Life expectancy discussed by ACSH

Usually ACSH and I agree, and in this essay they say sensible things.

Why is there always a HOWEVER?

Well because I know stuff, for example life expectancy, if you eliminate trauma deaths, is high in the US.

We are not an unhealthy nation.

Our health is better now then ever, cancer deaths are on the decline, but the public health officials have to keep stirring the pot–now it’s obesity, but obesity is protective.

As for healthy eating and healthy lifestyles and preventitives OVERRATED.

There is no scientific evidence to establish that cancer can be prevented, but now the health experts call cancer preventable. NONSENSE, with the proven exception of smoking (not second hand smoke) and lung cancer. Of course if you have the wrong markers you can do oophorectomies and mastectomies to eliminate the risk, just like having a colon removed for ulcerative colitis or polyposis.

The advances in heart disease in and of itself is going to continue to improve life expectancies. The rate of diabetes is up but the diagnostic criteria are more sensitive too.

Epidemics and health crises are sometimes a product of more aggressive medical testing and diagnosis.


6 responses to “Life expectancy discussed by ACSH

  1. who proved that smoking causes lung cancer ? Lung cancer hasn’t been induced in lab animals with smoking despite 50+ years of trying

  2. ernestncurtis

    John, the endless “howevers” serve the very important function of providing justification for the hundreds of thousands of so called experts who love to nag us to death. “Howevers” are necessary because the consumption of “unhealthy” diets and other lifestyle habits that supposedly have a negative impact on health and longevity should have produced some measurable effect by now and haven’t. The steady increase in longevity now spans over a hundred years and will not stop until the average approaches the biological limit in asymtotic fashion. At that point I predict that there will be much wailing and knashing of teeth over the fact that longevity improvement has stopped and will likely reverse. All the usual suspects will be blamed without a scintilla of scientific proof. This nonsense gets real tiresome.

  3. gonewiththewind

    The “rate” of diabetes hasn’t changed. A few years back the health community embarked on a program to identify diabetics who did not know they were diabetics. It was a successful program and discovered a couple million previously unidentified diabetics. The diabetic activsts immediately used this statistical data to “prove” that diabetes was incresing. But the rate(s) have not changed.
    Another factor is that as the American population changes most of those new citizens come from races that have higher rates of diabetes. As their percentage of the total population increases so do the total numbers of diabetics. BUT the rates have not changed..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s