Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Illness, poor health, etc make for mega profits for guess who. Nothing else to say...WE need to help our own so called curing.
For anyone offering a cure: from medical doctors to supplement companies to diet companies to chiros to masseuses
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
The highlighted part of your post also flies in the face of facts....they are pesky right?
In 1911 a child that made it to age 10 would likely live longer than the 50 years they otherwise were destined for...all the way to 61.....no quite 85 or 100
Compare that to a child born in 2011 has an average life expectancy of 76 at birth and 76 at age 10...thank you modern medicine and vaccines
The facts are available...statistical tables that tell the tale on life expectancy are not open to debate or opinion
Like you said if one looks objectively at the facts, there can be no debate we are living longer today.....its not debatable
'
People are living longer today, but that does not mean they are healthier. Someone all those decades ago who lived into their 70's, 80's and 90's were healthier simply because they made it all on their own without "modern medicine". You cannot say the same today. The people today, who are in the their 50's and 60's, and take pages of meds, go to multiple specialists, have countless procedures, are not HEALTHY people. Yes, these are the people who would have died at those younger ages years ago. We are not healthy people if the only way to make to older ages is for modern medicine to keep us alive. This is where the argument gets to Quality of Life versus Quality of Life. That is totally up to the individual's choice. For me, personally, I prefer Quality over Quantity. I am 67 so I have known people from those earlier generations your charts talk about.
I read somewhere that 90% of people over 65 take 3 medications daily. 50% that age take 5 or more. You think that is healthy? How many of these Seniors would dead be if they weren't taking some kind of medication which is keeping them alive? Given those extremely high percentages what is the percentage of elderly people who take no medications at all? I would consider that percentage to be the truly healthy over 65's.
Our current birth rate in the US is 1.9. Yes, far more babies are surviving. However, for all those babies that did die in the past, parents still had far more children to begin with. What was the average size family a hundred years ago who did survive to adulthood? Four children was more the norm than two, one, or none at all. It isn't all about more babies surviving but fewer being born in the first place today. This might be for a different thread, but it has to be put into the context. Not enough babies being conceived (not too many dying) to replace the older ages living longer and longer.
I take over 3 meds and I'm only 50. Doctor says I'm the healthiest sick person he has ever met. Meaning I have stuff wrong with me but you would never know it to look at me or by the stuff I do.
YOU don't judge my quality of life, because you don't know me. Or any of the others.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
People are living longer today, but that does not mean they are healthier. Someone all those decades ago who lived into their 70's, 80's and 90's were healthier simply because they made it all on their own without "modern medicine". You cannot say the same today. The people today, who are in the their 50's and 60's, and take pages of meds, go to multiple specialists, have countless procedures, are not HEALTHY people. Yes, these are the people who would have died at those younger ages years ago. We are not healthy people if the only way to make to older ages is for modern medicine to keep us alive. This is where the argument gets to Quality of Life versus Quality of Life. That is totally up to the individual's choice. For me, personally, I prefer Quality over Quantity. I am 67 so I have known people from those earlier generations your charts talk about.
I read somewhere that 90% of people over 65 take 3 medications daily. 50% that age take 5 or more. You think that is healthy? How many of these Seniors would dead be if they weren't taking some kind of medication which is keeping them alive? Given those extremely high percentages what is the percentage of elderly people who take no medications at all? I would consider that percentage to be the truly healthy over 65's.
Our current birth rate in the US is 1.9. Yes, far more babies are surviving. However, for all those babies that did die in the past, parents still had far more children to begin with. What was the average size family a hundred years ago who did survive to adulthood? Four children was more the norm than two, one, or none at all. It isn't all about more babies surviving but fewer being born in the first place today. This might be for a different thread, but it has to be put into the context. Not enough babies being conceived (not too many dying) to replace the older ages living longer and longer.
Sorry to get OT. There is another thread on this.
You have posted nothing but opinion with no factual basis to support your claims....
You can't state "someone who lived into 70's, 80's, 90's were healthier because they made it "without modern medicine" without facts to back it up....
How do you know those people living into later decades (and there were far fewer of them back in the day) were healthier??? Just because they were "alive" doesn't mean they were "healthier" with their post polio syndrome, inactive TB, "consumption", COPD without benefit of medication etc, etc, etc...
People are living longer AND they are healthier today compared to all those decades ago....
Certainly not many in my parent's generation were running marathons, skiing, scuba diving and the like into their 60's and 70's and the data backs up my personal observations...currently among the fastest growing age group divisions in distance racing is in the 40 and above groups...Senior Games? certainly not a "growth" industry in the immediate post war generations...
Personally I've completed several marathons in my 50's and expect to do more into my 60's
As far as your contention that one can't be on medication and be healthy...nonsense....
If an individual has essential hypertension, take 2-3 anti hypertensives, has their blood pressure under control and is active, non smoking normal weight male.....that person is CLEARLY healthier than an obese smoker on no medications.....not even close...
There is more to "health" than whether one takes medications or not.
Whose healthier , the diabetic who takes his medications regularly, monitors his blood sugar and maintains tight control of his diabetes.....or the diabetic who takes no medication and eats whatever he pleases...
According to you apparently the latter....
I'll take the former....
I can't really make sense out of what you were trying to say re: birth rates so I'll just leave that alone. Don't really see what a lower birth rate has to with infant mortality....
My take though, on a planet with finite resources and a burgeoning population explosion, I don't see a lower birthrate as troubling....far from it...
Some one has certainly been well brainwashed and bought in to all the propaganda that we are supposedly living "longer, healthier lives BIG time".
If the truth be told, the only reason the AVERAGE age of death is higher now is due to the fact that the infant mortality rate is much lower now. Before incubators, many newborns died. However, if they made it to age 5, chances were excellent that they made it to 70, 85 or 100 or more and died healthy in their sleep.
Compare that to today where a weak baby is kept alive; has all sorts of issues growing up and by his 50's has so many issues and diseases and is in dozens of medications, he ends up in a nursing home and still doesn't make it past 75. I think the whole "longer, healthier lives" idea is a bunch of B.S. brainwashing. Don't believe it for a second. Look at the facts for yourself and then decide.
I agree - people may be living longer but I don't necessarily think they are living healthier lives.
I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011 shortly after my husband died. I chose a double mastectomy (thank goodness insurance pays for reconstruction) but refused chemotherapy. The first oncologist told me "if you don't take the chemo and the cancer comes back you will die". Great bedside manner. I got the impression he got a prize at the end of the month for all the patients he gave chemo to.
I got a different oncologist who wanted me to take tamoxifen which kills all the female hormones as one of my cancers was HER positive. I refused as I had already been through menopause and was miserable enough with hot flashes without killing the rest of my female hormones. I'm sure I was classified as a non-compliant patient. Jump forward 5 years; I am still doing fine and have been released from having to go back. Would I have had the same outcome if I poisoned my body with chemo? Maybe or maybe the chemo would have made me so sick I would have died of some other complication. I know my husband was diagnosed with cancer but he didn't get deadly sick until he started chemo. I personally don't know anybody who has survived cancer with chemotherapy. Not one person whether they were in the 40's or 70's.
I do know two people who survived cancer by going the holistic route. Cancer is a big money maker for doctors and hospitals which is why I don't believe we will ever have a cure for cancer. I have had too many complications in the last 15 years from meds doctors have prescribed and a serious complication from having my thyroid removed 3 years ago to ever trust a doctor again.
One example of diet? My Italian immigrant Great-Grandma liked to make Dandelion Soup with (dried not canned) Chici Beans and small pieces of pasta she made herself. Very bitter dark greens. You will not find anything like that on an Olive Garden Menu. Dinners like Lasagna or Ravioli were for Holidays alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
My ancestors weren't Italian but the bitter dandelion greens are a very old tradition in their culture too. (England). Dandelion root is being studied as a cure for cancer. The greens are very good for digestion, probably due to increasing bile flow--healthy for the liver and gall bladder and considered a spring tonic after consuming a diet of fats during the long cold winter.
Their diets were probably partially responsible for their long lives. That is, IF they had access to good foods. It's not quite fair to compare people of today who can just drive to the grocery store to people of long ago who had to hunt, gather, or grow all their own foods. On the one hand those people had better diets but there were times of starvation too.
Yes. Dandelions are a pre-biotic. In fact if you look for the BBC documentary on YouTube "The Truth About Food" they actually compare peoples' "friendly digestive flora" between a group that were given salads made with Dandelion and other greens and a group taking probiotics and found that the first group had FAR more beneficial bacteria in their gut. That is because what the dandelion does is help the body to produce what is necessary for good digestion as opposed to taking the man made isolate probiotics themselves to aid in the digestion. All that does is send messages to the body saying, " No need to create digestive juices, they've already been supplied by an outside source." How helpful is that?
Dr. Robert Morse even talked about a patient he had who had taken probiotics and digestive enzymes for so long that when he took him off them, "..the guy would eat and apple and poop an apple..". The body had lost its ability to digest food (until of course the patient changed to a raw diet and took the right herbs to regenerate his body and get it functioning again).
The saying, "if you don't use it, you lose it." applies here.
I agree - people may be living longer but I don't necessarily think they are living healthier lives.
I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011 shortly after my husband died. I chose a double mastectomy (thank goodness insurance pays for reconstruction) but refused chemotherapy. The first oncologist told me "if you don't take the chemo and the cancer comes back you will die". Great bedside manner. I got the impression he got a prize at the end of the month for all the patients he gave chemo to.
I got a different oncologist who wanted me to take tamoxifen which kills all the female hormones as one of my cancers was HER positive. I refused as I had already been through menopause and was miserable enough with hot flashes without killing the rest of my female hormones. I'm sure I was classified as a non-compliant patient. Jump forward 5 years; I am still doing fine and have been released from having to go back. Would I have had the same outcome if I poisoned my body with chemo? Maybe or maybe the chemo would have made me so sick I would have died of some other complication. I know my husband was diagnosed with cancer but he didn't get deadly sick until he started chemo. I personally don't know anybody who has survived cancer with chemotherapy. Not one person whether they were in the 40's or 70's.
I do know two people who survived cancer by going the holistic route. Cancer is a big money maker for doctors and hospitals which is why I don't believe we will ever have a cure for cancer. I have had too many complications in the last 15 years from meds doctors have prescribed and a serious complication from having my thyroid removed 3 years ago to ever trust a doctor again.
Good for you! You know, it turns out according to pathologists who discover cancer during autopsies of people who didn't even know they had cancer that 30 to 40 times as many people walking around have cancer and live out their lives and die from something else!
So not only is, "We are living longer, healthier lives." a big lie but "Early detection saves lives." is also a bunch of you know what! All cancer is are damaged cells period! If left alone it might even go away on its own. It is the TREATMENT that kills -- not the cancer.
As a genealogist, yes. People did die even when they were healthy. Food poisoning was more common in days before modern refrigeration. Infant death rate was higher, making the average lifespan seem shorter.
I'm sure I could look up more ways that healthy people died but this gets silly, arguing just for the sake of arguing.
But I agree about TB, of course, and the flu, especially the epidemic of 1918. Thank goodness for antibiotics and flu shots.
Many people also lived into their 90s back then. They ate real food, not junk food, and they usually got more exercise during the course of their day then people do now--out of necessity.
I'd venture to say that in those days one was considered old when he/she hit age 60, and I'd bet the concept of old age goes up as average lifespans do.
I know my grandparents and some of my other relatives lived, on the average, to their mid-70's, and died either of strokes, heart attacks, or chronic conditions such as emphysema. This would have been in the late 50's, early 60's.
I recall my parents telling me of their siblings who died of pneumonia, or "undulant fever"( this is a bacterial infection caused by drinking unpasteurized milk) when they were young. This would have been before the advent of antibiotics, or other lifesaving measures that now support people who get sick as their own immmune systems fight the diseases and get better.
I also recall one of those elderly relatives, a great aunt, who lived into her 70's but was nearly blind from glaucoma. I was diagnosed with glaucoma a few years ago, fortunately before much optic nerve damage was done or changes in vision, and I am appreciative every day of the professionals that monitor my vision and the medications ( and other means) available to prevent this disease from progressing to blindness. I know my great aunt's quality of life would have been much improved had these medical miracles been available to her.
Then there was the other great aunt I recall whose vision was greatly diminished because of cataracts. An almost painless and routine surgery done on millions of folks a year has made blindness from cataracts virtually a thing of the past.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
