Deadly Diseases and the Real Causes of Their Outbreaks

We often regard the most deadly and widespread diseases as the "killers of humanity." But are we certain we understand the true reasons for their rapid spread? Over the past 20 years, cardiovascular diseases have remained the leading cause of death worldwide, consistently topping the list of the ten primary causes of death. Nonetheless, these diseases have never claimed as many lives as they do today.

Killer Number One

The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified cardiovascular diseases as the main cause of death globally for the past two decades. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2020, approximately 697,000 people in the United States died from cardiovascular diseases, accounting for 1 in 4 deaths. In Europe, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) reports that cardiovascular diseases annually cause over 4 million deaths, nearly half of all deaths on the continent. In Russia, Rosstat data reveals that in 2021, cardiovascular diseases accounted for over 45% of all deaths. In Slovakia, the Public Health Authority (ÚVZ) reported a record high level of absolute mortality in 2021, with cardiovascular diseases causing 38.6% of deaths.

Why does this problem not only persist but continue to worsen, despite medical advancements and new technologies?

What is the Cause?

We are often informed about various risk factors, but today, let's focus on the primary one: frequent or chronic stress. What is stress? It is fear—fear for one’s life and the safety of oneself and loved ones. We have become accustomed to living with this fear as an integral part of our lives. These are the socio-economic and geopolitical conditions of our society. But who creates these conditions? And how? Today, we will explore little-known causes that provoke and maintain a high level of constant anxiety and fear in each of us.

Interesting Facts and Research

Let’s look at some interesting findings uncovered by researchers from the University of California, Irvine. Alison Holman and her colleagues collected data on the mental state of around 5,000 Americans. Coincidentally, their data collection concluded just before the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, 2013. That day, two homemade bombs exploded within 10 seconds of each other as hundreds of runners crossed the finish line of the annual Boston Marathon. Three people, including an eight-year-old boy, were killed, hundreds were injured, and 16 people lost limbs.

The world mourned, and the media covered the event in gruesome detail for not just days or weeks, but years, including subsequent legal proceedings. The researchers decided to assess how the participants' mental state changed after the Boston tragedy. Unsurprisingly, the mental health of those who were at the scene or affected by the tragedy did not improve. Among the study participants were those who were present at the bombings.

However, a surprising discovery was that those who were not physically present but watched news coverage for six or more hours a day the following week experienced even more severe mental health problems. The high level of stress was not directly related to knowing someone who was killed or injured at the bombings. Is this unexpected?

To date, many studies have examined the impact of negative information on the mental and physical health of individuals. Increasing evidence suggests that the emotional consequences of consuming news can affect our health, increasing the likelihood of a heart attack or developing diseases in the subsequent years.

News is More Harmful Than Real Life

This has been proven by studying the consequences of many crises: the more news a person consumes, the higher the likelihood of developing symptoms of stress, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. There are those who study these phenomena deeply and use them for their own purposes, i.e., to control the state and behavior of people by influencing their consciousness.

In the next article, we will examine these mechanisms in detail. But for now, let's return to the role of the media...

The Impact of Terms and Psychological Terrorism

Some words themselves evoke fear and anxiety. Merely hearing or reading them can cause tension and fear to arise. For example, the word “cult.” Here is what I.Y. Kanterov, a professor, Doctor of Philosophy, and Professor of the Department of History and Theory of Politics at the Faculty of Political Science and a Distinguished Professor at Moscow State University, writes in his book "New Religious Movements":

"For centuries, the four-letter word 'cult' appeared only in the lexicon of historians of religion, theologians, ethnographers, and remained within the confines of scholarly publications. An exception, perhaps, was the use of the term 'cult' in political science (e.g., the cult of personality) in journalism and propaganda aimed at a broad audience. However, by the mid-1970s, this term had firmly established itself in all forms of mass media, including article headlines, essays, radio, and TV programs. And the overwhelming majority of materials on cults had a sensational and condemnatory tone.

Publications do not explain why the media use the term 'cult' predominantly (or rather, exclusively) with negative connotations. Sensation-seeking magazine and newspaper publishers quickly grew fond of the word 'cult' for its 'conciseness, sharpness, and emotionality.' Moreover, their already negative connotation can be easily amplified with phrases like 'suicide cult' or 'devilish cult.' In record time, the concept of 'cult' became widely used as a cliché associated with the 'typical characteristics' of a cult. Some of these characteristics include, for example, the involvement of cults in dubious and often criminal activities; cults recruit followers through deception and false promises; cults are led by powerful and unscrupulous leaders who pursue selfish goals and manipulate the minds of their followers, harming their mental health and destroying families."

In 1993, one of the leaders of the anti-cult movement introduced the terms "totalitarian sect" and "destructive cult." Since then, these terms have frequently appeared in politicians' speeches, law enforcement officials' statements, and as sensational headlines in various publications. The term "totalitarian," borrowed from the political science and propaganda of the Cold War era, immediately evokes associations with the absence of freedom, concentration camps and guards, barbed wire, forced labor, meager food, etc., all of which evoke fear. Anyone who reads or hears about the latest organization labeled as a "sect" or "cult" subconsciously fears for their own well-being and the well-being of their loved ones.

Dr. Kanterov concludes that "the vagueness of the terms 'totalitarian sect' and 'destructive cult' allows almost any new religious group, religious-philosophical doctrine, cultural, educational, or medical institution to be labeled with these terms." He emphasizes that "if desired, the terms 'totalitarian sect' and 'destructive cult' can always be used to stigmatize any undesirable person, without considering the consequences of such thoughtless use of these fear-inducing labels."

But is it as thoughtless as it may seem at first glance? The active dissemination of such traumatizing and frightening information is nothing short of psychological terrorism. 

To be continued...