reply to post by Maxmars
As you say, you need to look closely at the details, but in general I would tend to agree that much of what we have been indroctinated into thinking a
"proper" way to live is merely a way to push drugs on us to attain certain biochemical levels that are far below what is necessary for good
One personal example. I have high cholosterol and a family history of it. When I attempted to deal with it, first through diet & exercise, f first
a moderate than a draconian plan, the levels did not go down, but rather went up. I began to take a statin and sure enough the levels dropped below
200, although the side effects were monsterous. Thinking I was good with the level under 200 and willing to accept the side effects, the doc then
tells me that the new studies show that it needs to be below 150, so double the dosage. Nope, I stopped taking the statins.
Same with liver enzymes. Look at a study and they will tell you levels that indicate a healthy liver. Look at them over time and you will find
that they continue to drop them, indicating what would appear to be a systemic lowering of levels to drive more treatments.
Alcohol consumption is another. Much of the world lives with several drinks/day, yet in many societies, certainly the US, its a one a day deal or
its unhealthy. I gather that most US doctors have never been to England, Japan, Germany, Australia or much of the world where having a few drinks
(with food) is common place.
Why is it that Japanese people smoke like crazy, yet are relatively healthy when smoking is supposed to be the number 1 cause of self inflicted death
(or at least contributor to it)? Its not an all or nothing thing.
Much of disease is caused by environmental poisons, in my opinion that manifest themselves in somatic diseases that are treated with chemicals. Take
chemicals to dampen the effects of the chemicals in our ground water, food supply, air we breathe, household chemicals. It is one of the reasons
that rural folks, with less access to modern healthcare live longer than urban folks. Certainly the active lifestyle of rural existance helps, but
the cleanliness of the environment has to be a key factor as well.
Ultimately everyone is different. Given a choice of living a spartan life and living to 100 or drinking regularily, smoking and having bacon
cheesburgers at will and dying at 75, I'll personally take the 75. I've never really understood this goal of super old age.
We trumpet the continued extension of life through modern medicine. How about we think about measuring the length of a quality, enjoyable life?
The wicked game today is that if the medical establishment and government could have everyone in a hospital bed with diapers with intravenous feeding
and lived to 110, they would talk about it as an accomplishment. Hardly any different than duct taping an old car to get another 50k miles out of
I thought one of the objectives was to live rather than simply be alive, but thats just me.