71 replies to this topic

[bmk1245]

Coffey, on 22 January 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Comparing 1 age group.... lol

Asian countries and other areas where they mostly eat natural food has had a higher average life expectancy for a long time. Nothing to do with medicines etc.

Look at the oldest person on the planet and where they are from. Top 3 oldest people living are from Japan and Japan has the highest average life expectancy.


They don't eat half the garbage we do in the west.

Yes they do live longer, but

Quote

[...]  in 2006 [...] In other words, one in two Japanese males and one in two Japanese females are estimated to be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime.

(link)
So, tell us more fancy stories.

Edit: missing word.

Edited by bmk1245, 22 January 2013 - 01:16 PM.

[Coffey]

bmk1245, on 22 January 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Yes they do live longer, but
(link)
So, tell us more fancy stories.

Edit: missing word.

Well that must be incorrect as this: http://www.guardian....s-uk-rate-drops

Proves that the Japanese cancer rate is lower than the UK and US....

Which is saying a lot as the Japanese have a higher population than the UK and higher life expectancy than the UK and US.

So it has more people than the UK living to an older age, yet a lower cancer rate.....

Yeah explain that one.

If you also look further down int he link I provided you can see all the more natural areas humans live eating more natural food have lower cancer rates. They certainly do not have chemotherapy, any forms of radiation etc or the garbage we eat in the west. (GM foods and nasty chemicals)

[WoIverine]

Mods, can delete this.

Edited by WoIverine, 22 January 2013 - 03:10 PM.

[bmk1245]

Coffey, on 22 January 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Well that must be incorrect as this: http://www.guardian....s-uk-rate-drops
[...]

Who is incorrect? Guardian, who uses WCRF, who uses Globocan? I checked cancer statistics for my country using data in Cancer registry from Oncology institute (for 2008 year) and Globocan (gives data for 2008). And guess what? Values of cancer incidence rates (ASR(W)) in Globocan differ from values given in a report by 21% (!) (403 - from report, 316.5 - Globocan) for male and 5% for female (218.9 - from report, 207.8 - Globocan). How can I be sure report is more correct? I simply checked population numbers: while numbers in the report are the same as from Department of Statistics, Globocan gives different values.
So, while cancer incidence rates in Japan are lower than in UK and US, differences may be much smaller.

Coffey, on 22 January 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

[...]
Proves that the Japanese cancer rate is lower than the UK and US....
[...]

So in Lithuania lower as well (according Guardian), and we eat same crap, if not crappier.

Coffey, on 22 January 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

[...]
Which is saying a lot as the Japanese have a higher population than the UK and higher life expectancy than the UK and US.

So it has more people than the UK living to an older age, yet a lower cancer rate.....

Yeah explain that one.
[...]

Data is standardized:

Quote

ASR (age-standardised rate)
An age-standardised rate (ASR) is a summary measure of the rate that a population would have if it had a standard age structure. Standardization is necessary when comparing several populations that differ with respect to age because age has a powerful influence on the risk of cancer. The ASR is a weighted mean of the age-specific rates; the weights are taken from population distribution of the standard population. The most frequently used standard population is the World Standard Population. The calculated incidence or mortality rate is then called age-standardised incidence or mortality rate (world). It is also expressed per 100,000. The world standard population used in GLOBOCAN is as proposed by Segi [1] and modified by Doll and al. [2]. The age-standardised rate is calculated using 10 age-groups. The result may be slightly different from that computed using the same data categorised using the traditional 5 year age bands.

(link, glossary of terms; bolding mine).

Coffey, on 22 January 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

[...]
[If you also look further down int he link I provided you can see all the more natural areas humans live eating more natural food have lower cancer rates. They certainly do not have chemotherapy, any forms of radiation etc or the garbage we eat in the west. (GM foods and nasty chemicals)

Oh, please, enough with conspiracy crap and pure BS (emphasized), its really getting old,

[Coffey]

bmk1245, on 23 January 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Oh, please, enough with conspiracy crap and pure BS (emphasized), its really getting old,

It's not conspiracy that bad chemicals and bad food are bad for us...

[bmk1245]

Coffey, on 23 January 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

It's not conspiracy that bad chemicals and bad food are bad for us...

Ah, bad chemicals you say... Is water bad chemical or good? What will happen if you drink water too much? Salicylic acid (in raspberries) is good chemical or bad chemical? If we extract this acid from raspberries and you consume it at dosage of 150mg per 1kg of your body weight, will it be bad chemical or good?

[Coffey]

bmk1245, on 23 January 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Ah, bad chemicals you say... Is water bad chemical or good? What will happen if you drink water too much? Salicylic acid (in raspberries) is good chemical or bad chemical? If we extract this acid from raspberries and you consume it at dosage of 150mg per 1kg of your body weight, will it be bad chemical or good?

Anything is bad in large amounts. That doesn't make a difference to the point.

The fact is GM stuff is bad in small amounts not just large amounts and so is a lot of chemicals put into formed meat, ready meals, juice, and other processed food.


You live in Lithuania though, so I don't understand how you can even comment on UK and US food etc.

[little_dreamer]

Just thought I'd let you know I knew a terminally ill man many years ago who had his life extended by a Chinese herbal doctor.  I don't remember the treatment but he lasted 10 years longer than his other traditional doctor thought he would.

[CrimsonKing]

There is still some good doctors out there who try to heal there patients not just give them treatments,but there is more money to be made treating and keeping them coming back than to heal them completely!

The fact is yes everything should be taken in moderation,but natural chemicals in foods are not nearly as dangerous to the human body as artificial chemicals.Doctors have caused me more problems by "treating" me than what i went there for in the first place.I just started fixing the problems myself with nutritious foods,vitamins,minerals,and herbs.Never felt better

[spartan max2]

CrimsonKing, on 23 January 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Doctors have caused me more problems by "treating" me than what i went there for in the first place.I just started fixing the problems myself with nutritious foods,vitamins,minerals,and herbs.Never felt better

same thing happened to me

[WoIverine]

spartan max2, on 23 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

same thing happened to me

Same here as well. Cure worse than disease sometimes. It's difficult to find an actual doctor who will investigate, instead of just medicate.

Edited by WoIverine, 23 January 2013 - 05:03 PM.

[bmk1245]

Coffey, on 23 January 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Anything is bad in large amounts. That doesn't make a difference to the point.
[...]

Yeah, but when someone overdoses aspirin or other meds, its "big pharma is about to kill you", "bad chemicals/modern medicine"...

Coffey, on 23 January 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

[...]
The fact is GM stuff is bad in small amounts not just large amounts and so is a lot of chemicals put into formed meat, ready meals, juice, and other processed food.
[...]

GMOs and chemicals are such unspeakable evil, that even cancer got scared



See trend 1990-2009?

Let me use quack logic: horrible GMOs and chemicals play cancer prevention role. How about that, huh?

Coffey, on 23 January 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

[...]
You live in Lithuania though, so I don't understand how you can even comment on UK and US food etc.

But you can comment on US? Our argument just... What that word... Just silly.

[Coffey]

bmk1245, on 24 January 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

But you can comment on US? Our argument just... What that word... Just silly.

Yes I can because UK and US have the same sort of food etc, except the US's has worse.

Anyway the graph doesn't prove a lot really, never heard of tolerance? Also the amount of people becoming Vegetarian, Vegan and Raw food is increasing daily. So all those things have to be taken into account.

[bmk1245]

Coffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

Yes I can because UK and US have the same sort of food etc, except the US's has worse.
[...]

And what food that would be? Fast food? Fats? Chips? Smoked fat meet? Smoked fat wurst? All sorts of "scary" Es in all (almost) products?

Coffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

[...]
Anyway the graph doesn't prove a lot really, never heard of tolerance? [...].

Tolerance to what? Tolerance to GMOs and bad chemicals?

Coffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

[...]  Also the amount of people becoming Vegetarian, Vegan and Raw food is increasing daily. [...]

I'm guessing you pulled that from your back side. For example, vegan percentage  in US  (1997-2008) was almost constant ~1% (you can fit data and see it for yourself). Do you have stats for vegetarians and raw eaters (in the period of 1990-2010 or so)?

Coffey, on 24 January 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

[...]  So all those things have to be taken into account.

Bummer... When it suits your anti-GMO/anti-medicine agenda, you simply forget other "those things"...

Bring one definite harm GMOs did to <whatever country> population, will yea?

[WoIverine]

BMK man...it's just common sense, which would you rather eat, natural foods that have been around for millenia, or modified foods that have been around for a few years? Which group do you think has more evidence of being healthy? I mean come on, you don't even really have to think about it to know. Scientists screw up all the time, they're human. No one knows the long term effects of GMOs (or medication) until potential damage is already done. Some people would rather not take the chance, and that is their right to do so. I'll ask you this, why do so many people eat organic? There must be a reason for that...maybe they like staying healthy and not putting unknowns into their body...Sure, sometimes exceptions must be made, like if you're starving, or dying, but until then, why play with possible fire?

Edited by WoIverine, 24 January 2013 - 08:41 PM.