You all constantly assume “MEDICAL” when these life expectancy talks come up.
The article even mentions drug usage and firearm suicide.
Truth is it is ALL deaths, regardless of origin. Killings due to thugs in the hood, accidents with instant death, etc. it is not all due to “health issues”.
Yes, we have a major moral problem wherein immoral people use garbage in their bodies and I’m not talking about chocolate and cheeseburgers, where thugs are constantly angry at someone and shoot them and don’t care if anyone is in the way, etc.
Let’s not be fooled into further falling for stuff that will empower RFK and Trump into taking away life-saving drugs, because life-shortening must be due to people being “unhealthy” and evil pharma is just Willy-nilly putting out stuff that kills us.
Some drugs are life saving. Others are optional. Read the package inserts.
One I read recently (I get these from all family members, and put them or copies in a binder) takes 12 weeks to see any full (beneficial) effects, and admonishes those who read the insert to look for the following:
Severe allergic reaction signs (they spell them out but I'm not typing the list)
signs of liver problems
Depression
Cough
Chest pain, pressure, or fast heartbeat
blood in the urine
Symptoms of Lupus (also listed, induced by the drug)
Changes in or loss of sense of taste.
Severe skin reactions (beyond hypersensitivity to sunlight) including Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermal necrosis.
Red, swolen, or blistered or peeling skin, red or irritated eyes, sores in the mouth, throat, nose, eyes, genitals, or any skin areas. That's just
some of the list.
Oh, what's the drug for?
Nail fungus.
Recently, with COVID, the sheets that explained the possible adverse effects of the shots were blank. (who knew what the effects would be, and even now, those effects are being denied as the boosters are being marketed to the public).
The problem is that people are being used as lab rats, and the whole process needs to be examined--and not just by people who get their paychecks from the companies that produce what they are investigating. We need to find what works best with the least risk to the patient, regardless of whether that makes Pfizer's stock go up or down.
I am not against truly safe and effective drugs. Not all Pharmaceuticals are bad. And health involves so much more than just pharma, including diet (and contaminants in the food), environment (inside and out), even the dust or chemicals that seep in small concentrations from your pillow, bed linens, and bed, (where people spend a third of their time breathing) and the paint on the walls and the carpet on the floors, and even the light bulbs.
Diabetes was only 1.6% in 1960, when lead based paint was still around. Lead based paint is gone, but diabetes is up to 5.8% as of 2000.
The amount of metabolic disruption in humans is higher, autism, much higher, and medicine is out to treat symptoms, not causes. Is that another side effect of common pharmaceuticals (that list has changed, too), environmental or behavioural factors or a combination. It's worth researching, and the place to start is to check the research that's been done for accuracy and validity.
If we could recreate fundamental science experiments in science class, why not re examine the studies that are considered bedrock and axiomatic and see if other factors were not involved in the conclusions, including study errors.
