is our health care system too good?

[MET]

once again i was thinking about tons of things like i always do. i came to the subject of health care. so i thought about it a bit, and i realised that it actually might become our downfall (in theory). because, we save all these tons of sick baby's (or baby's with a handicap( it obviously also count's for older people)) witch would otherwise have died. if they would have survived without treatment, they would have proven themselfs to be strong. though, since many of the baby's do need special care, and wouldn't have survived without it. those are the weak. but if they do survive, and the weak blend toghether with the strong, we become a race of weakning humans. so if, our own body's can't protect us when (for example) an disease occurse wich we can't treat, we are down to our body's. but since we have become weakend over the years, our body's can't protect us. the human race would be wiped out (almost) entirely. those that do survive, are obviously the strongest, and can start over.
the healthcare system wouldn't, of course, be the direct reason of human downfall, but it would be a chain in it.
anyway, this is in theory. (pherhaps i didn't explain it alright.)
so, is it a possible theory? and of course the opinions over it.

[Nihil]

Filed under Ethos, Mores and Monastica.

[SoggyFrog]

Initial response to this thread is to yell, "fascist!" Only reason I say that is because you're trying to define "weakness" as an absolute thing, and disparity in genes just means different traits that make individuals better or worse at some things. Genetic disorders come in all sorts of forms so they really don't render our population more vulnerable to any one catastrophe. Species are actually more resilient if they have greater genetic diversity.

There are some fairer arguments today which oppose the concept of equal rights. Evolutionary principles do apply to humans, no matter how great society's efforts are, and there is eventually a limited carrying capacity for our species on this earth. If there are too many births than can be supported, then some of them must die.

This introduces two solutions: We can accept higher mortality rates, or we can consciously reduce birth rates. The former is already a reality in the third world, but so is the latter in the Western world.

[Gwendylyn]

And, also, you define weakness as being sick babies. A baby can be born premature or sick, yet have perfectly healthy genes. A premature or sick baby may or may not have complications later in life (asthma, prone to sickness), but in terms of evolution these traits are not passed down.

We have been saving sick babies for as long as we are able. I've never seen proof that as medical knowledge advances, our bodies have become less able to deal witht he onslaught of diseases. Perhaps you are wildly exaggerating how well our bodies took to disease before contemporary medical knowledge, where the majority of children never survived to adulthood and not due to any weakness in 'genes'.

[MET]

i'm not an facist
i don't even know what facists believe in.
and i used sick baby's as an example.

anyway, what i'm trying to say, why all the nonesense, i'm not saying it's a bad thing. i simply think we should let evolution choose, rather then ourselves, who survives, and who not. that way, we will become a stronger race. that's the entire idea behind evolution. it's been proven many times that if we break the normal evolutionary path, that species die out (cause of us). of course we weren't talking about humans there. and humans can decide there own path in the evolution. but what if it does go wrong? what if we screw up the entire planet cause of it.
but since this is about the human race, what if we screw up the human race so much that we destroy ourselves?

[jankren]

Man, your way of thinking would make you a good Hitler youth.

[bdh]

we become a race of weakning humans.

Thats complete and absolute nonsense. It only means evolution ceases. It doesn't mean that we evolve to become weaker.

Genetic disorders come in all sorts of forms so they really don't render our population more vulnerable to any one catastrophe.

With the only exception being have the wrong number of chomosomes (which is a developmental disorder more than genetic), every single genetic disorder or predisposition either
A) appears later in life therefore making it inconsequential to babies being born
B) has an indirect genetic benefit (like sickle cell anemia protecting against malaria)

Otherwise, most children born with a disability would largely be environmental, having absolutely no genetic effect.

it's been proven many times that if we break the normal evolutionary path, that species die out (cause of us)

That is evolution, not a break with it.

[MET]

Thats complete and absolute nonsense. It only means evolution ceases. It doesn't mean that we evolve to become weaker.



That is evolution, not a break with it.

if everything around us evolves, and we don't, doesn't that equal weakening?


so, if we shoot shoot way more elephants than that there are elephants born, and they started to die out, it isn't a breakup in the evolutianary path?

anyway, my idea is merely a theory, i don't know if that is how it happens in real life. though i'm pretty sure that our own body's become less able to protect us cause there are always medicines to cure the disease.

and i think that appart from this theory i have nothing in common with hitlers ideas.

[bdh]

if everything around us evolves, and we don't, doesn't that equal weakening?

No. You have completely erroneos ideas about evolution.
Evolution isn't about "progress" or "paths." Terms such as "strong" and "weak" aren't descriptive with respect to evolution either. Evolution isn't about the strongest of the species suriving, but those most responsive to change. If the evolution of other other things doesn't effect us, we don't change so its irrelevent to our "weakening."

Quite simply, the traits which are conducive to survival will become more common. If, for some reason, traits are equally favorable, they will be equailly likely to become more or less common. If all traits are equally favorable, everything will be equally like to become more or less common so the species remains fairly constant.

so, if we shoot shoot way more elephants than that there are elephants born, and they started to die out, it isn't a breakup in the evolutianary path?

No, that is evolution. There are two options
A) elephants die out because they are no longer suitable for their environment (i.e. cannot cope with humans). They are naturally selected for extinction
B) elephants with traits conducive to survival will be the only ones left and will therefore have their traits appear more common therefore elephants won't become extinct. Elephants 'evolve' to cope with humans somehow

If something new crops up, which you seem to be suggesting, then the genes which will protect us will most likely have absolutely nothing to do with the ones dealing with congenital growth. Its completely random, 100% random. If anything, saving weak children increases genetic diversity, which is more conducive to human survival since children with genetic deficiencies that would normally kill them at birth could likewise be protected from some other future malady by virtue of their disparity with other 'normal' human beings.

and i think that appart from this theory i have nothing in common with hitlers ideas.

With respect to biology, ever sinle one of Hitler's theories was wrong.
'Strength' doesn't come from some perceived ideal of 'perfection,' it comes from diversity.

[the Eternal Cocoon]

once again i was thinking about tons of things like i always do. i came to the subject of health care. so i thought about it a bit, and i realised that it actually might become our downfall (in theory). because, we save all these tons of sick baby's (or baby's with a handicap( it obviously also count's for older people)) witch would otherwise have died. if they would have survived without treatment, they would have proven themselfs to be strong. though, since many of the baby's do need special care, and wouldn't have survived without it. those are the weak. but if they do survive, and the weak blend toghether with the strong, we become a race of weakning humans. so if, our own body's can't protect us when (for example) an disease occurse wich we can't treat, we are down to our body's. but since we have become weakend over the years, our body's can't protect us. the human race would be wiped out (almost) entirely. those that do survive, are obviously the strongest, and can start over.
the healthcare system wouldn't, of course, be the direct reason of human .

Damn right! we should take every newborn baby, hand it a napsack filled with cheese, a machete, and a few pain killers, and then drive em' off to the desert. that way the human race will be made entirely of badasses and indians ( who naturally survive in the desert).

We have surived on our intellegence, not becuase of our phisical prowness. Alowing babies to die becuase of phisical handicapps would actually increase the likely hood of a disease overwhelming humanity; the more brain power we have the quicker we will respond to anything new that comes up.
Besides, diseases hit the strong as well as the weak. Mr.Universe will be as likely to die after getting aids or polio as anyone else without treatment. So if a disease develops that is untreatable and un quarantinable we will be ****ed regardless of what we do.

[NaptownKnight]

So go live in a cave in the woods. If you look at other animals they were meant to dominate this earth through sheer force or speed or a combanation of the two. Humans were the only creatures that god gave the ability to think and advance and have tools. As our tools advance so do other things like medicine. God intended for us to be able to save the sick humans on this planet, so if God intended it I see nothing wrong with helping the weak or sick babies. Not to be a troll, but that posts sounds like a speach straight from Hittler.

[pranicmegan]

once again i was thinking about tons of things like i always do. i came to the subject of health care. so i thought about it a bit, and i realised that it actually might become our downfall (in theory). because, we save all these tons of sick baby's (or baby's with a handicap( it obviously also count's for older people)) witch would otherwise have died. if they would have survived without treatment, they would have proven themselfs to be strong. though, since many of the baby's do need special care, and wouldn't have survived without it. those are the weak. but if they do survive, and the weak blend toghether with the strong, we become a race of weakning humans. so if, our own body's can't protect us when (for example) an disease occurse wich we can't treat, we are down to our body's. but since we have become weakend over the years, our body's can't protect us. the human race would be wiped out (almost) entirely. those that do survive, are obviously the strongest, and can start over.
the healthcare system wouldn't, of course, be the direct reason of human downfall, but it would be a chain in it.
anyway, this is in theory. (pherhaps i didn't explain it alright.)
so, is it a possible theory? and of course the opinions over it.

Theres one small flaw with your theory (well many actually but one Im gunna argue about) ... It is the one thing that has had scientists flummoxed since Darwin came up with his brilliant theory. If females always mate with the biggest or best male and ignore the weaker males then the gene pool should shrink, as only the genes of a few males are carried onto the next generation. And as someone pointed out earlier, the bigger the gene pool the bigger the diversity and the greater the chances for mutation (ie evolution). If you look to the animal kingdom this is borne out.

Lets look at humans. If only the best looking or fittest men get selected as mates, then the gene pool again would grow smaller, less diverse and more homogenous. Yet look at the diversity of humans, we are certainly not homogenous.

So what is going on?? Scientists reckon they finally have this sorted. They reckon it is gene mutation that leads to genetic evolution. This is what has prevented the gene pool from ever shrinking. Genetic mutations are evolution in action. You are suggesting that the gene pool get smaller?? Thus lessening our chances of useful genetic mutation rather than larger, which strengthens it?

Ahh what they hey... lets have a go at the other flaws!

Firstly you have no idea about the health industry ... by reading your post you sound young. So your forgiven.

It really should be called the sickness industry as that is the ultimate aim. Healthy people dont buy medicines (drugs from Big Pharma). Therefore they dont want healthy people, they want sick people. That is why Codex Alimentarius is making illegal ... vitamins, health supplements, minerals, energy healing, acupuncture, accupressure, reiki, pranic healing, and all forms of non drug therapy. Like I said, they dont want healthy people, they want sick people.

If you have never heard of Codex Alimentarius, I suggest its time you found out. We (Australia) will be 'harmonised' with Codex by 2008, and parts of Europe allready are, and the US is also in the final stages of 'harmonisation'.

Briefly codex is a list of 'food rules' supposedly put in place to protect consumers (you and me). Guess who wrote them??

Consumers or consumer protection groups ?? Governments? BZZZZT ! WRONG.

Codex was written by WTO.... yes thats right the World TRADE organisation. Its written by those companies that are going to make one hell of a profit off it.

And to make sure we all have to turn to the Big Pharma boys, Monsanto among others, are poisoning the food and beverages with aspartame and GM toxic crap. In fact they have even convinced half the world that the most severe chemically active neuro toxin known to man is 'safe' enough to put into the water supplies! While Europe has woken up to this scam, Canada, Australia, and the US all still use Fluoride in the drinking water. Thats right, neurotoxins in the drinking water.

And you are worried that we are going to 'health' our selves to death with the aid of the 'health' industry! LMAO! Oh I wish!

The 'Health' industry ~ my arse!

[bdh]

It really should be called the sickness industry as that is the ultimate aim. Healthy people dont buy medicines (drugs from Big Pharma). Therefore they dont want healthy people, they want sick people. That is why Codex Alimentarius is making illegal ... vitamins, health supplements, minerals, energy healing, acupuncture, accupressure, reiki, pranic healing, and all forms of non drug therapy. Like I said, they dont want healthy people, they want sick people.

Yes, because the majority of drug research is driven by big pharma, not public universities Big pharma spends most of its time developing Viagra and cholesterol medication, something you can lower yourself if people just maintain healthy habits.

Codex was written by WTO.... yes thats right the World TRADE organisation. Its written by those companies that are going to make one hell of a profit off it.

The WTO isn't a bunch of companies. Its an organization with member nations.

And to make sure we all have to turn to the Big Pharma boys, Monsanto among others, are poisoning the food and beverages with aspartame and GM toxic crap.

Thats nonsense. There is little or no supporting scientific evidence for that.

In fact they have even convinced half the world that the most severe chemically active neuro toxin known to man is 'safe' enough to put into the water supplies! While Europe has woken up to this scam, Canada, Australia, and the US all still use Fluoride in the drinking water. Thats right, neurotoxins in the drinking water.

Fluoride is essentialy for the formation of healthy bones and teeth. The idea that its 'toxic' while true, is also absurd. Every substance on Earth is toxic, the only issue is dosage. You can die of water poisoning. The idea then that Fluoride in the water is dangerous is absurd since the amount of Fluoride is carefully regulated. Vitamin A is also very toxic, but, as long as you don't consume too much of it, that won't kill you too, and thats an essential vitamin. Everything in moderation.

Age-wise, the biggest jump was among people aged 15 to 24, which the CDC report says relates to recreational prescription drug use and a jump in cocaine use.

That pretty much says the problem right there. The article has deliberately misled you. The issue isn't big pharma, the issue is abuse of perscription medications.

However, all other age groups except the elderly over-75 group saw increases of more than 35 percent on a per 100,000 scale in prescription drug deaths

So big pharma is killing people, and yet the most highly medicated people on earth, the elderly, aren't experiencing a jump in drug related deaths?

You do realize that the number of increased deaths is directly proportional to the age group and that it is not a cross-generational phenomonon? That screams of drug abuse since older people are less likely to engage in risky drug behavior.
Pharma is just scapegoat for a larger social issue.

[pranicmegan]

Fluoride is essentialy for the formation of healthy bones and teeth. The idea that its 'toxic' while true, is also absurd. Every substance on Earth is toxic, the only issue is dosage. You can die of water poisoning. The idea then that Fluoride in the water is dangerous is absurd since the amount of Fluoride is carefully regulated. Vitamin A is also very toxic, but, as long as you don't consume too much of it, that won't kill you too, and thats an essential vitamin. Everything in moderation.

Oh ROTFLMFAO!!

You have obviously done your research!! NOT.


Here are some facts to get you started!!



Harvard Study: Fluoridation associated with bone cancer in boys

In the wake of media scrutiny and an NIH ethics investigation, the first paper from Harvard University’s ongoing study of fluoride and bone cancer was finally published (2). The paper -- published 14 years after the study began -- reported that boys exposed to fluoridated water had a significantly higher rate of an often fatal form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma. According to the study, the boys with the highest rate of osteosarcoma were those that were exposed to fluoridated water during the ages of 6 to 8, although other years of life were also associated with increased risk – including the first year of life. These findings, which are consistent with a 1990 government study that reported the same form of bone cancer in fluoride-treated rats, have resulted in a similar degree of controversy. For example, in 1992, the top toxicologist in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water was fired after publicly expressing concern that the government was downplaying the study’s findings, while, in 2005, the principal investigator of the Harvard study (a dental professor with ties to Colgate) sparked a public outcry after it was revealed he had withheld the study’s findings from federal authorities while claiming it showed no relationship between fluoridation and bone cancer. Together, the government and Harvard studies reveal a disturbing pattern: when it comes to fluoride and cancer, politics can become a malignant force.







FLUORIDE FACTS



10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | December 2006 | Printer-Friendly Version

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water . This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).

5) There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)

8) Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

[bdh]

Oh ROTFLMFAO!!
Harvard Study: Fluoridation associated with bone cancer in boys

In the wake of media scrutiny and an NIH ethics investigation, the first paper from Harvard University’s ongoing study of fluoride and bone cancer was finally published (2). The paper -- published 14 years after the study began -- reported that boys exposed to fluoridated water had a significantly higher rate of an often fatal form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma. According to the study, the boys with the highest rate of osteosarcoma were those that were exposed to fluoridated water during the ages of 6 to 8, although other years of life were also associated with increased risk – including the first year of life. These findings, which are consistent with a 1990 government study that reported the same form of bone cancer in fluoride-treated rats, have resulted in a similar degree of controversy. For example, in 1992, the top toxicologist in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water was fired after publicly expressing concern that the government was downplaying the study’s findings, while, in 2005, the principal investigator of the Harvard study (a dental professor with ties to Colgate) sparked a public outcry after it was revealed he had withheld the study’s findings from federal authorities while claiming it showed no relationship between fluoridation and bone cancer. Together, the government and Harvard studies reveal a disturbing pattern: when it comes to fluoride and cancer, politics can become a malignant force.

The 1995 New York State Health Department got completely different findings and the results of the Harvard study are in dispute. I'm not impressed by the big cut and paste.

snip

Those facts are all well and good, but almost all of those studies dealt with the dangers of fluoride in high doses, not in the standard dose as is legally allowed, which is around 1 ppm. The only conceivably good argument was made for those at risk for kidney failure and infants. Even then, dialysis patients and infants shouldn't be drinking tap water anyway due to the high mineral content, not just fluoride.

Even with all of these studies, over 100 different organizations, including the American Dental Association, endorse water fluoridation. Now, unless you are going to promulgate that its a conspiracy theory, I'm willing to trust the scientific establishment.

Of course, if you think its a conspiracy, all you need to do is look at the conditions caused by high doses of fluoride, they are all either incurable (like learning disabilities) or terminal. You can't make money off of those kinds of diseases. Big Pharma must be really stupid if its their conspiracy to make us all sick with diseases that can't be treated.

[pranicmegan]

Oh ... I was browsing and I just found this article .... ties right in with what I just posted.


Read on!!

Originally published February 22 2007
Prescription drug deaths skyrocket 68 percent over five years as Americans swallow more pills
by M.T. Whitney

(NewsTarget) Poisoning from prescription drugs has risen to become the second-largest cause of unintentional deaths in the United States, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, researchers found that deaths from prescription drugs rose from 4.4 per 100,000 people in 1999 to 7.1 per 100,000 in 2004.

This increase represents a jump from 11,000 people to almost 20,000 in the span of five years.

Among the 20,000 that died, more than 8,500 – double the number from 1999 -- were from "other and unspecified drugs."

Psychotherapeutic drugs, like antidepressants and sedatives, nearly doubled from 671 deaths to 1,300.

Age-wise, the biggest jump was among people aged 15 to 24, which the CDC report says relates to recreational prescription drug use and a jump in cocaine use.

However, all other age groups except the elderly over-75 group saw increases of more than 35 percent on a per 100,000 scale in prescription drug deaths – including a nearly 90 percent jump for the late Baby Boomer generation (ages 45 to 54) and a more than 90 percent for people aged 55 to 64. Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate and outspoken critic of pharmaceutical companies, said that the drug industry is freely killing Americans.

"The entire drug industry, including the monopolistic drug giants and their FDA co-conspirator, has clearly become the single greatest threat to the health and safety of the American people," Adams said. "And yet the FDA continues to push more drugs onto more Americans than ever before, all while pretending these drugs are safe and effective when, in reality, they are neither. Today's pharmaceutical industry is a massive fraud being perpetrated against the American people, propped up by illegal trade practices, monopolistic behavior and outright criminal behavior on the part of the FDA."

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's conceivable that in the future disease and genetic malfunction can be corrected by science. So long as the God crowd pipes down and concentrates on worshiping whatever they choose.