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.
Are you not aware of the fact that the infant mortality rate in the United States has risen (bad) from just a few decades ago, and is higher now than 25 European and other developed countries?
So here we have all these claims about the great job modern medicine is doing, yet the results don't support such claims.
Surely, with such modern technology, modern medicines, across the board hospital care for everyone, we're seeing an increase in infant death rates, why?
The answer is, we are not getting healthier ... and we are doing some really crazy stuff like injecting viruses into one hour old infants, under the insane premise that it is good for them, while calling anyone who questions that insanity a nut! That's a big part of the why.
Infant mortality in the US has declined, not risen.
Comparisons of infant mortality between the US and other countries are problematic because different countries use different definitions of live birth.
"One major concern is that the basic definitions of infant mortality are not consistent across countries.
For example, babies who are not viable and who die quickly after birth are more likely to be classified as stillbirths in countries outside the United States, especially in Japan, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, the Netherlands, and France. This is especially likely for babies who die before their birth is legally registered. In the United States, however, nonviable births are often recorded as live births, making the US infant mortality rate appear misleadingly high. In a detailed study of medical records and birth and death certificates in Philadelphia, Gibson and colleagues found that infant mortality had been overstated by 40 percent, merely as a result of these nonviable births that were recorded as live births."
If you are referring to the hepatits B vaccine, it contains no viruses at all - killed or dead. It has only a single hepatitis B antigen, which is produced in yeast.
"Now, 70 is considered fairly young"? Please!! How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when making such absurd statements? Given that the life expectancy is around 75-78 ... the 70 year old is just about at the end of the line, and is fairly old, not fairly young.
And then you cite the Bible as suggesting the average age was 50? You seem to be ignoring the direct accounts of Biblical figures living extraordinarily long lives, counting up into multi hundreds ... 900+.
I don't know where you get this idea that you can create your own alternate reality, and expect everyone to accept it.
I think you must be about 25 if you think 70 is "old". Life expectancy in the USA hits a record high "The average life expectancy for a person who was 65 years old in 2012 is 19.3 years – 20.5 years for women and 17.9 years for men. The difference in life expectancy at 65 years between males and females increased 0.1 year from 2.5 years in 2011 to 2.6 years in 2012."
So someone 65 years old (and this is from 3 years ago, the most recent I could find) can expect to live to be 85. suzy-q2010 stated upthread her husband is still working at 71. My brother-in-law worked until 70. I have many friends >65 still working.
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas You seem to be ignoring the direct accounts of Biblical figures living extraordinarily long lives, counting up into multi hundreds ... 900+.
I don't know where you get this idea that you can create your own alternate reality, and expect everyone to accept it.
Do you actually believe that anyone has ever lived to be 900+? Most people I know left fairy tales behind by about age 8.
You don't get chicken pox again after having had it once. You may erupt in shingles.
WebMD is an outlier. The industry standard is to speak of "flu" in everyday adverts as if the common cold has been eradicated. "Flu" is the vocabulary of the times.
I'm sorry, what are you talking about? A common upper respiratory infection (there are ZILLIONS) is generally referred to as "a cold" by both the public and doctors. Flu is Influenza, a specific disease. I've never had a doctor refer to a general seasonal infection as "the flu" unless it WAS the flu. It's not the industry standard to throw the term "the flu" around the way you are insinuating. There are people who throw the term "stomach flu" (no such thing) around, but never heard it from a doctor.
I think you must be about 25 if you think 70 is "old". Life expectancy in the USA hits a record high "The average life expectancy for a person who was 65 years old in 2012 is 19.3 years – 20.5 years for women and 17.9 years for men. The difference in life expectancy at 65 years between males and females increased 0.1 year from 2.5 years in 2011 to 2.6 years in 2012."
So someone 65 years old (and this is from 3 years ago, the most recent I could find) can expect to live to be 85. suzy-q2010 stated upthread her husband is still working at 71. My brother-in-law worked until 70. I have many friends >65 still working.
70 IS old. I am 66 and consider THAT old. So I can expect to live to be 85?????? ROFL Of course, medical professionals would say something like that because THEY will be the ones keeping people alive longer. Kinda smug, don't you think? I am not going to get into the quantity of life versus the quality of life. People can form their own opinions, and do, for themselves. This also gets into the right to refuse medical treatment for adults, even life saving ones.
This might be the subject for another thread, but people are working longer because they MUST. Work until you drop dead because you cannot afford to retire.
Are you not aware of the fact that the infant mortality rate in the United States has risen (bad) from just a few decades ago, and is higher now than 25 European and other developed countries?
So here we have all these claims about the great job modern medicine is doing, yet the results don't support such claims.
Surely, with such modern technology, modern medicines, across the board hospital care for everyone, we're seeing an increase in infant death rates, why?
The answer is, we are not getting healthier ... and we are doing some really crazy stuff like injecting viruses into one hour old infants, under the insane premise that it is good for them, while calling anyone who questions that insanity a nut! That's a big part of the why.
This chart says it all; comparing vaccinations of children in 1940, 1980, and 2012:
The 1940 chart is all I myself received, with the addition of polio on a sugar cube in school in the 50s. Yes, medical professionals that has been IT.
My children received the 1980 list. That was IT for them. When they came out with the Hep. B "recommendation", I refused because ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH. "Unfortunately", they already had chicken pox when that one also came out in the 90s.
I find the 2012 list absolutely horrific, in comparison to even what was given in 1980. Does anyone think that this 2012 list will not increase in the VERY NEAR future? Yes, because Enough will NEVER be Enough with science and medicine.
70 IS old. I am 66 and consider THAT old. So I can expect to live to be 85?????? ROFL Of course, medical professionals would say something like that because THEY will be the ones keeping people alive longer. Kinda smug, don't you think? I am not going to get into the quantity of life versus the quality of life. People can form their own opinions, and do, for themselves. This also gets into the right to refuse medical treatment for adults, even life saving ones.
This might be the subject for another thread, but people are working longer because they MUST. Work until you drop dead because you cannot afford to retire.
The life expectancy stats come from the SSA.
Here's their table from 2010. As we know, it has increased since then. Actuarial Life Table
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
This chart says it all; comparing vaccinations of children in 1940, 1980, and 2012:
The 1940 chart is all I myself received, with the addition of polio on a sugar cube in school in the 50s. Yes, medical professionals that has been IT.
My children received the 1980 list. That was IT for them. When they came out with the Hep. B "recommendation", I refused because ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH. "Unfortunately", they already had chicken pox when that one also came out in the 90s.
I find the 2012 list absolutely horrific, in comparison to even what was given in 1980. Does anyone think that this 2012 list will not increase in the VERY NEAR future? Yes, because Enough will NEVER be Enough with science and medicine.
Why is it a bad thing that we can prevent more diseases now than we could in the past?
The life expectancy stats come from the SSA.
Here's their table from 2010. As we know, it has increased since then. Actuarial Life Table
Thanks, but no thanks.
Why is it a bad thing that we can prevent more diseases now than we could in the past?
Being shot with up dozens and dozens of chemicals, not including scripts, from cradle to grave? You know what this makes me think of? Zombie Nation.
Look up the lyrics of that old song, "In the Year 2525". Getting closer. So, you think this concept is wonderful? Personally, I think you are messing with humanity.
Do you ever wonder what science will say in the future over what is being done today? Of course, science never changes their minds.
The life expectancy stats come from the SSA.
Here's their table from 2010. As we know, it has increased since then. Actuarial Life Table
Why is it a bad thing that we can prevent more diseases now than we could in the past?
It is pretty obvious that vaccines given to babies only a few months old are the cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. No babies without a chance to develop an immune system (before they are two years old) are being helped by the onslaught of vaccines given. In fact the medical profession should know better -- or are they THAT CLUELESS? If they are so concerned with "disease prevention" why can't they wait until the baby is older?
If parents are stupid enough to believe this bunch of lies on the CDC website saying in spite of the fact that SIDS occurs after the vaccines are given there is no correlation, they probably ought not to have had any children at all. CDC - Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and Vaccines - Vaccine Safety
This link http://thinktwice.com/sids.htm has anecdotal results of vaccines as well as studies that prove the link between vaccines and SIDS.
One published in JAMA showed that kids with "asthma were 5 times more likely than not to have been given the DPT shot ". Another found that if given the pertussis vaccine babies were 8 times more likely to die within 3 days after the pertussis vaccine than normal. A recent study by Dr Viera Scheibner shows that the pertussis vaccine causes a high incidence of sleep apnea. In that study he concluded that " vaccines are the single most prevalent and preventable cause of sudden infant death syndrome".
[quote=Katarina Witt;40193878]You're wrong about the mean.
Alright. I always thought it was called the mean. It isn't really important what it is called. Using the source YOU used yourself, Purple Math, it is called the MODE. It says the MODE is the number which is repeated more often than any other. Mean, Median, Mode, and Range
If you drew a line graph of census information in any given state in America in the late 1800s, the number that is repeated most often after age one is the age most people will reach. [This is not the same as the average. The average, due to the higher infant moratlity rate, will be lower than the average today]. The age most people reach is more indicative of life expectancy that the average. They have found that there isn't any appreciable difference in life expectancy over the last 2000 years. I provided that link earlier. The whole BS about the supposed fact that "we are living longer healthier lives" is just brainwashing.
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.
