 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / November 2007lifespan still increasing?
Greetings, all, In his blockbuster book, "Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You to Know About", Kevin Trudeau casts some doubt on the reliability of US lifespan statistics. He says the stats have been falsified. According to the official numbers, the average lifespan in the US is currently 78 years, and is still increasing, although not nearly as quickly as before. In fact, in the last few years, the lifespan has been going up only incrementally. Meanwhile, we all know that there's an obesity epidemic, the diabetes epidemic, the cancer rates are going up, the allergy rates are up dramatically, and all sorts of degenerative diseases are increasing. Considering all this, why would the average lifespan be still rising? Seems like a mystery to me... Don't the obese people generally have a shorter lifespan? In any case, this is what Trudeau says, "I hear a lot about the alleged fact that we are living longer than ever before. This is categorically not true. ... The statistics on life span are fraudulent and false. ... I have to tell you, every time somebody says that we are living longer than ever before I want to scream. Again, I want you to know that it's a lie. The government wants you to believe this because they want you to believe that drugs and surgery are doing a wonderful job, keeping in mind that the majority of money that is going in the pockets of politicians all around the world is from the pharmaceutical industry. ... The bottom line is people are not living longer than ever before. It is a false statistic." (Kevin Trudeau, "Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You to Know About", Alliance Publishing, 2004, pages 116-117) But unfortunately, Trudeau doesn't offer any substantiation for his claims, and neither does he offer any estimate as to what the true lifespan in the US might actually be at this time. So has anyone looked into this matter before? Any further info would be appreciated. Best regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku Caution is called for when all the experts agree. -- Bertrand Russell > Greetings, all, > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Caution is called for when all the experts agree. > -- Bertrand Russell I have heard that it has actually declined in the U.S. in the past few years. But even if this is true, there are many factors that can contribute--epidemics, immigration, etc. Of course, if you are going to posit that life expectancy at birth has not increased, the burden of proof is on Trudeau. So, where does he get his figures? http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html Steve >> Greetings, all, >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > I have heard that it has actually declined in the U.S. in the past few > years. Steve, This would certainly make sense. After all, the government obviously keeps lying about lots of other things, so why would they tell us the truth about life expectancy? Want to see some alternative economic stats? Check it out, Shadow Government Statistics Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/data > But even if this is true, there are many factors that can > contribute--epidemics, immigration, etc. Or maybe things like Vioxx? They say it killed as many as 100,000! > Of course, if you are going to posit that life expectancy at birth has not > increased, the burden of proof is on Trudeau. So, where does he get his > figures? Maybe he got some inside scoop somewhere? But, in any case, there should be some ways to double check on the govt life stats. Just like this economist guy found a way to double check on the govt economic stats... I was just wondering if anyone has tried doing this before, but so far wasn't able to turn up much on the Net. > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html Thanks for these official numbers above. They are quite detailed. But how reliable are they? > Steve All the best, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku Caution is called for when all the experts agree. -- Bertrand Russell >Greetings, all, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Don't the obese people generally have a shorter lifespan? ... >So has anyone looked into this matter before? Any further info would be >appreciated. There are two issues here. As to lifespan... Be sure you understand exactly what lifespan data says. In this case, your logic may be correct, but the effect has not yet affected the lifespan of those now dying. It may affect later statistics. As to the author you quote... look him up in google and look around. You will realize that he is not a credible source of info. bob >>Greetings, all, >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > yet affected the lifespan of those now dying. It may affect later > statistics. Maybe, might be... But, actually, these trends are not exactly new, so they should already be showing up in the stats. > As to the author you quote... look him up in google and look around. > You will realize that he is not a credible source of info. > > bob He's a lot more credible than the Big Pharma press releases, that's for sure. Yuri. >> As to the author you quote... look him up in google and look around. >> You will realize that he is not a credible source of info. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >He's a lot more credible than the Big Pharma press releases, that's for >sure. If you think Trudeau has *any* credibility, your own just dropped to zero. Have a nice day. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke >>> As to the author you quote... look him up in google and look around. >>> You will realize that he is not a credible source of info. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you think Trudeau has *any* credibility, your own just dropped to > zero. Have a nice day. Yes, I think he has some credibility. Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku Believe it or not, but the American medical system is actually the leading cause of death and injury! Total number of iatrogenic deaths in the US is over 780,000 per year. This is equivalent to SIX JUMBO JETS falling out of the sky each and every day. -- DEATH BY MEDICINE, 2004, by Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD. http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html >>>> As to the author you quote... look him up in google and look around. >>>> You will realize that he is not a credible source of info. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes, I think he has some credibility. It's near zero but 200 times that of David Wright. > Yuri. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD. > http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html >>>> As to the author you quote... look him up in google and look around. >>>> You will realize that he is not a credible source of info. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD. >http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html Oh, this thing again? It blames every death from bedsores on the medical profession. It uses a lot of thoroughly dubious statistics, too. But you go right ahead and think it's gospel -- even though the mere fact that it appears on whale.to should be a big red flag. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke >>>>> As to the author you quote... look him up in google and look around. >>>>> You will realize that he is not a credible source of info. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Oh, this thing again? It blames every death from bedsores on the > medical profession. 115,000 Americans die each year in hospitals because of bedsores. So I guess the hospitals have nothing to do with this? > It uses a lot of thoroughly dubious statistics, too. Like what? > But you go right ahead and think it's gospel -- even though the > mere fact that it appears on whale.to should be a big red flag. Or maybe a big green flag? Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure. -- Reinhold Niebuhr >>>>>> As to the author you quote... look him up in google and look around. >>>>>> You will realize that he is not a credible source of info. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > 115,000 Americans die each year in hospitals because of bedsores. So I > guess the hospitals have nothing to do with this? Hospital, bedsores, deaths due to bed sores? You really are insane and uneducated. You would, will have a very difficult time showing (1) death from such. >> It uses a lot of thoroughly dubious statistics, too. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure. > -- Reinhold Niebuhr >>>>>>> As to the author you quote... look him up in google and look around. >>>>>>> You will realize that he is not a credible source of info. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > You really are insane and uneducated. > You would, will have a very difficult time showing (1) death from such. 115,000 Americans die each year because of bedsores, but I guess they're all still alive in Vernono's Funny World... Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku Believe it or not, but the American medical system is actually the leading cause of death and injury! Total number of iatrogenic deaths in the US is over 780,000 per year. This is equivalent to SIX JUMBO JETS falling out of the sky each and every day. -- DEATH BY MEDICINE, 2004, by Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD. http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html > > In article <39fa3$4713f14b$d8fea746$24...@PRIMUS.CA>, > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure. > -- Reinhold Niebuhr I can't comment on the bedsore stats other than to say it is rather commen event. I recall a LPN taking me on your rounds back in the day, She had about 20 patients in which she packed gauze into the bed sores. And before she packed the gauze, she took the old gauze out which is a sight you'll remember. All the folks were completely immobile and seem out of it due to dementia (?) or stroke. Nurses are trained to move their charges every three hours to prevent bed sores. Nice in theory, but some the extreme elderly nurse home clients and med surg ward clients are frozen in place such a new position is just about impossible. The bean counters and regulators should try their hands at it for a month. Further, the elderly are more prone to bedsores as tissue repair has slowed due a lack of enough of IGF-1. >>>>>> As to the author you quote... look him up in google and look around. >>>>>> You will realize that he is not a credible source of info. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >115,000 Americans die each year in hospitals because of bedsores. So I guess >the hospitals have nothing to do with this? Except that the numbers refer to long-term care facilities, not hospitals. >> It uses a lot of thoroughly dubious statistics, too. > >Like what? Oh, like Starfield's bullshit estimates for hospital drug ADRs, and Lazarou's equally bogus numbers. That's for starters. >> But you go right ahead and think it's gospel -- even though the >> mere fact that it appears on whale.to should be a big red flag. > >Or maybe a big green flag? No. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke >>>>Believe it or not, but the American medical system is actually the >>>>leading [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Except that the numbers refer to long-term care facilities, not > hospitals. Often it's the same thing... >>> It uses a lot of thoroughly dubious statistics, too. >> >>Like what? > > Oh, like Starfield's bullshit estimates for hospital drug ADRs, and > Lazarou's equally bogus numbers. That's for starters. LOL! Let's see... http://www.whale.to/a/null9.html For Starfield, we get this, Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA . 2000 Jul 26;284(4):483-5. Starfield B. Deficiencies in US medical care. JAMA . 2000 Nov 1;284(17):2184-5. And for Lazarou, we get this, Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA . 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5. So are you telling me not to trust JAMA, one of the big mainstream medical journals? Are you some sort of an anarchist, David??? Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku "Modern medicine" may well be defined as "the experimental study of what happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human bodies." -- A. Saul, Contributing Editor, Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine -- http://www.orthomed.org >>>>>Believe it or not, but the American medical system is actually the >>>>>leading [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Often it's the same thing... No. >>>> It uses a lot of thoroughly dubious statistics, too. >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >So are you telling me not to trust JAMA, one of the big mainstream medical >journals? You certainly shouldn't trust it unreservedly. Lazarou's paper was enough to make me think that the whole peer-review system wasn't working. >"Modern medicine" may well be defined as "the experimental study of what >happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human >bodies." -- A. Saul, Contributing Editor, Journal of Orthomolecular >Medicine -- http://www.orthomed.org Oh, dear old Andrew Saul. He used to post to misc.health.alternative until he got tired of having his bogus articles poked full of holes. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke >>>>> It uses a lot of thoroughly dubious statistics, too. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > enough to make me think that the whole peer-review system wasn't > working. Please disclose your own credentials in this area, and explain how are they superior to those of the authors you criticise. >>"Modern medicine" may well be defined as "the experimental study of what >>happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh, dear old Andrew Saul. He used to post to misc.health.alternative > until he got tired of having his bogus articles poked full of holes. Or maybe he got tired of dealing with nobodies who know nothing... Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku "Half of the modern drugs could well be thrown out of the window, except that the birds might eat them." -- Dr. Martin Henry Fischer >>>>>> It uses a lot of thoroughly dubious statistics, too. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Please disclose your own credentials in this area, and explain how are they >superior to those of the authors you criticise. No need: here's a nice discussion of why Lazarou's paper is worthless: http:www.gao.gov/new.items/he00053t.pdf Recently, Lazarou, Pomeranz, and Corey attempted to synthesize available data on fatalities from adverse drug events (excluding cases of medication error). To derive their estimate of 106,000 fatal adverse drug reactions in the United States in 1994, they drew on data from 16 studies of adverse drug reactions published between 1964 and 1995. The studies cumulatively looked at 78 deaths, but only two of the studies had more than 10 deaths. Moreover, the 4 studies published after 1976 included a total of 5 deaths, compared with 73 in the 12 earlier studies. Consequently, the projection of fatal adverse drug reactions in 1994 is based predominately on data from 20 years earlier, when the use of pharmaceuticals was quite different. In addition, deaths were too few to arrive at a stable mortality estimate -- as even a small change in the number of deaths reported in the studies would lead to substantial changes in the number of deaths extrapolated to the national population. >>>"Modern medicine" may well be defined as "the experimental study of what >>>happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Or maybe he got tired of dealing with nobodies who know nothing... Like you? After all, I haven't yet given up on you. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke >>>>>>> It uses a lot of thoroughly dubious statistics, too. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > drew on data from 16 studies of adverse drug reactions published > between 1964 and 1995. Sounds to me like Lazarou et al's results would be an understatement, since there's a lot more drugs being prescribed now compared to the period between 1964 and 1995. > The studies cumulatively looked at 78 > deaths, but only two of the studies had more than 10 deaths. > Moreover, the 4 studies published after 1976 included a total > of 5 deaths, compared with 73 in the 12 earlier studies. > Consequently, the projection of fatal adverse drug reactions in > 1994 is based predominately on data from 20 years earlier, And thus, the true results should be much greater now! > when the use of pharmaceuticals was quite different. How was it different? > In addition, > deaths were too few to arrive at a stable mortality estimate -- > as even a small change in the number of deaths reported in the > studies would lead to substantial changes in the number of deaths > extrapolated to the national population. Yes, it would be a great thing to arrive at a "stable mortality estimate". So where is this "stable mortality estimate"? Do you have it, David? If not, then Lazarou et al's results are the best estimate available today. If you have a better estimate, please present it here. It is clear that your attitude is entirely negative; you're in a big hurry to dismiss Lazarou et al's results, while offering nothing in return. Thus, you're trying to sweep this very serious problem under the rug. Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair >>>>>>>> It uses a lot of thoroughly dubious statistics, too. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >there's a lot more drugs being prescribed now compared to the period between >1964 and 1995. Sounds to me like you have no idea what you're reading. >> The studies cumulatively looked at 78 >> deaths, but only two of the studies had more than 10 deaths. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >How was it different? A lot of them didn't work as well, for one thing. I'm sorry that you're innumerate and don't understand why Lazarou et al didn't prove anything at all. I'll try to keep your severe limitations more in mind should I respond to you again. >> In addition, >> deaths were too few to arrive at a stable mortality estimate -- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If not, then Lazarou et al's results are the best estimate available today. >If you have a better estimate, please present it here. The point, you poor sap, is that you can't make any sort of estimate based on the weensy amount of data they tried to use. The numbers were too small. >It is clear that your attitude is entirely negative; you're in a big hurry >to dismiss Lazarou et al's results, while offering nothing in return. Thus, >you're trying to sweep this very serious problem under the rug. The point is that, without data, we we don't know whether it's a serious problem or not. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke >>> http:www.gao.gov/new.items/he00053t.pdf >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Sounds to me like you have no idea what you're reading. Are you denying that there's a lot more drugs being prescribed now compared to the period between 1964 and 1995? Why would you want to deny the obvious, David? >>> The studies cumulatively looked at 78 >>> deaths, but only two of the studies had more than 10 deaths. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > A lot of them didn't work as well, for one thing. Says who? Did they work as well as Vioxx? > I'm sorry that you're innumerate and don't understand why Lazarou et > al didn't prove anything at all. I'll try to keep your severe > limitations more in mind should I respond to you again. I'm sure that if you had a real argument, you wouldn't have had to resort to personal attacks. >>> In addition, >>> deaths were too few to arrive at a stable mortality estimate -- [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The point, you poor sap, Ad hominem noted. > is that you can't make any sort of estimate > based on the weensy amount of data they tried to use. The numbers > were too small. Obviously, Lazarou et al's article was good enough for JAMA. And you still have no positive contribution to make... >>It is clear that your attitude is entirely negative; you're in a big hurry >>to dismiss Lazarou et al's results, while offering nothing in return. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The point is that, without data, we we don't know whether it's a > serious problem or not. Any serious medical practitioner knows that adverse drug events are a very serious problem. Why would you want to deny the obvious? Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair >>>> http:www.gao.gov/new.items/he00053t.pdf >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Why would you want to deny the obvious, David? Even if there are, so what? It doesn't spin the dross of Lazarou et al into gold. Their numbers were meaningless before and still are. >>>> The studies cumulatively looked at 78 >>>> deaths, but only two of the studies had more than 10 deaths. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >I'm sure that if you had a real argument, you wouldn't have had to resort to >personal attacks. I'm sure if you understood why Lazarou's paper doesn't prove anything, you'd stop your desperate attempts to believe in it. >> The point, you poor sap, > >Ad hominem noted. Just trying to get through to you. It's not easy. >> is that you can't make any sort of estimate >> based on the weensy amount of data they tried to use. The numbers >> were too small. > >Obviously, Lazarou et al's article was good enough for JAMA. And you still >have no positive contribution to make... You keep yammering about JAMA as though it meant that the results were sanctified and couldn't be wrong. I showed you why they were wrong. You don't understand it. That's not my fault. >Any serious medical practitioner knows that adverse drug events are a very >serious problem. Why would you want to deny the obvious? Obviously, they are a serious problem when they occur. The difficulty is that we don't know how often they occur. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke >>>>> http:www.gao.gov/new.items/he00053t.pdf >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Even if there are, so what? Oh, like you still have some doubts about it? LOL! Where's your great enthusiasm for all those wonderful drugs that the Big Pharma is shovelling down people's throats, David? You should be celebrating more and more wonderful 'lifesaving drugs'!! Are you trying to deny the Great Achievements of those wonderful folks at the Big Pharma??? Hmm... Now I'm wondering about you, David... You must be one of those famous 'altie deniers' then! A turncoat!!! *:-O > It doesn't spin the dross of Lazarou et > al into gold. Their numbers were meaningless before and still are. Lazarou et al study is pure gold! :) >>>>> The studies cumulatively looked at 78 >>>>> deaths, but only two of the studies had more than 10 deaths. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > sanctified and couldn't be wrong. I showed you why they were wrong. > You don't understand it. That's not my fault. And I showed you why Lazarou et al study most likely _underestimates_ the number of ADRs. >>Any serious medical practitioner knows that adverse drug events are a very >>serious problem. Why would you want to deny the obvious? > > Obviously, they are a serious problem when they occur. The difficulty > is that we don't know how often they occur. So how come you don't know this? Is this because of your ignorance or incompetence? Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku "Modern medicine" may well be defined as "the experimental study of what happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human bodies." -- A. Saul, Contributing Editor, Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine -- http://www.orthomed.org >>>>>> http:www.gao.gov/new.items/he00053t.pdf >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >LOL! I don't know. Maybe there are more drugs being prescribed now than there were in 1964. But even if there are, it doesn't mean that there are more deaths associated with this. Why not? Well, consider the following. In 2000 or so, JAMA (which Yuri thinks is Holy Writ, but it's not) published a very bad paper by Starfield that attempted to show that there were maybe 100,000 deaths from ADRs in hospitals every year. Problem is, her paper was crap. The reason is that she agglomerated a bunch of studies that dated back many decades. If, however, she had only used studies produced since 1970, the number she got would have been more like 8,000--15,000. Which, admittedly, is a fairly large number, but is way, way less than 100,000. (Even Yuri will be able to understand this, I think.) So just because there are more drugs prescribed today doesn't mean that they are automatically causing more harm. >Where's your great enthusiasm for all those wonderful drugs that the >Big Pharma is shovelling down people's throats, David? Oh, is Big Pharma coming into their homes and force-feeding them drugs? I must have missed that on the news. >You should be celebrating more and more wonderful 'lifesaving >drugs'!! Are you trying to deny the Great Achievements of those >wonderful folks at the Big Pharma??? Some of those achievements are indeed fine things. Not every drug is Vioxx, even though you'd like us to believe otherwise. >Hmm... Now I'm wondering about you, David... You must be one of those >famous 'altie deniers' then! A turncoat!!! *:-O I've been practicing chi quong for 15 years. >> It doesn't spin the dross of Lazarou et >> al into gold. Their numbers were meaningless before and still are. > >Lazarou et al study is pure gold! :) Pure dross. Meaningless. >>>>>> The studies cumulatively looked at 78 >>>>>> deaths, but only two of the studies had more than 10 deaths. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>> >>>>>And thus, the true results should be much greater now! No, Yuri, the true results are unknown. Because Lazarou's results were meaningless. They were like looking at the number of traffic deaths in one small town and trying to generalize them to the entire country. You can't do it. They tell you NOTHING about the real numbers, except that the real numbers are greater than zero, and we already knew that. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke >>>>>>> http:www.gao.gov/new.items/he00053t.pdf >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I don't know. Maybe there are more drugs being prescribed now than > there were in 1964. So you admit your ignorance? > But even if there are, it doesn't mean that there > are more deaths associated with this. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > So just because there are more drugs prescribed today doesn't mean > that they are automatically causing more harm. Thus, you're still going around parading your ignorance about this whole problem... You almost seem to be proud of it! >>Where's your great enthusiasm for all those wonderful drugs that the >>Big Pharma is shovelling down people's throats, David? > > Oh, is Big Pharma coming into their homes and force-feeding them > drugs? I must have missed that on the news. Boy, you're real thick! When you watch your corporate news, how could you miss all those Big Pharma prescription drug ads aimed at the public? This is a new thing, you know! That's how they shovel drugs down people's throats, little boy! It's not the Tooth Fairy that's doing it! :) >>You should be celebrating more and more wonderful 'lifesaving >>drugs'!! Are you trying to deny the Great Achievements of those [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I've been practicing chi quong for 15 years. Try thinking logically for a change! >>> It doesn't spin the dross of Lazarou et >>> al into gold. Their numbers were meaningless before and still are. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > numbers, except that the real numbers are greater than zero, and we > already knew that. So you're still proudly parading your ignorance! Why don't you get yourself a clue? Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." -=- Bertrand Russell |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.