De leugen van de verloren levensjaren

Hoe vaak horen we niet dat we, als we ziekten als kanker en hart- en vaatziekten (allemaal natuurlijk door roken veroorzaakt) konden uitbannen, we zoveel langer zouden leven? Wie heeft zich wel eens afgevraagd: “Hoeveel langer?”.


De gemiddelde levensverwachting in de VS is 74 jaar. Als, als bij toverslag, kanker plotseling geheel van de aardbodem zou verdwijnen, hoeveel hoger zou dit cijfer dan worden? Voor de aardigheid vroegen we dit aan zomaar wat mensen in de straat en het antwoord varieerde van vijf tot twintig jaar.


In de praktijk zal het echter niet om dat soort spectaculaire cijfers gaan. Als ALLE vormen van kanker morgen zouden verdwijnen, tegelijk met een aantal andere ziekten zoals hart- en vaatziekten (en zelfs verkeersongevallen!), zou de gemiddelde levensverwachting slechts met 15 tot 20 maanden verlengd worden. Als alleen kanker zou verdwijnen zou dat zelfs maar 15 dagen uitmaken!


Verrast? Lees dan verder!


In een analyse op de website van Forces Internationaal toont een wetenschapper wat de werkelijke effecten van het uitbannen van ziekten is op de gemiddelde leeftijd die mensen kunnen bereiken. Lees dit politiek incorrecte verhaal dat stof tot nadenken geeft…



In reality it is already very, very difficult to eliminate the bulk of the current diseases, and thus extremely difficult to reduce the PYLL (Potential Years of Life Lost) . Moreover, the so-called “gains” obtained by the elimination of smoking, drinking, eating fats, etc. would simply turn into other diseases that are inevitabile in old age: dementia, diseases that force the patient into wheelchairs, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and so on. That is without taking into account the increased cost of pensions, and other public and private expenditures, often to keep alive those who are basically reduced to a vegetative condition. These costs are incurred in a time where the “right to health” contemplated in several constitutions, a “right” that is as politically correct as it is schizophrenic – inevitably transforms itself into unlimited access to new and extremely expensive technologies and “therapies” turned to extend life sometimes just for a few days or, in other cases for protracted periods – often with immense expenditures that are real (not statistical attributions). Those expenditures enormously weigh on the community that supports “public health” and its politicians. On the other hand, those politicians hide the inevitable collapse of a state health system that is often only apparently free by attributing more and more faults to lifestyles – in order to survive politically until the end of their mandates.


But the inexorable fact is that the human body inevitably ages, deteriorates, and finally seizes up and dies. Therefore, we may as well enjoy life with its pleasures while we can, without worrying too much about statistical “risks” that are too often not demonstrable. The elimination of those “risks”, at best, gives us some extra months in exchange for apprehension, repression, prohibition, taxation and fear – and, sometime, even hatred.


We also have to accept that we inevitably die of something. Superficially and rationally, everybody agrees with that reality – but not emotionally, thanks in large measure to the idiotic propaganda pushed by  the health “authorities”. People are subliminally led to believe that if they behave the way there are told, they don’t have to worry about death. For that reason, dying has never been so much feared in cultures as it is today.


Finally, we have to accept that probably we have already reached the limit of average life that nature allows. We could still gain something by reducing infant mortality, which dramatically excessively affects the calculation of the average life of a population, but that has nothing to do with the reduction of cancer, cardiovascular diseases and so on in adults. Unless we find a way to genetically modify the longevity attributes of the population (with all the moral, ethical, social and economic consequences of such fundamental interference with nature), we must recognize that, as a society, we are getting to the maximum limit of the duration of human life.





Volledige analyse op Forces International site 

Geef een antwoord

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

Download poster

Citaten

  • "Es ist schwieriger, eine vorgefaßte Meinung zu zertrümmern als ein Atom."
    (Het is moeilijker een vooroordeel aan flarden te schieten dan een atoom.)
    Albert Einstein

  • "Als je alles zou laten dat slecht is voor je gezondheid, dan ging je kapot"
    Anonieme arts

  • "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
    Sir Richard Doll, 2001

  • "Een leugen wordt de waarheid als hij maar vaak genoeg wordt herhaald"
    Joseph Goebbels, Minister van Propaganda, Nazi Duitsland


  • "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  • "There''s no such thing as perfect air. If there was, God wouldn''t have put bristles in our noses"
    Coun. Bill Clement

  • "Better a smoking freedom than a non-smoking tyranny"
    Antonio Martino, Italiaanse Minister van Defensie

  • "If smoking cigars is not permitted in heaven, I won't go."
    Mark Twain

  • I've alllllllways said that asking smokers "do you want to quit?" and reporting the results of that question, as is, is horribly misleading. It's a TWO part question. After asking if one wants to quit it must be followed up with "Why?" Ask why and the majority of the answers will be "because I'm supposed to" (victims of guilt and propaganda), not "because I want to."
    Audrey Silk, NYCCLASH