You usually died of something else, before heart disease could catch up wit h you. Of course, if you did have cardiac insufficiency you were much more likely to die of pneumonia before you could have a full-blown heart attack.
.
They did if they were lucky enough to be able to afford them. Back then, fa t was rich and thin was poor.
Absolutely. If you die young - as many people did - you don't last long eno ugh to need the stuff the medical profession peddles now. It's a trivial so lution.
Sure. But Lipitor and Simvastatin work just fine too.
I don't have any aversion to natural stuff. I've even grown some of it from time to time. Buying extra-natural stuff from organic farms at twice the p rice is something I have an aversion to. If it actually made you healthier, I'd be more enthusiastic, but it doesn't seem to.
I really don't want to know what you might mean - you really do strike me a s a deluded idiot.
The usual statistical lie all over again. If you'd survived the dangerous period in your younger life, you could reach the 90's.
Exactly, and that's why for instance on the Philippines children of rich parents who ate peanut butter _and_ meat and what more, developed much more frequently pancreatic cancer. So, in that case (eating peanut butter) it was much better to be poor than to be rich.
And, as I said, you survived the dangerous years, you could easily end up in your 90's.
Although they are associated with accelerated ageing and a shorter lifespan.
Look better and buy the right stuff. (Pay the farmer, or pay the doctor.)
That's because of your lack of sense of reality, not mine. :)
Sure. Some people did. My paternal grandmother's father did. I met him, once.
My paternal grandfather's father got congestive heart failure in his sixties and died of it. It's mostly treatable now. My mother's father had much the same problem and died at a similar age. I never did get to meet him either.
But only a few did.
Link? Cholesterol is used in the body for maintenance on nerve cells - amongst other things - so low cholesterol levels - from either diet or statins - might be a bad thing, but coronary heart disease is also life-threatening.
I'm going to set up my own organic farmer certification system? The theory that eating exactly the right foods will let you live longer doesn't seem to be supported by any persuasive experimental evidence.
The evidence that seems to have persuaded you and Jamie doesn't stand up to close examination (on those rare occasions when you can be persuaded to bring it forward), and I'm happy to dismiss what I have seen as the usual marketing lies.
Was that really a question, whether there was sudden improvement in hygiene in 1968, or a hidden statement?
Fact is, that the mean annual death rate of children under 15 due to measles in England & Wales did not suddenly decline in 1963. It started its main decline in the 1910's, from the an average of around
1,100 since 1850, slowed a bit down after 1920 when it reached about 450, slowed down some more after 1940 when it reached about 80, until it reached already almost zero in 1963. And *then* came the vaccinations and was everybody made to believe that it was the *vaccinations* that had saved all those lives. One big lie.
Yes, what is currently the mean annual death rate of children under 15 due to measles in England & Wales? Did it reduce significantly from, say,
1 to 0? Thanks to the introduction of the massive vaccinations program?
Of course it did. However I was talking specifically about measles, which w as still killing kids in the 1950's (if not as frequently as it had earlier ), and pretty much stopped killing kids after the vaccine was developed (in 1963)and administered to pretty much everybody (which came a few years lat er).
Yours is the lie. You are confusing my specific claim about measles with c hildhood deaths in general, and getting snooty because you like your answer to the question that you were primed to answer, rather than the question y ou need to think about.
f
d
formatting link
ml
What killed children who got measles was mostly secondary infections. Once antibiotics had been invented and were widely available, those secondary in fections didn't kill anything like as many kids, but in the 1950's the US d eath rate from measles was still about 0.3%, despite antibiotics, which is high for a disease which pretty much everybody got.
The permanent damage rate was rather higher, but the records on that aren't as good.
The mother is a major part of the newborn's environment, so it isn't surprising that her microbiota are the first to colonise the newborn gut.
but the test would be invasive in the extreme, and would necessarily expose the fetal gut to external microbes.
Hi Bill,
Well I guess 11+10 or whatever it is now I will explain that to you as well (21 btw), since you seem incapable of googling any recent scientific knowledge yourself, and instead seem incredulous that the world around is advancing while your own knowledge remains restricted to your own reductionist Monsanto-esque corporate spin doctored hogwash:
Evidence of bacterial colonization of a fetus from mother's bloodstream, (sorry Bill double wammy, the bacteria are in both the mother's bloodstream as well as the fetus..)
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Nice holistic quote from the last one:
"the discovery of a placental microbiome ?continues to build the snowball that no tissue in the human body is sterile.?"
There is a lot of evidence on how bacteria is required for health, I guess if you were capable you could google some of it :D
Here is one though:
formatting link
For someone who says they read quickly, and read a lot, you must be reading a lot of non science related stuff I guess!? :D
Basically Bill humans have to be infested with bacteria and viruses and it is natural and required, there is no other option. Sure you can vaccinate against the bad ones and ignore the good ones, but that is silly and it is much better to holistically manage them.
haha thanks :D Always good to try to speak the truth, well done on your posts too, arguing with Bill isn't something most people would want to do so respect! :)
Charming. When I got my replacement aortic valve, the cardiac surgeons sent me to the dental hospital to get them to clean out anything in my gums that might feed bacteria into my blood stream and thus into my healing heart, after the operation.
Gynacologists don't seem to be able to be quite so enthusiastic. The cardiologist was able to delay my operation until I was germ-free enough not to threaten his - impressive - survival statistics, which were the best in the Netherlands at the time, largely because the cardiology team at Nijmegen had been purged a year or so earlier for not doing too well.
Birth has a way of happening even when the gynacologist thinks the mother could be better prepared ...
The cardiologist did seem to have the idea that sterility was an ideal to be striven for.
The clue in that is "bacteria-derived short chain fatty acids".
The germ-free mice weren't getting a proper diet, because the gut bacteria that normally deliver enough short-chain fatty acids weren't there. Short-chain fatty acids can be found in any chemical supply store, and they aren't rare or expensive. Acetic acid is what you are buying in vinegar, and next ones are propionic acid and the two butyric acids.
It doesn't seem to have made it into the New Scientist, to which I've had a subscription for the past 35 years.
That does report real science as opposed to snippets that can be spun to make "natural health" nuts happy.
The human gut has to be infested with bacteria and the bacteriophage viruses that sustain bacterial diversity - not always the diversity that works best for us. Gnotobiotic kids could survive without them, but rarely thrived.
formatting link
The blood stream and internal organs are uniformly better off without them. You have persuaded yourself otherwise, but this in just one more of your dangerous delusions.
Particularly when it involves how really bad you are at thinking and arguing.
Your devotion to speaking the truth would be more commendable if you knew enough to be able to distinguish between "truth" and "natural products" propaganda.
Anybody who claims that drinking raw milk is a good idea may be telling the truth as they see it, but in reality they are propagating dangerous nonsense.
If the criminals who sell raw milk are charging extra for it, as seems to happen with most "natural products" you are not only and idiot but also a sucker.
I doubt that. Next discussion topic: Statistically significant relation between SIDS and vaccination rate. The USA has the highest vaccination rate, infant death is also the highest. After Japan delayed the MMR vaccine with one year, they went from 17th lowest infant death rate to lowest, when they undid the delay, they went off the lowest place again. Is that not a risk?
What kids?
Well, would you believe the english (former) Health Protection Agency?
Here is their graph of measles. Look at the death rate.
formatting link
Did it decline considerably before the measles vaccine was introduced?
Measles *did* kill a lot of people, back then, when hygienic conditions were poor. But as hygienic conditions improved, you can see that already long before vaccinations were introduced, the death rate declined considerably and there is no scientific proof whatsoever that as the hygienic conditions and health care improved further, vaccinations played any role in the further decline.
And, are you going to contest the following graph too? http://site.pictures/image/ujMB
Not so fast, Billy Boy. I'm sure there is at least a slight difference between the (not so beneficial) kind of bacteriae that occupy gum and root canal infections (especially the latter seem to be producing very nasty toxins) and the apparently beneficial bacteriae that are passed on from mother to child, as Jamie described.
There is no contradiction.
Maybe I'm wrong, but can you tell me when the New Scientist started to be a peer reviewed scientific journal?
wtf? Now come on... this is just pure provocative, isn't it?
Where are the numbers to back up *that* silly claim of yours?
How many entire countries' populations didn't grow up drinking raw milk? I've never noticed any problem caused by drinking raw milk. What a health-paranoid nonsense.
I really start thinking now that you have some kind of hygiene-anti- bacterial-disease-obsession. Are you also one of those compulsive-obsessive people who wash themselves
5x/day with chlorine or what? Or maybe you only use 'SafeGuard' soap with triclosan in quantities just insufficient enough *not* to do what it promises but sufficient enough to build up anti-biotic-resistance in swaths of bacteriae in all water ways where the soap is dumped with the waste water?
Unbelievable, what a stupid and baseless claim. Now I wonder: who is the 'health-nut' here?
If there is _any_ way you can ingest beneficial bacteriae then it is by drinking raw milk. Oh, and the yoghurt made of it, of course.
In the US it is currently running at 0.55 deaths per 1000 live births.
The same wikipedia article says
"A large investigation into diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccination and po
s associated with decreased SIDS mortality. Current recommendations on time ly DTP immunisation should be emphasised to prevent not only specific infec tious diseases but also potentially SIDS."[58]
Many other studies have also reached conclusions that vaccinations reduce t he risk of SIDS. Studies generally show that SIDS risk is approximately hal ved by vaccinations.[59][60][61][62][63]"
so the Japanese result is anomalous - probably because soemtbing else was g oing on at the time - which is one of the reason why correlation shouldn't be blindly accepted as pointing to causation.
That's a relief. Not that I believe in eugenics, of course.
Of course it did. Many of the deaths from measles were from consequent bact erial infections, and as antibiotics were introduced, and became more widel y accessible, these infections stopped being deadly.
This is the data I quoted at you earlier, which shows a more or less flat d eath rate of the order of 100 per year from about 1950 to 1967. About half the kids get the disease badly enough for it to get notified, and about 20 per 100,000 of them died. They tended to get sick in epidemic years, so the data is lumpy.
Actually, there is, and it's extremely persuasive to anybody prepared to lo ok at exactly what was going on, rather than trying to squeeze it into a lo ng-term exponential decline - see Darrell Huff's 1954 classic.
formatting link
Of course I am. Putting the death rate on a logarithmic scale squeezes up t he periods of slow progress, and produces such a wide scatter on the post 1
988 numbers that it's difficult to see what is actually going on - the deat h rate is closer to constant than declining (with a lot of up and down scat ter between epidemics) from 1950 (when the National Health Service made ant ibiotics widely available) to 1968 when vaccination got under way.
That's exactly the opposite of what you are arguing.
There's also the point that you made, which is that many deaths notified as caused by measles were the results the damage caused by measles contacted in childhood, which had eventually killed the victims some year later.
When you have a declining incidence of primary infections, as you did from
1968 on, as the initial vaccination program took effect, these deaths from earlier infections tend to form an increasing proportion of the death rate, which helps to shape the curve into an exponential decline.
I'm afraid that your problem is that you aren't willing to use the statisti c for illumination, preferring to grasp at them for support.
Of course there is. The kind of bacteria that do well when infecting gums a nd roots canals don't do so well in the gut. The point is that you don't ge t a single species of bacteria in either site, and the proportion of the po pulation contributed by a specific species depends on the site.
The new-born child's gut is also going to get colonised by whatever goes in to it's mouth (and - to a lesser extent - it's nose) and the population wil l eventually look much like everybody else's.
I was put under pressure to have dental work in a way that wouldn't have wo rked with a pregnant mother.
o
It isn't. It just reports what gets published in peer-reviewed scientific j ournals. Unlike most English-language popular science journalists, some of it's regular contributors have science degrees, and the ones that don't do seem to understand real science better than the people who do science repor ting for the popular press. The UK newspapers produce science howlers every few weeks.
The serious Dutch newspapers were much better - Dutch science journalists m ostly have science degrees, and it took years before I noticed that one of them had got something wrong - and New Scientist is up there with the Dutch newspapers.
None. How many of them had epidemic tuberculosis spread in the milk? Any of them where milk-drinking was popular. It's not the only problem with raw m ilk, but it's the one that killed a lot of people.
formatting link
"Mycobacterium tuberculosis bovis was once a common cause of tuberculosis, but the introduction of pasteurized milk has largely eliminated this as a p ublic health problem in developed countries."
Lucky you. It only takes one tubercular cow, and you've got a problem that you won't notice until you start losing weight and maybe not until you star t coughing up blood.
When I was a kid, everybody had chest X-rays at regular intervals to check for TB, and if you had it you got shunted off to a sanitorium so you couldn 't infect anybody else, and stayed there until you were cured (streptomycin had been invented by then and mostly worked, though it makes you depressed (as my brother found out when he got infected enough to show antibodies, though not infected enough to be immediately infectious).
What dangerous ignorance.
No.
Definitely not. I'm happy with the bacteria I've got.
Unbelievable ignorance. The claim is certainly not baseless, and only idiot s like Joe Hey and Jamie would believe otherwise.
Clearly you.
When they make yogurt, they are very picky about the bacteria they put in i t. Raw milk would rather defeat that quality control.
Cows don't live in a bacterially controlled environment.
You are falsely quoting my text. Instead of commenting on my sentence: "Not so fast, Billy Boy." or snipping it out altogether while signalling that you are snipping it out, you change my wordings and post them as if I wrote that sentence the way YOU changed it. You should know better than to falsify quotes like that on usenet. Shame on you!
And nobody was talking about 'a single species in either site' either.
More useless blahblah.
No it won't. Everybody has his own typical flora.
I seriously doubt that. College degrees I can imagine, but science. That means they must have studied at a university, not simply college, which seems to be something quite different over there in the Netherlands.
And then, they make it up to editor in chief, get invited to the Bilderberg conference more than once, and totally fail to report on that. To finally be able to finish their career as a secretary of state of foreign affairs, or assistant secretary. That's how main stream media works. And that's why it's totally unreliable and can not be counted on to tell the public what really is going on.
On the contrary, it's you who is massaging the data with a lots of stories and pseudo-scientific anecdotical reasoning in order to get it to tell you what you want to hear.
Point is that their simply isn't any scientific evidence that vaccinations eradicated at least the measles, as the occurrence declined already by A FACTOR ONE THOUSAND as that logarithmic graph so succinctly illustrates due to other measures than vaccines and there are no double blind randomised trials to support that claim. In other words: vaccination is not 'evidence based medicine'. The only 'evidence' is that measles continued its decline after vaccinations were introduced. And of course the pharmaceutical industry wants us to believe that it was their vaccines that eradicated the measles.
By the way, just today I saw a sick two year old boy and asked his mother: "Isn't he vaccinated against the measles?" "No", she replied, and "Good!", I thought by myself.
"Massaging the data" means changing it. Since I show the links to the data I'm referring to, this isn't what's going on.
Sadly, there aren't. And while I'm not massaging my data, you are lying abo ut yours.
Improved hygiene and antibiotics did cut the UK measles death rate from nea rly a thousand a year before the 1940's to closer to a hundred a year throu gh the 1950's - that's a factor of ten, not one thousand - and the early 19
60's it took vaccination - and fairly comprehensive vaccination at that, to get it down - by an additional factor of 100 - to one a year or less in th e 1990s.
In other words you can't recognise evidence even when it is staring you in the face.
Vaccines aren't pharmaceuticals. They may be sold through pharmacies, and s ome of them are now manufactured by big pharmaceutical companies, but they can't be patented like regular pharmaceutical chemicals, and shouldn't be c onfused with them.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.