Dying Young

jellyfarm
#1
A person I recently met who's my age (35) just lost his 33-year-old wife a few days ago to stomach cancer.

Why are so many young people being diagnosed with cancer?

What's in our environment and lifestyles that's causing this?

I just returned from the wake. Her once-youthful body will be cremated tomorrow. I feel very, very sorry for this guy as they were married only 5 years but they didn't have kids.

It's worse coz he seems to be holding up well to his grief + he's so cheerful and outgoing. He played slides of his wife and he on their worldwide travels together and as I watched, I still cannot believe she had the disease.

People, eat right. Exercise. Drink lots of plain water and more importantly stop smoking and be good to yourself.

Still trying to absorb it....
 
lone wolf
#2
I still think it has something to do with all this sulpho/chemically synthisized junk and petro-based garbage the pharmaceutical companies make their fabulous wealths from. They argue that the synthetic chemical chains are the same as the real ones ... but what do they break down to and morph into within the body?
 
jellyfarm
#3
oooh! We have one taker for 'pharmacies'...Any other weird conspiracy thinkers out there?

I say it's oil! We can do without it but we still use it even though it gives off fumes (yes, unleaded fuel is fume-toxicting too!)

And we city people, jammed in by millions of cars, don't have enough pure oxygen to breathe anymore leavi ng us nothing to breathe but cancerous air. Well, that's my theory!
 
Zzarchov
#4
I blame the Baby Boomers, using up more than their share of the precious resource "youth", leaving nothing for the people coming after.

I also blame the youth of today, Zionists, the Red Menace and Christina Applegate.
 
lone wolf
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by jellyfarm View Post

oooh! We have one taker for 'pharmacies'...Any other weird conspiracy thinkers out there?

I say it's oil! We can do without it but we still use it even though it gives off fumes (yes, unleaded fuel is fume-toxicting too!)

And we city people, jammed in by millions of cars, don't have enough pure oxygen to breathe anymore leavi ng us nothing to breathe but cancerous air. Well, that's my theory!

What's so weird? Maybe it's weird to eat willow scum for headaches (aspirin) or mare piddle to prevent pregnancy (BCP) Why do they use chemistry to duplicate opium (percocet vs percodon) How can they be so certain what the long lasting effects of their chemical magic really are? How many actual people act the same as their computer models and meatcharts? Conspiracy? If it makes you comfortable.
 
Dexter Sinister
#6
I don't buy any conspiracy stuff, or anything about artificial chemicals or pharmaceuticals or food additives or whatever. Some people just don't live very long, that's all, it's just the luck of the draw. My mother's father smoked a pack a day from the time he was 11 years old until he died in his 90s of multiple organ failure, i.e. old age. At that age you can't blame it on cigarettes. And he was gassed in the trenches of WW1 and suffered severe lung damage from chlorine. He didn't get cancer, or emphysema, or cardiovascular disease, he just wore out. There have always been apparently healthy and clean-living people who die young, and people who pay no attention to all the rules of good health and nutrition and exercise and live for a very long time. Winston Churchill comes to mind. Every day he got through a ration of brandy and cigars, in fact there was probably no time in his adult life when his blood alcohol level was zero, he took no exercise anybody ever heard of, and he lived well into his 80s. Jim Fixx also comes to mind, a marathon runner, author, and Mensa member, didn't smoke or drink, was in tremendous physical condition, and died of a heart attack before he was 60. I had a severely alcoholic uncle who also smoked heavily and should have died in his 50s at the latest according to the actuaries, but he made it to 88. I've also known children who died of cancer at 7 years old.

Average life expectancy is over 80 years in this country. Most people live a long time, some people don't. It's pretty saddening sometimes, but that's just the way it is. There are no promises in this life.
 
Scott Free
#7
The problem as I see it is that big pharma is corporate and as we know corporations operate like sociopaths. Thought the individuals are not the corporation as an object is.

So here is the rub. There is no economic advantage in curing people. All the money to be made is in treating the symptoms of illness. With the food industry there is a huge monetary advantage in turning non food stuff into product as there is in turning out as poor a product as possible for the greatest price. Fines and suites are not prohibitive enough.

When you consider these two incentives you have the environment for massive deception and collaboration. I'm not suggesting a sinister motivation but a monetary one.

We already have terrible chemicals in our food like hydrogenated oil, round up ready food stuff, aspartame, etc. If we look at Africa we see the economic forces in full force. Like when Proctor and Gamble promoted a baby formula as superior to mothers milk. They caused untold misery and hardship; death and retardation on countless people.

I don't think it is even slightly unreasonable to think the same economic forces are at play here in North America. I know they are. We have an example in the Ford Pinto where they did a study of safety (exploding gas tanks) vs repairing the problem and decided it was cheaper to pay off law suites! It is absolutely certain that the food and drug industries make the same calculations.
 
Dexter Sinister
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

There is no economic advantage in curing people.

Ah, but there is. The problem is that it's a long term advantage, and very few organizations--or individuals--think in long terms. Politicians think in terms of electoral cycles, 2 to 5 years, 7 if you're the French president, depending on what country they live in and what level of politics they're at, corporations think in terms of annual results. The 25 or 50 or 100 year view isn't often part of their calculations. It's a matter of context and perspective and self interest. If your business is to sell drugs that treat cold symptoms, for instance, you won't be interested in a cure for the common cold, that'd put you out of business. There's no need to invoke a conspiracy as some people do, it's adequately explained by short term self interest.
 
Scott Free
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Ah, but there is. The problem is that it's a long term advantage, and very few organizations--or individuals--think in long terms. Politicians think in terms of electoral cycles, 2 to 5 years, 7 if you're the French president, depending on what country they live in and what level of politics they're at, corporations think in terms of annual results. The 25 or 50 or 100 year view isn't often part of their calculations. It's a matter of context and perspective and self interest. If your business is to sell drugs that treat cold symptoms, for instance, you won't be interested in a cure for the common cold, that'd put you out of business. There's no need to invoke a conspiracy as some people do, it's adequately explained by short term self interest.

I completely agree. Most conspiracies are made of just such socio and economic coincidences IMO. The sheer difficulty in organizing a few members of a criminal gang demonstrates how impossible (or improbable) it is to think any deception on a grander scale could be possible. At best a portion of a military might be capable of it for a while because of their extreme discipline, that is, until members start retiring or nearing death when the incentive to stay quiet diminishes rapidly and the need to be vindicated of wrong doing becomes overwhelming. To think different industries could collaborate with each other to such an extent seems very unlikely IMO.
 
Zzarchov
#10
I never get the concept that natural is healthier than artificial.

Natural medicines are plant products, from living creatures that evolve to NOT be eaten. Natural chemicals are just as likely to have deadly or dangerous side effects, in fact I would logically think MORE side effects.

Artificially produced chemicals are designed to be medically useful, Natural ones are not and more so, evolution has probably created many ways for them to harm people that eat their host plant.

A cactus didn't grow to be a free water fountain to thirsty people in the desert, it grew thorns for a reason.
 
lone wolf
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

I never get the concept that natural is healthier than artificial.

Natural medicines are plant products, from living creatures that evolve to NOT be eaten. Natural chemicals are just as likely to have deadly or dangerous side effects, in fact I would logically think MORE side effects.

Artificially produced chemicals are designed to be medically useful, Natural ones are not and more so, evolution has probably created many ways for them to harm people that eat their host plant.

A cactus didn't grow to be a free water fountain to thirsty people in the desert, it grew thorns for a reason.

Huh? Did you just land here? Cacti have thorns the for same reason you have feet - preservation. How did all creatures great and small survive for eons? There were no artificial (money-making) alternatives
 

Similar Threads

38
Dying for Nothing
by JBeee | Sep 25th, 2017
0
Dying Young, The Sequel...
by jellyfarm | Jun 26th, 2008
44
How young is toooooo young?
by GreenGreta | Nov 4th, 2006
13
I'm Dying to Know!
by Haggis McBagpipe | Jun 28th, 2004