Slashdot Mirror


A Medical Mystery of the Best Kind: Major Diseases Are In Decline (nytimes.com)

Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes an article from the New York Times: Something strange is going on in medicine. Major diseases, like colon cancer, dementia and heart disease, are waning in wealthy countries, and improved diagnosis and treatment cannot fully explain it...it looks as if people in the United States and some other wealthy countries are, unexpectedly, starting to beat back the diseases of aging. The leading killers are still the leading killers -- cancer, heart disease, stroke -- but they are occurring later in life, and people in general are living longer in good health.
The Times cites one researcher's pet theory that the cellular process of aging itself may be gradually changing in humans' favor.

321 comments

  1. See? Aging reversal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    is the future. Not space, not 3D printed houses. Biotechnology, whether the sci-fi type or simply eating better, or just believing you won't age... Have you seen pictures of 20-somethings from 50 or more years ago? They all look 40. Not these days!

    1. Re:See? Aging reversal by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Biotechnology is one of the areas I expect to vastly improve our lives in the next few decades. Its only a few years since we've found out how to "sed -i" the genome, and there are lots of things we'll discover.

      Dying from age won't be a problem for anyone in 2100 I guess, at least for some parts of the society. Maybe all parts, maybe not.

    2. Re:See? Aging reversal by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you seen pictures of 20-somethings from 50 or more years ago? They all look 40.

      I know, right? Back in my day, 3 year olds looked 18.

      When I was four, my dad used to send me to the store for a case of Schlitz and a carton of Chesterfields. And give me the keys to the car.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:See? Aging reversal by bjohnson · · Score: 1

      And he was lucky if you didn't pound a six and smoke two packs by the time yah got home, right?

    4. Re:See? Aging reversal by dddux · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Biotechnology like kale, beets, beans, potatoes, tomatoes, apples, oranges, bananas etc. are absolutely crucial!

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
  2. Environmental impacts? by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Previous generations worked with asbestos without precautions they would have to have today, had lead in the petrol, and eat food with additives that are now banned. Not to mention rarely using sunscreen and smoking more. It's hardly a surprise that things are improving.

    1. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      However they didn't go to tanning salons, weren't constantly irradiated with EM radiation, and probably got more exercise. So you shouldn't just dismiss this with a 'hardly surprising' wave of the hand.

    2. Re:Environmental impacts? by Mr0bvious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      will contribute positively in ALL, 100%, of aspects of life.

      Citation required.

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    3. Re:Environmental impacts? by Isca · · Score: 5, Informative

      In addition, the largest drop has been people under 50. People under 50 have never been exposed to above ground nuclear tests. Those stopped in 1963. And for the last decade at least, most urban areas of the country have not even allowed smoking in bars and restaurants, and we've had very effective maintenance medicines for common high blood pressure issues, heart related conditions, type 2 diabetes and others. These conditions being controlled help keep our bodies healthier and most likely allow our own immune systems to fight off more serious conditions.

    4. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's a theory that I first heard from Richard Dawkings about how to most reliably raise the average age of human population. In short, have children as late as possible (in the 30s and 40s to begin with, increasing with future generations). The thing is, in evolutionary terms the genes that kill you before procreation are actively selected against; yet those that kill you just as reliably later in life are passed on. So if you have children at 40 (disregarding the complications and risks) it's likely that they won't inherit genes that are likely to kill them in their 30s. Thus the population in western "1st world" countries is aging, having children later and this may also be a contributing factor to the phenomenon.

    5. Re:Environmental impacts? by Salgak1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      . . . the fact that above-ground testing ceased, does not mean that remnants of the radiation are still not out there. The overall radiation background is still higher, that's why Low-background Steelis valuable for certain types of test instruments.

      Which, in turn, brings up a possible explanation: Could this be the result of radiation hormesis?

    6. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Vegetarism is on the rise, which also

      will contribute positively in ALL, 100%, of aspects of life.

      Citation required.

      Former vegetarian here, under treatment for acromegaly, iron deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency at the moment, with a higher than normal risk of diabetes and the need to shed some weight.
      I agree, a BIG FAT citation required.

    7. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad to see you get downvoted for not supporting insanity.

    8. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like your genome was fucked from the start, no matter what you eat.

    9. Re: Environmental impacts? by tommyjcarpenter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Definitely an overstatement. Here is a lesser statement the poster might have meant: "More people are eating less meat. Maybe a few, 2-3, times a week, instead of 5-7. We've learned that eating meat 7 nights a week is neither good for you, due to all the cholesterol, nor sustainable to the planet, e.g., the methane from all those cows grows if meat demand is out of control."

    10. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Those are all acquired conditions from nutritional deficiency - e.g. those caused by an artificially restricted diet like vegetarianism in humans.

    11. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My family eats meat 7 nights a week but you seem to be confusing meat with beef. You can be perfectly healthy and still easy meat everyday. I think the last time my household ate beef was over 3 weeks ago but I'm not to sure. We eat fish at least once a week that I catch from local lakes. We also eat rabbits that I raise and chicken. Last night we had lamb. We also eat locally grown pork and if we do eat red meat it is usually deer or moose that I harvest and butcher myself.

      Cows are delicious but so are a lot of other animals.

    12. Re: Environmental impacts? by Mr0bvious · · Score: 2

      Eh, not so sure about the cholesterol..

      http://articles.mercola.com/si...
      http://chriskresser.com/the-di...
      https://health.clevelandclinic...

      I know these sites are not the leading authority on such matters - but my own anecdotal evidence suggests that the common idea of "healthy" eating is ... wrong.

      Real food is good and healthy.

      Real Food = (unprocessed): fruit, veg, meat, dairy, nuts, etc

      Processed sugars (or any processed carbohydrates) = the bad guy

      Eat natural food, you'll feel more full, for longer, and be healthier.

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    13. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "and still easy meat everyday"

      Leave your mom out of this. And "every day" is two words. That's an everyday mistake.

    14. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Processing has no detriment to nutrition, in fact it improves nutrition by improving the availability of foods. Also, Mercola is a certified quack and scam artist, and Kessler is a junior quack preying on paleo-activists like you.

    15. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why did you say you were "under treatment" for these things? Eating like Gordon Ramsay is a "treatment" now?

    16. Re:Environmental impacts? by doconnor · · Score: 2

      I don't think that will work, since there are very few genetic diseases that kill you between 20 and 40 and that effect would be probably overwhelmed by the fact that the rate a genetic disease increases the later you have children.

    17. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Controlled studies have shown that your fat, protein and cholesterol intake has very little relationship to your circulating cholesterol level.

    18. Re:Environmental impacts? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      There may be some environmental factors as well but I'd suspect diet as the primary driver of this. We're well past the 80s and early 90s where everyone thought that fat was the devil and sugar and sugar replacements were a great alternative to flavoring your food and everyone drinks a liter of coke or pepsi a day. I'd expect this has to do with the swing back toward actual food.

    19. Re:Environmental impacts? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There's a theory that I first heard from Richard Dawkings about how to most reliably raise the average age of human population. In short, have children as late as possible

      The problem with that idea is that your DNA is most valuable when you are young. As you age its quality decreases, especially in men. Having an older father is closely linked to respiratory problems, for example, and several other defects as well.

      So if you have children at 40 (disregarding the complications and risks)

      Yeah, you just can't disregard things and then claim there's a valid argument. You have to take things into account, and that argument doesn't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, that hypotheses only works with the assumption genes are not damaged and remain static during during a lifetime.

    21. Re:Environmental impacts? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Really 200 years ago they had lead in the petrol and ate food with additives? WTF

      Food additives and lead in petrol really only started after WW! (and for the most part after WWII). That's a very narrow window of exposure and is not the standard for examining human life.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    22. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tanning Salons"
      No, but as you go back in history an ever increasing segment of the population was devoted to agriculture, which means day after day in direct sunlight with no sunscreen which might as well be a tanning salon on steroids.

      "EM radiation"
      We're exposed more often to artificially generated EM today to be sure, but often at much lower levels. Old cell phones/radios operated on a scale of watts (modern CB radios are LIMITED to 4 watts), most modern radios/phones though operate in milliwatts (250 (0.25 watt)). Also large transmitters are slowly dying out, where most people would get their news from radio & TV transmitters (often measured in kilowatts) many people now days get it from the internet (at most a few hundred milliwatts, if using wi-fi).

    23. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just because a condition was acquired from bad nutrition doesn't mean it immediately vanishes when proper nutrition is applied. Malnourishments can cause real damage to organs and general biological processes, which may (if you're lucky) be repairable with proper aid and treatment.

    24. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that will work, since there are very few genetic diseases that kill you between 20 and 40
      The theory isn't about genetic diseases, it's about genes that increase your likelyhood of death between 20 and 40.

      Major killers of 20 to 40 year olds are accidents, suicide and homicide. link Some of those injuries are due to higher risk taking behavior in youth, which would be selected against. Suicide also has a genetic component, and would be selected against.

    25. Re:Environmental impacts? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that outweighs the documented higher rates of autism, Down's Syndrome, and other developmental defects directly attributable to aging of both mother, and (recently recognized) father?

      --
      -Styopa
    26. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'm glad to see that for once, the vegan propaganda gets questioned (as well as other weird ideas, like eating fat being bad). No, I don't keep eating meat because it's tasty, but because I don't want to die.

    27. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My teeth can confirm that. Now that I eat properly I don't have any new cavities (it's actually quite amazing how much that changed), but I have to live with the existing damage.

    28. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been a vegetarian for years, and many people gp their whole lives as vegetarians, without these issues.

      It's not like I even put effort in to making sure I get the proper nutrients or anything. So I'm thinking you either made incredibly bad decisions about what to eat (technically, donuts are vegetarian), or you're lying because you feel the need to defend your meat eating for some reason.

      I'm not going to make tge claim that Vegetarianism is definitely healthier than eating meat, but I am pretty damned confident it isn't any worse.

    29. Re:Environmental impacts? by MightyDrunken · · Score: 2, Informative

      Acromegaly is usually caused by a tumour in the pituitary gland.

      Vitamin D deficiency is pretty common and is usually caused by lack of exposure to UV B light. No one gets enough Vitamin D from their diet except by supplementation.

      Acromegaly causes diabetes

      So we are left with vegetarianism possibly being responsible for iron deficiency and too much weight. Both are easily solved by a well thought out vegetarian diet.

    30. Re:Environmental impacts? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Can't find it right now, but the citation actually refutes his assertion; Vegetarians suffer higher incidence of thyroid disorders and mental instability.

    31. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As someone who lost over 150lbs, you're full of shit.

      It is my experience that absolutely nothing makes you feel fuller for longer other than filling your stomach and doing it a lot. It has nothing to do with foods being processed and everything to do with their bulk/calorie ratio.

    32. Re:Environmental impacts? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      (This response was meant to go to your parent post, not sure if it glitched or if I clicked the wrong link.)

    33. Re:Environmental impacts? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but is there a gene for "does stupid/reckless/dangerous shit"? I mean, you could have the most careful, conscientious driver whose kid drives like a maniac. Or is into bungie-jumping or those wingsuits.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    34. Re:Environmental impacts? by spineboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Smoking is probably the biggest factor, although drinking less helps a bit as well. It would be amusing to see if something reviled, like high fructose corn syrup, was partially responsible for decreasing colon cancer. Granted - the people dying now are around 80, and so their eating/living habits to produce their health will be interesting to compare to todays younger people.

      --
      ..........FULL STOP.
    35. Re:Environmental impacts? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Suicide also has a genetic component, and would be selected against.

      How come suicide rates don't show steady decline on average worldwide, then? Is it just because the world is becoming more stressful worldwide? Is it because of easy access to painless methods? In fact, it's on the rise in the USA, Japan, and several other nations — the rate of rise in the USA is in fact the only reason why firearms deaths are increasing! Media coverage to the apparent contrary, gun crime is falling even as gun ownership increases.

      It doesn't seem like suicide is selected against. We keep doing more and more of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Environmental impacts? by dargaud · · Score: 1

      The problem with that idea is that your DNA is most valuable when you are young. As you age its quality decreases, especially in men.

      Which is EXACTLY why this method works at increasing lifespan. Those who CAN have healthy kids after 40 are healthier than average, thus selecting for positive traits.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    37. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to make tge claim that Vegetarianism is definitely healthier than eating meat, but I am pretty damned confident it isn't any worse.

      The problem with science for the average American today, in one sentence.

    38. Re:Environmental impacts? by spineboy · · Score: 1

      haha....

      no

      Vegetarianism is not associated with longer life, nor increased health.

      http://www.vegsource.com/news/...

      --
      ..........FULL STOP.
    39. Re:Environmental impacts? by doconnor · · Score: 1

      The genetic component of suicide is small compared to the societal component and society changes far faster then genetics.

    40. Re:Environmental impacts? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but is there a gene for "does stupid/reckless/dangerous shit"?

      I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the XY chromosome.

      https://youtu.be/6w5t6hktyqI

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    41. Re:Environmental impacts? by chill · · Score: 1

      Did you intentionally make a subtle M*A*S*H reference? :-)

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    42. Re:Environmental impacts? by spineboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      yep - many studies show that vegans/vegetarians are somewhat more unhealthy.

      http://drkaayladaniel.com/do-v...

      --
      ..........FULL STOP.
    43. Re:Environmental impacts? by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I also think that a general better health at a younger age will prevent illness at an older age.
      When you are sick, you are weaker and thus more prone for sickness that will have an effect at an older age.

      Each time you are sick, you are weaker and this could be the basis for cancer to start. As we are less sick and less weak at a younger age, we will not develop anything at an older age.

      Being healthy, in other words, is natures vaccination. Not 100% coverage, but enough to have an influence.

      As always it will unlikely be one factor.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    44. Re:Environmental impacts? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Recall that suicides among 70 year olds wouldn't affect this.

      http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes...

      Among Americans of all ages, 12.4 per 100,000 take their own lives each year, according to 2010 statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But among those over 65, the official number is 14.9, and suicide may be under-reported.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    45. Re:Environmental impacts? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Beer, potato chips, nacho chips + guacamole, sugary cereals, samosas and bhajjis are totally vegetarian. You eat exclusively these and you will be in deep trouble.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    46. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, people who smoke less. A lot less.

    47. Re:Environmental impacts? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      No. Not at all. The phrase "3 score and 10" goes back to the OT.

      People died from childhood diseases and famines.People who lived into their 40s (ie men who survived war and women who survived child birth) tended to live into their 70s.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    48. Re: Environmental impacts? by skids · · Score: 1

      My family eats meat 7 nights a week but you seem to be confusing meat with beef.

      Last I looked all red meat, not just beef, qualified for the "don't eat this every day" precaution, and pork is included in this particular definition of "red meat."
      Something about hemoglobin and intestinal wall penetration by the microbiome.

    49. Re:Environmental impacts? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      As can my teeth which have no cavities in my entire adult life despite a diet high in meat (all kinds) and sugar (cereal every morning plus, in some form, candy at night). Dentist is amazed how strong my teeth are and the no cavity thing.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    50. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Yeah, but is there a gene for "does stupid/reckless/dangerous shit"?

      I'd be pretty surprised if this weren't at least partially genetic. We all have known people that are just far more wiling to take big risks. Generally these people tend to be the same throughout their lives.

      That's not proof, merely speculation. But the point is that it's certainly plausible.

    51. Re:Environmental impacts? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yes but now iterate it another turn.

      Those who can't have children late don't.

      But, they produce a mixture of bad dna and good dna children (ONLY with regard to reproductive fitness at older ages)...

      And the bad dna tend to not reproduce while the good dna tend to reproduce.

      We are tuned to the current lifespan the same as mayday flies are. But as we show mayday flies could live almost infinitely longer, its possible we could live as long as bristlecone pine trees. (5,000 years).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    52. Re:Environmental impacts? by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which, in turn, brings up a possible explanation: Could this be the result of radiation hormesis?

      In which case, "radiation workers" should have a lower incidence of cancer than the rest of the population. Statistical populations already exist, and have been studied.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    53. Re:Environmental impacts? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      What they had 200 years ago were regular famines, often semi rotting food if you were in a city and poor, plagues and a bad tooth could kill you before you were 30.

      Given how fast this is happening, I view better childhood nutrition as a likely contributor. It could be flipping certain genes too ( good food = breed slow optimized for good nutrition, bad food = breed fast optimised for lower nutrition and get it over with).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    54. Re:Environmental impacts? by Bongo · · Score: 1

      The Vegetarian Myth, Lierre Keith

      Everyone has to figure out what works for them, and as a former high carb bread pasta potatoes guy, I've felt so much better on the "real foods" of meat, fish, eggs, olive oil, butter, coconut oil, salads, greens, cheese, and some nuts.

      Easy to maintain (8 years). Better mood, better sleep, more energy, feel lighter, lost weight, etc.

      But of course nobody knows what's true on the internet, and people can only try it for themselves.

    55. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iron deficiency

      What the hell? Gram for gram, spinach has as much as iron as beef. I've had non-vegetarian inlaws that had iron deficiency, and the recommendation from doctors is to eat more greens, as it is often easier to add greens to a typical diet than to increase the meat intake.

      I've had to avoid meat and eggs for medical reasons, and had my blood monitored regularly with no such deficiencies. I don't put effort into planning out meals to make sure I have meet minimum amounts. But I was raised to include a variety of vegetables and fruit in my diet, so it doesn't take planning to eat green vegetables several times a week.

      Gaining weight and iron deficiency makes it sound like your issues were with too much junk food, or grains, or other stuff that was calorie rich, not filling, and nutrient deficient. That, or some medical condition. Either way, that has nothing to do with being vegetarian or not. I agree with the GP that citation is needed for vegetarism as a cure-all, as it certainly doesn't fix modern bad diet habits thanks to most junk food being vegetarian.

    56. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation required.

      Suicides are on the rise.

    57. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For most things genes are not a binary state, e.g. having gene X causes behavior Y, lacking gene X prevents behavior Y. There is no single gene for reckless behavior, but there are ones that can factor into the propensity for such behavior or for developing such a personality.

    58. Re:Environmental impacts? by clovis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe something like that.
      The paper says the falloff in these diseases began in the 1960's, so we're talking about people born late 1800's to early 1900's.
      It would not be due to asbestos use/disuse. Asbestos was a fairly new product - peak usage was around the 1960's and the symptoms take many years to decades to show, so if there were a relationship between the major diseases and asbestos, it would suggest that asbestos is good for you. (Note: I'm saying this means there is no relationship; I am not claiming that asbestos is good for you)

      Same for food additives - the first generation to experience the falloff in diseases weren't raised on the wide rage of additives we have today, but rather just salt and nitrites for preservation. The drop-off in use of nitrites may explain some of the dropoff in colon cancer rates, but that is controversial.

      The generation that would be dying in the 1960's and after would be the last generation that grew up dependent upon wood fires for heating and cooking .
      Burning wood produces a witch's brew of chemicals including aromatic hydrocarbons.
      And also there's the drop-off in cigarette smoking in recent generations.

      Another thing that's different is recent generations are the first in which most people did not have the panoply of childhood diseases that used to be so common.
      Measles, mumps, the chicken pox, etc have many serious side effects.

    59. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poynting vectors are a very difficult concept available only to the highest level of nerd.

    60. Re:Environmental impacts? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

      weren't constantly irradiated with EM radiation

      Yeah, the invention of the sun has changed things a lot since back then. On the bright side, at least we get "free" sunlight to help balance out our shorter lives, instead of everyone having to carry around a burning tree branch all the time. I, for one, think this tech advance was worth it.

      (Anyone else WTFing over this weird "EM radiation" phobia that the unusually-stupid sub-faction of the fearmongers made up? It's often interesting, the kinds of hobgoblins that people-who-want-to-panic invent, but this one is downright weird. Why did they think it would take off? And then how is it that they were they right that it would take off?!? Why are so many people, who you'd think are only slightly stupid, adopting this religion? What's the appeal?)

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    61. Re:Environmental impacts? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Those are all acquired conditions from nutritional deficiency - e.g. those caused by an artificially restricted diet like vegetarianism in humans.

      Acromegaly from diet? Nice try. Place another quarter in the slot and play again.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    62. Re:Environmental impacts? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      So we are left with vegetarianism possibly being responsible for iron deficiency and too much weight. Both are easily solved by a well thought out vegetarian diet.

      I wouldn't say easily. I myself found weight loss considerably easier by having meat (or at least egg) products in the morning. The reason why is because I can limit to around ~300 calories and not feel hungry until much later (~5 hours) in the day, whereas if I eat anything carb based with 300 calories then I'll feel hungrier much sooner (about ~3 hours.)

      I wouldn't be surprised if many vegetarians, such as GP, run into the same problem. I recall meeting this one girl once who was overweight and she said it's not her fault because she eats nothing salads all the time. I asked her how many calories she consumed, and she had no idea, but mentioned something like 6 salads a day. Even at 300 calories per salad, that's on the upper end of how many calories a female should consume in a day, so being overweight wouldn't be surprising.

    63. Re:Environmental impacts? by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

      So if you have children at 40 (disregarding the complications and risks) it's likely that they won't inherit genes that are likely to kill them in their 30s. Thus the population in western "1st world" countries is aging, having children later and this may also be a contributing factor to the phenomenon.

      The obvious problem in this is that this same trend is also causing the increase in autism in those same countries. Conditions in the autism spectrum won't negatively impact the life span of an individual, but most of those afflicted struggle to become contributing members of society. Now realistically speaking, the chances aren't exactly astronomical that if you are 35+ and you have a child that they will have this condition. But you are rolling the dice at that point and it would be disastrous for everyone in a given generation to wait until they are almost middle aged to have children.

    64. Re:Environmental impacts? by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because the people committing suicide have survived other ways the world might have killed them. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the suicide rate increases with population density.

    65. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, in evolutionary terms the genes that kill you before procreation are actively selected against; yet those that kill you just as reliably later in life are passed on

      This is not true. Human social organization can and frequently does benefit organisms whose parents survive for longer (eg helping children if their house burns, raising grandchildren if children die) and remain healthy (not needing commitment from children to survive).

    66. Re:Environmental impacts? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Did you intentionally make a subtle M*A*S*H reference? :-)

      Too subtle for me, sorry. If I'd done it I'd probably have used the word "mash" in my comment.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    67. Re: Environmental impacts? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Eating cholesterol doesn't raise your cholesterol count. Eating carbs does. Cow farts are a significant source of greenhouse gas, though. If there were ever a problem which genetic modification should be tackling, this is one of them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    68. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know what it is, but there is definitely something going on. When I was a young child I remember visiting my grandparents. They were in their 60s and they looked old. Gray hair, wrinkled skin. My father is now that age, but doesn't look that old. No gray hair (and he doesn't color it). And it's not just my family. I see other people that I know that are 40 or 50 years old, but it's hard to tell. I look around, and it's very rare to see gray hair, baldness, or obvious frailty. And yet I know these people aren't that young. This can't be explained by genetics alone, as these people are the direct descendants of a generation that did show significant signs of aging.

    69. Re:Environmental impacts? by nowsharing · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Peer-reviewed scientific research strongly supports a shift to a vegan diet if health is a concern, and this knowledge is nothing new. The list of references below took me 5 minutes to compile, and could be expanded to thousands of papers by simply following the wake of papers published following every new large-scale clinical study of the link between diet and health. All point to meat consumption and processed foods as the cause of the health crisis faced in developing countries, and an increased intake of whole fruits and vegetables as a path of treatment.

      M L McCullough. Diet patterns and mortality: common threads and consistent results. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):795-6.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717365

      M A Martinez-Gonzalez, A Sanchez-Tainta, D Corella, J Salas-Salvado, E Ros, F Aros, E Gomez-Gracia, M Fiol, R M Lamuela-Raventos, H Schroder, J Lapetra, L Serra-Majem, X Pinto, V Ruiz-Gutierrez, Ramon Estruch for the PREDIMED Group. A provegetarian food pattern and reduction in total mortality in the Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea (PREDIMED) study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 May 28;100(Supplement 1):320S-328S.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871477

      J Reedy, S M Krebs-Smith, P E Miller, A D Liese, L L Kahle, Y Park, A F Subar. Higher diet quality is associated with decreased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality among older adults. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):881-9.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039

      G E Fraser, D J Shavlik. Ten years of life: Is it a matter of choice? Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jul 9;161(13):1645-52.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797

      Large scale, long-term studies:
      PREDIMED Studies: http://www.predimed.es/publica...
      The Adventist Health Studies: https://publichealth.llu.edu/a...
      The China Studies: https://scholar.google.com/sch...
      The Nurses Health Study: http://www.nurseshealthstudy.o...
      The EPIC Study: http://epic.iarc.fr/

    70. Re:Environmental impacts? by sackvillian · · Score: 2

      Citation required.

      Ask and ye shall receive. Here's a meta-review of some of the best and biggest studies comparing vegetarians to health-conscious omnivores. Almost all studies showed a longevity benefit, and pooled they found a significant longevity beneift. This is a nice plot of the risk ratio as the study data is cumulatively pooled.

      It goes without saying that this field of research is tricky -- evidence is never iron-clad and you can always find a study or two to support your biases. But, as a medical student and someone interested in nutrition, I'll go out on a limb and say that there is no diet except the Mediterranean diet that has so much supportive evidence of health benefits. (Prove me wrong!) But in any case, this should be enough to at least stop the FUD about vegetarianism causing everything from diabetes to psychosis as per above. It's at least not causing harm.

      Now, the question is -- will bacon-loving Slashdot rejoice that a citation request was answered, or continue on with the usual group-think?

      --
      Hey mate, spare a sig?
    71. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god, how ignorant can people be regarding radiation. There are plenty of studies clearly showing the health impacts of testing and it's remnants are negligible to all but a few locally exposed people, and any danger has long since vanished.

      You sound just like the anti vaxxers.

    72. Re:Environmental impacts? by FirstOne · · Score: 1

      Not all the above ground testing was stopped in 1963. France continued atmospheric testing until 1974.. As for decreasing death rates, the study did not accomdate recent events, like the Fukishima tripple meltdown and it's recent impact

    73. Re:Environmental impacts? by chihowa · · Score: 2

      Iron deficiency in vegetarians is usually due to a B12 deficiency. B12 is found in some plant materials and is commonly added to fortified grains, but is most commonly obtained by eating meat. Supplements can help, too. Do you take a daily vitamin?

      This sort of overly-simplified view of dietary requirements is why many vegetarians, and other people, often have difficulties.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    74. Re:Environmental impacts? by FirstOne · · Score: 1
    75. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know there are genes for aggression (see the Russian Fox experiment), it would seem to be pretty likely that there are genes that encourage more risky behavior.

    76. Re:Environmental impacts? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Which is EXACTLY why this method works at increasing lifespan. Those who CAN have healthy kids after 40 are healthier than average, thus selecting for positive traits.

      That's totally irrelevant in a society in which unhealthy people can breed, which is most of them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    77. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bad genes don't only kill via genetic diseases. there probably is a genetic relevance for addictions, violence, tendency to do stupid things that can kill you, distracted driving etc.

    78. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans evolved to be omnivores. Vegetarianism is just as unhealthy as only eating meat.

    79. Re:Environmental impacts? by ruir · · Score: 1

      More than the salads, is the dressing. A salad at MacDonalds can have an inane number of calories.

    80. Re:Environmental impacts? by nowsharing · · Score: 3, Informative

      Interesting that she could come to that conclusion... From her own site: http://drkaayladaniel.com/abou...
      "serves on the Board of Directors of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fun"
      Translations: she is paid to support diary.

    81. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as with almost everything else the optimal place lies in the middle ground. almost 100 years ago people had kids in their teens, with their genes in theoretically best shape. however, the parents might not earn enough to properly or behave maturely enough to nourish their kids. Gene damage may result.

      while "risks and everything" definitely has an effect on people having kids later (perhaps a jump from 20s to 30s), the opposite could hold when people have kids in their 20s instead of teens.

      So I would not be that quick to dismiss Dawson's theory.

    82. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In which case, "radiation workers" should have a lower incidence of cancer than the rest of the population. Statistical populations already exist, and have been studied.

      More blatant ignorance from the Beeb. The author cites melanoma, which is overwhelmingly caused by sun exposure and is not tied to ionizing radiation. Then there is the 'possible' increase in prostate cancer in pilots....didn't even consider the lifestyle of pilots. I sometimes wonder if these authors even stop to think about what they are spewing. There are studies that link prolonged sitting of truck drivers to prostate cancer, but instead lets assume a cancer that has historically no tie to ionizing radiation might be due to the small amount of exposure from air travel. SMFH.

    83. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but then, there probably are people more genetically predisposed to be affected by social factors to a larger extent than others.

      the picture is more complicated than having a clear cut line between "suicide genes" and "other genes".

    84. Re:Environmental impacts? by doconnor · · Score: 1

      Rural suicide rates are higher, and the difference is increasing.

    85. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My family eats meat 7 nights a week but you seem to be confusing meat with beef. You can be perfectly healthy and still easy meat everyday. I think the last time my household ate beef was over 3 weeks ago but I'm not to sure. We eat fish at least once a week that I catch from local lakes. We also eat rabbits that I raise and chicken. Last night we had lamb. We also eat locally grown pork and if we do eat red meat it is usually deer or moose that I harvest and butcher myself.

      Cows are delicious but so are a lot of other animals.

      Good point, and this comes up in every conversation that has the word "meat".
      To many people "meat" means only beef and not pork, chicken, fish, deer, 'possum, etc, and to others "meat" means the muscle tissue of mammals to the exclusion of fish, reptiles, and dinosaurs. And yet to others "meat" means food from something that tried to escape when you killed it.

    86. Re:Environmental impacts? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      In which case, "radiation workers" should have a lower incidence of cancer than the rest of the population.

      It should, perhaps, be noted that "radiation workers" have legal limits to their exposure that are extremely low. Lower, in some cases, than what some "normal" workers are exposed to. For example, coal miners are exposed to more occupational radiation than a nuclear power plant worker would be legally allowed to get.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    87. Re: Environmental impacts? by nowsharing · · Score: 1

      Chris Kresser is not a doctor: http://chriskresser.com/about/
      "is a globally recognized leader in the fields of ancestral health, Paleo nutrition, and functional and integrative medicine"
      Translation: He's a journalistic writer and doesn't hold a degree in medicine. He also apparently does not provide references to claims in his writing.

      Dr. Mercola's number one recommendation in all of his books is to eat less meat and more vegetables:
      "Dr. Mercola’s Total Health Program: The Proven Plan to Prevent Disease and Premature Aging, Optimize Weight and Live Longer! "
      "Effortless Healing: 9 Simple Ways to Sidestep Illness, Shed Excess Weight, and Help Your Body Fix Itself"
      "Take Control of Your Health (2007, with Kendra Degen Pearsall)"

      And your health-essentials link has no author which makes me more than a little suspicious. Although they do provide a link to their trusted physicians if you need to get some prescriptions written.

    88. Re: Environmental impacts? by nowsharing · · Score: 1

      Studies have shown? Cite them.

    89. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is probably wrong, but I wonder if it is possible that the additional radiation leads to an increased rate of mutation? Then, with the proper cybernetically-augmented society (possibly by controlling everyone's information channels and monitoring their DNA) human evolution could be actively guided.

      But then again that's not a very rational thing to say.

    90. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " and it's remnants are negligible"

      I wish that apostrophe would vanish. it's means it is.

    91. Re:Environmental impacts? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      If you actually read your citation it says that steel is now contaminated by steel recycling, not airborne radiation.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    92. Re:Environmental impacts? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Citation required.

      Ask and ye shall receive. Here's a meta-review of some of the best and biggest studies comparing vegetarians to health-conscious omnivores. Almost all studies showed a longevity benefit, and pooled they found a significant longevity beneift. This is a nice plot of the risk ratio as the study data is cumulatively pooled.

      It goes without saying that this field of research is tricky -- evidence is never iron-clad and you can always find a study or two to support your biases. But, as a medical student and someone interested in nutrition, I'll go out on a limb and say that there is no diet except the Mediterranean diet that has so much supportive evidence of health benefits. (Prove me wrong!) But in any case, this should be enough to at least stop the FUD about vegetarianism causing everything from diabetes to psychosis as per above. It's at least not causing harm.

      Now, the question is -- will bacon-loving Slashdot rejoice that a citation request was answered, or continue on with the usual group-think?

      The study you quote is looking at "low meat consumption", not "no meat consumption". But generally vegatarian diets are not problematic, like a normal diet it just requires variation and good eating habits. The problem is veganism, which is getting really popular despite being very unhealthy.

    93. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you didn't say something stupid, like veganism.

      Regardless, vegetarianism, like veganism, is not the whole reason to peoples improved lives afterwards.
      A large percentage of people that go on these diets have only done so after many years or horrifying diets, like eating those horrible ready-meals with all the nutrients sucked dry and replaced with fillers.
      People that drank and snacked on all kinds of bad things.
      People eating food cooked in awful (but cheap!) Vegetable oils, arguably the worst thing humans have done that is still legal in the food world. This point alone accounts for most damage done with all these people, which are usually replaced with Fruit Oils when taking up either diet (Like olive and coconut)

      Fact remains: there is no difference in health between the health-conscious and vegetable diets. No study of any worth has ever found anything of significance that was purely down to the diets alone, every gain was indirect.
      In fact, veganism is even worse in almost all cases, and has a statistically insignificant gain only seen in males.
      All the healthiest places in the world shit on any anecdotal-at-best study the zealots of both diets can find.
      Meanwhile vitamino, amino and other general deficiencies later... (literaly just found out a person I talked to died from a vegan obsessed diet, such a fucking waste)

    94. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't find it right now, but the citation actually refutes his assertion; Vegetarians suffer higher incidence of thyroid disorders and mental instability.

      Question: does vegetarianism cause metal instability or are vegetarians just predisposed to be mentally unstable?

    95. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your conclusion is invalid - "radiation workers" don't receive a very low threshold dose, they receive a massive one in a very short time. And it still doesn't kill all of them equally. Show me a study that shows the effects on altering extremely low threshold doses, because I don't believe it is possible to construct such an experiment. Also, there are several experiments on radiation exposure that show definite effects in the consciousness of the person being exposed.

    96. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's just as many going in the opposite direction.

      If you want to find the truth, spend more than five minutes. An hour on each one at minimum.

      Science is not a religion where you can cite scripture and be done. Everything has to be analyzed, criticized, and checked for bias. There's two that really put the spotlight on this:

      1. You didn't even bother to check the criticisms of PREDIMED and how the majority of nutritionists reject their studies on both technical and factual grounds.

      2. That Adventist health study... that's short for Seventh-day Adventist, a Christian sect. They are strongly recommended by their religion to be vegetarian. Would you accept an Inuit led study showing that all people could live ten years longer if we became carnivores and only ate raw bloody seal meat?

    97. Re:Environmental impacts? by nowsharing · · Score: 1


      That article you linked closes in support of modern research that all point to a whole foods, plant based diet as the treatment for heart disease, cancer, obesity, etc:
      "Instead, if you want significant health benefits, adopt a McDougall, Ornish, Esselstyn, Fuhrman, Barnard or Pritikin* diet, which are not simply about avoiding animal products, but are about avoiding unhealthy foods in general, and focusing on the healthiest ones. These programs are consistent and coherent and take a "whole" approach, and produce solid benefits in the published research."

    98. Re:Environmental impacts? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      In which case, "radiation workers" should have a lower incidence of cancer than the rest of the population.

      It should, perhaps, be noted that "radiation workers" have legal limits to their exposure that are extremely low. Lower, in some cases, than what some "normal" workers are exposed to. For example, coal miners are exposed to more occupational radiation than a nuclear power plant worker would be legally allowed to get.

      Please read the article I linked. It addresses that issue specifically.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    99. Re:Environmental impacts? by xiux · · Score: 1

      will bacon-loving Slashdot rejoice that a citation request was answered, or continue on with the usual group-think?

      What is the accepted form of rejoicing when one receives a citation? I don't want to be accused "[continuing] on with the usual group-think."

    100. Re:Environmental impacts? by NetNed · · Score: 1

      I would doubt that getting rid of smoking in bars and restaurants would be showing up this soon in the form of less of these diseases. Not saying that they don't cause these things but I would doubt it could be that measurable this quickly and across the nation as a whole to the point that you'd see it in this form.

    101. Re:Environmental impacts? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      More blatant ignorance from the Beeb. The author cites melanoma, which is overwhelmingly caused by sun exposure and is not tied to ionizing radiation. Then there is the 'possible' increase in prostate cancer in pilots....didn't even consider the lifestyle of pilots. I sometimes wonder if these authors even stop to think about what they are spewing. There are studies that link prolonged sitting of truck drivers to prostate cancer, but instead lets assume a cancer that has historically no tie to ionizing radiation might be due to the small amount of exposure from air travel. SMFH.

      The author notes that specifically in TFA.

      However the charity Cancer Research UK says this may be related to other lifestyle factors such as the pilots spending more time sunbathing than the average person.

      I would like to see a comparison between airline pilots and truck drivers though. Both have to meet similar physical health requirements (yes, truck drivers are required to get physicals.), have similar duties, but one is exposed to more radiation.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    102. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please address the other reply that points out your invalid conclusion regarding threshhold doses and dose amounts over time.

    103. Re:Environmental impacts? by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that information the suicide rate for youths. It's new to me. Interesting that it's pointing to a wider gap in mental health care as the reason. I wonder what the difference is among older people and whether a similar gap in physical health care leaves rural older people with an unacceptable quality of life resulting in suicide.

    104. Re:Environmental impacts? by nowsharing · · Score: 1

      Really? Then you should be able to easily cite them.

      1.) Post your peer-reviewed criticisms of PREDIMED and the other large-scale studies. You'll have to go to industry funded research or blogs to do this, because the link between meat eating and heart-disease/cancer/obesity is well established in the literature.

      2.) That is really low hanging fruit. The myth dates back to a 1936 article that is now used primarily as a basis for the billion dollar Fish Oil industry:
      I M Rabinowitch. Clinical and Other Observations on Canadian Eskimos in the Eastern Arctic. Can Med Assoc J. 1936 May;34(5):487-501.

      Here is a tiny portion of the peer-reviewed scientific research that contradicts those early observational reports:
      J G Fodor, E Helis, N Yazdekhasti, B Vohnout. "Fishing" for the origins of the "Eskimos and heart disease" story: facts or wishful thinking? Can J Cardiol. 2014 Aug;30(8):864-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

      P Bjerregaard, T K Young, R A Hegele. Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit--what is the evidence? Atherosclerosis. 2003 Feb;166(2):351-7.

      M R Zimmerman. The paleopathology of the cardiovascular system. Tex Heart Inst J. 1993;20(4):252-7.

      J Dyerberg, H O Bang, N Hjorne. Fatty acid composition of the plasma lipids in Greenland Eskimos. Am J Clin Nutr. 1975 Sep;28(9):958-66.

      E C Rizos, E E Ntzani, E Bika, M S Kostapanos, M S Elisaf. Association between omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and risk of major cardiovascular disease events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012 Sep 12;308(10):1024-33. doi: 10.1001/2012.jama.11374.

      R De Caterina. n-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 23;364(25):2439-50.

    105. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having children while over 40?
      That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

      How are you going to properly raise children when you're 60?
      That's the age you retire and take care of yourself. This is not the time to be raising children.

    106. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your conclusion is invalid - "radiation workers" don't receive a very low threshold dose, they receive a massive one in a very short time. p>

      Absolutely false.

    107. Re: Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      typo thx

    108. Re:Environmental impacts? by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Your conclusion is invalid - "radiation workers" don't receive a very low threshold dose, they receive a massive one in a very short time.

      Sorry, but that's simply not true. Please read the article I linked.

      Typically, passengers flying from London to Chicago could expect to be exposed to around 4.8mrem, and those travelling from Washington DC to Los Angeles would be exposed to close to 2mrem. This compares to an airport body scanner which delivers around 0.1mrem and a chest X-ray that can vary between 2mrem and 10mrem.

      Keep in mind, X-ray technicians leave the room when a person gets an X-ray. I suspect a common "massive dose" would be a CT scan, which is many X-rays taken at once. According to the article I linked, that's good for ~800mrem.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    109. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why even bring up melanoma as an example? Again, it is not tied to ionizing radiation to start with. It IS ignorance.

    110. Re:Environmental impacts? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Dog: "Why did I end up with an idiot?"

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    111. Re:Environmental impacts? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Media coverage to the apparent contrary, gun crime is falling even as gun ownership increases.

      Uh, I thought that media was arguing precisely that? I.e., that net-value-wise, guns are made much less useful by the fact that violence got low but suicides got high?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    112. Re:Environmental impacts? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but really unhealthy people can't (or won't, consciously). Medical science has its limits.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    113. Re:Environmental impacts? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You're probably not going to retire at 60 in the future. Not if you plan to live to over 90. At least not if there isn't some major break in automation. And if there is, I suspect you'll have plenty of time for children.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    114. Re:Environmental impacts? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      All that sciency stuff is great but some might postulate that living without certain things like bacon is no way to live. Similarly we as a society might live a little longer if we just burned what is left of our due process rights.

      Joking aside I have worked with some vegans who would occasionally cook stuff for the office and I have to say it is very possible to eat some amazing food without eating animals or their products. I'm not interested in pursuing such a lifestyle myself, but I could easily see substituting some meaty meals with vegan fair. You aren't likely to ever see me giving up bacon, sausage, BBQ, steaks, and various other luxury servings. But I could see giving up more pedestrian stuff like meatloaf, fast food burgers, shepherds pie, and stuff like that.

    115. Re:Environmental impacts? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You may be confused by the fact that life expenctancy takes into account all deaths, including infant and child mortality, which was significantly skewing the results before the 20th century.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    116. Re:Environmental impacts? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's not just the timing for asbestos. We know what asbestos does to people, and surely dementia and heart disease ain't it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    117. Re:Environmental impacts? by invid · · Score: 1

      How about this theory: back in the old days if you wanted to have sex you had to have kids. With birth control and safe abortions, a larger percentage of kids are born to parents that actually want them. Maybe growing up with parents who actually want children is making a difference in health.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    118. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep - many studies show that vegans/vegetarians are somewhat more unhealthy.

      I can see how vegans would be on a receiving end of a stick, but veterinarians? Hmm, interesting. I am personally neither, but at the same time I don't eat much meat. I think we should do what nature "intended", which in our case seams to be following general omnivore diet.

      "So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."
      --- Bloodhound Gang ;)

    119. Re:Environmental impacts? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Two hundred years ago, the guy who was laughed into the insane asylum for suggesting that it might be a bad idea for doctors to finish dissecting a corpse, then immediately go and deliver babies, hadn't even been born yet.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    120. Re:Environmental impacts? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      lol. true that.

      Just looked it up. Lister and Pasteur weren't yet born 200 years ago.

      Still my objection was to the point that we're healthier as a result of not working with asbestos etc. and that more people are eating organic foods. People 200 years ago ate "organic," "natural" food and didn't live healthier lives - so there is much more involved than simply eating "organic."

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    121. Re:Environmental impacts? by Opyros · · Score: 1

      Well, food may not have had additives in the modern sense; but it was all too often adulterated with substances which shouldn't ever have been in food. That was why Upton Sinclair made such a stir with The Jungle a bit over a hundred years ago (unintentionally, since he was trying to arouse sympathy for maltreated workers instead).

    122. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope that would just lead us to sex that involves death like many other species.

    123. Re:Environmental impacts? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Semmelweiss, was my reference.

      "Organic," however, tends to mean 'disease, parasite and vermin ridden.' Especially 200 years ago.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    124. Re:Environmental impacts? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I eat meat because it tastes good. This makes it a rare occurrence because good meat is expensive. I think this is a good strategy especially as apes from which we come from did not eat meat every day anyway. Not even Neanderthals ate meat only. But I also think - hey I have to die of something anyway. Better it is not boredom.

    125. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, shit!!

    126. Re:Environmental impacts? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I still remember my grandfather in a poor country in east Europe lon time ago. He was not running around his fields half naked. In fact he also wore a hat. And my grandma did wear some head cover too. They have hardly ever exposed anything but face and hands to the sun. The reasons may have something to do with the way they worked the fields but it stopped UV light doing too much damage to their skin too. We tend to know more about melanoma these days. We use sunscreens and some of us do not go outside in summer without a proper hat and covered with clothes. This does not remove the danger but it decreases chance of skin cancer. I also go to a doctor every now and then to see if my heath is in good shape. This made me more conscious about the whole stuff and I stopped binge drinking and eating bad stuff that on top of being bad cost money and did not taste good anyway. winwinwin! My father did not get that and died while they were curving a massive cancer out of his belly. I may succumb to this fate too but probably at later stage in my life. Still anecdotal I know but it is not so as if we did not have significant changes in life style, health information availability etc

    127. Re:Environmental impacts? by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      I never had cavities either until a dentist ran a laser over my teeth or problems of that nature either until a dentist ran a laser over my teeth and detected what he called microcavities and drilled like 1/3rd of my teeth. Now I have problems with cavities -.- Just a warning for if you ever change dentists.

    128. Re: Environmental impacts? by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      I like that last definition. Killing plants is WAY too easy.

    129. Re:Environmental impacts? by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      The author cites melanoma, which is overwhelmingly caused by sun exposure and is not tied to ionizing radiation.

      UV is ionising radiation!

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    130. Re:Environmental impacts? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      (Anyone else WTFing over this weird "EM radiation" phobia that the unusually-stupid sub-faction of the fearmongers made up? It's often interesting, the kinds of hobgoblins that people-who-want-to-panic invent, but this one is downright weird. Why did they think it would take off? And then how is it that they were they right that it would take off?!? Why are so many people, who you'd think are only slightly stupid, adopting this religion? What's the appeal?)

      It is the opening salvo of the Vampire Wars. When they have convinced everyone that EM radiation is harmful and we should all live undergound and never be exposed to the sun again, they will come out in the open and rule us. Hah! We're on to your nefarious plan, vampires! And I will keep a UV-light handy at all times!

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    131. Re:Environmental impacts? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      We're also getting vaccinated at an earlier age with more vaccins. Could it be that the vaccine cocktail has even more beneficial side effects than we already know? That's going to be a body blow to the anti-vaxxers if it's true.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    132. Re:Environmental impacts? by slew · · Score: 1

      As can my teeth which have no cavities in my entire adult life despite a diet high in meat (all kinds) and sugar (cereal every morning plus, in some form, candy at night). Dentist is amazed how strong my teeth are and the no cavity thing.

      That's probably because caries (aka cavities) are not caused by sugar or meat, but by acid. How much acid your teeth will experience (relative to the foods you consume) is mostly related to the composition (and volume) of your saliva, how close your teeth are spaced and your brushing and flossing habits and your night-time saliva situation (nose/mouth breather/snoring).

      The "strength" and composition of your teeth? Not so much (although there is apparently a small effect that allows some enamel to bind better with fluoride than average).

    133. Re:Environmental impacts? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I suspect the average weight of an OTR truck driver is significantly higher than an airline pilot, who tend to be lean. I also know a lot of truck drivers that have other lifestyle factors like smoking. Factoring out those things though - e.g. similar BMI and lifestyle parameters like smoking - it would be an interesting analysis.

    134. Re:Environmental impacts? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      When first world countries are becoming prisons is it any wonder why people commit suicide?

    135. Re:Environmental impacts? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      which may be because people who have health problems and / or mental problems try vegetarianism as a solution to them. I don't know, I'm a happy omnivore. I even eat GLUTEN!! (key scary music in the background)

    136. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sensible diet is key,not whether you are vegetarian or omnivore. I try to live close to a vegan life style, very few animal by products and no animal products. I run 10km reguarly, have GP check ups for health and never had issues yet. Most of my diet is vegetables and beans.

    137. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would unlikely be your teeth (never saw anything on 'super teeth') but your saliva is the likely saviour, which a dentist should know btw... Do you really go to a dentist? :P

    138. Re:Environmental impacts? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I don't know how one can describe an 800 mrem exposure as a 'massive' dose. It is far below the threshold where they have been able to find a statistically significant increase in rates of actual cancer, so they just estimate based on rates know for orders of magnitude greater exposures. All studies done to date have been inconclusive about the risk of CT exposure, despite having millions to study, so even if there is an increase in risk, it is so small that it makes no sense to worry about it. You should be much more worried about getting a sun tan. That would comparatively be a 'super massive' exposure to UV radiation based on your scale.

    139. Re:Environmental impacts? by slew · · Score: 1

      OK, in the pre-industrial-era you might have known about someone who was 50+ but probably not. Almost everyone died sooner.

      Apparently, this is a common myth about the pre-industrial era. People didn't just die in their 40's back then. If you look at the life-expectancy at birth, they are heavily dragged down by infant deaths and childhood disease which have greatly reduced since the pre-industrial-era. Even in medieval times, if you lived past 21, you could reasonably expect to live into your sixties (but of course 40% of people died before their 21st birthday).

    140. Re: Environmental impacts? by Mr0bvious · · Score: 1

      preying on paleo-activists like you.

      Paleo? Pfft, you read me wrong.

      Eat normal, you know.. food..

      You'll note, I picked on carbohydrates, not all foods in general.

      Paleo is a crazy as any artificial diet - crazy...

      Just eat normal food, don't over think it, avoid processed carbs and sugar.

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    141. Re: Environmental impacts? by Mr0bvious · · Score: 1

      As someone who lost over 150lbs, you're full of shit.

      It is my experience that absolutely nothing makes you feel fuller for longer other than filling your stomach and doing it a lot. It has nothing to do with foods being processed and everything to do with their bulk/calorie ratio.

      We'll sorry, but you're argument is equally flawed... For example:

      As someone who's just lost 20kg (90 -> 70kg) you're full of shit.

      I primarily avoid carbs, I avoid vegetable oil, I heavily use animal fat (dripping, lard, etc) for all my cooking. I feel plenty full after my meals and stay that way until my next meal time (no snacking here, no need)..

      Simple anecdote - eat a steak and egg you'll be full for quite some time, eat a big bowl of pasta (greater weight even, higher calories even) and you'll be hungry again within an hour or so (well I am anyway)..

      Sure, it's one anecdote, but I've experienced this phenomenon many times throughout my life , so for me it's a 'rule' I accept (I won't say fact, as this is not science here, it's my experience only)..

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    142. Re:Environmental impacts? by Mr0bvious · · Score: 1

      I typically eat bacon to celebrate.

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    143. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Suicide *is* violence.

      2. It is like sex increased, but rapes decreased. The difference between typical other violence and suicide is "consent".

    144. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had more than one dentist explain this as a matter of pH balance. Some people have acidic conditions, which encourages cavities. Others have alkaline conditions, which encourages tarter. Diet has some effect, but people not near the middle of the spectrum just have to take care of their teeth to prevent the problems associated with their end of the spectrum, regardless of diet. If any one takes reasonable care of their teeth, than their diet doesn't matter at all.

    145. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B12 deficiency doesn't cause iron deficiency. It can lead to anemia, but for fifty+ years now it would be ridiculous for a doctor to confuse B12 deficiency with iron deficiency. Also, B12 isn't an issue for most vegetarians, as you can get plenty of it from milk and egg products (they contain less available B12 than meat, but it doesn't take that much). Vegans on the other hand do have to be careful about B12. If you can't keep vegans and vegetarians straight, you shouldn't be telling other people they are over-simplifying.

    146. Re:Environmental impacts? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, you were a vat vegetarian. You must be an American vegetarian. Where a diet of eggs and cheese is "vegetarian". I've heard many complaints of vegetarianism, but never that it makes you fat.

    147. Re:Environmental impacts? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The problem is veganism, which is getting really popular despite being very unhealthy.

      It's really not. Veganism is hard to pull off well, but American Vegatarianism where one doesn't eat beef, but eats just about everything else, is not any more unhealthy than any other common American diet.

    148. Re:Environmental impacts? by jrand · · Score: 1

      Thanks for linking real research, but your studies don't support your claim.

      The McCollough and Reedy papers showed that diet does make a difference in life expectancy, but they said that adherence to any of a number of different healthy dietary guidelines had nearly the same effect. The diets tested were high in "fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes," but they also permitted moderate amounts of meat and low fat dairy. (In fact, the only kind of meats the dietary guidelines avoided were red and processed meats.)

      The Fraser study used Seventh Day Adventists as the study group. Some Adventists are vegan, but others are lacto-ova vegetarians. All are supposed to eat a balanced diet and avoid gluttony.

      The conclusion of the Martinez-Gonzalez study states, "Among omnivorous subjects at high cardiovascular risk, better conformity with an FP (food pattern) that emphasized plant-derived foods was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality." There's nothing vegan about this study; it suggests eating more plant based foods has a positive correlation with mortality even for those who don't want to become strict vegetarians.

      Now maybe there is some research to support a vegan diet, but these studies don't do that. They do suggest that making fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes the core of a well-balanced diet is important.

    149. Re:Environmental impacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that idea is that your DNA is most valuable when you are young. As you age its quality decreases, especially in men.

      Which is EXACTLY why this method works at increasing lifespan. Those who CAN have healthy kids after 40 are healthier than average, thus selecting for positive traits.

      Yeah, only after everyone else's children had died off and those bloodlines were extinguished. Dawkins is one sick asshole.

    150. Re:Environmental impacts? by dddux · · Score: 1

      You are an uneducated vegetarian who thought that not eating meat only will make you healthier. Well I have newsflash for you: you have to change your diet appropriately. It is not just about dropping meat and eating everything you used to eat before. I have been a vegetarian for 30 years of which I've been a vegan for 6 years. My health and my blood is perfect. I had problems with anaemia in my teens but I recognised that I had to change my diet and introduce more fruits with C vitamin which helps iron absorption. Since then I drink tea with lemon before lunch at least, and at least some fruits between meals. Regarding D vitamin, you have to eat sun dried button mushrooms. They contain loads of D vitamin. The only problem is how to get B12, and its deficiency also contributes to anaemia, so you have to either take the B12 supplement or get enough of it in supplemented foods like soy milk.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    151. Re: Environmental impacts? by swalve · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the body is fairly good at conserving the micronutrients until we hit a certain age. The 29 year old lifelong vegetarian will be fine, but shit will start cropping up after that.

    152. Re:Environmental impacts? by nowsharing · · Score: 1

      What all of those studies share is confirming a link between meat consumption and cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, diseases of inflammation, and the list could go on. Some, like the Adventist Study and China Study, can even break down the risks of adding each particular kind of meat. Since within the Adventist communities you not only have vegans and lacto-ovo vegetarians, but you also have vegan+eggs, vegans+fish, vegans+eggs/fish, vegans+chicken+eggs+fish, etc. With such a large study base, they were able to record the risk factor of adding each individual "meat" component to a diet. The longest-lived and lowest-diseased group were the vegans. The same can be said of the China Study.

      These are all very large scale (both in time and population) studies so it isn't surprising that a large number of vegetarians had to be included. Also, they have to include meat eaters (high, medium, and low) and lacto-ovo vegetarians as controls and for comparison. You also generally won't find hundreds of thousands of vegans easily. As a result of the huge amount of data collected in these studies, thousands of papers have materialized interpreting their data. Not one or two, but thousands. It is hard to fathom how anyone could take a serious look at the results and not come to the conclusion that meat eating, along with an increased consumption of processed foods, is the cause of the leading causes of death in developed countries.

      The world is polluted with blogs claiming that science has it wrong, and journalists are happy to line up since their publications are paid directly by big-ag, big-dairy, and processed food companies like Philip Morris. Popular health writers as well are all paid off, as well as a number of scientists and "health advocacy" lobbies and NGOs. Looking beyond these biased sources though leads to the clinical results that all point to the same general conclusions: meat and dairy consumption are causing serious harm that can be effectively reversed by the integration of a higher proportion of whole fruits and vegetables.

  3. Cellular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew cell phones don't cause cancer!

    1. Re: Cellular by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 2

      No, cancer caused cell phones. So a drop in cancer rates means a drop in cell phones too!!!!

    2. Re:Cellular by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cell phones ARE a cancer.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Cellular by Z80a · · Score: 1

      They sure do cause quite a lot of deaths, but not by cancer.

    4. Re:Cellular by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Cell phones are used to take selfies - it's all related. People are just too selfish to get sick anymore.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    5. Re:Cellular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They sure do cause quite a lot of deaths, but not by cancer.

      Most of the hazard is being beaten to death by people who are sick and tired of all the selfies that people with cell phones are taking all the time.

    6. Re: Cellular by houghi · · Score: 1

      Not sure about that, but it is well known that medical research causes cancer in rats.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  4. Thanks to AGW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Global warming is killing off these diseases by slightly raising the average human body temperature, thereby increasing its ability to fight them.

    1. Re: Thanks to AGW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three cheers for global warming!

  5. But not for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been diagnosed with Brugada Syndrome, so I'll be dying of heart failure eventually. Probably when my batteries are flat, or passing through a security scanner, which temporarily disables my defibrilator. Or when someone hacks my heart, given that my ICD is Wi-Fi enabled. Yes, I can be hacked. My cardiologist says not to worry about it, because there's not many people clever enough to hack me. I have my doubts, as the manufacturer won't tell me how my heart is secured "for obvious security reasons". My experience is that whenever I hear that, the tech in question is porous as all fuck.

    1. Re:But not for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What? Of course for you. That defibrillator wouldn't have existed a couple decades ago. It's keeping you alive. Your expected life span is now higher.

    2. Re:But not for me... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      May you live long and happy.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    3. Re:But not for me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      temporarily disables my defibrillator

      that's shocking

    4. Re:But not for me... by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't write your obituary just yet. We may have cured multiple sclerosis earlier this year and I suspect your new cyborg heart is just around the corner.

    5. Re:But not for me... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      We may have cured multiple sclerosis earlier this year

      I thought I read something about a possible breakthrough, but now I can't find anything - do you have a link, etc.?

    6. Re:But not for me... by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I read about it in the popular media so no direct link to study: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

  6. Pet theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Times cites one researcher's pet theory" that the cellular process of aging itself may be gradually changing in humans' favor.

    Yeah, right. Evolutionary changes like that are bound to have happened within the time periods that we've been keeping detailed health records.

    1. Re: Pet theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There can be "evolutionary" changes in a single generation if you're sufficiently motivated.

  7. Big scary pharma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the drug companies aren't the purest definition of evil we've all been told about

    1. Re:Big scary pharma by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they are, but there are systems in place to offset their damage to other sectors.

  8. Shit... by zm · · Score: 5, Funny

    My pension plan is in even worse condition now...

    --
    Sig ?
  9. Causes of death by OpenSourced · · Score: 2

    The causes of death know only one thing, and it's that they will always add up to 100%.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:Causes of death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about people who die, are brought back, and die again? It would be safer to claim it adds up to approximately 100%.

    2. Re:Causes of death by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      By common definition, anyone "brought back" was never dead. So the number stays at 100%

  10. I know I know by codeButcher · · Score: 1

    It's those HFCS, pesticide-laden, high-calorie french fries made from artificial chemical GMO potatoes from China that's killing off all the cancer and other diseased cells.

    Next up: the healthy cells.

    OK, let's try to be serious again.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    1. Re:I know I know by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the food in the Western nations is still more "chemicalled" that food elsewhere. . . so this could actually be, perversely, somewhat correct.

    2. Re:I know I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most of the chemical hysteria in general is driven by folks completely ignorant of basic chemistry knowledge. Just recently I learned that the fad of apricot kernels is coming back to health food stores. Apricot kernels, for those who don't know, contain a 100% natural compound that readily breaks down into "no fucking kidding" cyanide in the gut. The bag even warns the consumer not to eat more than 20g per day. The marketing delineation of natural vs artificial does not follow the reality of chemistry or biology.

    3. Re:I know I know by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Most of the hysteria of ALL types, is driven by people ignorant of pretty much all types of basic knowledge. . .

      Don't get me started on things that our new hires claim that "Everybody knows. . . "

      The schools these days, to quote Sister Mary Elizabeth (my elementary/parochial school principal. . .) make Baby Jesus cry. . . (grin)

    4. Re:I know I know by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      It may not even have anything to do with food. Since lead was shown to be extremely toxic and therefore banned from gasoline, health should go up. It may be the air that we breathe that causes it.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    5. Re:I know I know by Megol · · Score: 1

      But cyanide is natural so it must be healthy!

    6. Re:I know I know by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Every time I see someone post something along the lines of what you describe as "chemical hysteria", it makes me think of that blithering idiot 'The Food babe'.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    7. Re:I know I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dog used to eat apricot and peach kernels (we had six trees as a kid). She loved crunching them and eating their marrowy inside and lived to about 15.

    8. Re:I know I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "down into "no fucking kidding" cyanide"

      Which may specifically be the reason why it is used, a lot of people don't grasp that EVERYTHING is poisonous in the wrong quantity. You can quite literally overdose on water, bananas (specifically some of the predominate vitamins/minerals), and a lot of other "non-poisonous" things. In small quantities many "poisons" have a beneficial medical use, cyanide is I believe under some circumstances used to decrease blood pressure and snake venoms have been studied for years to locate compounds with various anti-cancer, anti-coagulant & analgesic properties. That's no reason of course to go about haphazardly poisoning your food but just because something is widely seen as a "poison" doesn't mean that is its only use.

  11. Have people stopped dying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess people nowadays are dying of nothing at all.

  12. alternative theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who get these diseases can't afford healthcare, so they go undiagnosed

    The demographics that get these diseases are shrinking as proportion of population, ie: less white people, some diseases are more common for white people, less diseased people over all, because less people who carry that disease.

    Diseases diagnosed differently. Instead of 10 people dying of cancer, we have 3 of cancer and 7 of other diseases.

    Statistics of the past were inaccurate.

    Current statistics are inaccurate.

    They die of other causes before those diseases get them.

  13. Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by Vermonter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm willing to bet it is because sometime around 1990 or so we took something out of our diets... some synthetic additive or something, that was a big player in many cancers, but was never linked.

    1. Re:Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The party line is that there must always be some fault caused by the industrial processing of foods, but isn't it just as likely and in fact more so that it all helped?

    2. Re:Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The party line is that there must always be some fault caused by the industrial processing of foods, but isn't it just as likely and in fact more so that it all helped?

      No.

      The longer answer is that processed foods have provably been harmful to our health. But a simple no should suffice. Or how about "obviously not"?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what journal? Websites aren't legitimate sources.

    4. Re:Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cellphones.

    5. Re:Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A decline in all these different diseases are unlikely to be just one thing in the diet. The more likely explanation is that everything has gotten better. People smoke less, people eat less red meat, there's less pollution, less lead, less pesticides, etc.

    6. Re:Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What planet are you from? Taking just trans fat as an example, the AMA, Journal of Physiological Biochemistry, NEJM, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, British Medical Journal, Journal of Nutrition, Life Sciences, ESFA Journal, American Journal of Epidemiology, American Journal of Public Health for starters.

      Douche

    7. Re:Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that supporting the same claim you made before, that processing was the source of nutrition deficiency? All that is linked to trans-fat, which can be natural source or added, is higher incidence of heart disease when coupled with multiple other confounding factors.

    8. Re:Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than you, who said anything about vitamin deficiency? It's like you're just making things up as you go along.

    9. Re:Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      processed foods have provably been harmful to our health

      Maybe. But uncooked rice sucks.

    10. Re:Pretty sure I know why these are on the decline by swalve · · Score: 1

      That's not really the same, though, is it?

  14. Any A.E. Van Vogt fans out there? by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    The article reminded me of "The House on the Hill" in which statistical outliers (ie immortals) are organized and living parallel to mainstream society over the ages.

    Maybe we're starting to see an increase in the number of outliers?

  15. It is cell phone towers and remote control by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The reduction in diseases coincides with the rise of cordless phones and cell phones. The 900 MHz baby monitors and cordless phones first and then the 5.8 GHz cordless phone spectrum were phased in. Then came the cell phones and the IR remote control became ubiquitous and some remotes started using the 900 MHz and 5.8 GHz band (through the wall remotes for TiVo in another room).

    During the cell division process radiation in these bands help tighten up the telemerese at the end of DNA. Every time the cell replicates the first few hundred basepairs come untangled, frayed and do not replicate well. But our DNA has very long sections on either end to cushion for the loss. Eventually the cushion is lost and actual genes start getting messed up and lost. That is how ageing happens. The radiation in these bands have positive effect in reducing the amount of fraying during cell replication.

    Watch out pseudo scientists. Like real science, pseudo science is also cuts both ways. One can use it to spread fear and paranoia about any new technology or it can be used to ascribe totally unwarranted benefits to new things too.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:It is cell phone towers and remote control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drop the IR, and you could fool quite a few people.

    2. Re:It is cell phone towers and remote control by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no keep the IR, and point out global warming also makes more infrared goodness

  16. Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the 90s Mulder and Scully warned us of the impending alien invasion in their documentary The X-Files. They had already started to create hubris humans, testing our DNA for compatibility with the Aliens.

    After some success, our yearly vaccinations now contain alien pathogens slowly immunizing first world populations against deadly diseases in preparation for the full invasion.

    The truth is out there people!

    Trump 2016!!! We need to build walls and keep these illegal aliens out! These small advances in health are not worth giving up our humanity, and our freeeeeeeedom!?!?!

  17. Not on my channel they aren't by paiute · · Score: 2

    Major diseases are down? Violent crimes are down? You'd never know this from the media I watch.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Not on my channel they aren't by jeffasselin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Police violence, rape and autism only appear to have increased recently. The evidence shows they haven't.

      What seems to be happening is that they are reported/accounted/diagnosed better. You hear more about them thanks to new channels. Violence against blacks in many areas of the US (as well as violence against minorities in general worldwide) has been common and stable over the recent past (correcting for the general drop in violence in industrialized countries since the late 70s that many attribute to removal of lead in gasoline). The general media had mostly ignored some of those issues. But they can't do so anymore now because of the prevalence of cell phones (video evidence), citizen reporting (blogs, twitter, facebook, etc) and new ways of organizing movements online.

      Note that I chose those three exemples because of their clear recent increase in reporting and news coverage. For what it's worth (and will do to my karma) I support #BLM, social justice movements and I am convinced vaccines have nothing to do with autism.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    2. Re:Not on my channel they aren't by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Didn't the recent SWAT mania have any impact on the situation in the US?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  18. Obesity is good for your health ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pizza for lunch today and every day.

    1. Re:Obesity is good for your health ! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Pizza is also a good homeopathic cure.

      If I have a headache, I eat a large pizza and 2-3 hours later the headache is gone. Usually, at least. Sometimes it gets worse, but as everyone who has at least a passing interest in homeopathy knows, that's just the initial worsening. You just eat a second pizza and voila, headache gone!

      Sometimes it doesn't work, then I usually try some other pizzas, it seems that my body starts to react wrongly, that usually happens when I have eaten a pizza without the symptoms (you should never do that, only use homeopizzas when you have symptoms!), then I have to switch from tonno to cardinale and it works again!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Obesity is good for your health ! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      If pizza was a homeopathic cure, you'd take a slice, whizz it up with a pint of water, discard 99% off that and refill to a pint, then repeat the dilution many times, 400 for extra strength, then drink the not very pizzary water and it'd cure your headache.

      The taste does get better with more dilution because frankly a pint of cold wet liquefied pizza is gross.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Obesity is good for your health ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > because frankly a pint of cold wet liquefied pizza is gross.

      you've never tried it, have you?

  19. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's just they are 1) self diagnosing and 2) doctor shopping til they find a doctor who will confirm their suspicions of the latest fad illnesses, like fibromyalgia, which isn't a disease so much as it is an excuse for suburban white women to justify their heroin addiction. And now the gluten shit.... come on, everyone in the USA is suddenly now allergic to bread? Every kid has ADHD and autism now. The list goes on.

  20. Evolution by tsa · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's Darwin at work. People get children much later in life than they used to. This means the chance that they get a healthy child is lower than it was before. The children who are born healthy have a greater chance of reproducing and living long and healthy lives, so they also get their old age deseases at a higher age. Their children get this ability too so humanity as a whole gets to live longer and healthier (provided nutrition isn't a problem).

    --

    -- Cheers!

  21. An observation I have made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is that people today generally tend to look younger. I myself am in my late 30's, but look early 20's, and I feel that it's becoming more and more common to see people with young faces, compared to let's say 15-20 years ago.

    1. Re:An observation I have made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take care of that painting in your attic, and get your eyes checked.

    2. Re:An observation I have made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      is that people today generally tend to look younger. I myself am in my late 30's, but look early 20's, and I feel that it's becoming more and more common to see people with young faces, compared to let's say 15-20 years ago.

      Declines in smoking and UV exposure probably account for this.

    3. Re:An observation I have made by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nah, as you age your eyes just get worse so you don't see the wrinkles. It's like an age related soft-focus.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:An observation I have made by butchersong · · Score: 0

      The downside of this is that young men today tend to look like tall Gollums from lord of the rings. They are willowy and tall compared to earlier generations but round shouldered, hunched over and pale. -Generalizing of course.

  22. Incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The average person now receives more radiation from medical treatment and diagnosis than the average person ever received from atmospheric testing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Atmospheric_nuclear_testing

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Medical

    1. Re:Incorrect. by NetNed · · Score: 1

      Don't forget airport scanners too.

  23. Horses for courses, I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon. Just use your brain. Between extremes, which will be always unhealthy, there's a broad range, and the "optimal" diet will vary wildly from individual to individual.

    Heck, I have a vitamin D deficiency, and the only things what really changed are the city I live in (less sun), and -- age. I guess the second factor to be the more important.

    There always have been people happily living on vegetarian diet, and reaching old age. But there are possibly people who will turn up deficiencies on vegetarian diet. Just watch things carefully when changing diet!

    This nonsense of "X is bad" only works for obvious extremes, as "being rolled over by a 20-ton truck is bad". Duh.

    1. Re:Horses for courses, I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But the oldest living people are never vegetarians.

      Though they may all be killed by former friends sick of listening to them go on about being a vegetarian.

  24. It's clearly due to /. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    If you look at the plot in the article, you can see that the gray line starts decreasing around '94.

    This is clearly when Malda started thinking about creating Slashdot.

  25. How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by Theovon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At the same time, we’re eating a really horrible nutrient-poor diet made up of industrial foods designed to make us want to eat more industrial foods. Plus we’ve got massive amounts of pollution from burning petrolium, hormones in the ground water, antibiotics in our foods, PBA from our food containers, and all manner of other junk ruining our health. Some people are still stuck on this bogus idea that autism is caused by vaccines, while they continue to eat a horrible diet and pollute their bodies in other ways that are much more likely to account for this measurable increase in the rate of autism (not quite explained by just an increased rate of diagnosis).

    This brings up an idea that my wife pointed out. In recent history, there has been an increase in the rate of transgendered individuals. This has resulted in political polarization, where some people are demonizing them and others are saying that body dismorphic disorder is somehow a good thing. Both are wrong. People with body dismorphic disorder have every right to their dignity and to manage and adjust their bodies as they see fit. However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an external cause, and we think a major factor is all of these hormines being pumped into the water supply. Lots of women take birth control pills, which is putting estrogen and progesterone into the water, and hormones are given to food animals. These are having an impact on development in fetuses and young children. So the next time some fundamnetalist asshole tries to tell you that there’s something BAD about people who have gender identiy issues, you can point out to them that we, as a society, did this to them. It’s our fault for poisoning the water and food. And the consequences are that more people with gender identity issues, and this is something we have to accept, and we have to treat these people like human beings and stop trying to put forth the idea that these people are crazy or making immoral choices.

    1. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Industrial foods are safer and more nutritious than pre-industrial foods. Remember things rotted quickly and cities developed rings of farms to supply them based on spoilage rates vs transportation distances.

    2. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you are not using thick enough tin foil in your hat.

    3. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This brings up an idea that my wife pointed out. In recent history, there has been an increase in the rate of transgendered individuals. This has resulted in political polarization, where some people are demonizing them and others are saying that body dismorphic disorder is somehow a good thing. Both are wrong. People with body dismorphic disorder have every right to their dignity and to manage and adjust their bodies as they see fit. However, that doesnâ(TM)t mean there isnâ(TM)t an external cause, and we think a major factor is all of these hormines being pumped into the water supply.

      It's a better theory than most people think. Physicists and biologists have been pointing out how similar plastics are to hormones since forever. There has been a rise in gynecomastia which cannot be explained solely by obesity, strongly supporting this theory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps those industrialized foods just aren't as bad for us as some people would like them to be? I don't know for sure but it could be we just need more data before we jump to conclusions? Who could ever forget the fiasco that followed the directives that cholesterol was bad for you? Talk about your increases in diabetes and dementia that came about because of that! It helps no one to jump on a train heading down the wrong track.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    5. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're eating far healthier than your "all natural" ancestors did 150 years ago. Look up ergotism, something we don't even know anymore used to be a real problem less than a hundred years ago. Refrigeration was unknown a century ago and only half a century ago it became widespread. "Best before" used to be "oh it doesn't smell TOO bad, if we cook it it just might be ok". Drinking water is ... hell, even the crap that comes out of the taps in the south east of the US is better and less contaminated than most of the stuff our ancestors pumped out of wells they dug themselves.

      And we actually have LESS pollution today than we had 100-150 years ago, when nobody gave a shit that untreated sewage was dumped into the rivers and seas where we get our fishes from. What we see in China today was very real over here with us not that long ago. Smog you can cut with a knife, kids that have lungs like someone dying from lung cancer after a life of heavy smoking, rivers you can't put your booted foot into fearing that not only the boot would be gone if you leave it in too long. That was the reality in our industrial centers in the 1800s.

      The "good old times" were much, but certainly not healthy!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another reason for having "more" transgendered people is simply that they now dare to actually come out instead of just living a lie and maybe, MAYBE, having a little private secret where they can at least for themselves, when nobody is looking, be themselves.

      I don't think that it's really more people being that way. It's just more people daring to not pretend they aren't.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I don't think that it's really more people being that way. It's just more people daring to not pretend they aren't.

      To be honest, I think it's more that, but I think there's room for it to be both things.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll take industrial food and water with minute amount of hormones any day over drinking water from the river upstream from my home and shitting in it downstream. Like all my neighbors...

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    9. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just to shoot down a few more mistaken assumptions. We're no longer burning coal for home heating, so instead of "massive amounts of pollution from burning petrolium [sic]" we in fact have less. We've also removed quite a bit of naturally sulfur from the fuels we burn, because modern engines don't like that, but that also means these engines produce less sulfur dioxide pollution.

      Antibiotics in our food don't hurt our diet. They're worrying because they mean that a lot of antibiotics are used on farms, which leads to accelerated evolution of bacteria. They'll develop a resistance to these antibiotics, and via farmers these bacteria will escape the farms. But that's via the farmers, not via the food on your plate.

      As for transgenders, it would be virtually impossible to establish a baseline. As it was not socially acceptable, we cannot tell what the natural rate was, nor can we tell whether the current frequency is higher than that natural rate. And if we can't even prove that an effect exists, we don't even get to correlation, so the speculation about causation is definitely misguided. There is no proof that the hormone levels in drinking water cause transgender issues. And in fact the countries with the highest living standards tend to have cleaner drinking water and no corresponding drop in the number of transgenders. (Think Norway - clean water really isn't an issue there)

    10. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by swb · · Score: 1

      I think with the rise of industrialization and the bulking up of cities, food quality got worse for for urban residents as they became more dependent on the primitive factory foods they used to eat and polluted water supplies.

      Prior to that, though, weren't there a lot of adaptations to many of the quality problems that were inherent to the food supply?

      People living in urban areas often substituted beer for water, blended wine with water or drank tea instead of water (I've read that Chinese laborers on the railroads avoided a lot of sickness because their affection for tea meant they drank boiled water). People at a lot of stews, which both served to make cooking simpler (since a single pot can contain all your ingredients) as well as enabling the cooking with a lot of moisture to tenderize meats, many of which were probably tough, taken from wild game or older animals kept for their wool or milk and only eaten when they become unproductive for those uses. Stewing would have gone a long way towards killing bacteria, parasites and the addition of moisture would have diluted some environmental pollutants.

      Prior to industrialization, people tended to live in rural areas and generally ate what was within a day or two's walk at most if not food that was raised around them, whether wild game or domestic agriculture (poultry, fowl eggs, pork, goat, lamb). Parasites in the water may have been something of a problem, especially in areas with poor water supplies or in times of low water flows. But overall it seems like they would have avoided most of the problems with contaminated foods.

    11. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How can you claim there is an increase in the rate of transgendered individuals? Granted there is certainly an increase in people stating they have this condition. But there's no evidence for an increase in numbers, merely more open attitudes towards it.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    12. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except transgendered people have been documented in many cultures for a very long time. Tolerance will lead to full expression. Its like that conversation I had with a co-worker from China where I was told "Oh, there are no gay people in China." Pull up your pants, your cultural bi-ass is showing.

      Except that even if the nutrition is less (it isn't btw - no testable difference between field grown and fancy expensive food ...) the reduction in food borne pathogens over time is HUGE. This very devastating and short term actor being removed form the equation can balance against many many environmental toxins that take decades to build up.

      Not that I don't think your are wrong on your points (I agree on what should be done), just that your scenarios are not quite solid and some are very odd.

    13. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I presume you're first paragraph is sarcasm or 'informed' by unscientific claims meant to shame/scare people.

      Please explain the rise of 'healthy food choices' at fast-food restaurants for instance.Because you know, that market segment always 'leads demand' right? The significant decrease in smokers, increase in active life styles in general. Yeah people just heat 'unhealthy, horrible nutrient poor diets' ALL the time right?

    14. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by swillden · · Score: 1

      People living in urban areas often substituted beer for water, blended wine with water or drank tea instead of water (I've read that Chinese laborers on the railroads avoided a lot of sickness because their affection for tea meant they drank boiled water)

      Beer, wine and tea were all created as solutions to the problem of unsanitary water which was actively dangerous to drink. Up until the wide availability of relatively modern sanitation systems, most Europeans walked around constantly mildly drunk, because they didn't drink anything but alcoholic beverages -- the alcohol needed to kill off waterborne infectious diseases.

      Most modern city dwellers have easy access to sanitary water, whether from the tap or (if they don't like the taste of tap water) from a wide variety of bottled waters. If they choose beer, wine or tea over water it's because they like it better, not because the water available to them is unsafe.

      Prior to industrialization, people tended to live in rural areas and generally ate what was within a day or two's walk at most if not food that was raised around them, whether wild game or domestic agriculture (poultry, fowl eggs, pork, goat, lamb).

      And without refrigeration they ate a lot of semi-rotten meat and produce, and got their water from rivers (into which people upstream dumped their effluent) or from open wells. They also often lacked much variety in their diets, especially during the winter months. You can easily eat *far* better than your ancestors did a few hundred years ago... and that's true even if you have a modest income and your ancestors were kings.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've read that Chinese laborers on the railroads avoided a lot of sickness because their affection for tea meant they drank boiled water

      Boiled tea? Barbarian.

      While it's true that refrigeration has dramatically increased humanity's ability to preserve food in fresh condition, the notion that humans have only recently discovered food preservation is a silly one. Yes, some peoples commonly ate a lot of bad food because they were living in marginal conditions, and some still do although it's getting fairly hard to find anyplace without lights and refrigeration. But drying, pickling, smoking, salt curing, and other methods have been used for millennia to store foods for other seasons.

      On the other hand, modern sewage management is a massive change, so there's that. Getting people not to shit where they eat is probably a bigger improvement. Sanitation, it's what's before dinner.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      We're no longer burning coal for home heating, so instead of "massive amounts of pollution from burning petrolium [sic]" we in fact have less.

      Coal isn't oil. And, BTW, the sulphur, we're burning it at sea. Lots of people still aren't happy about it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re:How, with such crappy diet and pollution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sex didn't used to be so stigmatized. For example, ancient Greek males used to routinely fuck each other. I'd say there's more trans-gendered people nowadays because chemical pollution, it's a fad, and weaker willed people. I know some people who routinely swap what gender they prefer to be. That can't be a biological thing. Depending on the levels of testosterone and estrogen in your brain when developing, you get a male or female brain not both. The brain doesn't swap back and fourth. People doing that are mentally ill or doing it to be different (when have kids ever stopped doing that?). The weak willed part comes in when people can't accept themselves for how they are. There's nothing wrong with having a feminine personality in a male body, but instead of accepting their own personality and body, they now go around calling themselves females while their genitals are male and get insulted when you call them male. Like tooth whitening is used to cover up poor dental hygiene, trans-gendered is being used to cover up poor self-acceptance. If we subjected trans-gendered people to brain scans I'd bet most of them have brains matching their genitals. A feminine personality in a male body is still a male creature, that isn't living a lie. Calling that creature a female is the lie.

  26. Single Payer Healthcare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the long-awaited end result of single-payer healthcare. When everyone has equal access to medical care, the health of the entire society improves. As societies evolve into those that value public health over private profit, those societies not only create more wealth for everyone, but also create better health.

    Now what we need to do is close the "health gap" in addition to the "wealth gap" between wealthy developed nations and the emerging world. The WHO should really be taking charge with this data and pushing for global single-payer healthcare, while at the same time the UN should be pushing to remove national borders that prevent the free movement of people in need of medical care.

    When everyone in the world can receive the health care they need, when they need it, world health can finally improve in unison.

  27. Cannabis Connection? by spiritwave · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cannabis (scientific term for marijuana, if unclear) is a symphonic drug that (at least scientifically suggestively and anecdotally) is recognized to press against many (if not most, or perhaps even all) major health problems – and its lawful medical (and sometimes recreational) use has been on the rise over the past couple of decades.

    Someone very close to me has a state license to use cannabis to oppose Alzheimer's disease, and the results have been thankfully impressive (symptom management has been literally brilliant, side effects virtually non-existent with no user complaints, financial cost friendly, and no sign of permanent mental decline with a reasonable sign of steady cognitive improvement).

    Cannabis use is a complex (oceanic) subject, so blindly using whatever strain (or strain combination) available (among the hundreds, if not thousands, of strains in existence possibly with dramatically different psychological effects between two strains) at any intake amount and method is reckless and logically discouraged (fittingly noting that I don't condone criminal activity here – albeit no logic justifies the war on some drugs as being constitutional via the Commerce Clause, and drug use without objectively conclusively proven harm is clearly upheld by the ninth amendment logically constitutionally upholding our fundamental and supposedly unalienable right to liberty).

    Strains that gently but firmly produce stable mind effects (e.g. Cheese) should be electronically vaporized (with precise temperature control for consistent intake), and at least in the case of mild dementia, a very small pinch of leafy material per dose (four doses daily – one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and two before bedtime) is all that's needed (i.e. the user gently feels the effects, so basically remains soberly competent for all intents and purposes).

    I cannot state with certainty that cannabis is the cause of disease reduction as reported in this article, but there's interestingly fitting evidence demonstrating a connection worthy of further scientific scrutiny of a highly evolved plant (with hundreds of compounds) upholding homeostasis (balance, so stability necessary for survival) via the endocannibinoid system throughout the body and hypothetically leveraging the same mental system responsible for the Placebo effect upon proper use.

    --
    Sines of Impending Sines
    1. Re:Cannabis Connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should look and see if hippies lived longer

    2. Re:Cannabis Connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I'm sceptical of any health claims for cannabis posted under the name "spiritwave". Just sayin'. Also, who the hell modded you "Interesting"?!?

  28. Good news ? by Lennie · · Score: 1

    If life expectancy isn't going up, that just means other things might be killing us before these diseases could, right ?

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  29. Joe? Joe Perry Is That You? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, Joe, what sort of project have you done to yourself this time?

  30. You forgot the Chemtrails. by nicoleb_x · · Score: 1

    One thing is for sure, we'll reach the wrong conclusion and push people to do the wrong thing.

  31. Biblical basis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Times cites one researcher's pet theory" that the cellular process of aging itself may be gradually changing in humans' favor.

    I'm sure there's a biblical basis behind it.

    1. Re:Biblical basis. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Yeah, more people abandoning that rubbish and seeing a real doc instead of relying on prayer to wish away the disease.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Biblical basis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, more people abandoning that rubbish and seeing a real doc instead of relying on prayer to wish away the disease.

      Speaking of that, it is amazing that Christian Scientists have survived as long as they have, though their numbers are decreasing.. they have made it to being a 100 year old cult!

  32. Calm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a thought and yes, it does apply and is relevant.

    There is a phrase called "The calm before the storm."

  33. The decline of the Marlboro man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's pretty simple really -- tobacco use:

    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/

  34. Living in captivity by holophrastic · · Score: 2

    Every animal lives longer in captivity than it does in the wild. From cheetahs to jellyfish. Your house cat live up to 20 years, maybe 5 in the wild. Your jellyfish 10 months in your aquarium, maybe 4 months in the wild.

    So, what does a human living in captivity look like? See the city. See the suburbs. See the grocery stores, the health care, the cars.

    I have no problem seeing that all-day climate control, motorized vehicles, and unlimited easy-access food means a healthier body that can fight off major diseases for longer.

    Ageing has always been biological wear-and-tear.

    1. Re:Living in captivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every animal lives longer in captivity than it does in the wild.

      Uhm, wut?

    2. Re:Living in captivity by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Do you want me to repeat myself? Animals, living in captivity, tend to live 50% to 200% longer than their life expectancy in the wild.

      I'm not sure what you found confusing. Do you know of many animals that tend to live shorter lives in captivity? We're obviously not talking about food-based livestock here.

    3. Re:Living in captivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but the urbanization didn't change considerably in the past decades in the countries where we see this effect.

    4. Re:Living in captivity by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      You don't think so? You don't think that there's been more desk-jobs, longer in-school hours, more after-school programs? A greater focus on fitness? On healthy eating?

      We've seen organic foods, lower-fat options, vegetarian options, and, I'll point you to a focus on health-care so strong that you now actually have some. "Check-up or check-out."

      More grocery stores. Cheaper cars and transportation in general, better air conditioning and climate control in general. Humidifiers, clean-air systems, gas-furnaces instead of wood-burning, cleaner water.

      I think you'll find that civilization has engaged you all over. You don't suffer through heat waves anymore. You don't get rained on. You don't get left out in the cold. You don't walk for hours to get home. If you're out in the fields for the day, you're probably riding a tractor.

    5. Re:Living in captivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your jellyfish 10 months in your aquarium, maybe 4 months in the wild.

      Dang it! I was planning to vote Jellyfish 2016, and now you tell me it won't even live through 1/4 of its first term?

    6. Re:Living in captivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orcas

    7. Re:Living in captivity by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Yup. Take the top of the food chain, and confine them without the ability to migrate. That's a great example. It's the exception that proves the rule.

    8. Re:Living in captivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you trying to qualify it? Parent said "every". I've proven otherwise.

      Elephants.

    9. Re:Living in captivity by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      You haven't "proven" anything until to showcase that every single orca dies sooner in captivity. That's first.

      Second, you'll understand the conversational aspect of this. If you'd like me to write-up the legal version, with qualifiers and an index of arguments, you'll need to cover my fee for doing so.

      The original point, quite clear actually, is that HUMANS are living longer due to captivity. That's second.

      My counter to your "orcas" argument was not that orcas die sooner in captivity. It was that orca captivity is incorrectly handled. As a result, the fitness and social aspects of orca captivity are incomplete. That's the problem. That's why your exception proves the rule: it's captivity done incorrectly. Your housecat won't live long if your house doesn't meet its needs. That's third.

      You're incorrect about elephants; that's an even better example. Elephants in proper captivity -- of which there are very few, and they are not within typical zoos -- live full lives. But there are so many problems with elephant captivity -- namely that humans are incapable of caring for elephants. Think about it. The elephant lives longer than any single human can care for it, and there are just so many things that a human cannot do to care for an elephant without danger. So this is more of an example of humans not being capable of providing suitable captivity. With orcas, the case is more of an experience thing too; we're still very new at it, and don't have sufficient access, since we don't have gills. But with elephants, you'll find that in the non-zoo, protected lands, where we allow elephants to roam "wildly" but protect them from everything imaginable, the elephants live longer. That's fourth.

      If you intend your arguments to have merit, and therefore value, you'll put your name to them -- at least so that I know with how many participants I'm conversing. If, on the other hand, you intend to shout into the void, and have no respect for your own arguments, then they simply have no value: because you aren't standing behind them. The ability to be incorrect is inherent in valuable arguments. It's called falsifiability. The capability of being held accountable for an incorrect argument is called respect. You're only as good as your name. Right now, you have no worth.

    10. Re:Living in captivity by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Oh, by the way, for centuries, living in cities was detrimental to human health. Unsanitary waste conditions, communicable diseases, unclean water. My point here has, from the beginning, been that the major turning point in recent decades has been precisely that these detriments have turned into benefits. Water within cities is cleaner. Waste conditions or more sanitary indoors than outdoors. You're less likely to become ill indoors, and more likely to get treated from anything contageous.

      The point is that human captivity has reached a level of success where captive humans live longer than wild humans. Your citing unsuccessful forms of captivity is exactly the point. Ours was, and is no longer. First, we mastered dogs. Later, cats. Now, humans. Eventually, we'll get to elephants and orcas. We're working up in mass, volume, and territory.

      Lions are probably borderline today.

    11. Re:Living in captivity by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's a better point. We're moving up in access to territory. Dogs stay close to home. Cats a few quare kilometres. Humans about 100. Elephants roam for thousands. Orcas roam across half the globe. Captivity has within it a necessity for containment. The larger the territory, the larger the struggle to manage and finance such containment.

    12. Re:Living in captivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't "proven" anything until to showcase that every single orca dies sooner in captivity.

      Statistically they die sooner; It's a fact. You can read all about it on this website I found - google.com.

      I mean, really, do you think that every single one has to die sooner for it to be proven?

      Every single one?

      Really?

      Do you?

      That's first.

      It's also last. The rest of your post(s) were tl;dr.

      Kinda sucks that you spent so much time typing up a fucking novel for me to ignore. Try to edit yourself next time.

      The point remains proven - Most animals live longer in captivity - BUT NOT EVERY ANIMAL DOES. Suck it up and deal with it.

    13. Re:Living in captivity by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I type fast, didn't waste any real time. Learn to type better.
      I didn't type it only for you. This is available to others. Learn your surroundings.
      "Every animal" doesn't mean every individual. I meant every species. Learn the language.
      "Prove" isn't something you can do from a google search. Learn to do your own research. Google doesn't do any more than list what others have said. In a week, it'll list this post of mine. So by your logic, google says I'm right when it cites me.

      Once again, "confinement" is not "captivity". Captivity can be done well, or poorly. I'm not saying that every elephant in a cage is better off. I'm saying that elephants cared for properly are better off than wild elephants. Welcome to team work.

      Once again, no name to your arguments, hence a zero value to them.

      And, once again, I'm using other animals to describe humans in captivity. The debate is about humans. You're trying to discredit my point by discrediting the analogy. That's just idiotic on your part. You don't destroy a house by pointing out some weeds in the lawn.

    14. Re:Living in captivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're an expert at arguing a whole lot of shit I didn't even say, hence the volumes you type (oh so rapidly).

      It's simple. Using the species orcas (order, genus, phylum, or whateverthefuckyouwannacallit) as one example, I am proving this statement is false:

      Every animal lives longer in captivity than it does in the wild

      Not sure what's so hard to understand about that, or why you're trying to make anything more out of it.

      Statisically, they just don't. It's a fact. Google it.

      Had you said, "animals tend to live longer in captivity that they do in the wild", I wouldn't have taken issue with it. After all, judging by the volumes I skimmed through, that is apparently what you meant.

      Learn to say what you mean.

  35. Re:Mass shootings? Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There isn't a fly shit that big to make them visible on the death map.

  36. Senility in apes by DrYak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The thing is, in evolutionary terms the genes that kill you before procreation are actively selected against; yet those that kill you just as reliably later in life are passed on.

    Well not exactly.
    The prevalence of senility in all the other apes (except humans) begs to differ.

    I'm not saying that Richard Dawkins is wrong, I'm just saying that he's simplifying a little bit for the purpose of an explanation, but reality always more complex in the tiny details.

    The thing is, we human have invented one peculiar concept: the grandmother.

    In most other species of apes, individuals don't serve a purpose once they're past their reproductive age. On the countrary, they are using up valuable resources that might be put to better use by the young and the individual that still reproduce (in the same pack/tribe/etc.)
    Thus in most other species of apes, senile degenerescence seems to be actually the norm.
    Past a certain age (not far from the end of reproductive life) most apes turn senile rather quickly.

    There's a small advantage if individuals don't live too long after they stop reproducing, because it leaves more food for the younger individuals of the pack/tribe (individuals who share the same genetic mix - being the same extended family - and thus this is the special form of 'sacrifice' which might actually get selected for. Unlike 'lemmings suicide' urban legend). A gene leading to such situation will be selected for, because it leads to an increased number of individual carrying a copy of the gene, by optimising which individual keep reproducing.

    Compare the situation with humans:
    disease like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, vascular dementia, Huntington's and other neurodegenerative and senile diseases are *diseases*. I.e.: special conditions that only affect a small proportion of the population.
    Most individual go through their later years *without suffering* from any of the above (in stark contrast of the remaining apes).
    Why so? Grand mothers (and grand parents in general).
    In human specie individual who are past their reproductive age will help raising the youngest generation (their grand children and grand nephews).
    They take care of the youngs and, once language has been developped, they can also pass their knowledge by telling stories giving explanations...
    Even if an individual isn't reproducing anymore, and even if an individual isn't in their prime anymore, these individuals are *still* very valuable for the pack/tribe.
    Thus there's a very light incentive to select for individual who can stay functionnal in their late years. Even if they don't directly pass copies of their own genes anymore, they do help indirectly the survival of the rest of the pack/tribe and thus helps indirectly that the extended family grows (which shares genes with them).
    (it's similar to the type of indirect help that you see in a beehive/anthill. Most individual are infertile worker. But because they are all very closely related, by helping they increase the survival chance of other individuals carrying the same genes even without reproducing.)

    So if you have children at 40 (disregarding the complications and risks) it's likely that they won't inherit genes that are likely to kill them in their 30s. Thus the population in western "1st world" countries is aging, having children later and this may also be a contributing factor to the phenomenon.

    Also the *reason* while parents decide to have children later in life also plays a role.
    Most of such parent usually decide to reproduce later in life because of *career* reasons: They want to be in a better paying position to be better able to afford the children.
    This has the direct effect on the availability of healthcare and eraly diagnostics.

    But has again a very slight effect on the family structure.
    Chance are high that both parent will try to get back to their highly paid position after the birth, and thus grand parents might also again play a very

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Senility in apes by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      I don't have mod points, but must give you props for a very insightful and interesting post. :)

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  37. Everyone in the World is Living Longer / Better by retroworks · · Score: 4, Informative

    Basically everyone in the world is living longer. World is better for humans. Has been for decades. Better, in war, in disease, in nutrition. The surprise is that the doom-and-gloom press is surprised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Everyone in the World is Living Longer / Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have another theory: the divide between the rich and the poor is increasing and less poor people have access to hospitals due to lack of money, which improves statistics. I'm pretty sure if you limit yourself to the absurdly rich people those diseases are pretty much erradicated.

    2. Re:Everyone in the World is Living Longer / Better by retroworks · · Score: 1

      Let me postulate a difference between tomorrow and 50 years ago. Tomorrow a super rich person wins the lottery and simultaneously gains bitcoin, gold, etc. worth 10 to the power of 10 times what all other humans own. He's been given a 999 Trillion dollar coin. The gap tomorrow between the 1% and everyone else is now EXPONENTIALLY greater because this ONE DUDE totally gains inconceivable wealth. Question - were people better off 50 years ago than they will be tomorrow when "the divide between rich and poor" becomes insanely, exponentially greater? Or would you rather have a smart phone and vaccines?

      --
      Gently reply
  38. Better maintenance drugs, statins are key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm predisposed to heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes (runs in both sides of the family). However, thanks to statins, and blood pressure meds I can avoid heart attacks and strokes. I've also cut sugar out of my life entirely, so even though I'm overweight (I'm working on that) my cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels are all in the normal range. The development of statins, though seems to be the key in reducing heart disease as the killer. My doctor is in a great shape, a marathon runner, but without statins, he says he'd be a prime candidate for heart disease because he also is predisposed to high cholesterol.

  39. No smoking and clean water by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

    Otherwise, it must be all the antibiotics and steroids in our food chain....

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:No smoking and clean water by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or it could be lack of lead in our gasoline, or any of a number of other pollutants that have been removed. Or reduced sulfur rain. Or maybe it is the effect of Flintstone vitamins between the ages of 5-10 with long term effects. Every once in a while we see a new report that says 'Substance X causes 20% increase in Disease Y', which nobody had noticed before, or 'Eating more Z reduces chance of Disease D'. It would not be surprising if some substance (or potentially a mix of substances that interact in unknown ways) that were a contributing factor to many diseases. It will take many, many years of statistical studies to identify the relationships. Look how long it has taken for someone to figure out that BPA should not be used to make bottles you drink out of.

      In addition to the idea that maybe we need better statistical understanding of environment on the human body, we also should be very careful with what pollutants we are putting into the environment. To pick a hot topic, what is the long term effect of microbeads in health care products, or fracking chemicals? We really, really don't know. This sort of thing should lead to a surplus of caution.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    2. Re:No smoking and clean water by chipschap · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's due to global warming .... oh, wait.

    3. Re:No smoking and clean water by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Yea, damn that BPA, the BPS they use instead is SO much better.

      You didn't think they just stopped dunking your drinking containers in biphenol's entirely did you?

    4. Re:No smoking and clean water by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Nahh, it's the cost of living. Have you seen housing/rental prices in the Bay Area? No wonder all the diseases are relocating to third-world countries, at least they can afford the lifestyle. Ever wonder why Zika is located in Rio but not Reno? Can't afford to live there.

  40. porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It is clearly porn-related!
    With advent of DVDs and internet, more people started getting more access to more poem! This causes humans to live happier and happier and happier lives, mitigating stress and letting their immune systems do better jobs!

    1. Re:porn? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      With advent of DVDs and internet, more people started getting more access to more poem!

      Poem? Oh, you sweet summer child...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  41. Alternative view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An alternative view is
    a) All diseases are in decline
    b) We are discovering more diseases

    from a,b traditional diseases appear to be in decline relative to the overall set

  42. the scare possessive by epine · · Score: 1

    The Times cites one researcher's pet theory" that the cellular process of aging itself may be gradually changing in humans' favor.

    Start your day with a new punctuation mark: the scare possessive—twice as tight and idiosyncratic and unreasonable as the regular possessive.

  43. Re:Mass shootings? Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Homicides via firearm are down significantly despite a population increase (~230M in the 80s vs over 300M today) and there being more firearms than ever in private ownership. Even using some pretty creative definitions of "mass shooting" they account for less than 2% of the yearly homicides by firearm (low to mid hundreds). On average you're more likely to be clubbed/hammered (about 500 per year) to death that die in a mass shooting. People are quite frankly are more likely to off themselves with a firearm (suicide) than shoot another, which is a pretty succinct demonstration of how rare "gun violence" is.

  44. People LIve healthier livestyles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News @ 11.

    Seriously, it appears they want a 'magical answer' to something that may simply go against the narrative that 'Americans', and other 'wealthy countries' are nothing but overeating fat slobs. While you can't count me in this group (I smoke, drink too much, don't eat healthy) all around me the people I interact with are simply leading more active lives. And since smoking has been on a decline for YEARS that one simple activity (yes I wish I'd never started) would easily explain this.

    O well, guess 'magic' is just a better answer

  45. Not need! by aglider · · Score: 1

    New and even major diseases are to replace the previously major ones...

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  46. Reduction maybe caused by pjv936 · · Score: 1

    by the reduction in air pollution and cigarette smoking.

  47. And yet the US death rate is increasing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot reported it last month:

    According to The New York Times, the U.S. death rate has risen for the first time in more than a decade (or several decades if particular). The rise is across the whole population:

    https://science.slashdot.org/s...

  48. Organic foods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More people are eating wholesome organic foods. More people are healthier. Imagine that.

  49. Older parents by taylorius · · Score: 2

    People are waiting until they're older to have children, which could select for women (men too, to a lesser degree) who remain fertile for longer. If fertility is correlated with general health, that could cause something like this.

  50. Re: "We also eat rabbits that I raise and chicken" by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    See, I have to give you that one. I think I'd be too squeamish to chicken my own rabbits.

  51. Re: "We also eat rabbits that I raise and chicken" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    See, I have to give you that one. I think I'd be too squeamish to chicken my own rabbits.

    Is that a rabicken or a chickbit? Guess it depends on which you stuff with which, but it's a lot easier to stuff a chicken than a rabbit.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  52. economics by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    As jobs and wealth are more scarce than earlier there is less idle time, less appetite for risks, less resources for food.

  53. Jew York Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As much as it's nice to ponder nice thoughts, where's the data?

    If you say nice things people want to read your stuff more, instead of looking at cold hard irrefutable facts.

    This is a fucking ad for Jew news.

    Where's the Jew York Times story about Janet Yellen saying hey, we can pay off the national debt now? Oh, yeah aww sikes. Free from malaria today but the whole country is fighting each other because XXX lives matter and the money for social services just isn't there. Maybe the doctors will go full charity? And the people keeping the lights on in hospitals? And the emergency vehicles can run on Xbox fuel. Then the government can step in with all of the money and things they make and build... and just save the day with their weapons.

    Y'all are real fucking slow at this life thing if you believe the Jew York Times.

    1. Re:Jew York Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words ponder the pretty skies while you are being fucking robbed.

  54. porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We now have plenty of porn available on internet for free. People are living longer. I see a correlation.

    1. Re:porn by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      internet access costs just as much as renting porn VHS back in the day though

      maybe we jerk off more now, reducing stress? jack your way to longer life and happiness!

  55. For dementia, could it be computers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And recently smartphones. Keep your brain engaged much more than TV can, even when you're socially deprived as most old people are.

  56. Maybe it is the organic eating movement? by rcamans · · Score: 1

    Maybe people are eating healthier?

    --
    wake up and hold your nose
  57. Cannabis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But hey, you don't have to take my word for it!!

  58. Isolation by HiThere · · Score: 1

    My theory is that people are having less physical contact with other people, so diseases are having a harder time spreading. This is probably testable by checking which diseases are being reduced.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  59. Re:Mass shootings? Anyone? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    and there being more firearms than ever in private ownership.

    What is the distribution of guns per individual, though? I've read something about the same people who already owned guns buying more guns (usually some kind of pre-election hysteria).

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  60. or it's environmental... by MrPeach · · Score: 1

    With all the uncontrolled pollution caused during the industrial revolution, it's not surprising that certain diseases are reducing in prevalence along with reductions in environmental pollution.

  61. Whales live a long time by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Whales live a long time.. Americans have become whales, LOL.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  62. Re: "We also eat rabbits that I raise and chicken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well played, sir.

  63. Breeding later in life... by eggstasy · · Score: 1

    ...may select for people who still are and look young and healthy in spite of their age?

  64. HSCT phase 2 trial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the abstract for one of the many MS/ aHSCT trials going on in the world today...

    Findings

    Between diagnosis and aHSCT, 24 patients had 167 clinical relapses over 140 patient-years with 188 Gd-enhancing lesions on 48 pre-aHSCT MRI scans. Median follow-up was 67 years (range 39–127). The primary outcome, multiple sclerosis activity-free survival at 3 years after transplantation was 696% (95% CI 466–842). With up to 13 years of follow-up after aHSCT, no relapses occurred and no Gd enhancing lesions or new T2 lesions were seen on 314 MRI sequential scans. The rate of brain atrophy decreased to that expected for healthy controls. One of 24 patients died of transplantation-related complications. 35% of patients had a sustained improvement in their Expanded Disability Status Scale score.

    I wouldn't call it a cure for MS, but certainly very promising... Since aHSCT therapies apparently involve destroying your immune system with chemo and doing an immune system reboot with stem cells, it's probably a last resort thing right now...