Perhaps this reflects the nature of the person.  Cousins -- and so many other 
people -- were/are oriented to helping others without requiring benefit to 
themselves, and so they will publicize things that do just that.  Others -- too 
many others, in my opinion -- are self-seeking, and won't do anything for 
others unless it provides them with an economic benefit; these are the people 
who promote things that they can make a profit on.

Perhaps that reference to Cousins laugh therapy died away -- beyond the 
likelihood that some who heard of it thought it to be too simple to be true -- 
merely means that there are more of the latter kind of people than the former?

Cheers,
Lawry


On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:27 PM, D & N wrote:

> Indeed. He cleared a few people out of hospital beds but it seemed to go the 
> way of a fad. It made a point but how much is it worth if everyone can choose 
> to do it for themselves for free.
> 
> D.
> 
> On 30/09/2012 11:44 AM, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:
>> Do you remember Norman Cousins and his laughter therapy?  
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Lawry
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 30, 2012, at 12:12 PM, D & N wrote:
>> 
>>> I have heard of such things.
>>> 
>>> Feeling bad. Negatives. Would this not block the flow of energies through 
>>> our bodies? Creating areas of stagnation? It is one thing to have these 
>>> areas assisted by massage (or whatever) but if the underlying reason for 
>>> illness is not addressed, the illness will continue or return. There have 
>>> been incidents of total cancer remission without intervention. But, once 
>>> one has cancer (or other major illness) another circle in one's life is 
>>> closing the ring. So feeling bad may initiate a disease but now having the 
>>> disease makes one feel worse (perhaps in another way) and the feedback loop 
>>> is complete to retain the disease.
>>> 
>>> D.
>>> 
>>> On 29/09/2012 10:29 AM, Ray Harrell wrote:
>>>> So feeling bad gives you cancer.   Rather than Cancer makes you feel bad.  
>>>> Hmmm.
>>>>  
>>>> Interesting.
>>>>  
>>>> REH
>>>>  
>>>> From: [email protected] 
>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 1:05 PM
>>>> To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
>>>> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Diminishing life expectancy of the poor
>>>>  
>>>> At 15:04 29/09/2012, you wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> From today's AlterNet Newsletter.  I find the last paragraph interesting 
>>>> -- the idea that ill health and diminishing life expectancy are at least 
>>>> partly the result of the poor feeling they are sinking into an 
>>>> increasingly hopeless situation.  Might life expectancy be related to how 
>>>> good and useful you feel?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, I'd have thought so.
>>>> 
>>>> Keith
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> Ed
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Shocker Stat: Life Expectancy Decreases by 4 Years Among Poor Whites in 
>>>> U.S.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> Yesterday, the New York Times reported on an alarming new study: 
>>>> researchers have documented that the least educated white Americans are 
>>>> experiencing sharp declines in life expectancy. Between 1990 and 2008, 
>>>> white women without a high school diploma lost a full five years of their 
>>>> lives, while their male counterparts lost three years. Experts say that 
>>>> declines in life expectancy in developed countries are exceedingly rare, 
>>>> and that in the U.S., decreases on this scale "have not been seen in the 
>>>> U.S. since the Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918." Even during the Great 
>>>> Depression, which wrought economic devastation and severe psychic trauma 
>>>> for millions of Americans, average life expectancy was on the increase.
>>>> 
>>>> What are the reasons for the disturbing drop in life expectancy among poor 
>>>> white folks, and in particular for the unusually large magnitude of the 
>>>> decline? According to the Times, researchers are baffled: one expert said, 
>>>> “There’s this enormous issue of why . . . It’s very puzzling and we don’t 
>>>> have a great explanation." Undoubtedly, the increasing numbers of 
>>>> low-income Americans without health insurance is a major contributor 
>>>> factor. Researchers also say that lifestyle factors such as smoking, which 
>>>> has increased among low-income white women, play a role; poor folks tend 
>>>> to engage in more risky health behaviors than                       their 
>>>> more affluent counterparts.
>>>> 
>>>> I will offer an alternative hypothesis, one which is not explicitly 
>>>> identified in the Times article: inequality. In the U.S., the period 
>>>> between 1990 and 2008, which is a period that saw such steep declines in 
>>>> life expectancy for the least well-off white people, is also a period 
>>>> during which economic inequality soared. Moreover, there is a compelling 
>>>> body of research that suggests that inequality itself -- quite apart from 
>>>> low incomes, or lack of health insurance -- is associated with more 
>>>> negative health outcomes for those at the bottom of the heap. One of the 
>>>> most famous series of studies of the social determinants of health, 
>>>> Britain's Whitehall Studies, had as their subjects British civil servants, 
>>>> all of whom health insurance and (presumably) decent enough jobs. 
>>>> Intriguingly, these studies
>>>> found a strong association between grade levels of civil servant 
>>>> employment and mortality rates from a range of causes. Men in the lowest 
>>>> grade (messengers, doorkeepers, etc.) had a mortality rate three times 
>>>> higher than that of men in the highest grade (administrators).
>>>> 
>>>> The Whitehall studies found that while workers in the lower grades were 
>>>> more likely to be at risk for coronary heart disease due to factors such 
>>>> as higher rates of smoking, higher blood pressure, etc., even after 
>>>> controlling for those confounding factors, these workers still experienced 
>>>> significantly higher mortality rates. So what was behind such disparate 
>>>> health incomes among high-status and low-status workers? Researchers 
>>>> pointed the finger at inequality, hypothesizing that various psychosocial 
>>>> factors associated with inequality — such as the higher levels of stress 
>>>> at work and at home experienced by the lower tier workers, as well as 
>>>> their lower levels of self-esteem — were behind the dramatic differences 
>>>> in mortality rates.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe that inequality-related stressors are likely to be the 
>>>> determining factors in declining American life expectancies, as well. I’m 
>>>> surprised, in fact, that the Times article did not specifically identify 
>>>> inequality as a causal factor, because the health risks associated with 
>>>> economic inequality are well-established in the scientific literature. For 
>>>> decades, the United States has been making a series of political choices 
>>>> that has distributed wealth and power upwards and left working Americans 
>>>> not only poorer and sicker, but also feeling far more burdened and 
>>>> distressed, and experiencing far less security and control over their 
>>>> lives. The consequences of these choices have been devastating, and absent 
>>>> a dramatic reversal in our political course, they are likely to get even 
>>>> worse. Where inequality is concerned, Republicans have their foot on the 
>>>> accelerator, while the best the Democrats seem to be able to do is to 
>>>> (temporarily) put their foot on the brake.
>>>> 
>>>> We are on a trajectory all right, and it’s not a good one.
>>>> The Washington Monthly / By Kathleen Geier | Sourced from 
>>>> Washington Monthly
>>>> 
>>>> Posted at September 22, 2012, 8:27am
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Futurework mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>>>> Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Futurework mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Futurework mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Futurework mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to