 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / July 2005New Autism Cases Level Off in California, Data Show
SCIENCE IN THE NEWS from Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society Today's Headlines - July 13, 2005 NEW AUTISM CASES LEVEL OFF IN STATE, DATA SHOW from The Los Angeles Times (Registration Required) The number of newly diagnosed cases of autism in California, which had been skyrocketing for more than a decade, has leveled off and may even be declining, according to new data compiled by the state Department of Developmental Services. Although the total number of autistic children receiving special education services from the state continues to grow - bringing the current total to 28,046 - the rate of increase peaked in 2002 and has dropped slightly since then. The findings are important because California has the best reporting system for autism in the United States and is generally considered a bellwether for the rest of the country. http://tinyurl.com/a47dq > SCIENCE IN THE NEWS > from Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > bellwether for the rest of the country. > http://tinyurl.com/a47dq Here is a quote: *** Experts do not have a good explanation for the slowdown in new cases. "Perhaps whatever caused [the number of cases] to go up - environmental insult, or whatever - is no longer present," said Dr. Robert Hendren, executive director of the UC Davis MIND Institute, which researches neurodevelopmental disorders. "It's all speculation. I wish we had good studies." *** "Experts" (read allopathic medical people) seem to not know much of anything. TC >>SCIENCE IN THE NEWS >>from Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > "Experts" (read allopathic medical people) seem to not know much of > anything. At least they recognize their limitations. Imagine if medical doctors had the lack of hubris that alternative doctors had... > >>SCIENCE IN THE NEWS > >>from Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > At least they recognize their limitations. Imagine if medical doctors > had the lack of hubris that alternative doctors had... I don't know if allopathic doctors know their limitations. They don't know what causes obesity, diabetes, cancers, arthritis, heart disease, cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc., etc., etc. but they still insist that they are the only ones qualified to treat them. And they don't hesitate to prescribe drugs or surgeries to "fix" these health problems without concerning themselves with the basic causes of these chronic conditions such as basic nutrition. If a car mechanic told me that he doesn't know what is causing the problem with my car and proposed to try several ways to fix it, and charged me for his various attempts as well as for fixing the damage he may do to my car in his efforts to blindly fix a problem which he doesn't fully understand, I'd take my car elsewhere. The guy would not be qualified to be a mechanic by anyones standards. Allopathic doctors are the absolute pinnacle of abject hubris. TC >>>>SCIENCE IN THE NEWS >>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > TC So when you're sick, go to your auto mechanic. Steve  SignatureCut the nonsense to reply > >>>>SCIENCE IN THE NEWS > >>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Steve No. I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and my lipid profiles and blood sugars are normal. If I break a bone or get a cut I'll go see an allopath. Otherwise I give my body the nutrition it needs to fight off infections, stay healthy and heal itself. TC > No. I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I > haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > TC COMMENT: Now, THAT'S hubris. One day you're going to feel pretty silly, lying in a hospital dying of nothing. [credit to Redd Foxx] >>No. I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I >>haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > [credit to Redd Foxx] Redd Foxx knew from hubris? I thought that was schpilkes. Steve SignatureCut the nonsense to reply > > No. I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I > > haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > [credit to Redd Foxx] I'm not kidding when I say that I don't get sick. I haven't had so much as a sniffle in five years since I started eating properly. When all my co-workers are calling in sick or, worse yet, coming in sick and coughing and sneezing all over the place, I sit there and say nothing. I've already explained to them the advantage of eating low-carb real foods and getting enough vitamin C and b vitamins. They argued with me so I dropped it. Now every time they get sick I just shake my head and say nothing. I've never been more physically active than in the last year. And it feels good. It's not like it used to be, where any physical activity was a drudgery. When I would go for a bicycle ride the muscle aches would last a day or two, that is gone, no muscles aches at all. I feel like a kid again. My lower back pain (from a work-site injury) is almost completely gone, no thanks to my doctors. I used to suffer from depression, not any more. My diet fixed that, and not my doctors. Their pills just made things worse. No more IBS. No more heartburn. No more headaches. No more little annoying skin infections. I heal fast. I feel great. I've never felt better and any tests I've gotten at my doctors, from my regular check ups, have been bang on normal. Every single one of them. Went to my dentist a couple of weeks ago, after not seeing him for over two years, my teeth are great. No caries or even any signs of caries. I've regained the muscle and the strength I had 15 years ago. Life is great. I have never been this healthy. And it is most definitely not because of any allopathic doctor but in spite of them. It is strictly due to my diet which the allopathic doctors have slammed at every opportunity. Their virulent opposition to low-carb diets is doing more to harm people than one can imagine. TC >>>No. I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I >>>haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > TC Virulent opposition to low-carb diets? How last year! Steve SignatureCut the nonsense to reply > I haven't had so much as a sniffle in five years since I started eating > properly. When all my co-workers are calling in sick or, worse yet, Stopping the consumption of dairy (& cows' milk) also stopped my common colds. > almost completely gone, no thanks to my doctors. I used to suffer from > depression, not any more. My diet fixed that, and not my doctors. Their In regards to depression, what diet change did you make? Any nutri supps used for the depression? > of them. Went to my dentist a couple of weeks ago, after not seeing him > for over two years, my teeth are great. No caries or even any signs of > caries. I've regained the muscle and the strength I had 15 years ago. No caries, but I still get my teeth cleaned every six months. > I have never been this healthy. And it is most definitely not because > of any allopathic doctor but in spite of them. It is strictly due to my > diet which the allopathic doctors have slammed at every opportunity. Ditto. No allopathic M.D. in 30 years ever mentioned to me the bad health effects in humans from consuming dairy (& cows' milk) products. Without dairy (& cows' milk), I have been in healthy mode. >> > No. I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I >> > haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > TC You're another one solution-solves-all-problems thinker, like Jim Fixx, who thought that jogging solves all health problems (until he sat dying--at 52--during a daily run). GWC >>> > No. I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I >>> > haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >like Jim Fixx, who thought that jogging solves all health >problems (until he sat dying--at 52--during a daily run). Fixx did live to an age about ten years greater than his father had, so he wasn't entirely wrong, but he needed his arteries cleaned out, too. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe The Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns." -- Steve Martin > > COMMENT: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > coming in sick and coughing and sneezing all over the place, I sit > there and say nothing. COMMENT: I never get sick, either (unless you count the Tourista that is universal when you visit someplace like Fiji). The difference between you and me is I'm not so dumb as to credit the vitamins I take. Mostly, it's due to luck, good genes, and the fact that I'm not old yet. All but one of these is bound to change if I survive. Then I'll do my time as a patient like just everybody else who lives a normal or long life does. These are dues of being human. Ninnies ignore them. When I DO finally get something nasty, I'm not going to blame myself, my doctor, corporate conspiracy, nameless toxins, a vengeful or test-heppy deity, or the voodoo curses of somebody who doesn't like me (if any such persons there be). I will probably be angry at the FDA and the NIH and the policians for spending money on military and other stupid crap like they were ageless and immortal. But you can't blame people for failing to think about the human condition. The human condition IS pretty bad, and if we didn't have powerful ways to keep ourselves distracted from contemplation of it, we'd probably go nuts. Myself included. No snide comments on that last sentence, please. SBH "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > I never get sick, either (unless you count the Tourista that is > universal when you visit someplace like Fiji). > > The difference between you and me is I'm not so dumb as to credit the > vitamins I take. Mostly, it's due to luck, good genes, and the fact > that I'm not old yet. At what level of importance to you place lack of stress? I've noticed that stressful situations and lack of sleep, two things I strenulously avoid, correlate with the number of minor infectious diseases, like colds, I suffer. What about the big stuff? > I will probably be angry at the FDA and > the NIH and the policians for spending money on military and other > stupid crap like they were ageless and immortal. Already am. moo > "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > correlate with the number of minor infectious diseases, like colds, I > suffer. What about the big stuff? Stress will deplete you of vitamins B's and C and will lead to anxiety and the possiblilty of contracting minor infectious disease. But the converse is that if you are well fed and load up on the vitamins you need, you will be able to handle stress much much better and will avoid the problems that you pointed out can be caused by stress. Kinda like the chicken and the egg thing. Stress depletes vitamins, but vitamins help you deal with stress. TC > At what level of importance to you place lack of stress? I've noticed that > stressful situations and lack of sleep, two things I strenulously avoid, > correlate with the number of minor infectious diseases, like colds, I > suffer. What about the big stuff? COMMENT: I simply don't know. There was once a lot of thought that stress and corticosteroid production in general might be very bad and lead to a lot of consequences of aging, but it turns out that dietarily restricting animals (which is good for them) causes them a lot of stress, and their stress steroids are through the roof (some of my own work showed this). So having high stress hormones all the time can't be all THAT bad for you, if you're a mouse. Perhaps it gives humans heart disease-- we would miss that in a mouse model. I think in studies the amount of lifetime stress correlates probably best with hippocampal degeneration and loss of memory (not necessarily dementia, just pure memory loss). Don't remember which study that was, though... :) Corticosteroids seem to make one much more vulnerable to viruses, but most viruses are pretty benign. It's not like if you have more of them you'll become fulnerable to worse pathogens. Don't know of any evidence for that. SBH > > > COMMENT: > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The difference between you and me is I'm not so dumb as to credit the > vitamins I take. Hey jackass, learn to read. I do not credit vitamins. I credit eating real foods, which happens to be low carb, AND vitamins. Todays fresh produce is deficient, compared to the old days, because farmers today use more chemicals and fertilizers. The produce also gets shipped further and takes longer to get to market, thus the water soluble vitamins get at least somewaht depleted. > Mostly, it's due to luck, good genes, and the fact > that I'm not old yet. All but one of these is bound to change if I > survive. Then I'll do my time as a patient like just everybody else who > lives a normal or long life does. These are dues of being human. > Ninnies ignore them. Luck? Bullshit. Nature, or God, or evolution, whichever you prefer, did not create us thru luck. We developed to eat a certain way and to eat certain foods and require certain and specific nutrition. You deviate from that and you will not reach optimum health. Genes. We are genetically geared to eat real foods, fresh foods, nutrient dense foods, which all happen to be low-carb with minimal processing. Age? Eat properly and you will reach a healthy old age. Eat refined and manufactured crap and you will suffer and die from chronic illness like diabetes, obesity, heart disease, etc. It could not be simpler. > When I DO finally get something nasty, I'm not going to blame myself, > my doctor, corporate conspiracy, nameless toxins, a vengeful or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > SBH Blame the industry that produces the crap food and saturation-advertizes it directly to kids. Blame it on the gov't agencies that allow the crap to be manufactured and sold as "food". Blame it on the gov't agencies that allow the advertizing to kids. Blame it on the gov't dept that tells you that minute amounts of vitamins are more than adequate. Then blame the lack of knowledge on the medical establishment that says nothing and reaps the rewards of treating the resulting chronically-sick masses. There is plenty of blame to go around. "Conspiracy" implies a hidden agenda, the agenda is not hidden, it is out there for everyone to see. The purpose of the food and pharma companies are to earn money. The purpose of the non-profits are to earn money for the companies that bankroll them. The purpose of the US govt agencies are to support their companies in their efforts to earn money. The purpose of the medical establishment is to ensure that their members make money. None of these entities are interested in the health of individuals, unless they can make money from healthy individuals, but that isn't the case, they make money only from treating sick people. There is much more money to be made in manufactured foods, especially grains, and in treating sick people. TC > Luck? Bullshit. Nature, or God, or evolution, whichever you prefer, did > not create us thru luck. We developed to eat a certain way and to eat > certain foods and require certain and specific nutrition. You deviate > from that and you will not reach optimum health. COMMENT: Deviate from WHAT? Eating crops that didn't exist until just 15,000 years ago? Or (in most cases) far less? Agriculture developed in the last tick of the second hand, so far as human evolution goes. Farmed produce has NOTHING to do with evolution. ZIP. Or are you arguing for surviving on fish, roots, wild deer, and whatever berries you can get in the woods in the fall? > Genes. We are genetically geared to eat real foods, fresh foods, > nutrient dense foods, which all happen to be low-carb with minimal > processing. COMMENT Such as?? Tell me what's in your paleolithic diet, and where you get it. Not at the corner grocery. Please be specific. > Age? Eat properly and you will reach a healthy old age. Eat refined and > manufactured crap and you will suffer and die from chronic illness like > diabetes, obesity, heart disease, etc. COMMENT: Nonsense. Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not you get diabetes, obesity, heart disease, or whatever. None of your ancestors for the last million years lived LONG enought get any of these. > It could not be simpler. LOL. For every major problem in this nation, there is a simple solution---and it is wrong."--H.L. Menken SBH > > Luck? Bullshit. Nature, or God, or evolution, whichever you prefer, did > > not create us thru luck. We developed to eat a certain way and to eat [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > last tick of the second hand, so far as human evolution goes. Farmed > produce has NOTHING to do with evolution. ZIP. I said nothing of the sort. I said eat real food, fresh food, whole food. I said nothing about non-existent crops. And it isn't necesary. > Or are you arguing for surviving on fish, roots, wild deer, and > whatever berries you can get in the woods in the fall? No. Real food. Fresh food. Whole food. As opposed to manufactured and refined un-natural foods like white flour, white sugar, soy, potato chips, margarine, shortening, etc. > > Genes. We are genetically geared to eat real foods, fresh foods, > > nutrient dense foods, which all happen to be low-carb with minimal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Such as?? Tell me what's in your paleolithic diet, and where you get > it. Not at the corner grocery. Please be specific. At the corner grocer. In the fresh meats and the fresh produce areas. Away from the boxed, refined, manufactured, sugar added, preservative laden, infinite-shelf-life, denatured crap. > > Age? Eat properly and you will reach a healthy old age. Eat refined and > > manufactured crap and you will suffer and die from chronic illness like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > diabetes, obesity, heart disease, or whatever. None of your ancestors > for the last million years lived LONG enought get any of these. Evolution has everything to do with our genetic make-up and out nutritional needs. When we deviate from out nutritional needs we get sick. It is a very simple concept. It works with any living thing, restrict the nutrition it needs and substitute sub-standard crap and the organism gets sickly and dies. Try it with your cat, dog, or plants. > > It could not be simpler. > > LOL. For every major problem in this nation, there is a simple > solution---and it is wrong."--H.L. Menken > > SBH No one said it was a simple thing to implement, but it is a simple and eloquent scientific and commonsensical solution to most of our chronic illnesses. TC "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news: >> > Luck? Bullshit. Nature, or God, or evolution, whichever you prefer, did >> > not create us thru luck. We developed to eat a certain way and to eat [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I said nothing of the sort. I said eat real food, fresh food, whole > food. I said nothing about non-existent crops. And it isn't necesary. So what do you think the diet was a hundred thousand years ago? Hint: Whatever you could digest. And that's the way that humans (and other creatures) evolved to survive on many different foods. Our ancestors didn't evolve with the luxury of real food, fresh food, whole food. >> COMMENT >> Such as?? Tell me what's in your paleolithic diet, and where you get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Away from the boxed, refined, manufactured, sugar added, preservative > laden, infinite-shelf-life, denatured crap. Fresh meats and fresh produce were the major components of our ancient ancestors diets? Fresh meat? >> COMMENT: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the organism gets sickly and dies. Try it with your cat, dog, or > plants. I guess that you should post exactly what you mean by "nutritional needs" at this point. moo > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news: > >> > Luck? Bullshit. Nature, or God, or evolution, whichever you prefer, did [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > creatures) evolved to survive on many different foods. Our ancestors didn't > evolve with the luxury of real food, fresh food, whole food. Our ancestors didn't evolve with the luxury of real food, fresh food, whole food? Are you a complete idiot? What else would they have eaten, other than real fresh whole food? It wasn't a luxury, it was a daily reality. They had no choice. They did not have access to refined sugar and flour or any other manufactured foods. Their diet was fresh game and whatever they could gather. > >> COMMENT > >> Such as?? Tell me what's in your paleolithic diet, and where you get [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Fresh meats and fresh produce were the major components of our ancient > ancestors diets? Fresh meat? Of course, numbnuts. What else would they have access to? Pre-formed chicken nuggets? Frozen burger patties with added thickeners, spices and soy extenders? French fries? Soda? RTE cereals? Cake? Donuts? Are you really that stupid? > >> COMMENT: > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > moo Real fresh whole food, which contains the maximum amounts of vitamins, minerals, etc. Fresh produce, fresh chicken, seafood, pork, beef, lamb, etc. Bone broths, real fresh raw dairy. Real food like our grandparents, or great grand-parents used to make. You know, like back at the turn of the twentieth century when only a few people got diabetes t2, heart disease and obese. As opposed to today when we eat all kinds of manufactured and refined crap and we've experienced a tripling of chronic disease and obesity in the last thirty years. TC > > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news: > Real fresh whole food, which contains the maximum amounts of vitamins, > minerals, etc. Fresh produce, fresh chicken, seafood, pork, beef, lamb, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > all kinds of manufactured and refined crap and we've experienced a > tripling of chronic disease and obesity in the last thirty years. And where people statistically died much earlier, which meant that diseases related to aging didn't have a chance to occur. Or have you forgotten that little point? > TC > > > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > related to aging didn't have a chance to occur. Or have you forgotten that > little point? People are now getting obese, developing type 2 diabetes, and showing signs of heart disease in their teens. How about that little point? Contrary to your assumptions, people did live long lives back then too. The average lifespan was skewed down mostly by infectious disease and infections resulting from injuries, etc. But those who survived birth and accidents and had access to good wholesome foods did live long lives. TC ...> Contrary to your assumptions, people did live long lives back then too. > The average lifespan was skewed down mostly by infectious disease and > infections resulting from injuries, etc. But those who survived birth > and accidents and had access to good wholesome foods did live long > lives. > > TC Not really, and not that well. Some cultures did better than others. You should read Jared Diamond's book _Guns, Germs and Steel_ ... it shows the complete disparity of cultures by what foods were available to them. If you don't feel like actually reading, you could try to catch the PBS program (they may re-broadcast): http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/about/index.html > ...> Contrary to your assumptions, people did live long lives back then too. > > The average lifespan was skewed down mostly by infectious disease and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (they may re-broadcast): > http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/about/index.html And the key to a long healthy life was availability of good fresh nutritionally rich wholefoods. Luck does not play a role today, in that these foods are available to all of us. Genetics only plays a role in the sense that we are genetically hardwired to be healthy when we get the right nutrients and to be sick when we don't. We are not all doomed by our genetics to suffer from chronic illness. We acquire chronic illness by being malnourished on refined and manufactured nutritionally-bereft foods. TC > And the key to a long healthy life was availability of good fresh > nutritionally rich wholefoods. Luck does not play a role today, in that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > TC Um, what can I say? Bullshit. Just find me some groups of humans (or animals) who live into middle and old age without any chronic diseases. Otherwise, your beliefs are fairytales and you're welcome to your private religion. SBH > > And the key to a long healthy life was availability of good fresh > > nutritionally rich wholefoods. Luck does not play a role today, in that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > SBH http://www.sumeria.net/health/price.html http://www.price-pottenger.org/price.htm "Dr. Price's classic volume, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, is available from the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation at www.ppnf.org. Its photographs illustrate in an unforgettable way the physical degeneration that occurs when human groups abandon nourishing traditional diets in favor of modern convenience foods." Read Price's book and learn about the groups that did live long healthy lives free of chronic disease. It's an eye opener. Especially for those who are as ignorant of the simple truth and the commonsense of eating real food and getting proper nutrition for good health as you obviously are. TC > > > And the key to a long healthy life was availability of good fresh > > > nutritionally rich wholefoods. Luck does not play a role today, in that [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > TC COMMENT: Give me a frigging break. You want me to read a 1943 book by a dentist who went around the world to primitive peoples and "couldn't find" any degenerative disease or heart disease? How is a dentist going to find heart disease in 1943? Does he give tables of ages documented by some kind of age certification, followed by his own impecable physical examinations, looking for things like jugular venous distention, S3 heart sounds, crackles at the lung bases on auscultation, and so on? It's easy to find no evidence of chronic disease if there are no nursing homes, you know. When people can't take care of themselves, they die, and so everybody alive is healthy. You see little chronic disease in wild animals, also-- it's a zoo thing. Slow down and get eaten, is the motto out there in the natural world. He dug up skulls with perfect teeth? I've no doubt that a lot of these people on low sugar diets probably had pretty good teeth in young adulthood-- I will give him that. But how old these skulls were, nobody knows. How old any of these people are, nobody knows. He has photos? So do I. There are a lot of National Geographic photos of toothless elders among primitives who have little experience with the Western diet. We've all seen them. Do you think somebody has been doing around doing the dirty to people with pliers, since Dr. Weston's time? How about a modern study where somebody's ages are documented, and we have a little more science than some dentist's stories? SBH > > > SBH > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > who went around the world to primitive peoples and "couldn't find" any > degenerative disease or heart disease? No. Do you have problems with the english language? I can write in French if that would help? He went and found about a dozen groups of people that did not have significant amounts of chronic illnesses such as heart disease, obesity, dental caries, diabetes, Chrohn's & Colitis, etc. Even infectious disease was rare, diseases like TB. > How is a dentist going to find > heart disease in 1943? Does he give tables of ages documented by some [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > SBH Find me any modern research or even older research that shows differently or contrary to what his documented findings were or which were better documented or more convincing in the real world with different findings. BTW, are you financially affiliated in any way with any food or pharmaceutical company or are you affiliated with an organization that is? TC "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1122768824.842954. >> Give me a frigging break. You want me to read a 1943 book by a dentist >> who went around the world to primitive peoples and "couldn't find" any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > obesity, dental caries, diabetes, Chrohn's & Colitis, etc. Even > infectious disease was rare, diseases like TB. He couldn't tell if they has many of these diseases. Did you miss this? moo Contrary to your assumptions, people did live long lives back then too. The average lifespan was skewed down mostly by infectious disease and infections resulting from injuries, etc. But those who survived birth and accidents and had access to good wholesome foods did live long lives. COMMENT: Depends on what you mean by "long lives." In the last century in the US and most developed countries, we've added about 15 years to life expectancy at 20. It used to be about 45 (more) years (meaning you could expect to live to be 65), and it's now about 60 (meaning if you make it to 20, you can expect to make it to 80). Interestingly, most of this happened BEFORE the era of the modern ICU and associated fancy tech (including bypass surgery). Some of it's antibiotics (which do save a lot of senior citizens from urosepsis and pneumonia), but other than that, nobody really knows what most of it is due to. Another big mystery. It's not sanitation and child vaccination and all that--- this effects mainly life expectance at BIRTH, not at age 20. SBH >COMMENT: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >SBH The USA has the shortest life expectancy of all advanced countries.. It's our lack of universal health care. <spamtrap@rr.ca.ul.mv> wrote in message > The USA has the shortest life expectancy of all advanced countries.. It's > our > lack of universal health care. That would prevent inner city gang related deaths? Look at the life expectancy in rural areas. It's among the highest. moo > The USA has the shortest life expectancy of all advanced countries.. It's our > lack of universal health care. CLearly not so. We don't have universal healthcare in Hawaii or Utah, and they have life expectancies as good as anywhere in the world, with the possible exception of Iceland and Japan. So the social problem is elsewhere. The US overall poor life expectancy is statistically due to socioeconomic problems and a persistant underclass in poor Southern states and Washington DC. A legacy of slavery and racism and who knows what else. But surely not something that can be fixed with a universal healthcare system. Canada has classes of people with poor life expectancies also, believe it or not. Every culture does. If people have gotten into the cultural rut where they have been raised brutally or without care, and therefore want to kill themselves or each other, and want to abuse drugs and alcohol and die, it's very hard to stop them. If you give them free money and housing and healthcare, some of them will simply use MORE drugs and alcohol and die just as fast, or faster. Solutions for this are so mindbogglingly expensive that I'm not sure they exist. There is plenty of evidence that what we've done so far in the way of assistance has often only to made matters worse. People *want* a free ride, but the only thing that seems to keep them alive is a job, a place in the community, and the respect that comes with it. SBH >The US overall poor life expectancy is statistically due to >socioeconomic problems and a persistant underclass in poor Southern >states and Washington DC. A legacy of slavery and racism and who knows >what else. But surely not something that can be fixed with a universal >healthcare system. It is also because the kid who dies in a drive by, ODs, etc., at an early age is "costs" us more in life expectancy than the oldster who hangs around a couple more years following (insert procedure here). This, again is societal. -- "No nation would be so dumb as to say that we all want to go one point, we just don't know how to get there. What we are finding is some want to go to San Diego, some to Seattle. We are ashamed to admit this so we pretend we all want to go to San Francisco." Uwe Reinhardt on the health care debate. > >The US overall poor life expectancy is statistically due to > >socioeconomic problems and a persistant underclass in poor Southern [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > who hangs around a couple more years following (insert procedure > here). This, again is societal. And because they have one of the worse health care systems in the world where some 40% of their population has no health care at all. TC "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >The US overall poor life expectancy is statistically due to >> >socioeconomic problems and a persistant underclass in poor Southern [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And because they have one of the worse health care systems in the world > where some 40% of their population has no health care at all. Now you're just lying or hallucinating. Nobody in the US has "no health care at all". And, the OPs' explanations for the low life expectancy figures are factual and require only simple arithmetic to understand. moo > > > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > related to aging didn't have a chance to occur. Or have you forgotten that > little point? COMMENT: When it comes to cancer you're probably right--- the big changes in cancer rates in the last century are basically due to 1) smoking-related stuff (big increases in males starting 20 years after cigarette rolling machines invented circa 1920, with the increases in women 20 years following WW II (when women started smoking in public). There's a big decrease in gastric cancer which probably has to do with more refrigeration and less smoked foods. And a small increase in lymphomas and leukemias in children, which may well be environmental, but there are about a hundred suspects. Nothing to really pin on diet. For diabetes II, there's no doubt there's more. We eat too much, the cause is cheap easy high-cal fast food and junk-food, and that's that. But you can blame the price and caloric density and there's no need to be more complex than that. For heart disease, we clearly did something very bad in the US toward the middle of the 19th century, and it was probably related to diet. Civil war dead (men about age 20) autopsied had no heart disease. But by Vietnam, our US dead had significant coronary disease in a third of soldiers. These young men were no older, and only a little fatter, than they'd been a century ago. Something very wrong with diet there. The Vietkong dead autopsied along side them, STILL had no heart disease at a comparable age. So TC is right that there's something wrong. But it could as well be trans-fats and not enough folate and omega-3's. We don't know what it is/was, except it's Western, and it's recent. Again,there are about a hundred suspects. A lot of mystery, and too many people who "know" the answers. But the beginning of wisdom is admiting the problem AND admitting you don't have a solution. When it comes to heart disease, we're still flopping around red-faced in a way that reminds me of NASA and the booster tank insulation. But that's okay. There's no SHAME in that. It's a hard problem, is all. SBH "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com >> So what do you think the diet was a hundred thousand years ago? Hint: >> Whatever you could digest. And that's the way that humans (and other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Our ancestors didn't evolve with the luxury of real food, fresh food, > whole food? No. Unless you have some very novel definition of those words. > What else would they have eaten, other than real fresh whole food? Rotting whole food. Too much of certain types of nutrients. Do you think they had different desires vis a vis gastronomic whims that caused them to eat a balanced diet at all costs? They ate whatever they could. >> Fresh meats and fresh produce were the major components of our ancient >> ancestors diets? Fresh meat? > > Of course, numbnuts. What else would they have access to? Rotting meat. Improperly prepared meat. >> I guess that you should post exactly what you mean by "nutritional needs" >> at [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > all kinds of manufactured and refined crap and we've experienced a > tripling of chronic disease and obesity in the last thirty years. yOU HAVE A POINT. sORT OF. bUT, SIMPLY EATING TOO MUCH OF CERTAIN "REAL FOODS" CAN EXPLAIN MOST OF IT JUST AS WELL AS mCdONALD'S. MOO > > > Luck? Bullshit. Nature, or God, or evolution, whichever you prefer, did > > > not create us thru luck. We developed to eat a certain way and to eat [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Away from the boxed, refined, manufactured, sugar added, preservative > laden, infinite-shelf-life, denatured crap. COMMENT: You're still not being specific. In the fresh meats you're going to find steer meat and so on. You think our ancestors ate stockyard beef, do you? That turkey-- do you think it looks anything like a wild turkey, which in the 17th century was described as an "awkward bird, providing too much meat for one person, but not enough for two?" Do you find buffalon in your produce section? What is your understanding of the length of the history of human domestication of food animals? In the produce section you're going to find a lot of genetically engineered fruits and vegetables which didn't even exist two centuries ago, let alone in the paleolithic. Oranges are a modern invention, as are lemons and grapefruit. The ancient wild fruits are something like the modern lime and pomelo. I suppose you eat only limes and pomelos? Potatos are from South America (and are one of hundreds of varieties which you usually never see in produce). Your ancestors came from South America? So-called "cruciferous vegetables" are all cultivars bred from the same plant, and it didn't look anything like a cauliflower (which a 18th century botanist wouldn't recognize). Tomatoes? Your ancestors ate tomatoes? Growing where? And looking like what? Bananas? The clone you buy in stores these days isn't even the same clone as stores sold up till 1960, when disease wiped it out. It's not even the same banana as 45 years ago, and none of these bananas look much like anything you're going to find in Africa. Tell us how mankind "evolved" on what you buy in meat and produce. Make me laugh. SBH "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> Mostly, it's due to luck, good genes, and the fact >> that I'm not old yet. All but one of these is bound to change if I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > certain foods and require certain and specific nutrition. You deviate > from that and you will not reach optimum health. Well, let's go with natural selection. That process is almost *all* luck. Familiarize yourself with it. As for the "certain way" we developed to eat, how is it that the diets of humans and their ancestors have varied so greatly with similar results. > Genes. We are genetically geared to eat real foods, fresh foods, > nutrient dense foods, which all happen to be low-carb with minimal > processing. This "gearing" came from natural selection. Humans and their ancestors survived on anything they could digest. We are also "geared" to eat stuff that's bad for us in great quantities and love it. > Age? Eat properly and you will reach a healthy old age. Eat refined and > manufactured crap and you will suffer and die from chronic illness like > diabetes, obesity, heart disease, etc. So the problem that caused our ancient ancestors to die at an early age was their diet? Look, nobody's arguing that following the dietary recommendations that have resulted from the latest research is anything but a good idea. Is that what you're talking about? > It could not be simpler. Funny that it takes so much research to arrive at this point. moo >> When I DO finally get something nasty, I'm not going to blame myself, >> my doctor, corporate conspiracy, nameless toxins, a vengeful or [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > TC > No. I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I > haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > TC G-d bless. Steve SignatureCut the nonsense to reply > So when you're sick, go to your auto mechanic. "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message > No. I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I > haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and > my lipid profiles and blood sugars are normal. If I break a bone or get > a cut I'll go see an allopath. Otherwise I give my body the nutrition > it needs to fight off infections, stay healthy and heal itself. TC, I agree with your comments. If one has a good diet and takes nutritional supplements as needed, one should function in "wellness" mode. I have been "sickness free" for ten years ever since I stopped consuming dairy (& cows' milk) products. Of course, I do not consume much sugar or soda pop, either. > I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I > haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and > my lipid profiles and blood sugars are normal. If I break a bone or get > a cut I'll go see an allopath. Otherwise I give my body the nutrition > it needs to fight off infections, stay healthy and heal itself. One of the side benefits of lacking health insurance is, I've had to learn how to love healthy. Over 60, no prescriptions in, let's see, 20 years? Correction - one prescription, at my request, for a mild codeine so I could kill a cough due to cold virus at night and sleep. That was before I learned how to kill a cold at the first hint of its appearing instead of suffering through it. How do you get your nutrition? >> I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I >> haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I learned how to kill a cold at the first hint of its appearing instead of > suffering through it. > No. I don't get sick. I've learned enough about real nutrition that I > haven't needed a prescription in over 5 years. I am not overweight and > my lipid profiles and blood sugars are normal. If I break a bone or get > a cut I'll go see an allopath. Otherwise I give my body the nutrition > it needs to fight off infections, stay healthy and heal itself. What surprises me is the common refusal to even try harmless diet changes instead of jumping right into surgery and drugs. A friend's young child has constant sinus infections. The child has been put through surgery and antibiotics - strong stuff for a 3 year old's body! I mentioned that singers avoid milk products because they cause mucus which interferes with fine use of vocal cords; mucus is also sinus clogging, has she thought of taking the child off milk for a week and see if it helps? I got a withering look. She won't try a simple diet change but willingly subjects the child to more and more painful medical treatments that so far haven't worked? Truly, I do not understand where this resistance to trying a simple and harmless alternative comes from. >>>>>SCIENCE IN THE NEWS >>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >Steve Fetal testosterone has been connected with autism. If that testosterone is maternal, this may be explained. (I worked this out in asthma and the same explanation should explain autism. http://www.anthropogeny.com/Asthma%20Prevalence.htm ). It is my hypothesis that the "secular trend," the increase in size and earlier puberty in children is driven by increased testosterone. That is, I suggest that the percentage of people with higher testosterone within our population is increasing with time. Therefore, the characteristics of these individuals also increases with time. If maternal testosterone is increasing, then, if there is a connection of maternal testosterone with autism, then autism should increase. However this is about the flattening or decrease in autism. This is explained by the same mechanism. Increased testosterone decreases sperm count and decreases fertility in women. (see details at the url above). So, with time the group that was spawning the increase in autism, and other characteristic offspring, will eventually reduce their reproduction and the autism rate, or other disorder rates, will decline. James Michael Howard >>>>> SCIENCE IN THE NEWS >>>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > So when you're sick, go to your auto mechanic. Especially when you have wrenching gut pain. >> So when you're sick, go to your auto mechanic. > > Especially when you have wrenching gut pain. (rim shot) SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > I don't know if allopathic doctors know their limitations. They don't > know what causes obesity, diabetes, cancers, arthritis, heart disease, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Allopathic doctors are the absolute pinnacle of abject hubris. COMMENT: Your analogy has good and bad points. The bad point of course is that automobiles are completely designed by humans, so in theory there's nothing that can't be diagnosed and fixed if you're willing to pay enough. No doctor pretends to have designed a human, or to be able to fix anything for enough money (though I've heard of alternative quacks like Hulda Clark who make the last claim). Humans continue to be made, as the old joke goes, by unskilled labor. And without anything close to complete understanding of what is going on. The closer part of your analogy involves what REALLY happens when you take a car in for repair. Mostly car repair is done in a modular fashion, which hides the fact that we don't look below a certain level for what is wrong, or why. The guy who replaces your bad alternator or battery or ignition module, may have no idea what *really* went wrong with it. There's no reason to care. In theory if you wanted to do an FAA or NASA-style post mortem, you could send the part back to the factory to do a million dollar analysis and find out a lot more. Some transistor burned out, or a wire shorted, or a lead crystal grew out and contacted an adjacent plate. But we're still not done, for teleological demands for WHY things happen, always come to a wall. WHY did that ignition module transistor burn out just then? Why that one, and not some other one? Why not that one in ALL ignition modules? Why did the crystal grow just THERE in that battery and not some other place? Why not the same place in all batteries? Ultimately, when examining failure modes of complex objects, you will get to a WHY question that nobody knows the answer to. Even in simply processes you eventual run into quantum mechanics, and then the mechanistic answers end. To sum up, very many things go wrong with cars that have no complete and deep explanation, even though they are "completely" designed things. You have to expect that this is true of biological organisms, as well. And as far as we can tell, it is. SBH >>I don't know if allopathic doctors know their limitations. They don't >>know what causes obesity, diabetes, cancers, arthritis, heart disease, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Humans continue to be made, as the old joke goes, by unskilled labor. I'm guessing you (as I) live in a blue state. Steve > And without anything close to complete understanding of what is going > on. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > SBH SignatureCut the nonsense to reply > I'm guessing you (as I) live in a blue state. COMMENT: Yes, but they promise the Prozac will kick in after only another week or so. SBH Pa-RUMP-shhhhhh. >>I'm guessing you (as I) live in a blue state. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pa-RUMP-shhhhhh. heh heh. SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >>I don't know if allopathic doctors know their limitations. They don't >>know what causes obesity, diabetes, cancers, arthritis, heart disease, [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > SBH When I junk the car, I just say "Its time has come". Steve SignatureCut the nonsense to reply TC wrote: > I don't know if allopathic doctors know their limitations. They don't > know what causes obesity, diabetes, cancers, arthritis, heart disease, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Allopathic doctors are the absolute pinnacle of abject hubris. TC "abject hubris" Is that like "humble arrogance"? Do you really believe that a human organism-- or any mammal--is as simple as a man-designed man-made machine!!?? Well, then, if you eat a low-carb diet like yours, you'll never get sick--just as an automobile will never break down if you put good gasoline and good oil in it. Hmmmm. Is that analogy where you got your dopey idea that your low-carb diet immunizes you against all viruses, bacteria, all the numerous illnesses and diseases that man is prey to? You ought to write a book about your marvelous discovery--oops, Atkins already wrote most of it--but your claims exceed even his "abject hubris". (How can someone be at an "absolute pinnacle" and yet "abject", i.e., low down, sunk, depressed, dispirited, humble?) GWC George Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message > Well, then, if you eat a low-carb diet like yours, > you'll never get sick--just as an automobile will never [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pinnacle" and yet "abject", i.e., low down, sunk, > depressed, dispirited, humble?) You tell, us .Say something new or shut up. > Your analogy has good and bad points. The bad point of course is > that [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > transistor burned out, or a wire shorted, or a lead crystal grew out > and contacted an adjacent plate. All that and ---- Who owns a car for 90 years? If you discout the "lemmons" that die early and then throw out the ones that die accidental deaths (like cars totalled in wrecks) and then only look at the first 10 years or so of life (as the auto industry does) the docs do much better than the mechanics. You are right - if the doc had the option of replacing whole parts when they seemed to be going wrong and could tell you to start looking for a new body when it seems to be more than one easily fixed thing things would be much different. Then there is the fact that most people don't put bad fuels in their cars but do use them largely in the way they were designed to operate...... I wish I had it as easy as mechanics. Signature00doc >>Your analogy has good and bad points. The bad point of course is >>that [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > I wish I had it as easy as mechanics. Yeah, but can you offer a 5 yr or 50,000 mile warranty? Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > Then there is the fact that most people don't put bad fuels in their > cars but do use them largely in the way they were designed to > operate...... However, most folks do put bad fuel in their body. Bad fuel like too much sugar; like consuming dairy (& cows' milk) products which is designed for the cow body NOT the human body; and soda pop. > I wish I had it as easy as mechanics. But what can a doc do for a patient who tells the doc they put a ton of sugar in their iced tea??? Then the patient wonder why they always function in "sickness" mode. > > Then there is the fact that most people don't put bad fuels in their > > cars but do use them largely in the way they were designed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like too much sugar; like consuming dairy (& cows' milk) products which is > designed for the cow body NOT the human body; and soda pop. There is only one food product "designed" for the human body-and that's breast milk. Well, maybe two, if you endorse cannibalism. It sounds like you're defining "bad fuel" as "what I say is bad". Many, many people consume cows milk with no ill effects. For that matter, most people can consume an occasional soda without issue. > > I wish I had it as easy as mechanics. > > But what can a doc do for a patient who tells the doc they put a > ton of sugar in their iced tea??? Then the patient wonder why they always > function in "sickness" mode. >>> Then there is the fact that most people don't put bad fuels in >>> their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > There is only one food product "designed" for the human body-and > that's breast milk. Well, maybe two, if you endorse cannibalism. You gave it backwards. It is not that certain foods were designed for the human body (with the obvious exception of breasth milk for infants and toddlers). The body was designed to eat certain foods. > It sounds like you're defining "bad fuel" as "what I say is bad". > Many, many people consume cows milk with no ill effects. For that > matter, most people can consume an occasional soda without issue. Well, of course he is. However, there is no doubt that the "average person" consumes a diet that is deleterious to his or her health - if not the particular items than the quantities. Signature00doc > "Experts" (read allopathic medical people) seem to not know much of > anything. COMMENT: "It ain't the things you don't know that hurt you, so much as the things you know, that just ain't so." -- Josh Billings Here's a fact for you non-medical people who think you know it all, to stick in your craws. If one identical twin has autism, the chance the other will have it is somewhere between 63% and 98%. But if the twins are fraternal (born at the same time but sharing only half their genes) if one develops autism the chance the other will, is less than 10%. You think if parents have identical twins they nearly always vaccine both of them, but if they have non-identical twins they almost always forget to vaccinate ONE of them?? LOL. It's possible that genetics determines sensitivity to vaccines or mercury, though this large an effect would be very strange. But there's no particular reason to implicate vaccines, except that MMR showed up about the time people started to diagnose autism a lot. You have to do better than that. What happens when a group quits vaccinating? When one section of Japan containing 300,000 people quit vaccinating their kids, the rate of autism in the unvaccinated kids kept climbing. Wups. So much for that theory. SBH > "Experts" (read allopathic medical people) seem to not know much of > anything. "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> replied: > "It ain't the things you don't know that hurt you, so much as the > things you know, that just ain't so." -- Josh Billings The pharm drug type M.D. by NOT understanding "baseline" (diet / folk / nutritional) medicine can cause lots of damage to their patients. >Here's a fact for you non-medical people who think you know it all, to >stick in your craws. >If one identical twin has autism, the chance the other will have it is >somewhere between 63% and 98%. But if the twins are fraternal (born at >the same time but sharing only half their genes) if one develops autism >the chance the other will, is less than 10%. >You think if parents have identical twins they nearly always vaccine >both of them, but if they have non-identical twins they almost always >forget to vaccinate ONE of them?? LOL. >It's possible that genetics determines sensitivity to vaccines or >mercury, though this large an effect would be very strange. But there's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >kids, the rate of autism in the unvaccinated kids kept climbing. Wups. >So much for that theory. Hmmm. That sort of shoots down my hypothesis too: old eggs. Like your classic about old-first-birth women getting tumors in their titties. >>"Experts" (read allopathic medical people) seem to not know much of >>anything. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > both of them, but if they have non-identical twins they almost always > forget to vaccinate ONE of them?? LOL. Geez, I was trying to find an explanation for my twin brother. Steve > It's possible that genetics determines sensitivity to vaccines or > mercury, though this large an effect would be very strange. But there's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > SBH SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > Although the total number of autistic children receiving special > education services from the state continues to grow - bringing the > current > total to 28,046 - the rate of increase peaked in 2002 and has > dropped > slightly since then. The key point - contrary to what the headline reads - the number of cases has not leveled off.
|
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.