I'm busy and won't have much time for a few days but will make a few comments.
Nor does denying it multiple times make it false. [re longevity]
Your tu quoque argument doesn't work here. You're the one harping on the issue.
You might try reading some medical history and finding out for yourself exactly what the significant life-extending advances in medical science were.
Uh Oh. Your superciliousness is rearing it's ugly head (again). I could suggest a few books for you, but you seem so in thrall to the drug lobby (hereinafter, "Thralldom Theory") and so lacking in specifics that I won't bother. I will suggest that you take some advice from
this guy. (first quote)
I suggest you Google "menopause and heart disease." You will be able to find at least one article that mentions the protective effect of estrogen on heart health.
Wow. Try googling "how many swallows make a spring", without quotes.
Your view that the "Vitamin industry" is so powerful that it makes medical research funding "problematic", while ignoring the multibillion dollar drug business is quaint, but charming.
I do not recall mentioning "power" here, nor would I have any reason to do so. This concept of "power" as you use it is alien to me.
Gee willikers, Ms. Science. And I thought you were relatively fluent in English. Sorry, I'll try again, with an update.
Your view that the "Vitamin industry"
is so powerful that it spends money and makes medical research funding "problematic", while ignoring the close to half trillion dollar drug business is quaint
but charming. Sales of Lipitor alone were over 12 billion dollars in 2008.
As recently as three years ago, I read that infectious disease is responsible for more than half af [sic] all deaths.
You're
kidding. The most frequent 7 causes of death in the US in 2007 comprised just over 70% of the total.
When you read articles claiming all these wonderful miraculous benefits from consuming excess trace nutrients
There you go again.
What I'm talking about is economics.....pay attention to who is funding the article.
Right. See Thralldom Theory above.
Don't call me, I'll call you.
Your tu quoque argument doesn't work here. You're the one harping on the issue. Harping? All I'm doing is trying to point out what is actually fairly common knowledge, and very easy to verify: that control of infectious disease is the biggest factor in history in increasing our lifespans (that is, those of us who live in first-world countries) to what they are today.
You are the one who keeps insisting despite all evidence that popping unnatural quantities of trace nutrients is what leads us to live longer than our ancestors. Not only is that untrue, it begs a glaringly obvious question: if popping pills causes people to live longer, then why don't we see people who don't consume excessive quantities of trace nutrients dropping off like flies at age thirty or so?
You might try reading some medical history and finding out for yourself exactly what the significant life-extending advances in medical science were.
Uh Oh. Your superciliousness is rearing it's ugly head (again). I could suggest a few books for you, but you seem so in thrall to the drug lobby (hereinafter, "Thralldom Theory") and so lacking in specifics that I won't bother. I will suggest that you take some advice from this guy. (first quote)
No, I'm hardly being "supercilious" here. I'm actually sharing how you can verify/learn for yourself the things which I have said here. I *always* try to verify everything I post before I post it, using information derived from peer-reviewed research. And if I can't verify, I say so. I also either provide links, or explain how to find the info (which I have done here).
Also, I'm not sure if you realize just how illogical your assumption is. I'm here, telling people to be careful about taking quantities of certain chemicals that are in excess of what is naturally available from food; the notion that I'm somehow a hack for the drug industry--another promoter of consuming not only unnatural quantities of chemicals, but, often, chemicals that are not even naturally present in food--is ludicrous.
I do not recall mentioning "power" here, nor would I have any reason to do so. This concept of "power" as you use it is alien to me.
Gee willikers, Ms. Science. And I thought you were relatively fluent in English. Sorry, I'll try again, with an update.
You use the word "power" in much the same way that leftist nut cakes (or the OWS tantrum throwers) use it. In that context, the concept is utterly foreign to me. I simply do not think that way.
As recently as three years ago, I read that infectious disease is responsible for more than half af [sic] all deaths.
You're kidding. The most frequent 7 causes of death in the US in 2007 comprised just over 70% of the total.
Hmm... Looking back over what I wrote, I see that I indeed made a typo (blame the iPad and its odd spell checker for that), but I do not see where I said anything about the 50% death rate due to infectious disease being in the US. Even though we are fortunate enough to have the resources to more or less control infectious disease, it is still one of the largest public health concerns, even in the US.
Of course, by this point, I do not expect you to display much interest in actually looking up anything for yourself from reputable (i.e. peer-reviewed, vetted studies). Your loyalty to the multi-billion dollar vitamin industry has more of the flavor of an adherence to a religious belief than of a desire for healthy living.