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.
I don't necessarily agree with all of the drug pushing and items in modern medicine - with that said, saying that it hasn't provided substantial benefits is completely asinine.
I don't necessarily agree with all of the drug pushing and items in modern medicine - with that said, saying that it hasn't provided substantial benefits is completely asinine.
No one denied that modern medicine has benefits.
Calling someone "asinine" has to be against the rules here.
When new drugs are introduced (overall, not just cardiovascular drugs), people die at older ages.
T"his research was supported by the following companies: Aventis, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pharmacia."
Oh please, SuzyQ, that was just silly. They counted new drugs introduced, but no idea how many took them or if they worked. And the increased average lifespan was tiny.
Drug companies are so creative with their deceptive research.
Longevity data are just math. It has nothing to do with "world view" and is the reason religion (or absence of it) is irrelevant to the discussion.
No, data isn't just math!! There are all kinds of ways to analyze and interpret data. Again, you have obviously never had anything to do with scientific research.
If nature is beyond our ability to comprehend, why even try?
No, I did not imply that. You said, "There are many respected scientists who say that nature is beyond human comprehension."
That implies that humans can never understand nature at all. If we can learn about it, we can comprehend it.
Who are those "respected scientists"? You have not given us any names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I know that you know that I could not have possibly meant that humans can never understand nature at all.
Then WHAT DID YOU MEAN? Seriously, you retract everything you say - you expect people to read your convoluted mind and when they can't you're upset. You have a communication problem. I've asked before, is English your second language? If you want people to understand you then present your case logically instead of in sweeping generalities.
Do you really have no concept that much of the pathology of "chronic degenerative diseases" becomes apparent as people age? To me it is easy to understand the concept that if average life expectancy is so low that you never reach the average age to have clinical cardiovascular disease then your society will not have much evident cardiovascular disease. If you were on your way to developing coronary artery disease but got taken out by pneumonia at the age of 40 you never make it to 65 to have your heart attack.
Chronic degenerative diseases develop gradually and get worse as a person ages. Obviously. That doesn't mean they are CAUSED by age! Age is a factor.
You have a lot of trouble understanding causality.
Chronic degenerative diseases develop gradually and get worse as a person ages. Obviously. That doesn't mean they are CAUSED by age! Age is a factor.
You have a lot of trouble understanding causality.
Trying to understand you seems to be an exercise in futility. I will ask again - would you PLEASE summarize your opinions in way that we can all understand that way you don't have to reply to every single post on this thread.
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.
