Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Hi Jason, top o' the day to you; --- Just curious, are you saying that you think the avg. life-span was the same 2000 years ago as it is today. --- The main problem is this construct " average lifespan " . Actually we are discussing *average life expectancy*. Average life expectancy is a statistical term which does not refer to the distribution of age in a population over time, but is, rather, a concatenation of all ages (1+2+3+4+5...=x) then divided by the population number, leading to a very simple number, the " average " . The average life expectancy is a complex term WHICH IS NOT reflected by the statement, " we live longer than people long ago " . ( " Average " actually refers to three differing concepts, the mean, the median, and the mode - we are dealing with the mean.) The complex statistical term " average life expectancy " is better reflected by statements such as the following: - fewer infants die in affluent or protected societies, or protected sub-units of societies. - in the modern world a larger proportion of the total population have affluence than at other times in the last 5-10 thousand years. - relatively small community units, throughout history, have met or exceeded our current (north american) lifespan maximums. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water and harsh environments place extreme stresses on young humans, causing a high infant mortality, and therefore reducing total average life expectancy for the population in question. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water, and harsh environments place the same tolls on a population in 2010AD as they did in 200AD as they did in 1000BC. If I were to pose an interesting and reasonable research question (which, to my knowledge, has not been investigated) I would ask: " Which has had the greater impact on infant mortality in non-tropical environments? Vaccination or Insulation? " I wonder which has been responsible for large parts of the decrease in infant / youth mortality - engineering or medicine. Other factors are obvious. Food and water, for instance. It is interesting to note, however, that affluence can be read in at least two important ways: to be just " wealthy " enough to have protection and food such as would be found in a remote village in a fecund valley in a temperate climate, or being rich; having so much food and protection that the corruption of excess wealth sets in - what we would recognise as our modern " diseases of affluence " - diabetes, heart disease etc. In my little dissertation here I am referring to the first definition: having a good amount of good quality food and water, a calm life and lifestyle, a good community, and little exposure to harsh environments. --- I think that it is pretty much standard academic thought (for better or worse) that people died much younger 2000 years ago. --- I hope it is clearer why this is a simplistic statement that is not reflective of the real complexity of the situation. --- This “fact†has nothing to do with being overall superior and I think John’s (?) point is a valid idea. --- It's good that you placed fact in quotation marks, and if I may restate John's point it was the following: " If cancer incidence was lower in ancient China, was it because people just didn't live long enough to develop it? " The corollary to his statement is the following: " Modern people live much longer than ancient peoples and that's why we see so much disease today (coz we r so good we akshally get old). " Both premises are false. Again, an easy way to prove my point is to read the China study and examine the health effects of the traditional diet *in traditional settings* and realise how much lower rates of disease are despite comparable lifespans. Thanks everyone, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Hugo, Thanks for the e-mail and the clarification between life expectancy and lifespan. However, I'm not really following your reasoning. I can't seem to find any evidence that suggests that people's life expectancy 2000 years ago is anywhere close to today's time. As a whole, all the evidence I can find, suggests that we do live longer (infant mortality aside). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy Notice: “The life expectancies at birth listed below take account of infant <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality> mortality†http://www.wonderquest.com/LifeSpan.htm Even within the last 100-150 years we see, “Human life expectancy in prosperous countries such as ours has virtually doubled since the Industrial Revolution. “http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=8953c841-4833-4a65-abfb-5\ 85ecfd5fd5b I still think John's point is valid. The longer one lives the more chance of seeing certain diseases. Prostate cancer is one great example. I would love to read some research that shows that, as a whole, people 2000 years ago lived just as long as us. Do you have a link? Regards, -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro Saturday, April 17, 2010 11:01 AM Chinese Medicine What is " average life expectancy " ? Hi Jason, top o' the day to you; --- Just curious, are you saying that you think the avg. life-span was the same 2000 years ago as it is today. --- The main problem is this construct " average lifespan " . Actually we are discussing *average life expectancy*. Average life expectancy is a statistical term which does not refer to the distribution of age in a population over time, but is, rather, a concatenation of all ages (1+2+3+4+5...=x) then divided by the population number, leading to a very simple number, the " average " . The average life expectancy is a complex term WHICH IS NOT reflected by the statement, " we live longer than people long ago " . ( " Average " actually refers to three differing concepts, the mean, the median, and the mode - we are dealing with the mean.) The complex statistical term " average life expectancy " is better reflected by statements such as the following: - fewer infants die in affluent or protected societies, or protected sub-units of societies. - in the modern world a larger proportion of the total population have affluence than at other times in the last 5-10 thousand years. - relatively small community units, throughout history, have met or exceeded our current (north american) lifespan maximums. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water and harsh environments place extreme stresses on young humans, causing a high infant mortality, and therefore reducing total average life expectancy for the population in question. - poverty, war, famine, tainted water, and harsh environments place the same tolls on a population in 2010AD as they did in 200AD as they did in 1000BC. If I were to pose an interesting and reasonable research question (which, to my knowledge, has not been investigated) I would ask: " Which has had the greater impact on infant mortality in non-tropical environments? Vaccination or Insulation? " I wonder which has been responsible for large parts of the decrease in infant / youth mortality - engineering or medicine. Other factors are obvious. Food and water, for instance. It is interesting to note, however, that affluence can be read in at least two important ways: to be just " wealthy " enough to have protection and food such as would be found in a remote village in a fecund valley in a temperate climate, or being rich; having so much food and protection that the corruption of excess wealth sets in - what we would recognise as our modern " diseases of affluence " - diabetes, heart disease etc. In my little dissertation here I am referring to the first definition: having a good amount of good quality food and water, a calm life and lifestyle, a good community, and little exposure to harsh environments. --- I think that it is pretty much standard academic thought (for better or worse) that people died much younger 2000 years ago. --- I hope it is clearer why this is a simplistic statement that is not reflective of the real complexity of the situation. --- This “fact†has nothing to do with being overall superior and I think John’s (?) point is a valid idea. --- It's good that you placed fact in quotation marks, and if I may restate John's point it was the following: " If cancer incidence was lower in ancient China, was it because people just didn't live long enough to develop it? " The corollary to his statement is the following: " Modern people live much longer than ancient peoples and that's why we see so much disease today (coz we r so good we akshally get old). " Both premises are false. Again, an easy way to prove my point is to read the China study and examine the health effects of the traditional diet *in traditional settings* and realise how much lower rates of disease are despite comparable lifespans. Thanks everyone, Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Hi Jason. There are three parts to my argument: 1. understand average vs distribution. once this is done, you will be able to ignore self-serving advertisements for higher life expectancy in the " modern world " 2. understand the actual determinants of health 3. finally understand that has more useful things to say about human health and longevity than western science -Jason-- Thanks for the e-mail and the clarification between life expectancy and lifespan. However, I'm not really following your reasoning. --- Yes, I can see that my reasoning is not being followed, unfortunately. What is required for this conversation is a distinction between distribution and average. Without this distinction you (and others) will continue to throw averages out, and not consider distribution. And if we cannot look at distribution, we will never be able to get a clear look at the actual determinants of health because *we will be blockaded the the seeming authority of numbers*. Again: Life expectancy is not lifespan. You, like John, are confusing distribution with average (mean). You *must* begin to distinguish between distribution and average or we will never get to the point. If you do not get these basic principles under control, you are going to continue to misread the data. The major problem here is that you are going by secondary and tertiary sources, and because you don't have a grasp of the tools that are being used, you can't think about the original information. If you are going to read the massaged data and believe it, then there's nothing I can do. Have you forgotten that (high-quality, gold standard) RCTs conclusively find that acupuncture is hardly better than placebo and recently, far less effective than massage? How is that possible? We also know, through the NIH, that acupuncture may be good for dental pain, but not much else. Your Montreal citation is completely irrelevant, except to support my point - the only piece of data in there shows how infant mortality has dropped in the last hundred years in europeans: " the infant-mortality rate in Montreal that ran to well over 300 deaths per thousand in the middle of the 1880s has been reduced to only 6.6 per thousand today " . But this doesn't have to do with what we are discussing, which is LIFESPAN. The wonderquest citation is a poor, poor piece of cherry-picked research, as one reader commented directly below the article - read the comment, if you haven't. From the wonderquest article: " These Bronze Age peoples died at the approximate ages of 3, 6, 8, 9, 30, 40, and 45 years. " Apart from the grammar which implies that there were 7 people in the bronze age, what we find from this tiny sample (which statistically is USELESS and cannot be used to project life span or expectancy for an entire population, but we're going to do it anyway) is that the mean LIFE EXPECTANCY is 3+6+8+9+30+40+45 divided by 7 = 20 years. So life expectancy for bronze age people was 20 years. Well, if we look at the table that John gave us earlier, *they* list bronze age people's life expectancy at 35. So who do we believe? Now, look at the life expectancy that you provided for us, Jason: 20 years as the average. That number is TWENTY FIVE years off the maximum in your sample: 20 is 44% of 45. So why don't we take the table that John gave us and project 44% to find maximum LIFE SPAN: 50 years for John's table. We are mixing data sets that we shouldn't be mixing, but this is an exercise that should teach you to start looking for DISTRIBUTION. Average life expectancy is not LIFE SPAN. In fact, the distribution is usually very wide, which means that when you see average life expectancy at 40, it means that there are a lot of people at 80, just like there a lot of people who didn't make it past 1. In fact, if infant mortality is very high, for a distribution to show a mean of 40, there MUST be a lot of people at the age 40 and upwards mark to balance off all the 0s and 1s and 2s and 3s, MATHEMATICALLY. This *also* means that life expectancy CHANGES at any given point in a potential life span: life expectancy at age 1 might be very low (say 7 years). That same person, if they live to 15 might then have a NEW life expectancy (at 15) of 30 years. If they live to 45, they might then have a life expectancy (at 45) of 80. ***Throwing one number out and judging a population based on that is NON-SENSICAL. (but easy)*** Now, if we go to your reference for infant mortality, we should take a look at the most important statement in that whole article: " In past times, infant mortality claimed a considerable percentage of children born, but the rates have significantly declined in the West in modern times, mainly due to improvements in basic health care, though high technology medical advances have also helped. " Rates have SIGNIFICANTLY declined in modern times MAINLY DUE TO IMPROVEMENTS IN BASIC HEALTHCARE, though high technology have also HELPED. What is basic healthcare? - clean water - sufficient food (and secondarily good quality food) - protection from the environment - absence of war / violence - good working conditions + education Pay attention: CLEAN WATER SUFFICIENT FOOD PROTECTION FROM THE ENVIRONMENT ***NOTE*** This is my question everybody, and the crux of the argument: By what reasoning do we assume that modern " 1rst world-ers " are the only ones throughout human history who have achieved clean water, sufficient food and protection from the environment (and peaceful living etc)? This, and nothing else, is the question. If we look at history we will find find that MANY groups have fulfilled these conditions and have lived better, longer lives than current 1rst world-ers do. However, as soon as you start creating inequity (feudalism, slavery etc), then of course, the many suffer for the benefit of the few and we have poor life expectancy and a lowered actual life span as well. Same as is happening in the modern world - 1rst world-ers benefit at the expense of the 2nd, 3rd, and yes, 4th world-ers. The numbers reflect that too. Actually, we don't need to look at ancient history to see this problem in all its stark glory. When we say that " modern people " live longer, we certainly aren't talking about the hundreds of millions of people in THE MODERN WORLD who live below the poverty line and die young, right? This is one of the main reasons I despise this idea that modern people live longer. It has the potential to be a deeply hypocritical statement. Anyway, if you are not getting this, or this doesn't make sense to you, go and BUY the China Study by Colin Campbell, READ it and understand his point - high life span, high life expectancy, low disease following a non-modern lifestyle and diet. Stop arguing for what has been drilled into us via simple repetition IN THE FIRST WORLD, and start studying: -Jason-- I would love to read some research that shows that, as a whole, people 2000 years ago lived just as long as us. Do you have a link? --- Read the China study by Colin Campbell. And, again, who is " us " ? More on this below. Sir Michael Marmot, in the " WHO's Commission on the Social Determinants of Health " : " The key message of our report is that the circumstances in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age are the fundamental drivers of health, and health inequity. We rely too much on medical interventions as a way of increasing life expectancy. A more effective way of increasing life expectancy and improving health would be for every government policy and programme to be assessed for its impact on health and health equity; to make health and health equity a marker for government performance. People need the opportunity, the possibility, to take control of their lives - but the conditions need to be right to allow them to do that. " What are the fundamental drivers of health? the CIRCUMSTANCES in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. In other words (everyone repeat after me): Did they have -CLEAN WATER -SUFFICIENT FOOD -PROTECTION FROM THE ENVIRONMENT A colleague of mine who works with OXFAM refers to the Ottawa Charter of the Determinants of Health: ***peace, shelter, education, food, income, a stable ecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice, and equity*** (medical care? it is NOT in there! vaccination? nope!) From " Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts " (WHO, 2003): " Health policy was once thought to be about little more than the provision and funding of medical care: the social determinants of health were discussed only among academics. This is now changing. While medical care can prolong survival and improve prognosis after some serious diseases, more important for the health of the population as a whole are the social and economic conditions that make people ill and in need of medical care in the first place. Nevertheless, universal access to medical care is clearly one of the social determinants of health. " I will repeat: " More important for the health of the population as a whole are the social and economic conditions that make people ill [...] in the first place. " This is , and for anyone who actually buys into our system, this should be immediately recognisable. How long has it taken for western medicine to get its head out from where the sun don't shine and into reality which is that (biomedicine) is largely unnecessary to the health of a population, whereas the Ottawa charter essentials ARE. This overall pattern applies to anytime in human history. I think we would be shocked at what our modern life expectancy and life-span is if aliens came down and zapped us with a global census. Ok, so we have the info already. So the few prosper as the many support them. We know that already. The final point here is we have a choice: a) get stuck with the numbers and parade them around b) think, consider and feel the actual, complex, non-linear, human situation Remember? Biomedicine? Linear! ? Non-linear! Thanks for your time, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ Chinese Medicine Sat, 17 April, 2010 20:33:35 RE: What is " average life expectancy " ? Hugo, Thanks for the e-mail and the clarification between life expectancy and lifespan. However, I'm not really following your reasoning. I can't seem to find any evidence that suggests that people's life expectancy 2000 years ago is anywhere close to today's time. As a whole, all the evidence I can find, suggests that we do live longer (infant mortality aside). http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Life_expectancy Notice: “The life expectancies at birth listed below take account of infant <http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Infant_mortality> mortality†http://www.wonderqu est.com/LifeSpan .htm Even within the last 100-150 years we see, “Human life expectancy in prosperous countries such as ours has virtually doubled since the Industrial Revolution. “http://www.canada. com/montrealgaze tte/story. html?id=8953c841 -4833-4a65- abfb-585ecfd5fd5 b I still think John's point is valid. The longer one lives the more chance of seeing certain diseases. Prostate cancer is one great example. I would love to read some research that shows that, as a whole, people 2000 years ago lived just as long as us. Do you have a link? Regards, -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Hugo, Actually I am just quoted Wikipedia's Life expectancy entry (as well as other websites). Since you consider this just massaged data, can you please present the real data that you are going from? -Jason ------ Again: Life expectancy is not lifespan. You, like John, are confusing distribution with average (mean). You *must* begin to distinguish between distribution and average or we will never get to the point. If you do not get these basic principles under control, you are going to continue to misread the data. The major problem here is that you are going by secondary and tertiary sources, and because you don't have a grasp of the tools that are being used, you can't think about the original information. If you are going to read the massaged data and believe it, then there's nothing I can do. Have you forgotten that (high-quality, gold standard) RCTs conclusively find that acupuncture is hardly better than placebo and recently, far less effective than massage? How is that possible? We also know, through the NIH, that acupuncture may be good for dental pain, but not much else. Your Montreal citation is completely irrelevant, except to support my point - the only piece of data in there shows how infant mortality has dropped in the last hundred years in europeans: " the infant-mortality rate in Montreal that ran to well over 300 deaths per thousand in the middle of the 1880s has been reduced to only 6.6 per thousand today " . But this doesn't have to do with what we are discussing, which is LIFESPAN. The wonderquest citation is a poor, poor piece of cherry-picked research, as one reader commented directly below the article - read the comment, if you haven't. From the wonderquest article: " These Bronze Age peoples died at the approximate ages of 3, 6, 8, 9, 30, 40, and 45 years. " Apart from the grammar which implies that there were 7 people in the bronze age, what we find from this tiny sample (which statistically is USELESS and cannot be used to project life span or expectancy for an entire population, but we're going to do it anyway) is that the mean LIFE EXPECTANCY is 3+6+8+9+30+40+45 divided by 7 = 20 years. So life expectancy for bronze age people was 20 years. Well, if we look at the table that John gave us earlier, *they* list bronze age people's life expectancy at 35. So who do we believe? Now, look at the life expectancy that you provided for us, Jason: 20 years as the average. That number is TWENTY FIVE years off the maximum in your sample: 20 is 44% of 45. So why don't we take the table that John gave us and project 44% to find maximum LIFE SPAN: 50 years for John's table. We are mixing data sets that we shouldn't be mixing, but this is an exercise that should teach you to start looking for DISTRIBUTION. Average life expectancy is not LIFE SPAN. In fact, the distribution is usually very wide, which means that when you see average life expectancy at 40, it means that there are a lot of people at 80, just like there a lot of people who didn't make it past 1. In fact, if infant mortality is very high, for a distribution to show a mean of 40, there MUST be a lot of people at the age 40 and upwards mark to balance off all the 0s and 1s and 2s and 3s, MATHEMATICALLY. This *also* means that life expectancy CHANGES at any given point in a potential life span: life expectancy at age 1 might be very low (say 7 years). That same person, if they live to 15 might then have a NEW life expectancy (at 15) of 30 years. If they live to 45, they might then have a life expectancy (at 45) of 80. ***Throwing one number out and judging a population based on that is NON-SENSICAL. (but easy)*** Now, if we go to your reference for infant mortality, we should take a look at the most important statement in that whole article: " In past times, infant mortality claimed a considerable percentage of children born, but the rates have significantly declined in the West in modern times, mainly due to improvements in basic health care, though high technology medical advances have also helped. " Rates have SIGNIFICANTLY declined in modern times MAINLY DUE TO IMPROVEMENTS IN BASIC HEALTHCARE, though high technology have also HELPED. What is basic healthcare? - clean water - sufficient food (and secondarily good quality food) - protection from the environment - absence of war / violence - good working conditions + education Pay attention: CLEAN WATER SUFFICIENT FOOD PROTECTION FROM THE ENVIRONMENT ***NOTE*** This is my question everybody, and the crux of the argument: By what reasoning do we assume that modern " 1rst world-ers " are the only ones throughout human history who have achieved clean water, sufficient food and protection from the environment (and peaceful living etc)? This, and nothing else, is the question. If we look at history we will find find that MANY groups have fulfilled these conditions and have lived better, longer lives than current 1rst world-ers do. However, as soon as you start creating inequity (feudalism, slavery etc), then of course, the many suffer for the benefit of the few and we have poor life expectancy and a lowered actual life span as well. Same as is happening in the modern world - 1rst world-ers benefit at the expense of the 2nd, 3rd, and yes, 4th world-ers. The numbers reflect that too. Actually, we don't need to look at ancient history to see this problem in all its stark glory. When we say that " modern people " live longer, we certainly aren't talking about the hundreds of millions of people in THE MODERN WORLD who live below the poverty line and die young, right? This is one of the main reasons I despise this idea that modern people live longer. It has the potential to be a deeply hypocritical statement. Anyway, if you are not getting this, or this doesn't make sense to you, go and BUY the China Study by Colin Campbell, READ it and understand his point - high life span, high life expectancy, low disease following a non-modern lifestyle and diet. Stop arguing for what has been drilled into us via simple repetition IN THE FIRST WORLD, and start studying: -Jason-- I would love to read some research that shows that, as a whole, people 2000 years ago lived just as long as us. Do you have a link? --- Read the China study by Colin Campbell. And, again, who is " us " ? More on this below. Sir Michael Marmot, in the " WHO's Commission on the Social Determinants of Health " : " The key message of our report is that the circumstances in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age are the fundamental drivers of health, and health inequity. We rely too much on medical interventions as a way of increasing life expectancy. A more effective way of increasing life expectancy and improving health would be for every government policy and programme to be assessed for its impact on health and health equity; to make health and health equity a marker for government performance. People need the opportunity, the possibility, to take control of their lives - but the conditions need to be right to allow them to do that. " What are the fundamental drivers of health? the CIRCUMSTANCES in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. In other words (everyone repeat after me): Did they have -CLEAN WATER -SUFFICIENT FOOD -PROTECTION FROM THE ENVIRONMENT A colleague of mine who works with OXFAM refers to the Ottawa Charter of the Determinants of Health: ***peace, shelter, education, food, income, a stable ecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice, and equity*** (medical care? it is NOT in there! vaccination? nope!) From " Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts " (WHO, 2003): " Health policy was once thought to be about little more than the provision and funding of medical care: the social determinants of health were discussed only among academics. This is now changing. While medical care can prolong survival and improve prognosis after some serious diseases, more important for the health of the population as a whole are the social and economic conditions that make people ill and in need of medical care in the first place. Nevertheless, universal access to medical care is clearly one of the social determinants of health. " I will repeat: " More important for the health of the population as a whole are the social and economic conditions that make people ill [...] in the first place. " This is , and for anyone who actually buys into our system, this should be immediately recognisable. How long has it taken for western medicine to get its head out from where the sun don't shine and into reality which is that (biomedicine) is largely unnecessary to the health of a population, whereas the Ottawa charter essentials ARE. This overall pattern applies to anytime in human history. I think we would be shocked at what our modern life expectancy and life-span is if aliens came down and zapped us with a global census. Ok, so we have the info already. So the few prosper as the many support them. We know that already. The final point here is we have a choice: a) get stuck with the numbers and parade them around b) think, consider and feel the actual, complex, non-linear, human situation Remember? Biomedicine? Linear! ? Non-linear! Thanks for your time, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ < <%40Chinese Medicine> > Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40> Sat, 17 April, 2010 20:33:35 RE: What is " average life expectancy " ? Hugo, Thanks for the e-mail and the clarification between life expectancy and lifespan. However, I'm not really following your reasoning. I can't seem to find any evidence that suggests that people's life expectancy 2000 years ago is anywhere close to today's time. As a whole, all the evidence I can find, suggests that we do live longer (infant mortality aside). http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Life_expectancy Notice: “The life expectancies at birth listed below take account of infant <http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Infant_mortality> mortality†http://www.wonderqu est.com/LifeSpan .htm Even within the last 100-150 years we see, “Human life expectancy in prosperous countries such as ours has virtually doubled since the Industrial Revolution. “http://www.canada. com/montrealgaze tte/story. html?id=8953c841 -4833-4a65- abfb-585ecfd5fd5 b I still think John's point is valid. The longer one lives the more chance of seeing certain diseases. Prostate cancer is one great example. I would love to read some research that shows that, as a whole, people 2000 years ago lived just as long as us. Do you have a link? Regards, -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 -Jason-- Actually I am just quoted Wikipedia's Life expectancy entry (as well as other websites). Since you consider this just massaged data, can you please present the real data that you are going from? --- I just did Jason - I addressed the websites you posted and also provided data. If you want lots of numbers, buy the China Study. To see past the numbers you have to do the legwork and understand what goes on behind them. You just want more numbers. Buy the China Study. You obviously have not gained anything from my posts in your quest for tables full of numbers. Fortunately, I am sure many others have gained something from my posts on the topic. I won't be participating in any further one-sided discussion on this topic. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ Chinese Medicine Sun, 18 April, 2010 14:22:14 RE: What is " average life expectancy " ? Hugo, Actually I am just quoted Wikipedia's Life expectancy entry (as well as other websites). Since you consider this just massaged data, can you please present the real data that you are going from? -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Hugo, You have made a definitive statement the all the published numbers on life expectancy are just wrong. You have also implied that life expectancy 2000 years ago is greater than it is today without any evidence. Experts in the field spend of their careers calculating these numbers to properly account for the many variables such as infant mortality. Yes these experts are smart enough to think of these issues. For all of them to be wrong, it would be nice to have some contrary data that you could present. You state that my “major problem here is that you are going by secondary and tertiary sources.” Well... where the primary sources? Actually you started this debate with the following bold statement in response to John, “Could you please support speculative statements like these with proof or even *ANY* type of evidence? Ideas such as the above are products of a blowhard modern culture which considers itself superior in every way to every one at every point in history. It is a boring and completely unsupported viewpoint.:” You were asking for evidence, well I presented it. You may not agree, but there is data that " supports " John's point of view. However, I've yet to say anything from your side of things... I have The China Study and see nothing in there that states that the life expectancy 2000 years ago is greater than today, nor that supports your position as a whole. Actually the book doesn't mention life expectancy once as far as I can see. In case I missed it please show me the page where this is listed or provide some data / source that discusses the “correct” numbers. In the meantime... check out this review: http://www.westonaprice.org/The-China-Study-by-T.-Colin-Campbell.html Regards, -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro Sunday, April 18, 2010 1:59 PM Chinese Medicine Re: What is " average life expectancy " ? -Jason-- Actually I am just quoted Wikipedia's Life expectancy entry (as well as other websites). Since you consider this just massaged data, can you please present the real data that you are going from? --- I just did Jason - I addressed the websites you posted and also provided data. If you want lots of numbers, buy the China Study. To see past the numbers you have to do the legwork and understand what goes on behind them. You just want more numbers. Buy the China Study. You obviously have not gained anything from my posts in your quest for tables full of numbers. Fortunately, I am sure many others have gained something from my posts on the topic. I won't be participating in any further one-sided discussion on this topic. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ < <%40Chinese Medicine> > Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40> Sun, 18 April, 2010 14:22:14 RE: What is " average life expectancy " ? Hugo, Actually I am just quoted Wikipedia's Life expectancy entry (as well as other websites). Since you consider this just massaged data, can you please present the real data that you are going from? -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Jason, you are misreading my arguments - I have never stated what you have stated below. Without proper discussion, I don't believe you will be able to read my arguments appropriately, up to you. -Jason-- You have made a definitive statement the all the published numbers on life expectancy are just wrong. You have also implied that life expectancy 2000 years ago is greater than it is today without any evidence. --- Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2010 Report Share Posted April 19, 2010 Hugo, Obviously there is a misunderstanding. Is it correct then to say that you think that all of the statistics that have been presented for this discussion are incorrect? If not are you saying that the stats presented are actually correct? I assume you still believe that Life expectancy was greater for humans 2000 years ago (as compared to today)¡ Have you found some data you can present? Please clarify. -Jason > ---- > Hugo Ramiro <subincor > Chinese Medicine > Re: What is " average life expectancy " ? > 18 Apr '10 20:46 > > Jason, you are misreading my arguments - I have never stated what you have > stated below. Without proper discussion, I don't believe you will be able > to read my arguments appropriately, up to you. > > -Jason-- > You have made a definitive statement the all the published numbers on life > > expectancy are just wrong. You have also implied that life expectancy 2000 > years ago is greater than it is today without any evidence. > > --- > > Hugo > > ________________________________ > Hugo Ramiro > [LINK: http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com] > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > [LINK: http://www.middlemedicine.org] http://www.middlemedicine.org > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.