Discussion

You need to log in to create posts and topics.

Long term health statistics

Poisoning for Profits is a truly groundbreaking book, that explains quite a lot about some major issues in the world.  While the main and incredibly important topic of P4P is "Vitamin A" poisoning, perhaps equally major issues raised in this ebook are (1.) The huge increase in disease in the relatively recent past, (2.) A thorough and scientific explanation of vaccines and their dangers, and (3.) The clear depopulation agenda behind all the food "enrichment" programs and vaccines.

I believe the evidence presented for all the above is about as clear as can be, with exception of (1.).  I did a quick google search trying to find statistics over the past ~100 years for rates of various diseases and did not immediately find any sites that seemed to have thorough, reliable, clear, long-term information.  If we are going to try and spread awareness about these issues i.e. that the world's population is intentionally being poisoned on a massive scale, I think the first step is we have to be able to first clearly establish that there is actually a problem. I think most people are generally aware that some "diseases" have been increasing such as autism, but I don't think the average person has ever quantified the extent, and even if they did they might just attribute it to changes in diagnosis or whatever.

P4P mentions a number of statistics but I did not see any sources cited for this historical data (which I see as the one real weakness of this book). Thus I believe we need a clear, reliable, unassailable source of statistics that shows rates of disease, life expectancy, quality of life, etc. going back as far as possible, and ideally that can easily be sorted/searched based on these parameters as well as region, country, and other possible environmental/geographic data.  Does such a thing exist?  And does anyone know where Grant got his statistics that he references?  If we can show clear evidence to others that there is in fact an issue of declining health of people in our own countries and throughout the world – which is of much higher significance than can simply be blamed on lack of exercise, poor diet, etc., this should strongly help motivate others to start to seriously look at why that is.

Hi David,

Thanks for the comments and feedback. You’ve highlighted what I think is probably the most important message I was trying to get across in P4P. The huge rate increases in these diseases means that they are not normal, and the only logical explanation is that they are “environmental”. The rate increases are a dead-giveaway, IMO.

Naturally, the big multiples in the rate increases are somewhat attributable to the very low starting numbers. But, that’s the point, these diseases are not normal in the human population.

Alzheimer’s is probably a good example for the discussion.  When Dr. Alois Alzheimer saw the first case of the disease in 1906 it was an extremely rare and clearly novel condition.

Now today, we are facing one of every two people over 85 having the disease.  Similarly for autism. The first case was diagnosed in around 1933, and it too was exceptionally rare and novel. Of course, there are so many similarities between Alzheimer’s and autism, it’s just shocking. But, the really shocking thing about them is that the are following the same exponential growth curves.

I agree, I was skimpy on the references. Here’s one for AD documenting the 800-fold rate increase in the 85+ year old groups:

Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 17 (2009) 519–529 519

DOI 10.3233/JAD-2009-1070

IOS Press

Epidemiological Trends Strongly Suggest Exposures as Etiologic Agents in the Pathogenesis of Sporadic Alzheimer’s

Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, and Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis

Page: 522

Of note is that between 1968 and 2005, the death rates from AD increased by 4-fold in the 55–64, 20-fold in the 64–74, 150-fold in the 75–84, and 800-fold in the 85+year old groups.

My claim that the general rates of cancer have seen a 400-fold increase since the 1860’s is based on data in a book titled: Disease Maps: Epidemics on the Ground by Tom Koch

https://www.amazon.ca/Disease-Maps-Epidemics -Tom-Koch/dp/0226449351

 

I don't remember the exact page. So, please don't quote me on this without first verifying. But, from what I remember is that he showed that the recorded cancer rate was generally about 1/10,000 in Western Europe in 1860, and in one particular town in Scotland (I think Tom Koch mistakenly stated it was a town in France) it had alarmingly shot up to 1/1,000. And now, here in North America we are at about 1/3 (for lifetime incidence rates).

Disease Maps Epidemics is a well researched book, and a good read too IMO.

There’s some good historical cancer rate data from Sweden, with references, in my Breast Cancer eBook.

When I started writing P4P, even I felt that the title was a bit over the top. Now, I think it is spot on. Let me know if you want to collaborate on the other points you’ve mentioned.

Thanks again,

Grant

 

When looking at long term health statistics I think it's good to keep in mind that diagnostic criteria is ever changing. I know for certain what was once considered high cholesterol and blood pressure for example has changed within my working life of 30 years. I believe some of the tightening in cutoff numbers is promote pharmaceutical use/dependence.

I have also read the claim that we are better at diagnosing and that's part of why many diseases seem to be on the rise. I'm not sure how true that is but I know that disease creates nice profits for certain industries.

That claim gets tossed around a lot for things like autism. But there's simply no way it's valid because it's a virtually unrecognised set of symptoms prior to the established diagnoses.

I guess a crappy analogy would be if people legs started dropping off so they give it the name pirates disease. Forty years later pirates disease is becoming epidemic but no one wants to accept responsibility. Implicated industries claim that pirates disease was always with us and then proceeds to try and normalise it. Yeah, pirates disease, it was just called something else before, we're better at diagnosing it now.

"But", you distantly remember as your left leg falls off, "the majority of old people you knew as a kid had both legs."

Having no legs is now the new normal. No. Better than normal, it's a super quirk that marks our evolutionary progress and adaptation to Tesla cars and out growing our primitive need to walk everywhere. Contradicting the first claim it was always with us in significant numbers in the first place.

It might be legitimate for Alzheimer's, because old aged senility is recognised historically, but I'm sceptical. If the diagnosis got better we should see less, since it would be harder to confuse with other types of senility such as B12 deficiencies, vascular dementia and the like. Or if Alzheimers shot up, a similar disease would shoot down.

Grant, thanks for the quick reply and details. And to above poster, yes completely agree. Having been an engineer for 25+ years as well as being pretty well read in science, history, politics, health, etc., P4P to me all made perfect sense, and is done in a very conversational, down-to-Earth style, that despite the seriousness of the topics even manages to be humorous at times. Unfortunately however, most of the public seems to fall into one of 3 categories, they (a) either have zero science background or interests, or (b) just enough knowledge of science to think they're just as smart as anyone else when in fact they don't get even the most fundamental concepts, or (c) professional scientists on various institutional payrolls who have to be extremely conservative and uncontroversial in everything they say or do lest they step on the toes of anyone who could possibly help further their "career" interests.

That leaves us normal, free-thinking, independent seekers of truth as a small outcast minority of maybe a few percent of the population. So what do we do?

  1. Mind our own business and let the aforementioned groups continue to poison themselves?
  2. Stoop to Saul Alinksy-esque propaganda techniques (ala everything the Democrats and the insane mainstream media and their never ending Russian election interference conspiracy theories and other never ending distractions) to try and raise public awareness?
  3. Approach scientists, doctors, etc. and try to convince them to actually download and read a free ebook?

Of course in reality I think the only practical option is to try and communicate the issues as concisely and clearly as possible such that people can find this info when they need it.  To do this properly I think requires that the evidence be assembled in a manner up to legal-level standards. Otherwise you simply don't have what a majority of people are going to see as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

To prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence needs to be ordered and linked together into a cohesive framework. I see the foundation of that as first being able to show that a problem exists. Saying that X% of people are being poisoned in various ways resulting in various diagnoses doesn't go very far if we can't show conclusively where that number started from and how it changed in relation to other variables in the equation i.e. "Vit. A" supplementation rates, food "enrichment" programs, etc.

We have to get the root of where the statistics were compiled.  Tom Koch's Disease Maps book doesn't help because it's not in the public domain and it looks like it costs $45 just to get a copy.  The other study has some good info but is somewhat complex and does not really seem to highlight the 800-fold increase as strongly as it should. Great that they have discovered that nitrites/nitrates/nitrosamines appear to be a cause of Alzheimer's, diabetes, etc., but if there was an 800-fold increase in AD over 25 years, seems to me that is a heck of a lot more important to first emphasize, and "sound the alarm" (to use a cliché phrase), than to just bury that small tidbit halfway through the study.

The other issue is we have how many 1,000's of scientific papers published every day?  How many of these are actually read by any significant number of people?  This is TMI x 2 to the 800th power.  Humans have a major tendency to create unending complexity which just then gets forgotten or overlooked long before it ever can be incorporated into any meaningful, interlinked, coherent structure of knowledge, which might serve as a foundation to effect real change (which only happens when things can be condensed to extremely clear and simple terms).  e.g. this study was published in 2009 associating nitrosamines with an 800-fold increase in Alzheimer's – so why does most of the bacon and numerous other foods in the grocery store still contain these chemicals??

If the building these researchers work in were to catch fire, what would they do, pull the fire alarm and warn everyone to get out of the building?  No of course not, that would be too crude and alarmist. Why not write a study about it instead, titled something like "Epidemiological Trends Strongly Suggest Matches as Etiologic Agents in the Spontaneous Combustion of University Research Facility Buildings"?

Tim Berners Lee, the software engineer who developed http and the www, and many others for many years have pushed for use of the internet in a more intelligent way, where we share meaningful, object-oriented, network-oriented, interlinked data rather than static paper-oriented documents which have still not progressed far beyond the typewriter. Why are scientists of all people still acting like its 1952?  Granted, some are doing innovative data informatics work in highly specialized areas, but I don't see this going anywhere for more general purpose application.

Going back to my original point, there seems to be a major piece missing as far as statistics.  According to the CDC, WHO, etc., life expectancy rates have been continually going up for many years, with just a few small decreases in recent years. I don't doubt that these people do maintain exactly the statistics I'm referring to, but I would suspect they are being very creative in how they classify and cherry-pick things to make their analyses conform to agency "directives", and that they are being very careful about what data they make available to the public.

If Grant or someone were to write a follow-up ebook on these critical topics, it would be great if it focused on establishing once and for all, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is actually a health crisis in the US and worldwide. I think until we can properly quantify that with detailed, reliable, public-domain statistics going back 100+ years, it's very easy for people to dismiss the other material.  I am looking into getting a M.S. degree in Biochemistry so might be interested in contributing to such a project at some point but would not be able to work much on it in the near future.  This is probably a big undertaking, though not an impossible one. (Probably someone has already published a book like this, I could probably buy 10 different ones on amazon. But this is important info and needs to be in the public domain, not some $20 paperback book that has sold a few hundred copies.)

Well just wanted to share my thoughts on this, hopefully some others have some ideas how this could actually be done and how we could build a real case that could actually bring down the people who are poisoning us and the planet. Until then thanks again Grant for providing these major and invaluable pieces of this puzzle.

Best wishes @davidg on such a noble cause. It’s a daunting prospect to even begin to sift through the confusion that permeates medical science today so my hat goes off to you.

 

Hi David,

I really don't have time to go digging up the historical stats. I'll leave that up to someone else.

But, if you wanted to measure it at the macro-level, here's a good indicator.

U.S. Health Care Costs Skyrocketed to $3.65 Trillion in 2018

A new analysis from U.S. federal government actuaries say that Americans spent $3.65 trillion on health care in 2018, according to a report from Axios. The amount is larger than the GDPs of such countries as Brazil, the U.K., Mexico, Spain, and Canada.

Source:

http://fortune.com/2019/02/21/us-health-care-costs-2/

And, yes, the claim that people are living so much longer now is a big myth too. But, I don't have the time right now to explain why.

Best regards.

Grant