Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-01-2018, 06:37 PM
 
8,189 posts, read 3,383,296 times
Reputation: 6057

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikala43 View Post
Um..... it also says the increase in life expectancy since the 1900s is due to modern medicine (sanitation, improved diet), which says the opposite of the point of your thread.
No, you must have not read most of the thread. Modern medicine includes antibiotics, which are probably related to declining infant mortality.

Modern medicine includes many different things. The question is whether new drugs, for example for cholesterol, have made a big difference in average lifespan.

I have been writing about medical myths, such as the idea that people would not live past 30 or 40 if they didn't have modern medicine. That is not true. The article shows that when infant mortality is not included, average lifespan is not that different from ours.

 
Old 08-01-2018, 06:39 PM
 
8,189 posts, read 3,383,296 times
Reputation: 6057
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs View Post
Obviously modern medicine is a big factor with longevity.
It is a very big factor, if it prevent infants from dying. The average goes way up when most children survive. That was one of the main points I have tried to make.
 
Old 08-01-2018, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Middle of the valley
48,360 posts, read 34,494,212 times
Reputation: 73406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
No, you must have not read most of the thread. Modern medicine includes antibiotics, which are probably related to declining infant mortality.

Modern medicine includes many different things. The question is whether new drugs, for example for cholesterol, have made a big difference in average lifespan.

I have been writing about medical myths, such as the idea that people would not live past 30 or 40 if they didn't have modern medicine. That is not true. The article shows that when infant mortality is not included, average lifespan is not that different from ours.
So now the question is whether new drugs increase life span..... un-named drugs, unspecified time frame "new drugs."

That is so broad, so un-specific there is no point in discussing it.
__________________
____________________________________________
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
 
Old 08-01-2018, 07:18 PM
 
8,189 posts, read 3,383,296 times
Reputation: 6057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikala43 View Post
So now the question is whether new drugs increase life span..... un-named drugs, unspecified time frame "new drugs."

That is so broad, so un-specific there is no point in discussing it.
The whole subject is very complicated, and there is no way to summarize it for you. My point was that there is a mythology, which makes it all seem very simple.

So many people believe the mythology without question. That non-industrialized people had short miserable lives, because they didn't have modern medicine.

It depends on which non-industrialized people we are talking about, and it depends on what aspects of modern medicine we are talking about.

Commenters have misunderstood in every possible way.

I can't make it all easy to understand, because these are things that are mostly not understood. The point is just to question the mythology, to find information that comes from various perspectives.

I just linked an article that is helpful because they made an effort to find out what kind of diseases humans and chimpanzees die from in a "wild" environment, vs in a modern artificial environment. They found that heart disease, for example, seldom occurs in the "wild" environment. I have read the same thing in many other sources. It contradicts the medical myth that says non-industrial people, and wild animals, would get heart disease if they survived longer. Not true.
 
Old 08-01-2018, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,972 posts, read 40,978,179 times
Reputation: 44901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
"For huntergatherers who survive to the age of reproduction, the average modal adult life span is about seventy-two years of age (range: 68–78;"
The key is to survive to the age of reproduction. What percentage do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/gurvenlab/s...ngomes2017.pdf

"Neither hunter-gatherers nor wild chimpanzees appear to suffer from atherosclerosis
or die from heart disease. It has often been remarked that few
risk factors for heart disease and cardiovascular disease exist among active
members of small-scale societies (Eaton et al. 1994). Obesity is rare, hypertension
is low, cholesterol and triglyceride levels are low, and maximal oxygen
uptake (VO2max) is high."
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/780556

"Studying individuals from ancient Egypt, ancient Peru, ancestral Puebloans of southwestern America, and hunter-gatherers from the Aleutian Islands, researchers were able to identify atherosclerosis in more than one-third of the mummified specimens, raising the possibility that humans have a natural predisposition to the disease."

" 'Our findings greatly increase the number of ancient people known to have atherosclerosis and show for the first time that the disease was common in several ancient cultures with varying lifestyles, diets, and genetics, across a wide geographical distance and over a very long span of human history,' according to the researchers. 'These findings suggest that our understanding of the causative factors of atherosclerosis is incomplete and that atherosclerosis could be inherent to the process of human aging.'"

Chimps get heart disease, it's just a different kind of heart disease. It might be due to genetic differences, don't you think?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26721908
 
Old 08-01-2018, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,972 posts, read 40,978,179 times
Reputation: 44901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
The whole subject is very complicated, and there is no way to summarize it for you. My point was that there is a mythology, which makes it all seem very simple.

So many people believe the mythology without question. That non-industrialized people had short miserable lives, because they didn't have modern medicine.

It depends on which non-industrialized people we are talking about, and it depends on what aspects of modern medicine we are talking about.

Commenters have misunderstood in every possible way.

I can't make it all easy to understand, because these are things that are mostly not understood. The point is just to question the mythology, to find information that comes from various perspectives.

I just linked an article that is helpful because they made an effort to find out what kind of diseases humans and chimpanzees die from in a "wild" environment, vs in a modern artificial environment. They found that heart disease, for example, seldom occurs in the "wild" environment. I have read the same thing in many other sources. It contradicts the medical myth that says non-industrial people, and wild animals, would get heart disease if they survived longer. Not true.
Yes, it is complicated, but you think because you do not understand it no one does.

For goodness' sake, please tell us which non-industrialized people you are talking about!

There is no reason to expect that humans and "wild animals," including chimps, would have identical health problems. The article you cited does not compare chimps in captivity to those in the wild. It notes that there is little information on heart disease in wild living chimps. The article I cited says that wild chimps have also been found to have the fibrosis in the heart muscle found in captive chimps. All we know from your article is that humans and chimps have different kinds of heart disease, not why.

No one is saying that humans "would get heart disease if they survived longer". We already know that atherosclerosis starts in childhood. It takes years for it to cause symptoms, though. You literally have to live long enough to die from it.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722756

Check that. Atherosclerosis has been seen in fetuses. References at the link.

"The atherosclerotic process starts in childhood and studies show its development in fetuses. Clinical manifestation often occurs only in the sixth decade of life."

"Based on literature from the last decade, the atherosclerotic process begins early in life and its progression depends on genetic factors that may be influenced by environmental factors."

"Fatty streaks in arterial intima were found in the fetus of hypercholesterolemic mothers."

The mythology is all yours. You clearly do not understand the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis.
 
Old 08-01-2018, 10:27 PM
 
5,644 posts, read 13,185,737 times
Reputation: 14170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/gurvenlab/s...ngomes2017.pdf

"Neither hunter-gatherers nor wild chimpanzees appear to suffer from atherosclerosis
or die from heart disease. It has often been remarked that few
risk factors for heart disease and cardiovascular disease exist among active
members of small-scale societies (Eaton et al. 1994). Obesity is rare, hypertension
is low, cholesterol and triglyceride levels are low, and maximal oxygen
uptake (VO2max) is high."
Dear Lord....

Actuarial tables listing ACTUAL ages of death and average years remaining of life for US citizens over the last 150 years was not "relevant" enough for you because it didn't break this data down by income level and urban vs rural locations...

Yet an article describing CHIMPANZEE life spans somehow proves your point?????

An ATHEISTIC EVOLUTIONARY treatise at that....

You really are unbelievable.....
 
Old 08-02-2018, 02:10 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,972 posts, read 40,978,179 times
Reputation: 44901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
It is a very big factor, if it prevent infants from dying. The average goes way up when most children survive. That was one of the main points I have tried to make.
Yes, it goes way up when children survive if you are measuring life expectancy at birth. Or from age 5. Or 10. Or 15. You see, you can choose any age and find out how many more years a person of that age can expect to live. Someone who is 5 or 10 or 15 has already survived infancy, so there is no longer a contribution from infant mortality. You can do the same calculation for a 65 year old or a 75 year old. You can do it for males or females or different racial groups. You have already been given those figures. Someone who is 65 now can expect to live longer than someone who was 65 in 1900. Because we all will die, someone who is 65 is not going to have the same number of predicted years left - on average - as someone who is 55.

Here it is again, simplified:

https://www.seniorliving.org/history...united-states/

A white woman in 1900 who was 65 years old on average lived 12 more years. In 2000 she lived on average 19 more years, a 7 year difference over the span of a century and a 4 year difference compared to 1950. Those differences are not due to lower infant mortality, because a 65 year old has already survived infancy. The differences are highly significant. Ask those of us who are in that age range and older what an average of an extra 7 years means to us - and that is just average. Some of us are doing what we can to beat the average.

Life expectancy is increasing, and it is not just due to more of us surviving childhood.

I wanted to revisit this:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
They counted new drugs introduced, but no idea how many took them or if they worked.
Actually, the author looked at specific categories. New drugs for a category of diseases were associated with later death from diseases in that category. All you need to know is when people died. It is a very easy end point to define.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post

The Effect of New Drugs on Longevity

"The author first explores the effect of launches of new chemical entities (NCEs)--drugs whose key ingredient has not previously been available in the country. He finds that increases in the stock of NCEs available to treat illnesses in a particular disease category are associated with increases in the fraction of deaths in that disease category that occur after age 65.
 
Old 08-02-2018, 02:22 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,972 posts, read 40,978,179 times
Reputation: 44901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Modern medicine includes antibiotics, which are probably related to declining infant mortality.

Modern medicine includes many different things. The question is whether new drugs, for example for cholesterol, have made a big difference in average lifespan.
Why are antimicrobial drugs good and drugs for hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease are not?
 
Old 08-02-2018, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Central IL
20,726 posts, read 16,227,648 times
Reputation: 50368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
No, you must have not read most of the thread. Modern medicine includes antibiotics, which are probably related to declining infant mortality.

Modern medicine includes many different things. The question is whether new drugs, for example for cholesterol, have made a big difference in average lifespan.

I have been writing about medical myths, such as the idea that people would not live past 30 or 40 if they didn't have modern medicine. That is not true. The article shows that when infant mortality is not included, average lifespan is not that different from ours.
So why do you happily "allow" medical advancement to account for decline in infant mortality yet you fault it for apparently (in your view) not creating the same degree of improvement to post-infant health? It seems like a specious argument - "hey people you think medical science is so great but it really doesn't do a thing for you after infancy"? So you seem to revile and discount anything not related to pediatrics as being ineffective? It seems more that you have been forced to reluctantly concede to medical advancement for pregnancy/infants but you just don't want to give any credit beyond that?

And just to make clear - because you seem to have a bone to pick I think it is important to understand the motivation behind all your arguments - it's basic to the case you are trying to make. You accuse some here of working for big Pharm - sometimes I wonder who you work for and whether that motivates the logic you present.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top