FDA To Examine Januvia

[W. Baker]

Interestisng article on januvia, pandeatitis, pancreatic cance, Dr. Butler
vs the drug comapnies. An old story re big pharma and teting drugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/business/a-doctor-raises-questions-about-a-diabetes-drug.html?hp

I really seems to feed the paranoia around here.

Wendy

[Cheri]

"Susan" <su...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
news:b0pmmu...@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes

> There's no paranoia here.
>
> paranoia is irrational.
>
> Susan


Exactly.

Cheri

[Cheri]

"Susan" <su...@nothanks.org> wrote in message

news:b0pov3...@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 5/30/2013 3:45 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>
>> Exactly.
>>
>
> And the others, wallets fattened by drug dollars, attack the messenger
> instead of advocating for patient safety.
>
> You can't call this paranoid after Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2
> and a half decades of assurances by just such doctors that Premarin was
> necessary for menopauce and post meno to protect against the very things
> it turned out to cause, etc.
>
> Statins up next. Convincing people that normal compensatory biochemistry
> is a disease when it's not, then poisoning them with a drug that has scant
> benefit even for the most at risk patients.
>
> And poisoning millions of others with it at great risk.

I know. I think I told you that I have a cousin that is very high up (well,
he was, dunno about now) in the FDA, very high up, and once I mentioned
Rezulin to him, I never heard back from him, though I have emailed him many
times since, not a word so that told me something. LOL

Cheri

[Charly Coughran]

"W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in
news:ko8793$hc7$1...@reader1.panix.com:

Unfortunately, we have to live in the real world. The question
of how much study is necessary before a drug should be Ok'd
would be very difficult, even without greed as a major force in
the process. This being America, I doubt that there is a way
to remove it from the equation.

A couple days ago I watched a talk on the general topic of what
gets published and what doesn't by drug makers during the FDA
approval process. Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it
will creep. It can be seen at the BookTV web site (CSPAN2)
below:


http://tinyurl.com/kyoau83
or the full url
http://www.booktv.org/Program/14307/Bad+Pharma+How+Drug+Compani
es+Mislead+Doctors+and+Harm+Patients.aspx

--
______________________
ccou...@DELETE-TO-RESPOND-UCSD.EDU

[Susan]

x-no-archive; yes

On 5/30/2013 4:34 PM, Charly Coughran wrote:


> Unfortunately, we have to live in the real world. The question
> of how much study is necessary before a drug should be Ok'd
> would be very difficult, even without greed as a major force in
> the process. This being America, I doubt that there is a way
> to remove it from the equation.

Greed IS the equation. You cannot do enough study to overcome the
corporate interests, fact bending, omissions and outright lying.

Susan

[outsider]

To coin a phrase, "One man's treasure is another man's trash."

[Don Roberto]

On 5/30/2013 12:13 PM, Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 5/30/2013 2:54 PM, W. Baker wrote:

> There's no paranoia here.
>

Not as long as neither you, nor mainframetech, nor Trawley are *NOT*
posting.

[Don Roberto]

That's nice but doesn't deal with paranoiacs who believe anyone who outs
their paranoia is paranoid. Like the refugee from alt.assassination.jfk
and a.s.k-d.

[Don Roberto]

On 5/30/2013 12:52 PM, Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>

> On 5/30/2013 3:45 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>
>> Exactly.
>>
>
> And the others, wallets fattened by drug dollars, attack the messenger
> instead of advocating for patient safety.
>
> You can't call this paranoid

Yes, you can.
Life's a bitch, and then you die.
Yes, there are things wrong with Big Pharma, the food industry, the
medical profession and - last but not least - every individual living
organism on this here planet of ours.
But - all in all - we're okay.
REALLY!!
We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.
There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the time
- than there were fifty years ago.

[Don Roberto]

Et tu, Cheri?
Didn't have you figured for a paranoiac?

LOL
>

And what's funny about you implying the FDA is covering up the
"poisoning [of] millions"?

[Don Roberto]

On 5/30/2013 1:34 PM, Charly Coughran wrote:
> "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote in
> news:ko8793$hc7$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
>> Interestisng article on januvia, pandeatitis, pancreatic
>> cance, Dr. Butler vs the drug comapnies. An old story re
>> big pharma and teting drugs.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/business/a-doctor-raises-q
>> uestions-about-a-diabetes-drug.html?hp
>>
>> I really seems to feed the paranoia around here.
>>
>> Wendy
>
> Unfortunately, we have to live in the real world. The question
> of how much study is necessary before a drug should be Ok'd
> would be very difficult, even without greed as a major force in
> the process. This being America, I doubt that there is a way
> to remove it from the equation.
>

+1

[Don Roberto]

Paranoid Susan spends half your time here telling us how corporate
America is screwing up everyone's health and the other half of the time
telling us about the extraordinary healing powers of your version of low
carbing, while doing everything you can to remain anonymous.
What is she hiding?

[Don Roberto]

Spoken like true dumpster diver ;-)

[randyf]

Charly wrote:
> A couple days ago I watched a talk on the general topic of what
> gets published and what doesn't by drug makers during the FDA
> approval process.

Thanks for that.

Charly wrote:
>Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it
> will creep.

One of my favorite tunes the beginings of the acid rock era:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5M_Ttstbgs

>It can be seen at the BookTV web site (CSPAN2)
> below:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kyoau83
> or the full urlhttp://www.booktv.org/Program/14307/Bad+Pharma+How+Drug+Compani
> es+Mislead+Doctors+and+Harm+Patients.aspx
>
> --
> ______________________

> ccough...@DELETE-TO-RESPOND-UCSD.EDU

[Trawley Trash]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:02:07 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> > There's no paranoia here.
> >
>
> Not as long as neither you, nor mainframetech, nor Trawley are *NOT*
> posting.

That from someone who has a phobia about being eaten by fructarians.

[Trawley Trash]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:04:19 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.
> There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the
> time
> - than there were fifty years ago.

I doubt those teenagers with type II will be enjoying life or
living anywhere near as long as we do.

[randyf]

bob wrote:
> We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.
> There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the time
> - than there were fifty years ago.
>
> after Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2

Not really. The lowered life expectancy a 100 years ago was *mainly*
due infant and childhood deaths.
Life expectancy is just an average. Life span and life expectancy are
two different metrics. If 50% of births ended in death and the other
50% live to 100, the life expectancy would be 50.
But that doesn't mean you wouldn't find a whole lot of folks than 50.

If you made it to 60 in 1850 you could be expected to live to ~76.
If you made it to 60 in 2004 you could be expected to live to ~81.

Randy

[Opple0påad]

Why?

Having any kind of diabetes does not automatically mean that one will
not live a good, fulfilling and long life.

I've been type 1 since I was 5 and am over fifty. Thankfully I never
had someone like you in my life telling me I would have no future
simply because I am diabetic.

Now behave yourself before we call the government and volunteer you
for the president's medical experiment programs.

[outsider]

On 6/1/2013 8:56 PM, randyf wrote:
> bob wrote:
>> We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.
>> There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the time
>> - than there were fifty years ago.
>>
>> after Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2
>
> Not really. The lowered life expectancy a 100 years ago was *mainly*
> due infant and childhood deaths.
> Life expectancy is just an average. Life span and life expectancy are
> two different metrics. If 50% of births ended in death and the other
> 50% live to 100, the life expectancy would be 50.
> But that doesn't mean you wouldn't find a whole lot of folks than 50.
>
> If you made it to 60 in 1850 you could be expected to live to ~76.
> If you made it to 60 in 2004 you could be expected to live to ~81.
>
> Randy

The entire discussion is mathematically complicated enough that only
a small percentage of readers here can understand the nuances.

The key operative word is chances. Even "could expect to live to"
relies on a statistical model that has no relevance in any
individual reality. Every lottery player understands this particular
aspect.

Looking at the longevity question from the individual standpoint is
a much different matter from looking at the same questions from the
standpoint of a large population.

[Trawley Trash]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 23:04:43 -0500
outsider <outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

> Looking at the longevity question from the individual standpoint is
> a much different matter from looking at the same questions from the
> standpoint of a large population.

The way Randy said it was correct. Those of us who participate
in this forum are all old enough to have survived infant mortality.
Our life expectancy has *not* doubled in the last century.

[Trawley Trash]

I said type II for good reason. I am not going to explain any further
to someone who will not read.

[mainframetech]

On May 30, 3:52 pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>

> On 5/30/2013 3:45 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> > Exactly.
>
> And the others, wallets fattened by drug dollars, attack the messenger
> instead of advocating for patient safety.
>

> You can't call this paranoid after Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2

> and a half decades of assurances by just such doctors that Premarin was
> necessary for menopauce and post meno to protect against the very things
> it turned out to cause, etc.
>
> Statins up next. Convincing people that normal compensatory biochemistry
> is a disease when it's not, then poisoning them with a drug that has
> scant benefit even for the most at risk patients.
>
> And poisoning millions of others with it at great risk.

Large bank accounts lead to larger bank accounts. Greed sets in at
a certain point and anything goes after that. It ain't paranoia, it's
human nature. Ever watch documentaries of Chimps with a surfeit of
bananas? They will grab and hold far more than they could eat in a
week, and try and take them all to a place where others can't take any
away. Then after a while will share out one or two to those that will
groom them.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 30, 4:34 pm, Charly Coughran <ccough...@DELETE-TO-RESPOND-
UCSD.EDU> wrote:
> "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote innews:ko8793$hc7$1...@reader1.panix.com:

>
> > Interestisng article on januvia, pandeatitis, pancreatic
> > cance, Dr. Butler vs the drug comapnies.  An old story re
> > big pharma and teting drugs.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/business/a-doctor-raises-q
> > uestions-about-a-diabetes-drug.html?hp
>
> > I really seems to feed the paranoia around here.
>
> > Wendy
>
> Unfortunately, we have to live in the real world.  The question
> of how much study is necessary before a drug should be Ok'd
> would be very difficult, even without greed as a major force in
> the process.  This being America, I doubt that there is a way
> to remove it from the equation.
>
> A couple days ago I watched a talk on the general topic of what
> gets published and what doesn't by drug makers during the FDA
> approval process.  Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it
> will creep.  It can be seen at the BookTV web site (CSPAN2)
> below:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kyoau83

> or the full urlhttp://www.booktv.org/Program/14307/Bad+Pharma+How+Drug+Compani
> es+Mislead+Doctors+and+Harm+Patients.aspx
>
> --
> ______________________
> ccough...@DELETE-TO-RESPOND-UCSD.EDU

A good talk, though long. Lightly humorous on such a serious
subject. One example of failed studies not being published led to
the death of up to 130,000 people that used a drug they thought was
OK.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 1, 8:02 pm, Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/2013 12:13 PM, Susan wrote:
>
> > x-no-archive: yes
>
> > On 5/30/2013 2:54 PM, W. Baker wrote:
> >> Interestisng article on januvia, pandeatitis, pancreatic cance, Dr.
> >> Butler
> >> vs the drug comapnies.  An old story re big pharma and teting drugs.
>

> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/business/a-doctor-raises-questions-...

>
> >> I really seems to feed the paranoia around here.
>
> > There's no paranoia here.
>
> Not as long as neither you, nor mainframetech, nor Trawley are *NOT*
> posting.

Ah! The porcupine speaks! Trying to needle everyone...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 1, 8:02 pm, Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:

> On 5/30/2013 12:45 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Susan" <su...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
> >news:b0pmmu...@mid.individual.net...
> >> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >> On 5/30/2013 2:54 PM, W. Baker wrote:
> >>> Interestisng article on januvia, pandeatitis, pancreatic cance, Dr.
> >>> Butler
> >>> vs the drug comapnies.  An old story re big pharma and teting drugs.
>

> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/business/a-doctor-raises-questions-...

>
> >>> I really seems to feed the paranoia around here.
>
> >> There's no paranoia here.
>
> >> paranoia is irrational.
>
> >> Susan
>
> > Exactly.
>
> That's nice but doesn't deal with paranoiacs who believe anyone who outs
> their paranoia is paranoid. Like the refugee from alt.assassination.jfk
>   and a.s.k-d.

Looks like you're creating paranoia about yourself and who you'll
dump your hate on next.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Looking at Life Expectancy tables for all countries, the USA ranks
#33 with our better medical system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Chris

[randyf]

mainframetech wrote:
"Looking at Life Expectancy tables for all countries, the USA ranks
#33 with our better medical system.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy."

reply:
A good part of this stat is due to the fact that, unlike other most
other countries, the US accurately reports infant mortality.
This was discussed and referenced a couple of months ago in the
"Vacinations and infant Mortality" thread you started.

Randy

[randyf]

Outsider wrote:
"The entire discussion is mathematically complicated enough that only
a small percentage of readers here can understand the nuances."

Reply:
It's not mathematically complicated and takes nothing more than 5th
grade arithmetic to calculate.

Life expectancy (from birth) is nothing more than an average of all
births and the ages of death.

In 1900 the life expectancy was ~ 45. This Didn't mean there were very
few folks older than 45, not at all. It just means there was a lot
infant, childhood, and
young adult deaths (including Type 1 diabetics) that skewed the
results down. In fact once one made it to 50 in 1900 the new
calculated life expectancy was 71.6. In 1950 this only increased to
~73!

This is important because a lot of folks incorrectly attribute modern
medical care to helping middle age folks live longer. No so much.
Most of the improvement in life expectancy in the last 150 years is
due to decreased infant/child/your adult mortality. Modern medical
technology has not been near as effective in increasing middle age
life expectancy. This concept is important and widely misunderstood.
In the last couple of decades improvements in middle age life
expectancy has started to make gains, but that is still much less than
the gains due to decreased childhood mortality.

Point being that folks give too much credit to modern medical
technology in helping middle aged folks live longer when discussing
life expectancy. Not so!

//*******************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Life expectancy is often confused with life span to the point that
they are nearly synonyms; when people hear 'life expectancy was 35
years' they often interpret this as meaning that people of that time
or place had short life spans.[74] One such example can be seen in the
In Search of... episode "The Man Who Would Not Die" (About Count of
St. Germain) where it is stated "Evidence recently discovered in the
British Museum indicates that St. Germain may have well been the long
lost third son of Rákóczi born in Transylvania in 1694. If he died in
Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the
18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety... was
forever."

This ignores the fact that the life expectancy generally quoted is the
at birth number which is an average that includes all the babies that
die before their first year of life as well as people that die from
disease and war. The genetics of humans and rate of aging were no
different in preindustrial societies than today, but people frequently
died young because of untreatable diseases, accidents, and
malnutrition. Many women did not survive childbirth, and individuals
who reached old age were likely to succumb quickly to health problems.

It can be argued that it is better to compare life expectancies of the
period after adulthood to get a better handle on life span.[75] Even
during childhood, life expectancy can take a huge jump as seen in the
Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas where at birth
the life expectancy was 25 but at the age of 5 it jumped to 48.
Studies like Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy
by Age, 1850–2004 similarly show a dramatic increase in life
expectancy once adulthood was reached.
//************************************************************

Randy

[randyf]

On Jun 2, 6:57 am, Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 23:04:43 -0500
>

> outsider <outsi...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:
> > Looking at the longevity question from the individual standpoint is
> > a much different matter from looking at the same questions from the
> > standpoint of a large population.

Trawley wrote:
>   The way Randy said it was correct.  Those of us who participate
>   in this forum are all old enough to have survived infant mortality.
>   Our life expectancy has *not* doubled in the last century.

Thanks Trawley, on this we agree.

Modern medical technology is much less effective in getting middle
aged folks to live longer that it is in preventing early deaths of
infants and children (and that includes the life saving effectiveness
of insulin for type 1 diabetics).

Randy

Randy

[outsider]

On 6/2/2013 12:06 PM, randyf wrote:
> Outsider wrote:
> "The entire discussion is mathematically complicated enough that only
> a small percentage of readers here can understand the nuances."
>
> Reply:
> It's not mathematically complicated and takes nothing more than 5th
> grade arithmetic to calculate.

I stand by what I wrote and you quoted above. Your citation and quote
from Wikipedia at the end of your posting begins to unravel *some* of
the nuances. I hasten to point out that there's a tremendous difference
between mathematics and simple arithmetic.

I was afraid you'd step into this trap of your own making.

"Mathematicians seek out patterns and formulate new conjectures.
Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by
mathematical proof. When mathematical structures are good models
of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight
or predictions about nature."

etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

Often enough in mathematics there's no actual "arithmetic" involved.

Take the old joke that 2 men were observed going into a building, and
shortly afterwards 3 came out. The arithmetician's conclusion is that
the building now holds -1 person. A mathematician begins to talk about
unknown variables.

[outsider]

Trashtalk did not, of course, even come close to addressing the
issue he cited.

Unfortunately a great deal of what you're addressing where early
deaths occur among infants and children have social causes rather
than honest medical ones. Such death rates among the middle class
and up are much lower than among the poor. In arithmetic 1 always
equals 1. But is that really always true where it comes to human
life and longevity?

Guess what happens if you consider the creation of a human being
at conception, and among the social classes which has the greatest
impact on those numbers.

Those who think the can simplify the discussion and think they
understand all the nuances satisfy only themselves but do nothing
to advance solutions or understanding of the real issues.

Any discussion about "Our life expectancy has *not* doubled in
the last century" is a discussion with Don Roberto, not me. He
speaks very well for himself. I'd be interested to see which
approach he uses to mop the floor with you, if he bothers at all.
You see, DR has the arithmetic right, you don't.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

outsider schreef op 2-6-2013 :

Doctor Bob..?
M.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Na rijp beraad schreef mainframetech :

Hey, whats Yemen doing withour flag?
M.

[randyf]

On Jun 2, 2:20 pm, outsider <outsi...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:
> On 6/2/2013 12:06 PM, randyf wrote:
>
> > Outsider wrote:
> > "The entire discussion is mathematically complicated enough that only
> >   a small percentage of readers here can understand the nuances."
>
> > Reply:
> > It's not mathematically complicated and takes nothing more than 5th
> > grade arithmetic to calculate.

Outsider wrote:
> I stand by what I wrote and you quoted above. Your citation and quote
> from Wikipedia at the end of your posting begins to unravel *some* of
> the nuances.

And the point the wiki piece made was exactly the point I am/was
making without any added nuances, contrary to your suggestion, thrown
in.
The increase in life expectancy in 1850 from the mid 40's to now at
about 80 is not due to middle age people living longer living a lot
longer as near as much as
infant/childhood deaths being decreased.

Outsider wrote:
> I hasten to point out that there's a tremendous difference
> between mathematics and simple arithmetic.

Arithmetic is a sub-set of mathematics as are calculas, euclidian
geometry, ect. So what??

The point being is that you only need an understanding of arithmetic
to understand that just because the life expectancy in 1850 was 45
doesn't necessarily mean that folks in their 70s/80-s were rare.

Look - Here are two ways to come up with an life expectancy of 45.
1 - Everybody born dies at 45.
2.- Lots of infant childhood deaths but once you make to middle age
live your likely to reach your 60/70/80s.

The reality is number 2.
Only an understanding of arithmetic is needed to understand this (life
expectancy is just an average).

Most folks don't realize this - as was pointed out by the wiki piece.

The point, again, is that most of the increase in life expectancy over
the last couple of centuries is due to decreased young mortality, not
a increase in middle age life expectancy.
In the last couple of decades there have been some gains in middle age
life expectancy, but it's still dwarfed by the decrease in mortality
of the young (esp very young).

That's an interesting, important point that most folks are not aware
of and that's why I brought it up.
Modern high tech medical technology has done relatively little to
increase life expectancy for folks in middle age.

Your attempt to make this discussion into something else is just
hubris.

Randy

> > lost third son of R�k�czi born in Transylvania in 1694. If he died in

> > Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the
> > 18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety... was
> > forever."
>
> > This ignores the fact that the life expectancy generally quoted is the
> > at birth number which is an average that includes all the babies that
> > die before their first year of life as well as people that die from
> > disease and war. The genetics of humans and rate of aging were no
> > different in preindustrial societies than today, but people frequently
> > died young because of untreatable diseases, accidents, and
> > malnutrition. Many women did not survive childbirth, and individuals
> > who reached old age were likely to succumb quickly to health problems.
>
> > It can be argued that it is better to compare life expectancies of the
> > period after adulthood to get a better handle on life span.[75] Even
> > during childhood, life expectancy can take a huge jump as seen in the
> > Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas where at birth
> > the life expectancy was 25 but at the age of 5 it jumped to 48.
> > Studies like Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy

> > by Age, 1850�2004 similarly show a dramatic increase in life

[Maya Zuiderweg]

randyf beweerde :

Hi Randy, I read that sewering made the most difference in
life-expectancy.
M.

[randyf]

On Jun 2, 3:43 pm, Maya Zuiderweg <

Yep a big impact.
http://tinyurl.com/k4rzzkl

Randy

[mainframetech]

On Jun 2, 4:19 pm, Maya Zuiderweg <

Probably burning it...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 2, 4:43 pm, Maya Zuiderweg <

Some say that was the real change in our health rather than
vaccination. Sanitation began working to save many lives before
vaccination ever got going. Though vaccination is touted as the
'savior' by certain groups.

Chris

[W. Baker]

outsider <outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

: On 6/2/2013 12:11 PM, randyf wrote:
: > On Jun 2, 6:57 am, Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
: >> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 23:04:43 -0500

: Trashtalk did not, of course, even come close to addressing the

: issue he cited.

: Unfortunately a great deal of what you're addressing where early
: deaths occur among infants and children have social causes rather
: than honest medical ones. Such death rates among the middle class
: and up are much lower than among the poor. In arithmetic 1 always
: equals 1. But is that really always true where it comes to human
: life and longevity?

,


In 1935, my brother, who I never knew, died from a strep infection. Had
he gotten this a year later they wold hae had the sulfa drugs that would
have saved him. In 1918 myAunt, who I never knew, died at 71/2 of polio.
She died alone in a hospita bed as her parents were nto permitted to visit
and were notified by a telegram! There has been some medical progress, I
would say that helped children survive infacy and childhood. there were
many kids with rheumatic heart problems from having had that disease in
childhood from all kinds of families, rich ad poor andmiddle class. then
there were cholera epidemics before clean water systems were built and
water purified. The list goes on, letalone the Back death, etc.
Pneumonia carried off many young andold and was called the old man's
friend as it took them out of this world.

Wendy

[Opple0påad]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 05:02:37 -0700, Trawley Trash
<tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

It makes no difference whether one is type 1 or type 2. The self
defeatist attitude you endorse is the problem.

[outsider]

On 6/2/2013 3:35 PM, randyf wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2:20 pm, outsider <outsi...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:
>> On 6/2/2013 12:06 PM, randyf wrote:

> Your attempt to make this discussion into something else is just
> hubris.

One of the reasons that social security is in trouble is that more
people are living longer than the tables predicted they would. Right
there is one of many changes that you deny. So it isn't improvement
in infant mortality that caused the explosion in longevity past
middle age.

You've hung yourself with your hubris statement, and that's where
I'll leave this conversation, adding only a mention of the old
adage about leading a horse to water.

[Opple0påad]

Even worse, is that the actual money taken in by social security taxes
are not used solely for social security.

[randyf]

Outsider wrote:
> One of the reasons that social security is in trouble is that more
> people are living longer than the tables predicted they would. Right
> there is one of many changes that you deny. So it isn't improvement
> in infant mortality that caused the explosion in longevity past
> middle age.

What explosion in longevity past middle age?

In 1850 life expectancy of a new born was 38, today it's 76.
Very big difference - 38 years.
In 1850 life expectancy of a 50 year old male was 71.6, today it's
79.1.
Clearly the bulk of the difference is due the decreased mortality in
the young esp, the very young.

What modern science can do for a 50 year old today is a little better,
but it trounced by the gains in young mortality.

Randy

Ref:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20070713083310/http://www.plimoth.org/discover/myth/dead-at-40.php

[outsider]

Two example families I know:

Family with 6 surviving children, 4 lost in infancy, Chicago (which had
sewer system for a long time.) All children born after 1950.

Family with 10 children surviving, 4 lost in infancy, rural Georgia with
no sewers and use of an outhouse all the way through 1963, children born
starting ca 1925.

Survival ratios are 1.5 for Chicago and 2.5 for Georgia. Wives in both
cases were stay at home traditional mothers. Father in Chicago held a
masters degree, while the Georgia dad finished 3rd grade. Chicago was
a newspaper man, Georgia was a sharecropper when he wasn't bootlegging.

Chicago mom had a bachelors degree while Georgia mother had a fourth
grade education. Chicago family had strong Jewish ties but attended
the Unitarian Church while the Georgia group were Primitive Baptists.
Of the surviving children in both groups, none engage in any religious
practices today.

All the survivors in Chicago have a university education while only 3
of the Georgia group actually completed high school.

There are far too many variables involved to *prove* which can be
attributed with improving overall childhood survival. They all
contribute something. No one can *prove* that public sanitation
had the largest impact.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

outsider heeft uiteengezet op 3-6-2013 :

I bet that one of those 2 famiies swallowed vitC 1000mg each day.
The other family ate sweet potatoes every other day.
:-)
M.

[Don Roberto]

On 6/1/2013 6:09 PM, Trawley Trash wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:02:07 -0700
> Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> There's no paranoia here.
>>>
>>

>> Not as long as neither you, nor mainframetech, nor Trawley are *NOT*
>> posting.
>

> That from someone who has a phobia about being eaten by fructarians.
>

Only if they all are like you.

[Don Roberto]

On 6/1/2013 6:11 PM, Trawley Trash wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:04:19 -0700
> Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.
>> There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the
>> time
>> - than there were fifty years ago.
>
> I doubt those teenagers with type II will be enjoying life or
> living anywhere near as long as we do.
>

Not if pessimists like you have their way.

[Don Roberto]

On 6/1/2013 6:56 PM, randyf wrote:

> bob wrote:
>> We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.
>> There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the time
>> - than there were fifty years ago.
>>

>> after Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2
>
> Not really. The lowered life expectancy a 100 years ago was *mainly*
> due infant and childhood deaths.
> Life expectancy is just an average. Life span and life expectancy are
> two different metrics.

Pssst!

I wrote:
"We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago."

WE DO! So what if infant mortality and getting scalped by marauding
Indians are to blame...
Why do you always go off on tangents?
(Rhetorical question)
(and "always" not in the absolute sense)

If 50% of births ended in death and the other
> 50% live to 100, the life expectancy would be 50.
> But that doesn't mean you wouldn't find a whole lot of folks than 50.
>

Huh?

> If you made it to 60 in 1850 you could be expected to live to ~76.
> If you made it to 60 in 2004 you could be expected to live to ~81.
>

That's nice, but WTF made to 60 in 1850?

[Don Roberto]

On 6/1/2013 9:04 PM, outsider wrote:

> On 6/1/2013 8:56 PM, randyf wrote:
>> bob wrote:
>>> We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.
>>> There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the time
>>> - than there were fifty years ago.
>>>
>>> after Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2
>>
>> Not really. The lowered life expectancy a 100 years ago was *mainly*
>> due infant and childhood deaths.
>> Life expectancy is just an average. Life span and life expectancy are

>> two different metrics. If 50% of births ended in death and the other

>> 50% live to 100, the life expectancy would be 50.
>> But that doesn't mean you wouldn't find a whole lot of folks than 50.
>>

>> If you made it to 60 in 1850 you could be expected to live to ~76.
>> If you made it to 60 in 2004 you could be expected to live to ~81.
>>

>> Randy

>
>
> The entire discussion is mathematically complicated enough that only
> a small percentage of readers here can understand the nuances.

No, it's not.
I SIMPLY wrote that we live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago
and that there are [NOW] twice as many of us [HERE] than there were
fifty years ago.
What's complicated about that?


>
> The key operative word is chances. Even "could expect to live to"
> relies on a statistical model that has no relevance in any
> individual reality.

Of course it does. It helps comprehending the bigger picture, the
perimeters, and such. To me - a REAL individual - such KNOWLEDGE is
relevant :-)


Every lottery player understands this particular
> aspect.
>

Right! That's why most folks usually don't play the lottery with their
milk money.

> Looking at the longevity question from the individual standpoint is
> a much different matter from looking at the same questions from the
> standpoint of a large population.
>

You don't say...

[mainframetech]

Yes, living longer is one of the factors, but I think the WW2 baby
boom had a greater effect, bringing a huge number of people to the SS
system all together. The most recent figure for insolvency for SS
that I heard just yesterday was 2033. That gives a lot of time to fix
it, IF it's required. Medicare was quoted to go in 2026 because the
Obamacare helped a lot to extend it a few years. First, in a few
years the numbers of new SS members will diminish, and in more time,
nature will take more of us out too. These will relieve some of the
pressure.

It bothers me that Obama and the Republicans are talking about
reducing benefits for those already on SS. When you get used to your
income, lowering it makes things difficult. I especially am bothered
because we are paying for the FULL PRICE of drugs for part 'D'. The
VA uses a price table that was negotiated with the drug industry years
ago. There is no reason they couldn't make a bill to use that list
for Part 'D'. They would save a fortune, and the drug industry isn't
hurting with the second largest profits next to the oil industry.

The only problem with that is that the wealthy corporations would
pass orders to their flunkies in congress to defeat such a bill. Only
a massive effort on the part of the people would change that and let
us save money. The people in congress that would fight that cost
saving step are the ones that scream that we should stop spending now.
Rant # 3,485 :)

Chris

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from paranoiac
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
in the past 6 months
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep



On 6/2/2013 6:51 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On May 30, 3:52 pm, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> On 5/30/2013 3:45 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> And the others, wallets fattened by drug dollars, attack the messenger
>> instead of advocating for patient safety.
>>
>> You can't call this paranoid after Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2

>> and a half decades of assurances by just such doctors that Premarin was
>> necessary for menopauce and post meno to protect against the very things
>> it turned out to cause, etc.
>>
>> Statins up next. Convincing people that normal compensatory biochemistry
>> is a disease when it's not, then poisoning them with a drug that has
>> scant benefit even for the most at risk patients.
>>
>> And poisoning millions of others with it at great risk.
>

> Large bank accounts lead to larger bank accounts. Greed sets in at
> a certain point and anything goes after that. It ain't paranoia, it's
> human nature. Ever watch documentaries of Chimps with a surfeit of
> bananas? They will grab and hold far more than they could eat in a
> week, and try and take them all to a place where others can't take any
> away. Then after a while will share out one or two to those that will
> groom them.
>
> Chris
>

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from paranoiac
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
in the past 6 months
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

On 6/2/2013 7:10 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On May 30, 4:34 pm, Charly Coughran <ccough...@DELETE-TO-RESPOND-
> UCSD.EDU> wrote:
>> "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote innews:ko8793$hc7$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>>
>>> Interestisng article on januvia, pandeatitis, pancreatic
>>> cance, Dr. Butler vs the drug comapnies. An old story re
>>> big pharma and teting drugs.
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/business/a-doctor-raises-q
>>> uestions-about-a-diabetes-drug.html?hp
>>
>>> I really seems to feed the paranoia around here.
>>
>>> Wendy
>>
>> Unfortunately, we have to live in the real world. The question
>> of how much study is necessary before a drug should be Ok'd
>> would be very difficult, even without greed as a major force in
>> the process. This being America, I doubt that there is a way
>> to remove it from the equation.
>>
>> A couple days ago I watched a talk on the general topic of what
>> gets published and what doesn't by drug makers during the FDA
>> approval process. Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it
>> will creep. It can be seen at the BookTV web site (CSPAN2)
>> below:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/kyoau83
>> or the full urlhttp://www.booktv.org/Program/14307/Bad+Pharma+How+Drug+Compani
>> es+Mislead+Doctors+and+Harm+Patients.aspx
>>
>> --
>> ______________________
>> ccough...@DELETE-TO-RESPOND-UCSD.EDU
>
> A good talk, though long. Lightly humorous on such a serious
> subject. One example of failed studies not being published led to
> the death of up to 130,000 people that used a drug they thought was
> OK.
>
> Chris
>

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from paranoiac
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
in the past 6 months
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

On 6/2/2013 7:13 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Jun 1, 8:02 pm, Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:

>> On 5/30/2013 12:13 PM, Susan wrote:
>>
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>

>>> On 5/30/2013 2:54 PM, W. Baker wrote:
>>>> Interestisng article on januvia, pandeatitis, pancreatic cance, Dr.
>>>> Butler
>>>> vs the drug comapnies. An old story re big pharma and teting drugs.
>>

>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/business/a-doctor-raises-questions-...

>>
>>>> I really seems to feed the paranoia around here.
>>

>>> There's no paranoia here.
>>
>> Not as long as neither you, nor mainframetech, nor Trawley are *NOT*
>> posting.
>

> Ah! The porcupine speaks! Trying to needle everyone...:)
>
> Chris
>

[Don Roberto]

When reading messages from paranoiac
mainfr...@yahoo.com

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND
that he has posted
988 times to
alt.assassination.jfk
in the past 6 months
and
1149 times to
alt.conspiracy.jfk
since May 2011

http://tinyurl.com/b2zlxep

On 6/2/2013 7:14 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Jun 1, 8:02 pm, Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:

>> On 5/30/2013 12:45 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Susan" <su...@nothanks.org> wrote in message
>>> news:b0pmmu...@mid.individual.net...

>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>>> On 5/30/2013 2:54 PM, W. Baker wrote:
>>>>> Interestisng article on januvia, pandeatitis, pancreatic cance, Dr.
>>>>> Butler
>>>>> vs the drug comapnies. An old story re big pharma and teting drugs.
>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/business/a-doctor-raises-questions-...
>>
>>>>> I really seems to feed the paranoia around here.
>>
>>>> There's no paranoia here.
>>

>>>> paranoia is irrational.
>>
>>>> Susan
>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> That's nice but doesn't deal with paranoiacs who believe anyone who outs
>> their paranoia is paranoid. Like the refugee from alt.assassination.jfk
>> and a.s.k-d.
>
> Looks like you're creating paranoia about yourself and who you'll
> dump your hate on next.
>
> Chris
>

[Don Roberto]

On 6/2/2013 10:11 AM, randyf wrote:

> Trawley wrote:

>> The way Randy said it was correct. he last century.

>
> Thanks Trawley, on this we agree.
>

Lovely.

[Don Roberto]

On 6/2/2013 1:35 PM, randyf wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2:20 pm, outsider <outsi...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:
>> On 6/2/2013 12:06 PM, randyf wrote:
>>
>>> Outsider wrote:
>>> "The entire discussion is mathematically complicated enough that only
>>> a small percentage of readers here can understand the nuances."
>>
>>> Reply:
>>> It's not mathematically complicated and takes nothing more than 5th
>>> grade arithmetic to calculate.
>
> Outsider wrote:
>> I stand by what I wrote and you quoted above. Your citation and quote
>> from Wikipedia at the end of your posting begins to unravel *some* of
>> the nuances.
>
> And the point the wiki piece made was exactly the point I am/was
> making without any added nuances, contrary to your suggestion, thrown
> in.
> The increase in life expectancy in 1850 from the mid 40's to now at
> about 80 is not due to middle age people living longer living a lot
> longer as near as much as
> infant/childhood deaths being decreased.
>

Right. But no one talked about THAT till you brought it up.

> Outsider wrote:
>> I hasten to point out that there's a tremendous difference
>> between mathematics and simple arithmetic.
>
> Arithmetic is a sub-set of mathematics as are calculas, euclidian
> geometry, ect. So what??
>

He no speak your language.

> The point being is that you only need an understanding of arithmetic
> to understand that just because the life expectancy in 1850 was 45
> doesn't necessarily mean that folks in their 70s/80-s were rare.
>

Right. But once again, the statement was: We live twice as long. With
life starting at birth, not at age 20, 50 or 80.

> Look - Here are two ways to come up with an life expectancy of 45.
> 1 - Everybody born dies at 45.
> 2.- Lots of infant childhood deaths but once you make to middle age
> live your likely to reach your 60/70/80s.
>
> The reality is number 2.
> Only an understanding of arithmetic is needed to understand this (life
> expectancy is just an average).
>
> Most folks don't realize this - as was pointed out by the wiki piece.
>
> The point, again, is that most of the increase in life expectancy over
> the last couple of centuries is due to decreased young mortality, not
> a increase in middle age life expectancy.
> In the last couple of decades there have been some gains in middle age
> life expectancy, but it's still dwarfed by the decrease in mortality
> of the young (esp very young).
>
> That's an interesting, important point that most folks are not aware
> of and that's why I brought it up.
> Modern high tech medical technology has done relatively little to
> increase life expectancy for folks in middle age.
>
> Your attempt to make this discussion into something else is just
> hubris.
>

THAT is precisely what YOU did with my simple statement that "we live
twice as long".

You really are hilarious.

>>> lost third son of R�k�czi born in Transylvania in 1694. If he died in

>>> Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the
>>> 18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety... was
>>> forever."
>>
>>> This ignores the fact that the life expectancy generally quoted is the
>>> at birth number which is an average that includes all the babies that
>>> die before their first year of life as well as people that die from
>>> disease and war. The genetics of humans and rate of aging were no
>>> different in preindustrial societies than today, but people frequently
>>> died young because of untreatable diseases, accidents, and
>>> malnutrition. Many women did not survive childbirth, and individuals
>>> who reached old age were likely to succumb quickly to health problems.
>>
>>> It can be argued that it is better to compare life expectancies of the
>>> period after adulthood to get a better handle on life span.[75] Even
>>> during childhood, life expectancy can take a huge jump as seen in the
>>> Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas where at birth
>>> the life expectancy was 25 but at the age of 5 it jumped to 48.
>>> Studies like Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy

>>> by Age, 1850�2004 similarly show a dramatic increase in life

[Don Roberto]

On 6/2/2013 12:38 PM, outsider wrote:
> On 6/2/2013 12:11 PM, randyf wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 6:57 am, Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 23:04:43 -0500
>>>
>>> outsider <outsi...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

>>>> Looking at the longevity question from the individual standpoint is
>>>> a much different matter from looking at the same questions from the
>>>> standpoint of a large population.
>>

>> Trawley wrote:
>>> The way Randy said it was correct. Those of us who participate
>>> in this forum are all old enough to have survived infant mortality.

>>> Our life expectancy has *not* doubled in the last century.

>>
>> Thanks Trawley, on this we agree.
>>

>> Modern medical technology is much less effective in getting middle
>> aged folks to live longer that it is in preventing early deaths of
>> infants and children (and that includes the life saving effectiveness
>> of insulin for type 1 diabetics).
>

> Trashtalk did not, of course, even come close to addressing the
> issue he cited.
>

Trashtalk?
Me like :-)

> Unfortunately a great deal of what you're addressing where early
> deaths occur among infants and children have social causes rather
> than honest medical ones. Such death rates among the middle class
> and up are much lower than among the poor. In arithmetic 1 always
> equals 1. But is that really always true where it comes to human
> life and longevity?
>

> Guess what happens if you consider the creation of a human being
> at conception, and among the social classes which has the greatest
> impact on those numbers.
>
> Those who think the can simplify the discussion and think they
> understand all the nuances satisfy only themselves but do nothing
> to advance solutions or understanding of the real issues.
>
> Any discussion about "Our life expectancy has *not* doubled in
> the last century" is a discussion with Don Roberto, not me. He
> speaks very well for himself. I'd be interested to see which
> approach he uses to mop the floor with you, if he bothers at all.
> You see, DR has the arithmetic right, you don't.
>

Yeah, it was such a _simple statement of fact_.

[outsider]

On 6/3/2013 7:30 AM, Don Roberto wrote:
> On 6/1/2013 9:04 PM, outsider wrote:
>> On 6/1/2013 8:56 PM, randyf wrote:
>>> bob wrote:
>>>> We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.
>>>> There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the time
>>>> - than there were fifty years ago.
>>>>
>>>> after Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2
>>>
>>> Not really. The lowered life expectancy a 100 years ago was *mainly*
>>> due infant and childhood deaths.
>>> Life expectancy is just an average. Life span and life expectancy are
>>> two different metrics. If 50% of births ended in death and the other
>>> 50% live to 100, the life expectancy would be 50.
>>> But that doesn't mean you wouldn't find a whole lot of folks than 50.
>>>
>>> If you made it to 60 in 1850 you could be expected to live to ~76.
>>> If you made it to 60 in 2004 you could be expected to live to ~81.
>>>
>>> Randy
>>
>>
>> The entire discussion is mathematically complicated enough that only
>> a small percentage of readers here can understand the nuances.
>
> No, it's not.

Of course it is.

> I SIMPLY wrote that we live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago
> and that there are [NOW] twice as many of us [HERE] than there were
> fifty years ago.

I said "the entire discussion," not the small role your thesis
plays in it.

> What's complicated about that?

Nothing. Please try to remember I'm not Randy. :-)

>> The key operative word is chances. Even "could expect to live to"
>> relies on a statistical model that has no relevance in any
>> individual reality.
>
> Of course it does. It helps comprehending the bigger picture, the
> perimeters, and such. To me - a REAL individual - such KNOWLEDGE is
> relevant :-)

Smiley notwithstanding...

The emotional component, yes. As far as having relevance to your
reality, probably not. BTW, knowledge isn't relevant to any reality
unless that reality can be modified because the person has some
particular knowledge. No aspect of your individual reality can be
modified by knowing what human lifespan is and how it has changed
over time.

> Every lottery player understands this particular
>> aspect.

> Right! That's why most folks usually don't play the lottery with their
> milk money.

Hardly the point. Lottery players play despite the odds always so
badly skewed against them. Recently there was a picture of a woman
receiving the keys to the Wisconsin "city" she lives in in a nursing
home on the occasion of her 105th birthday.

My only question is, ""did she win or lose by living so long?"

A lottery player always knows the answer to that question. Not so in
the game of life.

[Ozlover]

Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> Na rijp beraad schreef mainframetech :

[...]

> > Looking at Life Expectancy tables for all countries, the USA ranks
> > #33 with our better medical system.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
> >
> > Chris
>
> Hey, whats Yemen doing withour flag?

Proving that you're colo[u]r blind?

--
Frank Slootweg

[mainframetech]

On Jun 3, 9:46 am, Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:
> When reading messages from paranoiac

> mainframet...@yahoo.com

So you're not only displaying your paranoia, your irritating
everyone by repeating yourself over and over. Or are you that bad off
for attention? :)

Chris

[Trawley Trash]

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 05:12:28 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> >> Not as long as neither you, nor mainframetech, nor Trawley are
> >> *NOT* posting.
> >
> > That from someone who has a phobia about being eaten by
> > fructarians.
>
> Only if they all are like you.

Relax. I don't eat fruits or nuts.

[Trawley Trash]

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 05:13:02 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> > I doubt those teenagers with type II will be enjoying life or
> > living anywhere near as long as we do.
> >
>
> Not if pessimists like you have their way.

If we can help them make the right dietary choices,
they won't be type II.

[Trawley Trash]

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 17:16:02 -0500
Opple0p�ad <Op...@Ople.com> wrote:

> It makes no difference whether one is type 1 or type 2. The self
> defeatist attitude you endorse is the problem.

Type II can be reversed by diet and exercise. That is a defeatist
attitude?

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Ozlover stelde dit idï¿œe voor :

No, thats Luxemburg :-)
M.

[randyf]

randy wrote:
"If you made it to 60 in 1850  you could be expected to live to ~76.
If you made it to 60 in 2004 you could be expected to live to ~81."

bob replied:

> That's nice, but WTF made to 60 in 1850?

100 years ago a 10 year old could be expected to reach 60.
160 years ago a 15 year old could expect to reach 60
300 years ago a 30 year old colonist could expect to reach 60.

Randy

[randyf]

randy wrote:
> > The point being is that you only need an understanding of arithmetic
> > to understand  that just because the life expectancy in 1850 was 45
> > doesn't necessarily mean that folks in their 70s/80-s were rare.

bob wrote:
> Right. But once again, the statement was: We live twice as long. With
> life starting at birth, not at age 20, 50 or 80.

No that was not your statement:

Here is exactly what you said and what I responded to:
bob wrote:
//************************

We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.
There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the
time
- than there were fifty years ago.
after Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2

//***********************

There's absolutely nothing about *starting from birth* nor is there
any discussion about the commonly misunderstood notion that just
because the life expectancy might be 40 in 1850 doesn't mean that once
you make it to 20 your Not likely to make to 60.

A clarification was in order, it's a pertinent interesting fact and
puts modern medical technology in proper context as regards life
expectancy.

Also including * Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2 * is
misleading. These have very little to nothing to do with the increased
life expectancy of recent times.

Refs:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070713083310/http://www.plimoth.org/discover/myth/dead-at-40.php

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

[Don Roberto]

Good. More left for me.

[Don Roberto]

I realize you think a lot of yourself, but you hardly are "everyone".
In fact, you are about as close as it gets to being no one.
And postings thousands of messages about conspiracies to conspiracy
groups and other usenet groups is a guarantee that you will continue to
be as close as it gets to being no one.

by repeating yourself over and over.

Easier done than said.
Even you can learn how to do it. But you must first take righteous
ranting Randy's "Copy & Paste Routines", a course in copying and pasting
on 'puters for Semi-Literates"

Don Roberto
------------------------
Paranoia is a social disease-
you get it from screwing other people.

[Don Roberto]

Yes, when the perimeters of the discussion...err, "the entire
discussion" are both the know and unknown universes, then things can get
complicated.

>> What's complicated about that?
>
> Nothing. Please try to remember I'm not Randy. :-)
>

No problemo. You usually don't go off on tangents the way he does, but
then you do go off on his tangents.

>>> The key operative word is chances. Even "could expect to live to"
>>> relies on a statistical model that has no relevance in any
>>> individual reality.
>>
>> Of course it does. It helps comprehending the bigger picture, the
>> perimeters, and such. To me - a REAL individual - such KNOWLEDGE is
>> relevant :-)
>
> Smiley notwithstanding...
>
> The emotional component, yes. As far as having relevance to your
> reality, probably not. BTW, knowledge isn't relevant to any reality
> unless that reality can be modified because the person has some
> particular knowledge. No aspect of your individual reality can be
> modified by knowing what human lifespan is and how it has changed
> over time.
>

Really?
You mean there ain't a 300 lb balloon with handles out there who can
grasp that if he maintains his 300 lbs, the odds are he'll never live as
long as a 150 lb ballon with handles *and* CAN *and* perhaps even WILL
DO something to modify aspects of his/her individual reality?

>> Every lottery player understands this particular
>>> aspect.
>
>> Right! That's why most folks usually don't play the lottery with their
>> milk money.
>
> Hardly the point. Lottery players play despite the odds always so
> badly skewed against them. Recently there was a picture of a woman
> receiving the keys to the Wisconsin "city" she lives in in a nursing
> home on the occasion of her 105th birthday.
>
> My only question is, ""did she win or lose by living so long?"
>

She won. She beat the odds.

> A lottery player always knows the answer to that question.

Afterwards.
But, yes - most of them know the odds of winning are odd - that's why
they usually don't play the lottery with their milk money.
But I repeat myself :-(

Not so in
> the game of life.
>

We are discussing life expectancy, not "the game of life".

[Don Roberto]

That's nice Randy, but I was talking about us humans in general, i.e.,
all of us, not 10 year olds and 15 year olds and 30 year olds, but each
and every live birth on the planet.

Why didn't you delve into the other part of my very general statement
about "human progress", you know, the part about there are twice as many
of us alive [NOW] on planet Earth than there were fifty years ago.
I would have been so easy to do: after all, there are 4 times as many
Africans NOW than there were fifty years ago. And only 50% more Europeons...

[Don Roberto]

On 6/3/2013 8:36 PM, randyf wrote:
> randy wrote:
>>> The point being is that you only need an understanding of arithmetic
>>> to understand that just because the life expectancy in 1850 was 45
>>> doesn't necessarily mean that folks in their 70s/80-s were rare.
>
> bob wrote:
>> Right. But once again, the statement was: We live twice as long. With
>> life starting at birth, not at age 20, 50 or 80.
>
> No that was not your statement:
>
> Here is exactly what you said and what I responded to:
> bob wrote:
> //************************
> We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.
> There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the
> time
> - than there were fifty years ago.
> after Rezulin, Actos, Avandia, Vioxx, and 2
> //***********************
>
> There's absolutely nothing about *starting from birth*

It was implied.
And that's because there was a hell of a lot less than absolutely
nothing about ANYTHING other than *starting from birth* and *ending at
death*.

[mainframetech]

On Jun 3, 7:15 pm, Maya Zuiderweg <
$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> Ozlover stelde dit id e voor :

Hmm. Someone's smokin' funny cigarettes..:)
http://www.worldflags101.com/y/yemen-flag.aspx

Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! Then you must have it by now, after all the hate you've
dumped on whoever was handy...:)

Chris

[Ozlover]

Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> Ozlover stelde dit idée voor :

Sigh! Yemen's flag is red/white/BLACK, not (any shade of) BLUE.

Just click on the "Yemen" link in the table and all will be revealed.

(Also see mainframetech's post pointing to
<http://www.worldflags101.com/y/yemen-flag.aspx>)

--
Frank Slootweg

[Maya Zuiderweg]

mainframetech plaatste dit op zijn scherm :

Oh goody, they did not steal our flag. :-)
Now Luxemburg.
M.

[Trawley Trash]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:35:57 -0700
Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:

> That's nice Randy, but I was talking about us humans in general,
> i.e., all of us, not 10 year olds and 15 year olds and 30 year olds,
> but each and every live birth on the planet.

OK, I'm not Randy, but...

First of all *we* are all old enough to read. *We* have all
survived infant mortality.

Statistics for infant mortality are unreliable in many places, so the
actual life expectancy at birth is lower than your statistics
say.

The relatively small increase in life expectancy for adults has to be
divided among medicine, improved sanitation, running water, and social
security. Of these I suspect medicine has done the least to improve
life expectancy. Yet the cost of medical care has risen to astronomic
proportions.

> Why didn't you delve into the other part of my very general statement
> about "human progress", you know, the part about there are twice as
> many of us alive [NOW] on planet Earth than there were fifty years
> ago. I would have been so easy to do: after all, there are 4 times as
> many Africans NOW than there were fifty years ago. And only 50% more
> Europeons...

Why is this relevant? Just because it is good news?
In fifty years there will be twice as many on this planet as there are
now.

[mainframetech]

On Jun 4, 7:21 pm, Maya Zuiderweg <

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Luxembourg

hris

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Alright. "We" used to have a flag that was orange/white/blue. Same type
of stripes though.
M.

[Ozlover]

Luxembourg also did not steal our (Dutch) flag. Theirs is (red/white)
LIGHT blue. Ours is (red/white) blue.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands>
<http://www.worldflags101.com/l/luxembourg-flag.aspx>
<http://www.worldflags101.com/n/netherlands-flag.aspx>

No offense, but did you really think that (even after all these years)
two countries in our *three*-state union (the BeNeLux) would have the
same flag!? :-(

--
Frank Slootweg

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Ozlover formuleerde op woensdag :

I'm not offended at all. I'm having fun. Except for that stupid
accident I had yesterday. Broken stuitje (tailbone?). Ouch :-[
M.

[Ozlover]

Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:35:57 -0700
> Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > That's nice Randy, but I was talking about us humans in general,
> > i.e., all of us, not 10 year olds and 15 year olds and 30 year olds,
> > but each and every live birth on the planet.
>
> OK, I'm not Randy, but...
>
> First of all *we* are all old enough to read. *We* have all
> survived infant mortality.
>
> Statistics for infant mortality are unreliable in many places, so the
> actual life expectancy at birth is lower than your statistics
> say.
>
> The relatively small increase in life expectancy for adults has to be
> divided among medicine, improved sanitation, running water, and social
> security. Of these I suspect medicine has done the least to improve
> life expectancy. Yet the cost of medical care has risen to astronomic
> proportions.

Sigh! Can you all *please* get a *clue* or shut up (before making
yourselves even more silly).

As he said a zillion times, *Don Roberto* is *not* talking about 'life
expectancy'. *He* only said "We live twice a long as we did a hundred
years ago.". Saying "living ... as long" is *not* the same as talking
about life expectancy. So everybody, including you, is 'proving' an army
of straw men.

[...]

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
[...]

> I'm not offended at all. I'm having fun. Except for that stupid
> accident I had yesterday. Broken stuitje (tailbone?). Ouch :-[

Ouch indeed! I hope it heals quickly. (To be [f|F]rank I have no idea
what's involved in (the healing of) a broken stuitje.)

--
Frank Slootweg

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Ozlover schreef op 5-6-2013 :

Patience.
M.

[Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD]

Trawley Trash wrote:

> Don Roberto wrote:
>
> > We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago.

> > There are twice as many of us ENJOYING LIFE - at least some of the time

> > - than there were fifty years ago.

>
> I doubt those teenagers with type II will be enjoying life or
> living anywhere near as long as we do.

They would if they lose their http://WDJW.net/VAT thereby achieving
reversal/cure of their type II diabetes.

The absolutely only **healthy** way to do this is by holding to the
right amount, which is 32 oz of daily food, thereby stopping the
overeating without undernourishment:

http://bit.ly/13DJm9H

Yes, right amount ( http://WDJW.net/2PD-OMER Approach ) control as
Chris Malcolm, MU, **and** Rod Eastman (along with countless others
globally) are doing is much more sophisticated and smarter:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diet.low-carb/msg/8d2ef74488074acf?

and

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/522ce5c058224656?

**and**

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/da03131060efa3b5?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/055f2e7cf3c590ee?

Don't be an Ayoob or you will most certainly die a horrible (Mark
9:42) death:

https://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9c87c24ea7a7ee20?

Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/251415/3/Doctor-Touts-Hunger (Luke
6:21a) with all glory to GOD, Who causes us to hunger (Deuteronomy
8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby removing the
http://WDJW.net/VAT from around the heart

... because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org Cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e66adf59151b12b6?

[Don Roberto]

On 6/4/2013 11:32 AM, Trawley Trash wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:35:57 -0700
> Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> That's nice Randy, but I was talking about us humans in general,
>> i.e., all of us, not 10 year olds and 15 year olds and 30 year olds,
>> but each and every live birth on the planet.
>
> OK, I'm not Randy, but...
>
> First of all *we* are all old enough to read. *We* have all
> survived infant mortality.
>

Which part of "each and every live birth on the planet" didn't you
understand?
Trash-talk *is* a very appropriate moniker for you.

[Don Roberto]

Talking about a paranoiac's paranoia is hate speech?
Are you one of those pc clowns who thinks that not talking about an
illness makes it go away?
Or are you "merely" in total denial of your paranoia?

Don Roberto
------------------------
Paranoia is not the belief that everybody's out to get you -- they are.
Paranoia is the belief that everybody's conspiring to get you.

[Don Roberto]

On 6/4/2013 12:23 PM, Ozlover wrote:
> Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:

>> Ozlover stelde dit id�e voor :

>>> Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
>>>> Na rijp beraad schreef mainframetech : [...]
>>>>> Looking at Life Expectancy tables for all countries, the USA ranks
>>>>> #33 with our better medical system.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> Hey, whats Yemen doing withour flag?
>>>
>>> Proving that you're colo[u]r blind?
>>
>> No, thats Luxemburg :-)
>
> Sigh! Yemen's flag is red/white/BLACK,

Yep, they ripped off the German Imperial flag,

http://tinyurl.com/m2pp787

then turned it upside down.
Probably their way of being creative.

Don Roberto

[Trawley Trash]

On 5 Jun 2013 20:33:04 GMT

Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> As he said a zillion times, *Don Roberto* is *not* talking about
> 'life expectancy'. *He* only said "We live twice a long as we did a
> hundred years ago.". Saying "living ... as long" is *not* the same as
> talking about life expectancy. So everybody, including you, is
> 'proving' an army of straw men.

Exactly, except that I did not try to prove anything. I only
pointed out a fallacy. Roberto originally said "we", not "each
and every live birth on the planet." Life expectancy is exactly
the same thing is how long we live. From there you can go into
the math as Randy did, but many people
have difficulty with word problems in math.

--
I'm Trawley Trash, and you haven't heard the last of me yet.

[Colt T]

Why didn't they examine it before they approved it for sale?

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Colt T plaatste dit op zijn scherm :

> Why didn't they examine it before they approved it for sale?

Money?
M.

[randyf]

Frank Wrote:
>   Sigh! Can you all *please* get a *clue* or shut up (before making
> yourselves even more silly).
>
>   As he said a zillion times, *Don Roberto* is *not* talking about 'life
> expectancy'. *He* only said "We live twice a long as we did a hundred
> years ago.". Saying "living ... as long" is *not* the same as talking
> about life expectancy. So everybody, including you, is 'proving' an army
> of straw men.

Frank,

Respectfully Frank, I think your wrong on this issue.

Saying "we live twice as long as we did a hundred year ago" is
derived, ultimately, from the life expectancy tables.
I doubt bob looked up the tables but this is a common understanding
that goes back to someone that did look at the life expectancy tables
and then repeated this over and over. What other source of information
do you think justifies the statement "we live twice as long as we did
a hundred year ago" come from. It's the life expectancy tables. If you
know of another source of information that justifies this statement
please let me know.

All I pointed out was that the substantial increase in *life
expectancy* or why we live twice as long* is due primarily to
decreased infant/childhood/young adult mortality. Not an decrease
middle aged mortality. In the last 3 decades gains are starting to be
made at older ages but these are still dwarfed by the decrease in
childhood mortality. In bob's statement he tied this increase to use
of some diabetes drugs, drugs that are used at older ages. These drugs
have not been responsible for "people living twice as long" as they
did a hundred years ago. Decreases in infant/childhood mortality are.

*Life expectancy* (a defined metric) is just an average calculated by
the number of births divided by the ages at death. *Life span*(another
defined metric), on the other hand,is how long the oldest live. Life
span has definitely NOT doubled or even changed substantially in the
last 100 years. If bob was referring to *life span* then he is wrong.
If life span had doubled in the last 150 years we would now have a
substantial number of 160 -200 year olds walking around. The oldest
now, as was the oldest 150 years ago, still die in their late 80s to
early 100s. This metric (life span) has Not increased.

If he was referring to *life expectancy* then he is correct and my
expansion on what this really means is justified.

Many folks incorrectly assume that because the life expectancy in 1850
was 40, there weren't many folks older than 40 walking around. No
true. Once you made it 15 odds were good you would make it to 60. If
*life span* had doubled in the last 150 then you wouldn't have found
many folks older that 40 in 1850. BUT- Life span hasn't changed much
at all, life expectancy has.

If bob was Not referring to *life expectancy*, as you claim, then he
is wrong - We do not live twice as long as we did 100 years ago.
The tables that show *living twice as long now compared to 100 years
ago (acutally 150 years ago) are all based on *life expectancy
tables*, not *life span* tables.

I posted this previously and I post again to high light the
distinction between *life span* and *life expectancy*:

**************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Life expectancy vs. life span [edit]

Life expectancy is often confused with life span to the point that
they are nearly synonyms; when people hear 'life expectancy was 35
years' they often interpret this as meaning that people of that time
or place had short life spans.[74] One such example can be seen in the
In Search of... episode "The Man Who Would Not Die" (About Count of
St. Germain) where it is stated "Evidence recently discovered in the
British Museum indicates that St. Germain may have well been the long
lost third son of Rákóczi born in Transylvania in 1694. If he died in
Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the
18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety... was
forever."
This ignores the fact that the life expectancy generally quoted is the
at birth number which is an average that includes all the babies that
die before their first year of life as well as people that die from
disease and war. The genetics of humans and rate of aging were no
different in preindustrial societies than today, but people frequently
died young because of untreatable diseases, accidents, and
malnutrition. Many women did not survive childbirth, and individuals
who reached old age were likely to succumb quickly to health problems.

It can be argued that it is better to compare life expectancies of the
period after adulthood to get a better handle on life span.[75] Even
during childhood, life expectancy can take a huge jump as seen in the
Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas where at birth
the life expectancy was 25 but at the age of 5 it jumped to 48.
Studies like Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy
by Age, 1850–2004 similarly show a dramatic increase in life
expectancy once adulthood was reached.
****************************

Randy

[randyf]

On Jun 4, 6:35 am, Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 6/3/2013 8:14 PM, randyf wrote:
>
> > randy wrote:
> > "If you made it to 60 in 1850  you could be expected to live to ~76.
> > If you made it to 60 in 2004 you could be expected to live to ~81."
>
> > bob replied:
> >> That's nice, but WTF made to 60 in 1850?
>
> > 100 years ago a 10 year old could be expected to reach 60.
> > 160 years ago a 15 year old could expect to reach 60
> > 300 years ago a 30 year old colonist could expect to reach 60.
>
> > Randy

bob wrote:
> That's nice Randy, but I was talking about us humans in general, i.e.,
> all of us, not  10 year olds and 15 year olds and 30 year olds, but each
> and every live birth on the planet.

Again here's what you wrote:

bob wrote:
"We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago."

Try to pay attention:
The only data that support living "twice as long as we did a hundred
years ago" are the *life expectancy* tables starting at BIRTH.
So if your were not talking about life expectancy from birth your
original statement was wrong. We are not living twice as long

A 10 year old in 1911 could expect to live to 61.
A 10 year old in 2004 could to live to 76. NOT 132 (66 *2)!!

A 50 year old in 1911 could expect to live to 70.
A 10 year old in 2004 could to live to 79. NOT 140 (70 *2)!!

ref:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

Randy

[randyf]

Correction:

> A 10 year old in 1911 could expect to live to 61.

> A 10 year old in 2004 could to live to 76. NOT 122 (61 *2)!!

>
> A 50 year old in 1911 could expect to live to 70.

> A 50 year old in 2004 could expect to live to 79. NOT 140 (70 *2)!!

[Don Roberto]

On 6/6/2013 8:36 AM, Trawley Trash wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2013 20:33:04 GMT
> Ozlover <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> As he said a zillion times, *Don Roberto* is *not* talking about
>> 'life expectancy'. *He* only said "We live twice a long as we did a
>> hundred years ago.". Saying "living ... as long" is *not* the same as
>> talking about life expectancy. So everybody, including you, is
>> 'proving' an army of straw men.
>
> Exactly, except that I did not try to prove anything.

He didn't say you tried.
Look at the bright side: you "succeeded" without even trying...

I only
> pointed out a fallacy. Roberto originally said "we", not "each
> and every live birth on the planet."

Yeah, right. I must've been talking about you and me and Randy, maybe...

[Don Roberto]

On 6/6/2013 7:23 PM, randyf wrote:
> On Jun 4, 6:35 am, Don Roberto <anothascreen...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 6/3/2013 8:14 PM, randyf wrote:
>>
>>> randy wrote:
>>> "If you made it to 60 in 1850 you could be expected to live to ~76.
>>> If you made it to 60 in 2004 you could be expected to live to ~81."
>>
>>> bob replied:
>>>> That's nice, but WTF made to 60 in 1850?
>>
>>> 100 years ago a 10 year old could be expected to reach 60.
>>> 160 years ago a 15 year old could expect to reach 60
>>> 300 years ago a 30 year old colonist could expect to reach 60.
>>
>>> Randy
> bob wrote:
>> That's nice Randy, but I was talking about us humans in general, i.e.,
>> all of us, not 10 year olds and 15 year olds and 30 year olds, but each
>> and every live birth on the planet.
>
> Again here's what you wrote:
> bob wrote:
> "We live twice a long as we did a hundred years ago."
>
> Try to pay attention:
> The only data that support living "twice as long as we did a hundred
> years ago" are the *life expectancy* tables starting at BIRTH.
> So if your were not talking about life expectancy from birth your
> original statement was wrong.

RIGHT - IF I WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT LIFE EXPECTANCY FROM BIRTH.
BUT I _WAS_ TALKING ABOUT LIFE EXPECTANCY FROM BIRTH.
IN MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT.
WHICH I SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE I _WAS NOT_ TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.

You really *are* as thick as they get. Or is the problem that you just
can't fess up to being wrong?

[Don Roberto]

On 6/6/2013 6:53 PM, randyf wrote:
> Frank Wrote:
>> Sigh! Can you all *please* get a *clue* or shut up (before making
>> yourselves even more silly).
>>
>> As he said a zillion times, *Don Roberto* is *not* talking about 'life
>> expectancy'. *He* only said "We live twice a long as we did a hundred
>> years ago.". Saying "living ... as long" is *not* the same as talking
>> about life expectancy. So everybody, including you, is 'proving' an army
>> of straw men.
>
>
> Frank,
>
> Respectfully Frank, I think your wrong on this issue.
>
> Saying "we live twice as long as we did a hundred year ago" is
> derived, ultimately, from the life expectancy tables.
> I doubt bob looked up the tables but this is a common understanding
> that goes back to someone that did look at the life expectancy tables
> and then repeated this over and over. What other source of information
> do you think justifies the statement "we live twice as long as we did
> a hundred year ago" come from. It's the life expectancy tables. If you
> know of another source of information that justifies this statement
> please let me know.
>

Another source of information:

> Life expectancy: 100 years of gain
> In 1900, global average lifespan was just 31
> years, and below 50 years in even the richest
> countries
> By the mid--20th century, average life expectancy
> rose to 48 years
> In 2005, average lifespan reached 65.6 years;
> over 80 years in some countries
> By 2030, average life expectancy at birth for
> women in countries like the USA will be 85 years

http://www.who.int/global_health_histories/seminars/presentation07.pdf

Note that the WHO presentation *does* use both the terms "life
expectancy" *and* "lifespan".


[more drivel snipped]

[Opple0p�ad]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:44:22 -0700, Trawley Trash
<tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 05:12:28 -0700
>Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Not as long as neither you, nor mainframetech, nor Trawley are
>> >> *NOT* posting.
>> >
>> > That from someone who has a phobia about being eaten by
>> > fructarians.
>>
>> Only if they all are like you.
>
> Relax. I don't eat fruits or nuts.


It's good to know you are not a cannibal.