Jump to content



Photo

Annual physical exam impractical


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#31 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 3,767 posts

Posted 18 April 2015 - 08:10 AM

So if these screenings and procedures don't prolong our lives, what does?

About 85 percent of your mortal hazard lives in two questions: Are you comfortable in your socioeconomic status? And do you like your job? If you say no to either or both of those, that represents some of the most powerful mortal hazards that we are able to document.


Socioeconomic status and life expectancy

The health studies you read about in the mediaa are worse than useless. They don't control for socioeconomic status.

There is a positive and significant correlation of socioeconomic status and life expectancy–are you not surprised?

Every epidemiological study that I see fails to properly account for socioeconomic status.


http://www.theatlant...america/360895/

--

Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper. - George Orwell


#32 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 3,767 posts

Posted 01 July 2015 - 06:48 AM

Creating Disease Through Redefinition

Cholesterol

Forty years ago the normal range for an individual’s blood cholesterol level was 150-350 mg/dl. Over the past 20-30 years this “normal” level has been ratcheted down so that the highest number considered to be normal or “acceptable” is now 200mg/dl or less.

Of course the net effect of this is to create a large number of “patients” out of the normal healthy population. And of course all these new patients need “treatment” in order to reduce their cholesterol down to the new “acceptable” levels.

Diabetes

A few decades back a person was diagnosed as diabetic if their fasting blood sugar (FBS) was greater than 160. Much like the cholesterol story, this has been ratcheted down to where people with FBS levels as low as 110-120 are being told they are diabetic and often put on medication. In addition a whole new category of “pre-diabetics” has been created to provide an even larger number of people in need of close medical monitoring.

Obesity

Years ago a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 30 would earn a person the label of “obese”. Now one’s BMI must be below 25 in order to avoid being branded with this derogatory label. Since a substantial proportion of the population over the age of 35 have BMIs in this 25-30 range, it has naturally swelled the ranks of the “obese’. Just like heart disease and diabetes there are analogous interest groups who profit from creating this “epidemic”.


http://junkscience.c...h-redefinition/

--

Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper. - George Orwell


#33 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 3,767 posts

Posted 16 October 2015 - 03:39 PM

Creating Disease Through Redefinition

Would you like to be a member of the 5%?

The 5% are the people with basic math skills who have figured out what anti-scientific hogwash much of modern medicine has become.


H. Gilbert Welch: Overdiagnosed - Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health:

Medical statistics expert Dr Gilbert Welch explains all in an hour long talk -


--

Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper. - George Orwell


#34 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 3,767 posts

Posted 17 September 2017 - 09:32 AM

So if these screenings and procedures don't prolong our lives, what does?

About 85 percent of your mortal hazard lives in two questions: Are you comfortable in your socioeconomic status? And do you like your job? If you say no to either or both of those, that represents some of the most powerful mortal hazards that we are able to document.

 

 

People with high IQ live longer.  

IQ 115 live 72.6 years
IQ 100 live 67.1 years
IQ 85 live 63 years

As a rough rule of thumb, those of IQ 115 live 10 years longer than those of IQ 85. 

In summary, it appears that those born with “system integrity” have better brains and better bodies, an advantage which is theirs to cherish or to lose.

 

http://www.unz.com/j...gent-lifespans/


--

Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper. - George Orwell


#35 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 3,767 posts

Posted 08 March 2018 - 08:34 AM

Study: Most new cancer drugs of dubious therapeutic value

The cost of end of life care is destroying the quality and quantity of healthcare available to those who are not at end of life.

  • Health care costs continue to skyrocket. These drugs are expensive and provide marginal if any benefit. Only Big Pharma, and the institutions and doctors that provide the treatments benefit for sure.
  • To the extent the drugs do work, a couple months or so of extended life may be valuable to people.
  • But at what point are the costs of the treatment too out of proportion for the benefits that only may derived? Who should make that decision?
  • One can readily see how moves to single-payer insurance will force the government to make these decisions and ration care.
  • Who should make these decisions? Government or insurance companies? There’s a choice for you.
  • But if new drugs and treatment are not attempted, we may wind up missing opportunities for research breakthroughs — although there never has been much of this. The vaunted “War on Cancer” has largely been a bust.
  • A recent survey indicates physicians don’t have much confidence in chemotherapy. 
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • https://junkscience....rapeutic-value/

--

Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper. - George Orwell