating Plate, created by nutrition experts at Harvard School of Public Health and editors at Harvard Health Publications, was designed to address deficiencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s MyPlate. The Healthy Eating Plate provides detailed guidance, in a simple format, to help people make the best eating choices.
Use The Healthy Eating Plate as a guide for creating healthy, balanced meals—whether served on a plate or packed in a lunch box. Put a copy on the refrigerator as a daily reminder to create healthy, balanced meals!
- Make most of your meal vegetables and fruits – ½ of your plate:
- Go for whole grains – ¼ of your plate:
- Protein power – ¼ of your plate:
- Healthy plant oils – in moderation:
- Drink water, coffee, or tea:
- Stay active:
The main message of the Healthy Eating Plate is to focus on diet quality.
- The type of carbohydrate in the diet is more important than the amount of carbohydrate in the diet, because some sources of carbohydrate—like vegetables (other than potatoes), fruits, whole grains, and beans—are healthier than others.
- The Healthy Eating Plate also advises consumers to avoid sugary beverages, a major source of calories—usually with little nutritional value—in the American diet.
- The Healthy Eating Plate encourages consumers to use healthy oils, and it does not set a maximum on the percentage of calories people should get each day from healthy sources of fat. In this way, the Healthy Eating Plate recommends the opposite of the low-fat message promoted for decades by the USDA.
Your Questions Answered
Are the relative sizes of the Healthy Eating Plate sections based on calories or volume?
The Healthy Eating Plate does not define a certain number of calories or servings per day from each food group. The relative section sizes suggest approximate relative proportions of each of the food groups to include on a healthy plate. They are not based on specific calorie amounts, and they are not meant to prescribe a certain number of calories or servings per day, since individuals’ calorie and nutrient needs vary based on age, gender, body size, and level of activity.
What about alcohol? Isn’t alcohol supposed to be good for you in small amounts?
Alcohol in moderation is beneficial, and it’s illustrated in Harvard’s Healthy Eating Pyramid from 2005. But it’s not for everyone, which is why it is not included in the Healthy Eating Plate.
Will the Healthy Eating Pyramid be going away?
Generations of Americans are accustomed to the food pyramid design, and it’s not going away. In fact, the Healthy Eating Pyramid and the Healthy Eating Plate complement each other.
Consumers can think of the Healthy Eating Pyramid as a grocery list:
- Vegetables, fruits, whole grains, healthy oils, and healthy proteins like nuts, beans, fish, and chicken should make it into the shopping cart every week, along with a little yogurt or milk if desired.
- The Healthy Eating Pyramid also addresses other aspects of a healthy lifestyle—exercise, weight control, vitamin D, and multivitamin supplements, and moderation in alcohol for people who drink—so it’s a useful tool for health professionals and health educators.
- The Healthy Eating Plate and the companion Healthy Eating Pyramid summarize the best dietary information available today. They aren’t set in stone, though, because nutrition researchers will undoubtedly turn up new information in the years ahead. The Healthy Eating Pyramid and the Healthy Eating Plate will change to reflect important new evidence.
When was the USDA Food Guide Pyramid first created?
In 1992, the USDA created a powerful icon: the Food Guide Pyramid. This simple illustration conveyed what the USDA said were the elements of a healthy diet. The Pyramid was taught in schools, appeared in countless media articles and brochures, and was plastered on cereal boxes and food labels.
However, the information embodied in this pyramid was based on shaky scientific evidence, and it was seldom updated to reflect major advances in our understanding of the connection between diet and health.
The USDA retired the Food Guide Pyramid in 2005 and replaced it with MyPyramid. Critics complained that the symbol was vague and confusing, so in June 2011 the USDA replaced MyPyramid with a new and simpler icon, MyPlate.
The USDA’s pyramids and MyPlate had many contributors. Some are obvious—USDA scientists, nutrition experts, staff members, and consultants. Others aren’t. Intense lobbying efforts from a variety of food industries also helped shape the pyramid and the plate.
As an alternative to the USDA’s nutrition advice, faculty members at the Harvard School of Public Health created first the Healthy Eating Pyramid and more recently the Healthy Eating Plate. Just as the Healthy Eating Pyramid rectifies the mistakes of the USDA’s Food Guide Pyramid, the Healthy Eating Plate addresses flaws in the USDA’s MyPlate. Both the Healthy Eating Pyramid and the Healthy Eating Plate are based on the latest science about how our food, drink, and activity choices affect our health.
Will following the Healthy Eating Pyramid and Healthy Eating Plate guidelines really make me healthier?
According to research done at Harvard School of Public Health and elsewhere (1-3), following the Healthy Eating Pyramid and Healthy Eating Plate guidelines can lead to a lower risk of heart disease and premature death:
- In the 1990s, the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion created the Healthy Eating Index “to measure how well American diets conform to recommended healthy eating patterns.” (4) A score of 100 meant following the federal recommendations to the letter while a score of 0 meant totally ignoring them.
- To see how well the principles embodied in the Healthy Eating Pyramid stacked up against the government’s advice, Harvard School of Public Health researchers created an Alternate Healthy Eating Index with a scoring system similar to the USDA’s index. They then compared the two indexes, using information about daily diets collected from more than 100,000 female nurses and male health professionals taking part in two long-term studies.
- The eleven components assessed by the Alternate Healthy Eating Index were dairy products; vegetables; fruit; nuts & seeds; bread/grains; meat, poultry & fish; cholesterol; fat; sodium; alcohol; and multivitamins.
- Men who scored highest on the USDA’s original Healthy Eating Index (meaning their diets most closely followed federal recommendations) reduced their overall risk of developing heart disease, cancer, or other chronic disease by 11 percent over 8 to 12 years of follow-up compared to those who scored lowest. Women who most closely followed the government’s recommendations were only 3 percent less likely to have developed a chronic disease. (5)
- In comparison, scores on the Alternate Healthy Eating Index created at the Harvard School of Public Health did appear to correlate more closely with better health in both sexes. Men with high scores (those whose diets most closely followed the Healthy Eating Pyramid guidelines) were 20 percent less likely to have developed a major chronic disease than those with low scores. Women with high scores lowered their overall risk by 11 percent. Men whose diets most closely followed the Healthy Eating Pyramid lowered their risk of cardiovascular disease by almost 40 percent; women with high scores lowered their risk by almost 30 percent.
- In a 2014 study looking at trends in diet quality among adults in the US, researchers using The Alternate Healthy Eating Index found that there was steady improvement from 1999 to 2010, but that overall dietary quality remains poor. (6)
- A study that tracked 7,319 British civil servants for 18 years found that men and women with the highest scores on the Alternate Healthy Eating Index had a 25 percent lower risk of dying from any cause, and a 42 percent lower risk of dying from heart disease, than people with the lowest scores. (3)
- Another observational study in 93,676 post-menopausal women found that following a Healthy Eating Pyramid-style diet (as measured by adherence to the Alternative Healthy Eating Index) was superior to following a low-fat diet at lowering cardiovascular disease and heart failure risk. (1)
RSS Feed