[RD]

... We have been deceived for the last 10,000 years by the agricultural revolution which introduced inappropriate foods which are the cause of 98 % of all disease. If you take away the grain, sugar, dairy and alcohol, then nobody would ever get sick.

Exponential-rise in human population says different ...

http://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2014/09/21/the-ethics-of-population-and-society/

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

... We have been deceived for the last 10,000 years by the agricultural revolution which introduced inappropriate foods which are the cause of 98 % of all disease. If you take away the grain, sugar, dairy and alcohol, then nobody would ever get sick.

Exponential-rise in human population says different ...

http://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2014/09/21/the-ethics-of-population-and-society/

More people doesn't equate with quality of life. The more people you have the lower the quality of the food and the more disease. Thus, your graph doesn't prove anything.

[RD]

More people doesn't equate with quality of life. The more people you have the lower the quality of the food and the more disease. Thus, your graph doesn't prove anything.

You claimed agriculture introduced a poisonous diet which caused "98 % of all disease".

If I had a rodent-infestation and gave them what I though was poison, but their population rose exponentially when I did that, then I've been giving them food instead of poison.

If a disease causing agent was delivered to most of a population then, (all other factors being equal), the population would decline, not rise. Also their average life expectancy would shorten.

In reality* average human life expectancy has risen, by ~50% in the last century ...


http://www.openpop.org/?p=695

* anyone who cites naturalnews as a reliable source of information is detached from reality : usually suffering from a paranoia. 

[Bored chemist]

... We have been deceived for the last 10,000 years by the agricultural revolution which introduced inappropriate foods which are the cause of 98 % of all disease. If you take away the grain, sugar, dairy and alcohol, then nobody would ever get sick.

Exponential-rise in human population says different ...

http://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2014/09/21/the-ethics-of-population-and-society/

More people doesn't equate with quality of life. The more people you have the lower the quality of the food and the more disease. Thus, your graph doesn't prove anything.

Death indicates a very poor quality of life so your statement that "More people doesn't equate with quality of life." is on very shaky ground.
But nobody asked about quality of life. They talked about disease.
And reason the population is rising is simply that (relatively) fewer people are dying. Since accidents are a rare cause of death, more people not dying must mean fewer people getting diseases (and/ or they are more likely to recover).
So the graph shows that people are not getting killed by diseases as often or as young as they used to.
That makes your your claim that "the agricultural revolution which introduced inappropriate foods which are the cause of 98 % of all disease. " impossible.

So, what that graph proves is that you are wrong. (as you have been all along).
When are you going to face up to that?

[chiralSPO]

It should also be noted that birth rates have fallen, so the increasing population cannot be blamed on increased reproduction--it must be due to decreased death rates.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

More people doesn't equate with quality of life. The more people you have the lower the quality of the food and the more disease. Thus, your graph doesn't prove anything.

You claimed agriculture introduced a poisonous diet which caused "98 % of all disease".

If I had a rodent-infestation and gave them what I though was poison, but their population rose exponentially when I did that, then I've been giving them food instead of poison.

If a disease causing agent was delivered to most of a population then, (all other factors being equal), the population would decline, not rise. Also their average life expectancy would shorten.

In reality* average human life expectancy has risen, by ~50% in the last century ...


http://www.openpop.org/?p=695

* anyone who cites naturalnews as a reliable source of information is detached from reality : usually suffering from a paranoia.

It has risen only because it has previously fallen. People are being kept alive when there diet has been killing them with cancer, diabetes and heart diseases. All these diseases are a result of poor diet which are high in grain, sugar and dairy products. Note - This post is about whether viruses exist - so I think you are getting a bit off track here.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

Death indicates a very poor quality of life so your statement that "More people doesn't equate with quality of life." is on very shaky ground.
But nobody asked about quality of life. They talked about disease.
And reason the population is rising is simply that (relatively) fewer people are dying. Since accidents are a rare cause of death, more people not dying must mean fewer people getting diseases (and/ or they are more likely to recover).
So the graph shows that people are not getting killed by diseases as often or as young as they used to.
That makes your your claim that "the agricultural revolution which introduced inappropriate foods which are the cause of 98 % of all disease. " impossible.

So, what that graph proves is that you are wrong. (as you have been all along).
When are you going to face up to that?

Even your own graph is working against what you are saying. The graph that you have included clearly indicates that plagues occurred only when people started to congregate in large cities. The price to pay for population growth success is a reduced life expectancy. Prior to the agricultural revolution disease would have been unknown. Disease is a result of eating inappropriate foods which cause body dysfunctions. I agree that the human populations have increased due to agriculture and machinery. But disease is the price that humans have to pay for their success.

[RD]

The price to pay for population growth success is a reduced life expectancy ...

The last graph I posted showed ~20% increase in average life-expectancy during the last 50 years, during which the world population has more than doubled.
Yet you say "reduced life expectancy" with "population growth". Where is your data to corroborate that ?

... diet has been killing them with cancer ...

The increased incidence of cancer is due to the increased life expectancy, (as shown on my previous graph), as cancer is primarily a disease of old age ... http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-Zero .

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

Yet you say "reduced life expectancy" with "population growth". Where is your data to corroborate that ?

The graph that you have used starts just after World War II where millions of people were killed at a very young age. Thus, the low life expectancy. Why don't you use a 200 year graph which would be more useful?

... diet has been killing them with cancer ...

The increased incidence of cancer is due to the increased life expectancy, (as shown on my previous graph), as cancer is primarily a disease of old age ... http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-Zero .
[/quote]

Cancer is not a disease of old age. Young babies can get cancer. Cancer is a disease of cell dysfunction due to an abnormal diet which causes the cancers to appear. It has multiple causes.
1. Blockages due to inflammation - grain food

2. Blockages due to glue like dairy products.

3. Reduced oxygen flow due to these blockages.

4. Lack of vitamin C which prevents the body from repairing damage to cells.

5. Lack of iodine which prevents apoptosis.

6. Lack of fibre which leads to bad gut bacteria.

[RD]

... Why don't you use a 200 year graph which would be more useful? 

Why didn't you Google that graph yourself ? ...


https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/

Cancer is not a disease of old age. Young babies can get cancer.

I never said exclusively, I said primarily old age. look at the graph below: cancer occurs at all ages, but it's incidence rises steeply with age ...


http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-Zero

Most cancer diagnoses are in retired-people (i.e. older than 65).

Cancer is a disease of cell dysfunction due to an abnormal diet ...

And corrective "dietary supplements" are all available via NaturalNews* , at extortionate prices.
[* who have taken advantage of your paranoia and brainwashed you to buy & push their products ].

You've spent too much time down Mike's gopher hole.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

... Why don't you use a 200 year graph which would be more useful? 

Why didn't you Google that graph yourself ? ...


https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/

Cancer is not a disease of old age. Young babies can get cancer.

I never said exclusively, I said primarily old age. look at the graph below: cancer occurs at all ages, but it's incidence rises steeply with age ...


http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-Zero

Most cancer diagnoses are in retired-people (i.e. older than 65).

Cancer is a disease of cell dysfunction due to an abnormal diet ...

And corrective "dietary supplements" are all available via NaturalNews* , at extortionate prices.
[* who have taken advantage of your paranoia and brainwashed you to buy & push their products ].

You've spent too much time down Mike's gopher hole.

The graph just shows that people die of cancer at the exact same rate as any other form of death, so there is nothing exceptional about it. You have to die of something!
The deception is that the medical system puts a name to specific diseases. There is a list of thousands of diseases and treatments for these diseases. But, in reality, there is only one disease, which is VITAMIN DEFICIENCY. Therein lies the deception.
Note - The cost of cancer treatment is thousands of times more expensive than normal treatment. When you get cancer, they will give you some kind of diluted form of arsenic which they will give a fancy name to, so as to disguise what the real contents are. Note - Diluted arsenic doesn't cost thousands of dollars! It only costs a few cents to produce.
Thus, your complaint that naturopathic medicine is too expensive is totally unprecedented.

Life expectancy has increased due to new technology like sewerage works, refrigeration, electricity, trains, buses, air travel, water filtration, dams, irrigation etc. It has nothing to do with vaccination or any other medical procedure. The low life expectancy before 1890 was due to unsanitary living conditions, no refrigeration of food supply, poor sewerage system, pollution of water supply and lack of nutrition and knowledge of what constitutes good nutrition. Sugar, grain, alcohol and dairy being the cause of most early deaths at this time.

[Bored chemist]

Things like better sewers  increase lifespan because they carry away dangerous viruses.

Arsenic is seldom used to treat cancer

It is known to cause it too.
cancer.http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Arsenic+Poisoning+in+Bangladesh

They don't give it a fancy name; they call it arsenic trioxide- because that's what it is.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/treatment/cancer-drugs/arsenic

[chiralSPO]

Life expectancy has increased due to new technology like sewerage works, refrigeration, electricity, trains, buses, air travel, water filtration, dams, irrigation etc. It has nothing to do with vaccination or any other medical procedure. The low life expectancy before 1890 was due to unsanitary living conditions, no refrigeration of food supply, poor sewerage system, pollution of water supply and lack of nutrition and knowledge of what constitutes good nutrition. Sugar, grain, alcohol and dairy being the cause of most early deaths at this time.

I have used boldface font to emphasize the parts of your post that help us argue that germ-caused diseases were addressed by technology, leading to increased life expectancy. Thank you.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

Life expectancy has increased due to new technology like sewerage works, refrigeration, electricity, trains, buses, air travel, water filtration, dams, irrigation etc. It has nothing to do with vaccination or any other medical procedure. The low life expectancy before 1890 was due to unsanitary living conditions, no refrigeration of food supply, poor sewerage system, pollution of water supply and lack of nutrition and knowledge of what constitutes good nutrition. Sugar, grain, alcohol and dairy being the cause of most early deaths at this time.

I have used boldface font to emphasize the parts of your post that help us argue that germ-caused diseases were addressed by technology, leading to increased life expectancy. Thank you.

So YOU AGREE that there are NO GERMS OR VIRUSES which cause disease and that it is only rotten food that causes disease. Thanks for your confirmation!

You have cherry picked the all the conformist ideas which I would expect from a moderator.

[chiralSPO]

So YOU AGREE that there are NO GERMS OR VIRUSES which cause disease and that it is only rotten food that causes disease. Thanks for your confirmation!

No, I do NOT AGREE. It can very easily be shown that rotten food causes disease because of the GERMS that live on it, and sewage is host to all manner of BACTERIA and that mosquitos transmit VIRUSES, BACTERIA and PROTISTS. Thanks for playing!

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

Things like better sewers  increase lifespan because they carry away dangerous viruses.

It was never been proven that viruses exist. So how can you take away something that doesn't exist. Note - I have worked in an electron microscope unit, so don't try to bluff me with garbage.

Arsenic is seldom used to treat cancer

Maybe true, but they must include some kind of other toxic chemical to 'kill' the cancer. The whole approach is wrong though. The concept that 'the body' itself as 'the enemy' is a faulty concept. They are just covering up for the food industry and pharmaceutical industries which pumps out toxic chemicals and adds them to foods. All chemo therapy treatments contain either heavy metal toxins or halogen toxins. These may include arsenic, chlorine, fluorine or bromine. Note - These chemicals all cause cancer. Thus, they use the same chemicals to treat cancer as the ones that cause cancer. This is standard lunacy of the medical system. The reality is that people who have cancer are an embarrassment to the government and a constant reminder of their faulty policies. Thus, they want to dispose of these embarrassments as soon as possible. What better way to dispose of an embarrassment than to use the same causative agents.

They don't give it a fancy name; they call it arsenic trioxide- because that's what it is.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/treatment/cancer-drugs/arsenic

I have never heard a doctor say - "We are going to inject you with some arsenic now, don't worry, its for your own good, it will make you better, lol, good luck!"

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

So YOU AGREE that there are NO GERMS OR VIRUSES which cause disease and that it is only rotten food that causes disease. Thanks for your confirmation!

No, I do NOT AGREE. It can very easily be shown that rotten food causes disease because of the GERMS that live on it, and sewage is host to all manner of BACTERIA and that mosquitos transmit VIRUSES, BACTERIA and PROTISTS. Thanks for playing!

These germs that are found in rotten food - where did they come from?

Health is all about harnessing good bacteria over bad bacteria. Bacteria belong in the lower intestine, not in the upper intestine. If you put bad bacteria in the upper intestine it will cause leaky gut syndrome and you will get sick.

http://bodyecology.com/articles/dr.-oz%E2%80%99s-leaky-gut-protocol-what-works-and-what%E2%80%99s-missing

[RD]

http://bodyecology.com/articles/dr.-oz

You're quoting Dr. Oz ! , see ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dr_Oz#Pigasus_Award

The graph just shows that people die of cancer at the exact same rate as any other form of death, so there is nothing exceptional about it.

The graph shows that the incidence of cancer increases steeply with age : so it's very rare in children, but common in the elderly. The graph did not compare cancer with other "forms" of death , (death from road traffic accidents would have a completely different age distribution, not "exact same rate").

... they must include some kind of other toxic chemical to 'kill' the cancer.

Viruses, which you claim don't exist, are also used to preferentially kill cancer cells, see ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncolytic_virus

... in reality, there is only one disease, which is VITAMIN DEFICIENCY ...

So that means genetic illness & disease caused by bacteria , helminths  , protozoans, (along with viruses) are fictional , according to you.

I think we should have you French-kiss a person with Ebola to prove your point.

[Bored chemist]

So YOU AGREE that there are NO GERMS OR VIRUSES which cause disease and that it is only rotten food that causes disease. Thanks for your confirmation!

No, I do NOT AGREE. It can very easily be shown that rotten food causes disease because of the GERMS that live on it, and sewage is host to all manner of BACTERIA and that mosquitos transmit VIRUSES, BACTERIA and PROTISTS. Thanks for playing!

These germs that are found in rotten food - where did they come from?

Health is all about harnessing good bacteria over bad bacteria. Bacteria belong in the lower intestine, not in the upper intestine. If you put bad bacteria in the upper intestine it will cause leaky gut syndrome and you will get sick.

http://bodyecology.com/articles/dr.-oz%E2%80%99s-leaky-gut-protocol-what-works-and-what%E2%80%99s-missing

Unless you are in the habit of giving yourself an enema with dirty water, there's no way for the bacteria to get to the bottom end of the gut except through the top end- so your plan makes no sense.

[Atkhenaken (OP)]

Health is all about harnessing good bacteria over bad bacteria. Bacteria belong in the lower intestine, not in the upper intestine. If you put bad bacteria in the upper intestine it will cause leaky gut syndrome and you will get sick.

http://bodyecology.com/articles/dr.-oz%E2%80%99s-leaky-gut-protocol-what-works-and-what%E2%80%99s-missing

Unless you are in the habit of giving yourself an enema with dirty water, there's no way for the bacteria to get to the bottom end of the gut except through the top end- so your plan makes no sense.

Extract from a medical textbook -

Composition and Distribution of the Intestinal Microflora

The intestinal microflora is a complex ecosystem containing over 400 bacterial species. Anaerobes outnumber facultative anaerobes. The flora is sparse in the stomach and upper intestine, but luxuriant in the lower bowel. Bacteria occur both in the lumen and attached to the mucosa, but do not normally penetrate the bowel wall .

I rest my case! Makes no sense........... eh?