We are living longer ... but not healthier

[tim-from-pa]

So what does this say?

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/he...e-improves-in-garden-state-challenges-persist

Supposedly the health quality of life is not there, and then the article talks about the typical medical babble of heart disease, high Bp, and the like. That's because heart disease (heart attacks) were virtally nill a century ago. So were things like cancer.

But people died "younger" then because there was disease they did not know what to do with, or horrible accidents that they could not recover from. So, if you have someone back then who died of an accident at age 10, but another lived to 90, the average age was 50. But they both were healthier than say, the average death age today of two sickly people at say, 73 years old.

This is why we are "living longer" but in poorer health. I'll give credit where credit is due: medicine is good at trauma events (injury, disease, life-threatening events), but not preventative events which the latter is what I always scoff about --- and to prove my point, the article IS NOT about trauma medicine, but preventative. Nothing will get thru their thick skulls, will it? Preventative medicine is what we, not the doctor, should primarily do. It's with your knives, spoons and forks.

 

[WIP]

There's also this to consider. Illnesses such as hypertension, cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson's to name a few are for the most part more prevalent in the more mature audience. Since the average lifespan a century ago was lower, the average person was less likely to live long enough to have to deal with these types of issues. The longer we live on average the higher the potential for dealing with these types of problems.

When I was diagnosed with diabetes my doctor explained it this way. Everyone will get diabetes if they live long enough. The problem is that most die from something else first. If you think about it, it makes sense because our organs have a finite life span and can't survive forever. If everything else works long enough, the body functions that regulate blood sugar will eventually break down.

 

[tim-from-pa]

There's also this to consider. Illnesses such as hypertension, cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson's to name a few are for the most part more prevalent in the more mature audience. Since the average lifespan a century ago was lower, the average person was less likely to live long enough to have to deal with these types of issues. The longer we live on average the higher the potential for dealing with these types of problems.

When I was diagnosed with diabetes my doctor explained it this way. Everyone will get diabetes if they live long enough. The problem is that most die from something else first. If you think about it, it makes sense because our organs have a finite life span and can't survive forever. If everything else works long enough, the body functions that regulate blood sugar will eventually break down.

I sorta think you missed my point, or maybe did not read my post far enough. The fact is people that did live to greater ages (once they got to that point) did so without those maladies, as a chronic condition anyway. Sure, eventually the heart gives out, or an organ fails or whatever because we all will die. But that's from old age and far different than heart disease, cancers, etc which are not age related, but health related. So, if things are "breaking down" before say, age 70, it's not from old age. I have to disagree with your doctor, and that's why I end up head-butting with them. But hey, they have a right to their opinions.

 

[Corey]

So, if you have someone back then who died of an accident at age 10, but another lived to 90, the average age was 50.

I don't believe this is how average age of death is calculated for this type of thing. They usually take accidents out of the equation. If you remove accidents, people are still living longer than they were in history.

This is why we are "living longer" but in poorer health. I'll give credit where credit is due: medicine is good at trauma events (injury, disease, life-threatening events), but not preventative events which the latter is what I always scoff about .

I disagree. There are many studies that have been done that show prevention of events. BUt I also think one of the problems is that patients on some of these preventitive products then think that this gives them reason to be able to continue their lifestyle.

Preventative medicine is what we, not the doctor, should primarily do. It's with your knives, spoons and forks.

I agree. I will add legs and arms to that list (i.e. exercising). This is the best preventative medicine you can take. But in a world where everyone is so busy, we turn to the faster unhelthy food and less/no exercise.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I don't believe this is how average age of death is calculated for this type of thing. They usually take accidents out of the equation. If you remove accidents, people are still living longer than they were in history.

That's not what I was seeing when I was in cemeteries doing genealogical studies. But then again "statistics" I define as the mathematics that tells us we are not really seeing what we are seeing, and what we know is true is indeed not true.

I disagree. There are many studies that have been done that show prevention of events. BUt I also think one of the problems is that patients on some of these preventitive products then think that this gives them reason to be able to continue their lifestyle.

Cite one "preventative" measure or drug based on the article that shows people are living longer because they take that prescription. The drugs basically "make the numbers look better" and that's it.

 

[Corey]

"statistics" I define as the mathematics that tells us we are not really seeing what we are seeing, and what we know is true is indeed not true.

I like that. I have never heard that before.

Here is one product (Plavix) that has shown prevention in death, MI, and stroke. Section 14.1 (from here: http://products.sanofi.us/PLAVIX/PLAVIX.html) has the information I am talking about. Attached is a graph from that report that shows people who take Plavix have a lower rate of these events, than compared to those on placebo.

But I still agree with you that the best prevention of these conditions is something that can be done without medication (eating better and exercising).

View attachment 2847

 

[WIP]

What I was trying to point out is that because the average lifespan a century ago was 20 years shorter, it only makes sense that there were fewer incidents of cancer, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, and the like simply because people didn't live long enough to have those kinds of problems. The real statistic would be to compare a given age group. Did people 50 years old and under experience the same number of these types of problems per capita then as they do now and if not how did it differ? To compare society as a whole is not apples to apples.

 

[tim-from-pa]

What I was trying to point out is that because the average lifespan a century ago was 20 years shorter, it only makes sense that there were fewer incidents of cancer, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, and the like simply because people didn't live long enough to have those kinds of problems. The real statistic would be to compare a given age group. Did people 50 years old and under experience the same number of these types of problems per capita then as they do now and if not how did it differ? To compare society as a whole is not apples to apples.

Nope, you missed my point. Things like heart disease, as in clogged arteries did not exist back then, even if considering all the people who lived that old. You still seem to have this vision block that people did not live past 50, and if they did (and trust me, there were many) that they would be plagued with the same things we are today. I'm telling you they were not.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I like that. I have never heard that before.

Here is one product (Plavix) that has shown prevention in death, MI, and stroke. Section 14.1 (from here: http://products.sanofi.us/PLAVIX/PLAVIX.html) has the information I am talking about. Attached is a graph from that report that shows people who take Plavix have a lower rate of these events, than compared to those on placebo.

But I still agree with you that the best prevention of these conditions is something that can be done without medication (eating better and exercising).

View attachment 3677

So, I'm not clear if you believe that chart or not. I don't. Looks impressive. But have we ever heard of selecting the data to fit a hypothesis? Money does that --- skews the data. This is how the Lipid hypothesis (or I should say, myth) got started in the 50's. An impressive chart showed that increased saturated fat consumption lead to higher cardiovascular events. Simple, impressive and straightforward, right? That is.... until it was discovered that certain populations that did not fit the model were conveniently dismissed, and only the data that supported those "facts" were included. Of course you will hear all kinds of scholarly reasons why it was permissible to do that.

 

[felix]

The fact is, no one can ever live more than 120 years (with some extremely rare exceptions). While, God said that man's days are 120 which was written by Moses who exactly lives 120 years. SO does David who wrote in his Psalms that mans days are 70 (with strength 80) lived exactly 70 years. They could be prophesying about their own death but, in 1960s Scientists have discovered a Hayflick limit in which a cell can only divide 52 times or in other words 120 years. No one can ever live over it. Each cell has telomere which gets lost a bit for every cell division and after 52 divisions, DNA cannot be divided and the cell becomes non-functional or dead. This is when organ failure happens.

So, trying to live longer means dying with suffering. If we have a blessing to live longer, God must grant us to live without suffering.

 

[tim-from-pa]

The fact is, no one can ever live more than 120 years (with some extremely rare exceptions). While, God said that man's days are 120 which was written by Moses who exactly lives 120 years. SO does David who wrote in his Psalms that mans days are 70 (with strength 80) lived exactly 70 years. They could be prophesying about their own death but, in 1960s Scientists have discovered a Hayflick limit in which a cell can only divide 52 times or in other words 120 years. No one can ever live over it. Each cell has telomere which gets lost a bit for every cell division and after 52 divisions, DNA cannot be divided and the cell becomes non-functional or dead. This is when organ failure happens.

So, trying to live longer means dying with suffering. If we have a blessing to live longer, God must grant us to live without suffering.

Felix, truth is I always liked your posts, and I don't disagree with you here. Besides, who wants to live in this world past 120 years? :dunno

I don't think that's the subject here totopic as I am talking about people under 70 years of age with so-called maladies that others here feel that past generations suffered like we do today. They have this misconception that "people died younger" and they did not. And they did not have the chronic diseases we have today from our abysmally poor diet.

But since you are on the subject of 120 years, I have a belief about that. I sort of believe the way the Church of God folk believe, that unsaved people will be raised and given their first chance after the millennium (i.e. the Great white Throne Judgement) to accept the Law of God and become saved. There's is an obscure passage in Isaiah that talks about those living past age 100. I think Genesis pinned it exactly as 120 years this judgement will take place. All mankind will be given a chance, whether now or later, to accept the truth. Those who do not will be burned and destroyed forever in the Lake of eternal fire. Once that lake of fire (from the renovation of the earth) burns out, everything will be created new again. There will be a new heaven and new earth, and those who perished will be forever gone.

 

[Corey]

So, I'm not clear if you believe that chart or not. I don't. Looks impressive. But have we ever heard of selecting the data to fit a hypothesis? Money does that --- skews the data. This is how the Lipid hypothesis (or I should say, myth) got started in the 50's. An impressive chart showed that increased saturated fat consumption lead to higher cardiovascular events. Simple, impressive and straightforward, right? That is.... until it was discovered that certain populations that did not fit the model were conveniently dismissed, and only the data that supported those "facts" were included. Of course you will hear all kinds of scholarly reasons why it was permissible to do that.

I do believe it. I completely agree with you that any analysis of data can be done to tell any story, whether correct or not. However, this study was done with FDA approval and was done with the FDA watching everything (set up of study, while study was going on, and during analysis of data). When done correctly you can be very confident that the analysis is accurate. You can never be 100% sure of accuracy but most studies are done in a way that allows at least a 95% chance of accuracy. Then most of thses studies have to be validated with another study. Meaning that 2 studies showing success by chance only, has about a .03% of happening.

The FDA has every incentive to make sure this is done correctly because any approved drug with questionnable effect can come back to them because they allowed it to be available.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I do believe it. I completely agree with you that any analysis of data can be done to tell any story, whether correct or not. However, this study was done with FDA approval and was done with the FDA watching everything (set up of study, while study was going on, and during analysis of data). When done correctly you can be very confident that the analysis is accurate. You can never be 100% sure of accuracy but most studies are done in a way that allows at least a 95% chance of accuracy. Then most of thses studies have to be validated with another study. Meaning that 2 studies showing success by chance only, has about a .03% of happening.

The FDA has every incentive to make sure this is done correctly because any approved drug with questionnable effect can come back to them because they allowed it to be available.

You trust the FDA, especially with Big Pharma? View attachment 2859

There's been so much against the FDA that I could not know where to even begin, so I won't bother. Now, I know of a fox who wants to guard the hen house.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Corey, et al:

Maybe you want to read this pitiful thread, and see what kind of medication the FDA approves! There's no shortage of complaints against a lot of the stuff they approve. So much for the statistics. Don't trust them at all. They are skewed, and then these same vibrating jelly-chinned bureaucrats want to limit or ban some harmless supplements and instead of congratulating the people who want to take care of themselves, rather they were on pills instead so that they are sicker, and then turn around and complain how sick this society is! (I.e."we have to DO something about all this ill health!") :

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48499&p=737163&posted=1#post737163

 

[Corey]

Corey, et al:

Maybe you want to read this pitiful thread, and see what kind of medication the FDA approves!

I am not sure what you are referencing in this thread. If you are talking about the weight gain. This is a known with Zyprexa. Check it out here in section 5.6: http://pi.lilly.com/us/zyprexa-pi.pdf (7% weight gain in 6 weeks). Doctors know that patients will gain weight but it has shown to have great effect in treating. Some patients and doctors thing the efficacy outweighs the weight gain. Some do not and they will prescribe a different product.

If you are talking about the sleep thing, it seems that was already happening before this person started taking the product.

I still believe that taking prescriptions when needed is good for people. Just because people have a bad experience with one product does not mean that it is a bad product. In some instances the chance of getting the side effect is worth it to help treat the issue. Sometimes however the patient doesn't do their research or the doctor doesn't inform them about the risks. But it is still effective and some people still take the product. Also, even though one product has side effects for a patient, they can move on to a different one. Using depression as an example again, if this person had side effects on Zyprexa there are other products that he/she could try. In most cases, doctors do not know which patients will not have the side effects on which products. So sometimes they have try a few before they find the right one.

There's no shortage of complaints against a lot of the stuff they approve

I uderstand that people have side efects and bad experiences but people have great stories with meds as well: Just read some of this forum on Type 2 diabetes: http://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/.

There are complaints on lots of things, not just prescriptions. If you are selling a product, you are going ot have complaints.

 

[Guest]

i learned how to cook a few years ago, and the more i started to eat my fruits and greens the better i started to feel. vitamins in certain foods etc..and take one day at a time, leave the rest to prayer. some die at age 10, some at 20, others might die at age 40 or even 90. sometimes the advanced medical field can't explain everything. it's a complicated subject as most things are.