"... we are simply living longer. malnutrition and disease tended to kill a good percentage of people who had or where going to get cancer. A lot of people died of 'natural causes'."
That is a very common argument, but I have a feeling that it's wrong. For instance, there is a study that should have been put out before now, called “Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern,” developed by the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It brings together two sets of data: environmental data on known “areas of concern” — including superfund sites and hazardous waste dumps — and separate health data collected by county or, in some cases, smaller geographical regions. The findings pointed to elevated rates of lung, colon, and breast cancer; low birth weight; and infant mortality in several of the geographical areas of concern.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/08/6942/ Also, there is a fellow who has been trying to find cases of autism in the Amish of Lancaster Co., PA, and has only found three. One is a girl adopted from China (vaccinated there), one is a girl who was perfectly normal until she was vaccinated locally, and one other. For the population, there should be over a hundred cases. Why aren't there? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Amish haven't (historically) gotten vaccinations? Or that they don't farm with chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides?
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.htmlAn easy answer like longer lifespans and better diagnosis is easy. Maybe not accurate, but it's easy. Nobody has to take responsibility for anything, and you know how this country is fond of that.
Sue
Previous Topic
Index
