Lazy Lazy Lazy.....I knew when I gave you link to the blog you'd immediately go to negative comments instead of reading or challenging it yourself. Like a debunking moth to a debunking flame as it were.
So tell me about these social and genetic differences.......remember i was born and raised on this TINY island and work for the NHS and see life at multiple levels...ie social, dietry and medical etc. As i said the healthcare itself is no different.....in fact in many aspects they are more advanced than us. We are constrained by austerity measures and govt cutback.
Then we get the usual attack.....evidence shoehorned around a theory so as it fits. Usually that is lamentable.....in this case it is downright laughable.
Btw you repeatedly continue to avoid salient issues ive noticed....fluoridation is in the minority with MANY world leading experts concerned about its efficacy not to mention its problems ethically.
Could the differences between Northern Ireland and the ROI be explained by the fact that they have the NHS (free medical care) and we have the HSE (not free)? Surely having access to a free world class medical service as opposed to our expensive inefficient one who explain a lot of the difference in the health stats.
Reply
Replies
MatthewMarch 26, 2013 at 7:55 AM
It's possible, but bear in mind there are a huge number of differences between Northern Ireland and the Republic: Geographic, genetic and social. The different healthcare systems is a possible explanation, certainly, but there are any number of factors that could explain differences in disease prevalence.
To immediately attribute any differences to fluoridation, as Waugh does, looks to me like knowing the conclusion you want first and then fitting your data to it afterwards - something which is anathema in science.
Again pure laziness by yourself and the detractor in the blog.
Repeatdly pertinent questions are avoided.
Certain countries sell their WASTE product to a MINORITY of countries who then add it to the water supply. These small number of countries have NEVER published a a toxological report on this waste product.....WHY?
Again these small number of countries tell the rest of the world that the main, if not only, reason is the imaginary fight against tooth decay. STAND BACK AND CONSIDER THIS.
Now please provide me with comparitive figures that show a SIGNIFICANT drop in tooth decay with the rest of the unfluroidated nations.
The common denominator to flurodation is simple.......MONEY....just another revenue stream.
I also have not witnessed anybody who has openly challenged the experts on The Great Cull:Water......in my opinon an excellent opponent to flurodation......indeed one of many.
The evidence that is gotten still needs to be examined for it's quality - a great deal of poor evidence is still not good evidence.
Presumably what the author considers the "best" part of those documents to support his position is the numerous quotes and extracts contained in his own work. Suggesting I read over 500 references in full as a means of getting around the problems of reading the shorter document is an odd suggestion!
I
And having looked though those extracts I conclude that all those peer reviewed documents actually fail to establish the solid links you seem to think they do - hence my commenting on their use of conditional language in the conclusions quoted.
As has been noted by others - perhaps not.
The large number of references, and the lack of actual concrete findings reminds me of my undergraduate essays where I put as much into bibliographies and references as possible in order to bolster my mark!
Others have made a sweeping statement their are plenty. I was born here and have resided now for 42yrs on this SMALL island. Oh yes you'll believe them because it fits in with your ideas.....but please tell me off these differences.......thats like saying the people north dekota differ greatly from the people in south dekota....lol Btw you are now geting off track to the pertinent questions I have asked.
Although this incident has no bearing on fluoridation it none the less highlights what happens years after, when contaminants are added to water coupled with local authorities who lie about it a give bad advice.
I'm willing to bet at the time when these unfortunate people where complaining, and still are, they were thoroughly derbunked(lol) and told to stop being consipracy theorists.
Point is that when links are made with fluoridation and illness then a lot of heads will be on the chopping block for having allowed this to happen WITHOUT the proper testing being carried out in the first place. They have a vested interest in keeping the status quo it seems.
Much of the US is on fluoridated water. If it was causing the increase in illness that you and a few others are claiming, then we would see it here. We aren't.
Nothing you have offered shows and cause and effect
You didn't actually ask me any pertinent questions - you asked me if I had a closed attitude - which is neither pertinent, not useful except perhaps for you to bolster your own ideas about fluoride by attacking someone who critically examines your evidence.
Certain countries sell their WASTE product to a MINORITY of countries who then add it to the water supply. These small number of countries have NEVER published a a toxological report on this waste product.....WHY?
The 3 materials used in fluoridation are sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate - the US fluoridation census in 1992 found that, of fluoridated populations, 63% of the population received water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid, 28% with sodium fluorosilicate, and 9% with sodium fluoride.
Again these small number of countries tell the rest of the world that the main, if not only, reason is the imaginary fight against tooth decay. STAND BACK AND CONSIDER THIS.
Now please provide me with comparitive figures that show a SIGNIFICANT drop in tooth decay with the rest of the unfluroidated nations.
As has been pointed out, at a national level there are far too many confounding effects to make fluoridation a useful single point difference.
However there have been many studies of populations that are similar in most respects and where the presence or absence of fluoride is a major difference, and thus can be more readily seen as the cause of any variation - for example this Australian study:
Significantly higher caries experience was found in the non-F-group compared with F-in water group and the F-supplement group. No statistically significant difference in caries experience was found between the F-in water and F-supplement groups. Overall, tooth wear affected more sextants of the dentitions of non-fluoridated, high-caries subjects than of fluoridated low-caries subjects.
To date, no systematic reviews have found fluoride to be effective in preventing dental caries in adults. The objective of this meta-analysis was to examine the effectiveness of self- and professionally applied fluoride and water fluoridation among adults. We used a random-effects model to estimate the effect size of fluoride (absolute difference in annual caries increment or relative risk ratio) for all adults aged 20+ years and for adults aged 40+ years. Twenty studies were included in the final body of evidence. Among studies published after/during 1980, any fluoride (self- and professionally applied or water fluoridation) annually averted 0.29 (95%CI: 0.16–0.42) carious coronal and 0.22 (95%CI: 0.08–0.37) carious root surfaces. The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27% (95%CI: 19%–34%). These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages.
The common denominator to flurodation is simple.......MONEY....just another revenue stream.
2. It does nothing to alter the fact that the central requirement for a proper medical study is to take great care when selecting participants. Their lifestyle and environment must be comparable.
If you are suspecting a single factor to make a big difference, you have to rule out other possible factors - which includes the influence of the different locations in the case we are discussing.
These are not just the rules of science - this is simple logic. Can we agree there?
2. It does nothing to alter the fact that the central requirement for a proper medical study is to take great care when selecting participants. Their lifestyle and environment must be comparable.
If you are suspecting a single factor to make a big difference, you have to rule out other possible factors - which includes the influence of the different locations in the case we are discussing.
These are not just the rules of science - this is simple logic. Can we agree there?
Yes, the reporting methods for the various populations must be the same, as well.
For example, a population with scan data on whatever might show fewer incidents of whatever compared to a population more thoroughly screened for whatever.
Ex: The incidence of some factor within a population of stone-age nomads might be skewed by a lack of screening for that factor, simply because they have never seen a doctor in their lives.
I know that the 'increases' in cancer in the US during the 80s and 90s, can be linked to improved screening and more screening.
I lost both of parents in the 80s. My brain tumor was found by a CAT scan. They had been looking for the 'base' tumor since 1962. Technology was just too late to save him.
A few years later, a CAT scan found my mom's adrenal tumor. Looking back over her medical records, it looked as if she had had it for several years. Again, too late to save her but, her death became a death due to cancer. Without that CAT scan, her death would have been most likely blamed on diabetes (it was not controlled, due to the tumor).
I'm sorry but you debunkers are dead wrong. Chemtrails are real. Yes some contrails do linger but there are in fact unmarked planes spraying something. I live in California, and both I and my husband have seen ( on 2 separate occasions) planes flying moderately low spraying fumes and turning the spray off and back on again. My husband saw a plane spraying and then turned it off and another plane came in and restarted the spray.
And I'm NOT talking crop dusters- these were fairly large unmarked jet engine planes. Like commercial airliners look. So when you see crisis crossed smoke trails littering the sky take note. Something is up. Asthma has significantly increased in the last decade, no one had asthma when I was a kid. Naysayers don't believe because they don't want to believe. People researching this phenomenon out of curiousity - BE WEARY ! something is happening I've seen it. Debunkers are closed minded and want to go on believing the world is gin dandy. Open your eyes people. Greed and lust run this world.
I'm sorry but you debunkers are dead wrong. Chemtrails are real. Yes some contrails do linger but there are in fact unmarked planes spraying something. I live in California, and both I and my husband have seen ( on 2 separate occasions) planes flying moderately low spraying fumes and turning the spray off and back on again. My husband saw a plane spraying and then turned it off and another plane came in and restarted the spray.
And I'm NOT talking crop dusters- these were fairly large unmarked jet engine planes. Like commercial airliners look. So when you see crisis crossed smoke trails littering the sky take note. Something is up. Asthma has significantly increased in the last decade, no one had asthma when I was a kid. Naysayers don't believe because they don't want to believe. People researching this phenomenon out of curiousity - BE WEARY ! something is happening I've seen it. Debunkers are closed minded and want to go on believing the world is gin dandy. Open your eyes people. Greed and lust run this world.
I fly a lot. I've only seen trails from other passenger planes and the occasional cargo (UPS or Fedex usually). Got a good close up to verify that the plane was unmarked and that lighting wasn't obscuring markings?
I live in California, and both I and my husband have seen ( on 2 separate occasions) planes flying moderately low spraying fumes and turning the spray off and back on again.
Yeah, asthma rates have increased. Plenty of people had asthma in the past though. I think reporting rates have gone up. I had bad asthma until I was about 24. I never went to the doctor for it until I was in my 20s. I just suffered with it. Funny thing is, my asthma went away when I moved far enough from home that I was no longer subjected to cats, cigarette smoke, and a moldy basement. When I was in graduate school I live an hour from my parents and was home every weekend when I was doing field work on the river near their house. It wasn't trails in the sky making me sick, it was environmental contaminants in my parents' house. Now I go home for one week each year and am in pretty bad shape by the time I leave. It takes about two weeks for my histamine system to settle back down after I come back to Florida. The rest of the year I've hardly a sneeze and nary a wheez. If those trails in the sky caused asthma I'd be just as bad off here as back home as there's roughly the same amount of air traffic in each place.
Long story short. If respiratory ailments are on the increase, people are going to be better off looking for the real culprit like mold or allergens in closed spaces rather than having a fit everytime the water vapor in airplane exhaust condenses and freezes.
off topic, but many allergy and asthma type illnesses go up when some odd parasites are eliminated(hook worms for example).
Unreg, nothing you have posted hasn't been addressed before. most of it comes right off the youtube line...
no one had asthma when I was a kid.
O Rly? Need we really get data on this supposition?
Naysayers don't believe because they don't want to believe.
The pad is often a mirror into one's own mind..
closed minded and want to go on believing the world is gin dandy. Open your eyes people.
also, superiority complex and such... placing one's self above the 'sheep' by holding your belief, the rush of having 'secret' knowledge, being a member of the elite 'discerning' few... yes yes we are familiar and know we need to wake up. Perhaps we would if you would provide one item of evidence which cannot be refuted?
They are now saying that having pets, early in childhood, seems to reduce asthma and other allergies. Our immune system NEEDS something to fight, when there isn't anything, it finds things like pollen, and pet dander and roach 'dust' instead.
My childhood allergies got BETTER, when I started showing dogs. I have 2 new ones show up since, coconut and all of it's products ---and I LOVE German Chocolate cake--I can have one or 2 slices now. The other one is Aureomycin and that because I had an idiot doctor that kept treating a scabies infection as a bacterial one.
If it's all a hoax in the great culling and is fake why go through all of the trouble to put fluoride in the water supply? What purpose does it serve? I don't see how strengthening teeth would be the primary reason for adding fluoride into the water supply which isn't even proven. It would explain why the US has more problems with health than most countries around the world. Would explain why on a broad scale how the US is in a global scale falling behind academically compared to other countries.
If it's all a hoax in the great culling and is fake why go through all of the trouble to put fluoride in the water supply? What purpose does it serve? I don't see how strengthening teeth would be the primary reason for adding fluoride into the water supply which isn't even proven.
Perhaps you could take your revelations to the American Dental Association and dissuade them of their stance then:
Fluoridation of community water supplies is the single most effective public health measure to prevent dental decay.
Throughout more than 60 years of research and practical experience, the overwhelming weight of credible scientific evidence has consistently indicated that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe.
It would explain why the US has more problems with health than most countries around the world. Would explain why on a broad scale how the US is in a global scale falling behind academically compared to other countries.
Do you have any stats or a source to back this up. You also need to consider whether the number conditions being diagnosed has more to do with the availability of advanced diagnostics finding conditions that were previously missed rather than any overall decrease in health.
Not as much as social engineering, experimental teaching methods, disinterested parents, and stripping teachers of classroom authority would. When you teach to the lowest common denominator you get uneducated kids incapable of logical reasoning, evaluating evidence and problem solving. The decline educational standards was an issue when I was in high school in the 70's (we were constantly being compared to Japan). All three networks would run something on the issue annually. This predates the period that chemtrail authorities associate with the start of chemtrail spraying.
that is so out of ignorance that you said that! No way in hell are we getting healthy we are getting sicker. wake up you cannot look to the dark ages and think just because we are out living those people we are living longer than before. its called the dark ages for a reason. the catholic church was in complete control on what people learned so they were completely ignorant of science and common sense. they lost all the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans because of the catholic church. the Romans and Greeks lived just as long as we do now. We are now drug dependent world so we are not healthy nor can we be. drugs only mask the symptoms. they don't cure the person. in fact they are completely ignorant of the cause to most of the diseases know to man. and another thing, those trails were never around that long. when i was a kid i would watch many of them and never once did they last long as they do now. no never did they last as long as they do now. its is because of chemicals that they last so long not because they are from the gas the plain uses.
that is so out of ignorance that you said that! No way in hell are we getting healthy we are getting sicker. wake up you cannot look to the dark ages and think just because we are out living those people we are living longer than before. its called the dark ages for a reason. the catholic church was in complete control on what people learned so they were completely ignorant of science and common sense. they lost all the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans because of the catholic church. the Romans and Greeks lived just as long as we do now. We are now drug dependent world so we are not healthy nor can we be. drugs only mask the symptoms. they don't cure the person. in fact they are completely ignorant of the cause to most of the diseases know to man. and another thing, those trails were never around that long. when i was a kid i would watch many of them and never once did they last long as they do now. no never did they last as long as they do now. its is because of chemicals that they last so long not because they are from the gas the plain uses.
I remember reading a report last year (in a respected UK newspaper) that the life expectancy for a black male in the U.S. had gone down, for the first time in recorded history
Bucking a continuous upward trend
I have not been able to confirm this (admittedly after a quick google)
There seems to be lots of evidence of differences in life expectancy based on race - but no evidence of an actual decline amongst races
those trails were never around that long. when i was a kid i would watch many of them and never once did they last long as they do now. no never did they last as long as they do now.
After a little digging, I found an interesting study suggesting that some Ancient Greeks lived well into their 70s. It's published in a peer-reviewed science journal and appears to be well done and accurate.
Unfortunately, the people they focused on for the study were "Men of Renown" who more than likely had the resources to stay well fed, sheltered etc. At least, that's the argument from John Hawks, Vilas-Borghesi Distinguished Achievement Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. John Hawks goes on to point out that the majority of the population lacked the means to stay healthy their entire lives.
No disagreement here – some people did live that long. The point is that the population had higher mortality than today (although classical Greece might well place favorably compared to some present high-mortality populations).
that is so out of ignorance that you said that! No way in hell are we getting healthy we are getting sicker. wake up you cannot look to the dark ages and think just because we are out living those people we are living longer than before. its called the dark ages for a reason. the catholic church was in complete control on what people learned so they were completely ignorant of science and common sense. they lost all the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans because of the catholic church. the Romans and Greeks lived just as long as we do now. We are now drug dependent world so we are not healthy nor can we be. drugs only mask the symptoms. they don't cure the person. in fact they are completely ignorant of the cause to most of the diseases know to man. and another thing, those trails were never around that long. when i was a kid i would watch many of them and never once did they last long as they do now. no never did they last as long as they do now. its is because of chemicals that they last so long not because they are from the gas the plain uses.
In the uk it used to be that everyone who reached 100 years of age got a personal message from the queen on their 100th birthday, that was fine when there was 40 or so a year. These days there are so many hitting 100 not out the uk department of work and pensions has had to open a special office just to keep up with the numbers. So much for the great cull. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ands-to-cope-with-surge-of-100-year-olds.html
A little known Whitehall office responsible for ensuring that people celebrating their 100th birthday receive a card from the Queen has had to take on extra staff because of the dramatic increase in the number of centenarians.
The Department for Work and Pensions now has a seven-strong “Centenarian team” dedicated to keeping information on Britain’s oldest citizens up to date after the number of people over the age of 100 jumped by 70 per cent in a decade.
New estimates published by the Office for National Statistics show that there are now almost 14,000 people over the age of 100 living in the UK, a five per cent rise in a single year.
Analysis of the figures also shows that there are still around 104,000 people born during the course of the First World War alive in Britain.
While medical advances are the main explanation for improvements in life expectancy, the study highlights how events almost a century ago are also still having a direct effect in shaping the UK’s current elderly population.
The ONS said that the increase in the number of people over the age of 90 had gathered pace in recent years partly because there was a slump in the number of births during the First World War when soldiers were at the front followed by a baby boom when they returned.
The figures show that the number of people over 90 in the UK last year was 25 per cent higher than just four years earlier, partly reflecting how many more babies were born when the war ended.
Overall there are estimated to have been 527,240 people over the age of 90 living in the UK last year, accounting for almost one per cent of the entire population.
The UK has proportionally the seventh largest population of over 90s in the world, behind Japan and a small number of Scandinavian and Mediterranean countries.
Separate analysis by the ONS also shows that far from expecting to live to the traditional “three score years and 10”, it is becoming the norm for people to live until they are 90.
The ONS said that the most common age for women to die last year was 89 – compared with 85 a decade earlier.
And the figures suggest 90 will soon be the most common female lifespan, with only marginally fewer women dying at 90 as at 89 last year.
Although the most common age at which men died last year was 86, up from just 81 a decade earlier.
The analysis shows that men are rapidly closing the life expectancy gap on women, a phenomenon attributed to changing lifestyles, such as the decline in smoking, and the shift away from heavy industry.
The ONS has upgraded its estimates of life expectancy from birth – the time a typical newborn baby would be expected to live if there were no improvements in mortality rates – to 82.7 years for girls and 78.9 for boys.
That means that male life expectancy in Britain is increasing by 6.3 hours a day and female life expectancy is gaining 4.6 hours a day.
Overall the figures show that the number of people over 100 has jumped 8,060 to 13,780 between 2003 and 2013.
The number of people aged over 105 almost doubled from 360 in 2003 to 710 in 2013.
As a result the DWP’s centenarian team has recently expanded from just one official to seven members of staff.
Margaret Wilberforce-Eke, the department’s Centenarian team leader, said: “We get to speak to some fascinating people with some amazing stories about their lives over the last century.
“We hear about people celebrating their big days with street parties, hot air balloon rides, trips of a lifetime abroad, and even a pool party.
“Playing a part in their celebrations is really rewarding and we look forward to helping thousands of people have a happy 100th birthday this year.”
Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, who also sends centenarians a card, said: “It is a privilege to send these cards and help the hundreds of people each year celebrate their special birthday.
“Our ageing society can only be a cause for celebration and our reforms to pensions are ensuring the system can stay strong as the number of people in Britain hitting 100 ‘not out’ increases.”
In the uk it used to be that everyone who reached 100 years of age got a personal message from the queen on their 100th birthday, that was fine when there was 40 or so a year. These days there are so many hitting 100 not out the uk department of work and pensions has had to open a special office just to keep up with the numbers. So much for the great cull.
After a little digging, I found an interesting study suggesting that some Ancient Greeks lived well into their 70s. It's published in a peer-reviewed science journal and appears to be well done and accurate.
Unfortunately, the people they focused on for the study were "Men of Renown" who more than likely had the resources to stay well fed, sheltered etc. At least, that's the argument from John Hawks, Vilas-Borghesi Distinguished Achievement Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. John Hawks goes on to point out that the majority of the population lacked the means to stay healthy their entire lives.
Even in populations that don't compare favorably to modern high mortality populations, people greatly misinterpret historical life expectancies in the 20's and 30's. In Colonial North America, the life expectancy was generally in the 30's and 40's, but a male who made it to 20 had a very good chance of making it to 60 and fair odds of 70, long past the average life expectancy. If you eliminate infant mortality and childbirth deaths from most historical populations the actual life expectancy isn't all that terrible, usually over 60.
We have certainly extended that, with life expectancies into the 80's in some populations today, but the lions share of that climb from the 20's to the 70's wasn't improvements in geriatrics, but pediatrics and obstetrics.
Even in populations that don't compare favorably to modern high mortality populations, people greatly misinterpret historical life expectancies in the 20's and 30's. In Colonial North America, the life expectancy was generally in the 30's and 40's, but a male who made it to 20 had a very good chance of making it to 60 and fair odds of 70, long past the average life expectancy. If you eliminate infant mortality and childbirth deaths from most historical populations the actual life expectancy isn't all that terrible, usually over 60.
We have certainly extended that, with life expectancies into the 80's in some populations today, but the lions share of that climb from the 20's to the 70's wasn't improvements in geriatrics, but pediatrics and obstetrics.
I have no doubt that some individuals of all populations throughout history lived long lives. I am skeptical that a sample of 83 people is truly representative of the entire population - especially given their elite status.
Even in populations that don't compare favorably to modern high mortality populations, people greatly misinterpret historical life expectancies in the 20's and 30's. In Colonial North America, the life expectancy was generally in the 30's and 40's, but a male who made it to 20 had a very good chance of making it to 60 and fair odds of 70, long past the average life expectancy. If you eliminate infant mortality and childbirth deaths from most historical populations the actual life expectancy isn't all that terrible, usually over 60.
We have certainly extended that, with life expectancies into the 80's in some populations today, but the lions share of that climb from the 20's to the 70's wasn't improvements in geriatrics, but pediatrics and obstetrics.
Yes, our local cemetery has lots of 1700s graves of men in their 70s and even 80s, but it also has a whole lot of them next to their 4 wives who usually have a small headstone marking their baby who died also.
While an interesting research topic, the health of the ancients is irrelevant here - the point is that we are healthier than we were before the supposed "great culling" began.
While an interesting research topic, the health of the ancients is irrelevant here - the point is that we are healthier than we were before the supposed "great culling" began.
Not really. Longer lifespan doesn't imply healthy life. In fact, modern medicine paradoxically makes us sicker because it doesn't cure chronic diseases but it allows you to live with the disease. Before modern medicine, if you were sick you just died, so the living were healthy.
Not really. Longer lifespan doesn't imply healthy life. In fact, modern medicine paradoxically makes us sicker because it doesn't cure chronic diseases but it allows you to live with the disease. Before modern medicine, if you were sick you just died, so the living were healthy.
Well, maybe, if you just want to delete the dead people from the continuum of "healthy to sick". To my mind, being dead is about as sick as you can get.
Take two populations of 10 people in their sixties, say. After 10 years,
group A: five are healthy, four are living with chronic illness and one is dead.
group B: five are healthy, one is living with chronic illness and four are dead.
I wouldn't say group B is healthier, even though the ratio of sick to healthy people is only one quarter as high
Not really. Longer lifespan doesn't imply healthy life. In fact, modern medicine paradoxically makes us sicker because it doesn't cure chronic diseases but it allows you to live with the disease. Before modern medicine, if you were sick you just died, so the living were healthy.
While an interesting research topic, the health of the ancients is irrelevant here - the point is that we are healthier than we were before the supposed "great culling" began.
But perhaps a better way of putting it is that there are more people, who are living longer, than before the supposed "great culling" began. If someone is trying to cull the human population, they seem to be doing it wrong.
