I have the impression that modern health organizations and media focus a lot on basic science breakthroughs as major tools for improving life quality and health. Still, they put less weight on making socio-economic changes. The provocative way to think about why this could be so could be the number one society has defaulted to an ideology that blames the individual for health choices and disregards the impact on socio-economic factors on health. Number two, society has given up on hope to improve the socio-economic situation of less privileged patients. Medical second opinion is important. Society and media take an easy road to blame over choices patients make on their will. George A. Kaplan, PhD. That is we value technology solutions well above socio-economic interventions. What do you think about these issues? Dr. Anton Titov, MD. Since the discovery of the causal role of cigarette products in lung cancer. This occurred in the late 50s and early 60s, UK, US. Other countries as well? Dr. Anton Titov, MD. There certainly has been a tendency to blame the victim, okay to say, you did a bad thing. Therefore, you are going to be sick. We are not going to do anything for you. But now, leaving aside the tremendous profits that are made from selling cigarette products, e-cigarettes now selling poor quality food, unhealthy food, overconsumption of alcohol, leaving that wholly aside for a minute. There needs to be an understanding that the cost to society of these diseases is enormous. Medical second opinion is important. George A. Kaplan, PhD. That is, there is a socio-economic cost associated with the diseases. Whether the care is provided by the state or whether it is provided out of individuals' pockets, there is lost productivity, there is lost lives in addition to pain and suffering. George A. Kaplan, PhD. That all exert a drain, socio-economic drain on society. Medical second opinion is important. There is an argument that could be made for being good to reduce the burden from these behaviorally driven diseases. The question is how to do it. What we know in the case of cigarettes from studies done, some in California where I am now in the US and other countries as well, is that socio-economic interventions are very strong, strongly related to reductions in smoking. So. The two strongest things you can do if you want to reduce the level of smoking in society or make them more expensive because patients only have a certain amount of money to spend and restrict the conditions the environments in. This patients can smoke. Medical second opinion is important. Socio-economic interventions of that sort, are very effective. The other thing we know is investments in education have long term consequences. Over the life course for children for adults in both more positive economic outcomes for the individuals as well as lower disease. Medical second opinion is important. Socio-economic interventions can be very effective in reducing the burden of disease in the popular population and increasing life expectancy. More importantly, increasing healthy life expectancy is the number of years you live, productive and and vital.