Re: 1907-2007.. who gets the credit for longevity ..?

[Guest guest]

Dan-

> The Life expectancy for americans has increased by 30+ years in 100

> years..

>

> Who/what all gets the credit..

Primarily sanitation and emergency medical care, by which I mean

medical intervention in the case of accident, heart attack, etc., as

opposed to long-term care.

-

[Guest guest]

Dan, the short answers:

- what is not killing people: infectious diseases like TB and

smallpox, infant mortality, women in childbirth, accidents from

manual labor.

- what is making people live longer: drugs, surgery, and living with

lousy quality during the middle and end years.

Don't know about Africa.

Connie

> 1)What killed people fast 100 years ago, that we do not have today.

> 2)What is making people live longer now, that they did not have it

then.

>

> any comments?

>

> Thanks

> -Dan.

>

[Guest guest]

--- Dan <repent_kog_is_near@...> wrote:

> I have a puzzling question..

> The Life expectancy for americans has increased by 30+ years in 100

> years..

> Who/what all gets the credit..

Dan, the CDC has stats for the U.S. back to 1900. It looks like a lot

more people died before the age of 40 back then than now. Life

expectancy at age 60 has increased by only about 7 years.

Life expectancy

at birth:

49.2 in 1900

77.4 in 2003

at age 5:

60.0 in 1900

78.1 in 2003

at age 20:

62.8 in 1900

78.4 in 2003

at age 40:

68.3 in 1900

79.5 in 2003

at age 60:

74.8 in 1900

82.2 in 2003

at age 80:

85.3 in 1900

88.9 in 2003

source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf

The death rate per 100,000 population has decreased almost in half

from about 1,548 in 1900 to 801 in 2004. But in 1900, about a third

of the deaths were from pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea, the top

three causes, compared to almost half from heart disease and cancer,

the top two in 2004. In 1900, heart disease and cancer only caused

about 13% of the deaths. The rate of death from accidents was almost

twice as high in 1900 as in 2004. The rate of death from cancer has

nearly tripled and the rate for heart disease has nearly doubled.

U.S. leading causes of death 2004 (CDC)

Rate per 100,000 population

800.8 All causes

217.0 Heart diseases

185.8 Malignant neoplasms

50.0 Cerebrovascular diseases

41.1 Chronic lower respiratory diseases

37.7 Accidents

24.5 Diabetes mellitus

21.8 Alzheimers disease

19.8 Influenza and pneumonia

14.2 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis

11.2 Septicemia

10.9 Suicide

source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf

U.S. leading causes of death 1900 (CDC)

Rate per 100,000 population

1,548.1 All causes per 100,000

202.2 Pneumonia

194.4 Tuberculosis

142.7 Diarrhea, enteritis, and ulceration of the intestines

137.4 Heart diseases

106.9 Intracranial lesions of vascular origin

88.6 Nephritis

72.6 All accidents

64.0 Cancer and other malignant tumors

50.2 Senility

40.3 Diptheria

source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf

So, I'm guessing hygiene and medicine have considerably reduced deaths

from infectious diseases, more than offsetting the large rise in heart

disease and cancer.

[Guest guest]

As others have said, there are a lot of reasons. But you really can't

discount advances in surgery and emergency medical treatment even of

diseases.

The number of people I personally know that would have been dead, even

just ten years ago, but are alive today due to emergency and surgical

treatment is astonishing. One friend of mine went to the doctor and

said he wasn't feeling well. The doctor sent him in for immediate

emplacement of a coronary stent. Now my friend is good for another

10-20 years without having to have suffered a heart attack. That is

progress. Now if we can just work on preventing the need for the stent

in the first place!

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Actually, I seem to remember reading that the effects of stents on

> mortality aren't all they're cracked up to be, though I don't have

> any references at hand.

,

I have read the same thing - that studies show no real benefit in

outcomes for heart disease patients who receive stents or bypass

surgery versus patients who do not. Colpo has a good expose

in his " Coronary Intervention: Life Saver or Waste of Time " - Appendix

C in his book the " Great Cholesterol Con " :

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Cholesterol-Con--Colpo/dp/1430309334/ref=pd_b\

bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1200669543 & sr=1-1

> But yes, antibiotics, surgery and sanitation (smallpox, for example,

> is largely a disease of poor sanitation) are the big three reasons

> for the increase in life expectancy,

I think we do have to give credit (begrudgingly to allopathic

medicine for it's successes in treating infectious disease with drugs

and for treatment of injuries. The general public is in such awe of

this success that they believe this approach will bring them help with

chronic disease, which unfortunately is not the case. The horrible

dietary advice that has come out of this system is also not serving us

well. Although, I am seeing signs - like the recent recognition that

trans-fats are bad - that more and more " health authorities " are

starting to recommend better dietary advice. The worst remaining

false alarms are raw milk, red meat, organ meat, and saturated fat

phobias that are still prevalent - probably largely driven by vegan

propaganda.

> but food quality has finally declined enough that life expectancy is

> starting to decline too despite all those factors, and I doubt

> antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are prevalent enough yet to

> have a meaningful impact on overall mortality rates.

Declining food quality from factory farms, coupled with drug abuse for

treatment of chronic disease are likely to start dragging down life

expectancy over the next decade unless enough people wake up to avoid

these problems. The other major problem, that even the " health

authorities " recognize is the refined sugar addiction that dominates

the modern diet. For those who have not lost their sugar addiction

.... it's not too late

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Always remember to follow the money.

, that's a good point. I had momentarily forgotten about the

money side of food politics. But I wonder how red meat got shafted so

much, they certainly have a strong lobby?

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Let's not discount the inherent significance of ideas.

how about the significance of obstinate pride in conjunction

with positions of influence in perpetuating some health fallacies?

Many scientists are very reluctant to let go of cherished beliefs -

especially if it makes them look bad

In some cases, like thimerosal in vaccines, the potential threat of

lawsuits also looms large for those not admitting guilt.

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Following the money doesn't reduce anything to the mere flow of money;

> it follows the money through human hands and observes the influence of

> money on human behavior. To discount money is to discount a powerful

> incentive which has a profound effect on human activity.

, you may be right about the influence of money, often behind the

scenes, but also more openly in the form of advertising propaganda.

When people are constantly bombarded by advertisements that low fat

diets are good for you and saturated fat is bad - before long, people

are believing it's true. I should know, I was one of them

[Guest guest]

> But, you know, there is another question: how healthy were people in

> 1900?

> Chris

There is an interesting article at Dr. Eades' blog comparing people of

the Civil War era and today that talks a little about what they ate and

disease and life expectancy.

" So Big and So Healthy Indeed "

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/so-big-and-so-healthy-

indeed/

Connie

>

[Guest guest]

EXACTLY! Just because the quanitity of years has been prolonged, doesn't mean

the quality of life has. We're totally cheating nature. If there were suddenly

no hospitals or allopathic doctors, and Americans continued to undermine their

health with poor food choices, that lifespan number would drop drastically over

a very short period of time.

On a side note, I know a lot of people who literally don't want to live over

eighty or ninety, because they EXPECT their health to be practically

non-existent and to be dependent on pharmaceutical drugs just to keep them

alive. It's so sad, when you know that it really doesn't have to be this way. We

can be healthy centenarians, it just takes a little more work!

i agree. i think that *if* it can be determined that the stature and pelvic

measurements are representative they are a much better overall indicator of

well being than the longevity stats.

oliver...

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Definitely -- advertising is one of the key tools of any monied

> interest, though hardly the only one. As usual, I highly recommend

> _Trust Us, We're Experts_, though even they get certain things wrong.

, yes, another big money influence that comes to mind is the

funding of health-related studies. Many institutions are reluctant to

bite the hand that feeds them. And individual scientists that try to

go against the flow are often beaten down to subjugation or fired or

possibly even worse (threats, blacklists, etc). I recall reading

about some of these tactics that Enig had to face in her battle

against trans-fats.

[Guest guest]

> > Let's not discount the inherent significance of ideas.

>

> how about the significance of obstinate pride in conjunction

> with positions of influence in perpetuating some health fallacies?

>

> Many scientists are very reluctant to let go of cherished beliefs -

> especially if it makes them look bad

>

> In some cases, like thimerosal in vaccines, the potential threat of

> lawsuits also looms large for those not admitting guilt.

>

>

>

Hello Bryon,

There are several huge problems with vaccines.

1) They are stabilized with mercury.

2) They are preserved with formaldehyde.

3) They often incorporate 4 to 9 different live and dead viruses in

each dose. The end result being that the child receiving the

inoculation, their immune system is completely overwhelmed resulting

in severe reactions and very high fevers. These high fevers very

often result in permanent brain damage and mental retardation of that

child.

I personally know several doctors who did their residencies at Boston

Children's Hospital. All of which now claim that 80% of all mental

retardation in children after birth is due to the adverse effects of

vaccinations.

Sincerely

Keeley

[Guest guest]

--- Connie <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> There is an interesting article at Dr. Eades' blog comparing people

> of the Civil War era and today that talks a little about what they

> ate and disease and life expectancy. " So Big and So Healthy Indeed "

>http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/so-big-and-so-healthy-indeed/

Connie, thanks for posting. Dr Eades assessment of the Civil War era

diet as compared to today sounds very feasible:

" We've got two extremes. They were suffering from undernutrition; we

are suffering from overnutrition. If you've got the choice, take

overnutrition, especially coupled with antibiotics and all the other

marvels of modern medicine. But just because overnutrition makes you

bigger and stronger and allows you to live longer than chronic

starvation, it isn't optimal nutrition. Optimal nutrition, in my view

anyway, is plenty of good quality protein, plenty of good quality fat,

and easy on the carbs. "

His reference to larger more robust ancestors 100,000 years ago fits

in with the evidence that Oliver recently provided that showed both

men and women were taller on average 30,000 to 9,000 years ago than

they are today. Eades says:

" Paleolithic man, who ate plenty of meat, was large and robust with a

greater bone cortical thickness than we have today. It's only been in

the last generation that we have caught up size-wise to our ancestors

of a hundred thousand years ago. Why? Because for the first time since

the advent of agriculture, meat has become relatively cheap and

plentiful. "

[Guest guest]

-- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> " Let's not discount the inherent significance of ideas.

how about the significance of obstinate pride in conjunction

with positions of influence in perpetuating some health fallacies?

Many scientists are very reluctant to let go of cherished beliefs -

especially if it makes them look bad "

One factor that might be mentioned here is the cancer stats for an example, if a

person lives for 5 years and one day after being diagnosed with cancer, they are

a 'survivor' according to statistics, then most people actually die of cachexia

rather listed as dying of cancer, it's called renal failure on the death

certificate. All Statistics seem to be manipulated that way. I was just using

that as an example of one of the ways it looks like the longevity stats show we

are long-lived. I'd like to see the stats on the number of years, on average

people are drooling in their wheelchairs. Without quality quantity has no

meaning; IMHO.

Katy

[Guest guest]

--- Katy <webriter@...> wrote:

> One factor that might be mentioned here is the cancer stats for an

> example, if a person lives for 5 years and one day after being

> diagnosed with cancer, they are a 'survivor' according to

> statistics, then most people actually die of cachexia rather listed

> as dying of cancer, it's called renal failure on the death

> certificate. All Statistics seem to be manipulated that way. I was

> just using that as an example of one of the ways it looks like the

> longevity stats show we are long-lived. I'd like to see the stats

> on the number of years, on average people are drooling in their

> wheelchairs. Without quality quantity has no meaning; IMHO.

Katy, that's a good point too. The accuracy of stats on cause of

death are probably somewhat crude at best. Many people have multiple

problems when they die and assigning a cause my be just a guess. The

same problem exists in classifying disease in the first place. I

remember reading that if a person has had a polio vaccine, they will

not be classified as having polio, even if they meet all the symptoms.

BTW, on my point about stubborn pride, I just saw this post by Dr

Eades about the " Statinator " :

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cardiovascular-disease/a-statinator-speaks/

I wouldn't be surprised if Dr Nissen (the statinator) also has plenty

of big pharma money propping him up and keeping him cozy

[Guest guest]

we are long-lived. I'd like to see the stats on the number of years,

on average people are drooling in their wheelchairs. Without quality

quantity has no meaning; IMHO.

>

> Katy

The CDC has an attempt to measure that called " Measuring Healthy

Days. " And then they make bar graphs to show that as we are lasting

longer, so too are we having more bad health days at the end.

http://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/findings.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/monograph.htm

Connie

[Guest guest]

An early 20th epidemiologist studying the differences in aging between

> whites and Native Americans who lived in the same area found that their were

> about 20 Native American centenarians to every white centenarian. At the

> time the Native Americans were still living a Paleolithic lifestyle (or at

> least the centenarians had been for most of their lives). So, in brief, the

> old argument that it doesn't matter what was healthy for Paleolithic man

> because he died young doesn't really hold water.

When I worked in Elder care on the Reservation in the Okanogan, Washington state

I noticed the elderly people who were indeed generally older and healthier than

the ones I work with now, 'OFF' the rez. Am. Indians I knew who qualify here

still ate the roots and other Native foods, but they were also very active.

" Isabel " a 99 year old woman I cleaned for had a huge garden, took care of her

household, including her sickly grandson who was in his late 50's, and she

chopped wood still. Yes, she was old and needed some help but survived the

nursing home several times. Most of the people I see in the nursing homes here

in Michigan are in wheelchairs, they are not 'encouraged' to even walk, even if

they can still.

[Guest guest]

--- Keeley <seamineralswaterpmk@...> wrote:

> There are several huge problems with vaccines.

> 1) They are stabilized with mercury.

> 2) They are preserved with formaldehyde.

> 3) They often incorporate 4 to 9 different live and dead viruses in

> each dose. The end result being that the child receiving the

> inoculation, their immune system is completely overwhelmed resulting

> in severe reactions and very high fevers. These high fevers very

> often result in permanent brain damage and mental retardation of

> that child.

, vaccines may also have aluminum hydroxide, foreign animal

proteins and DNA fragments, and MSG. Most are now mercury-free, but a

few, like most flu shots, still have methyl mercury in the form of

thimerosal.

Vaccine info:

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

> I personally know several doctors who did their residencies at

> Boston Children's Hospital. All of which now claim that 80% of all

> mental retardation in children after birth is due to the adverse

> effects of vaccinations.

This is why I mentioned the threat of lawsuits as a reason why

scientists involved in promoting vaccines don't want to admit that

they could be harmful. They also have a lot of big pharma money and

political influence backing them up to support their resistance to change.

I don't believe vaccines have significantly improved our longevity

over the last 100 years. Instead, I believe their tremendous over-use

in the last several decades has led to diminished quality of life for

a very large number of people and threatens many more.

Proven vaccines should be reserved for severe outbreaks of life

threatening infectious diseases and should be entirely voluntary.

[Guest guest]

--- Parashis <artpages@...> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, what made you change your mind and how did you

> find out about Weston A. Price?

, oddly enough, in December 2005 during the holidays, I

decided to look on the internet to learn about what might cause

floaters in the eyes and how to get rid of them. In this search, I

ran across alternative health web sites that quickly led to Dr Mercola

and WAPF. These were the two web sites that I found most convincing

in arguing against conventional dietary and medical advice. It was

the WAPF article " The Skinny on Fats " that I found most convincing.

Today, I still think it's a classic

http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html

It took several weeks for the information to soak in before I decided

to change my diet and to quit taking statins. Although, I did very

quickly switch from diet soda to coffee for my caffeine fix and quit

eating any aspartame or sucralose and began minimizing sugar to break

my sugar addiction. I was already on a fairly low-carb diet trying to

lose weight, but I hadn't lost much weight because I cheated too much,

especially with sweets. By mid-January 2006 I quit taking Lipitor,

which was my only prescription drug. I lost about 15 pounds in three

months. Initially, I began taking a lot of dietary supplements, under

the influence of the Life Extension Foundation. I didn't find this

list until March 2006, when I went to set up a web page for a family

time-share cabin, discovered , and searched it for Weston

Price. That's also about the time I broke my caffeine addiction and

managed to find a raw dairy source. It was discussions here on NN,

especially with Masterjohn (thanks Chris), that led me to look

into getting good nutrition from food and dropping the supplements.

The only supplement I take now is high vitamin CLO.

I feel much healthier now than then, but I still have some floaters

So how did you find out about Weston Price?