Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What's killing America? U.S. ranks 28th in life expectancy...
Daily Mail UK ^ | November 24, 2011 | Daily Mail Reporter

Posted on 11/24/2011 8:45:20 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 last
To: lawsone

“Medications and processed food are large contributors, look online for deaths from prescription medication, it is huge.”


Yeah, meds are dangerous, but sometimes they are necessary. Without my blood pressure, anti-seizure, and warfarin meds, I would be dead by now.


81 posted on 11/24/2011 6:00:34 PM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Simply another failed institution in the once great America.

Too much ineffective government, too many greedy crooks, virtually no ethics anymore.

Same as government itself, entertainment, sports, finance, etc.


82 posted on 11/24/2011 6:02:48 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lawsone

75 % of deaths from prescription drugs are from pain killer overdoses, and a lot of the rest are from taking someone elses meds.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/01/prescription-drug-deaths-skyrocket/


83 posted on 11/24/2011 6:09:03 PM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The No. 1 Cause of Accidental Death in the U.S. - Are You at Risk? By Dr. Mercola - November 24 2011
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/24/modern-medicine-disease-treatments.aspx?e_cid=20111124_DNL_art_1

The whole article is a good read.


84 posted on 11/24/2011 6:14:18 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
--"Please don’t quote some anti-vaccine website as a source." blah, blah, blah.

Okay, fine. I'll quote the conclusion of a study which is published on one of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's NIH websites: "The National Center for Biotechnology Information":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075

CONCLUSION:

"The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs [Infant Mortality Rates]. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates."

"Efforts to reduce the relatively high US IMR have been elusive. Finding ways to lower preterm birth rates should be a high priority. However, preventing premature births is just a partial solution to reduce infant deaths. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals."

Is that sufficient enough for you?

Cheers
85 posted on 11/25/2011 12:19:18 AM PST by DoctorBulldog (I'm a Cainiac! Get over it. -- If the dress aint got no stain, you MUST acquit Cain! 999!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog

A non peer-reviewed article, published by two people who have no institutional affiliation, one of whom gives their address as a P.O. Box, using nothing but statistical analysis to derive a correlation that supports what appears to be a predetermined conclusion?

No, I am not at all convinced.

Google tells me that Miller is a journalist, and Goldman is a computer scientist. In other words, they are not researchers and have no research training. I’m even less convinced.

Show me meaningful analysis. Show me where the infant mortality was compared, apples to apples—infants from the same backgrounds, vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated.

I happen to know, because I’ve read hundreds of statistical analyses (I hesitate to call them “studies” because they contain no experimental data), and I shared an office with a statistician for three years, that the vast majority of statistical analyses are junk. Get a good statistician to analyze the data, and almost any hypothesis can be “proven” with statistics. It all depends on which number sets are included, and how they’re combined.


86 posted on 11/25/2011 3:21:23 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Chelation will help. Chelation is an intervenous feeding into the blood to rermove plaque. I have had Chelation on and off since heart surgery in Jan 1996. It takes about 2 hours, I have talked to dozens who have taken it over the years. Many do Chelation when MD’s can no longer operate on their hearts. If you are interested let me know what city you are in and I should be able to find someone for you. Some states the AMA makes it difficult for them to operate and to advertise.


87 posted on 11/25/2011 4:59:15 AM PST by lawsone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html


88 posted on 11/25/2011 8:53:12 AM PST by DoctorBulldog (I'm a Cainiac! Get over it. -- If the dress aint got no stain, you MUST acquit Cain! 999!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog

A listing of infant mortality? What is that supposed to demonstrate?

It says nothing of the causes of death, nor does it show to what extent differences in methodology (i.e. what the criteria are for counting a death as an infant death rather than a miscarriage) affect the relative rankings.

Nor does it show any cause and effect relationships for any type of medical care provided or not provided to infants.

It is merely a list.


89 posted on 11/25/2011 9:07:56 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

—”A listing of infant mortality? What is that supposed to demonstrate?”

Think of it as a termagancy test. Congratulations, you passed.

Cheers


90 posted on 11/28/2011 8:16:06 AM PST by DoctorBulldog (I'm a Cainiac! Get over it. -- If the dress aint got no stain, you MUST acquit Cain! 999!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson