Longevity of adults has changed little
Human Aging, Position Paper
Longevity of adults has changed little
Senior runners postponed disability 8.7 years
Estrogen with progesterone lengthens women lives
Testosterone and vascular functions in aging
estrogen and longevity
Free radicals part of aging process
FAD AGING CURES EXPOSED, by leading scientists
genes that slow aging
Genes and aging
Insulin's effect upon the SKN-1 gene and aging
Telemores, sexual size dimorphism and gender gap in life expectancy
SKIN AGING: causes & treatments
Carbohydrates and aging and age related diseases
Arthritis reduced with vigorous physical activity
Why Women Live Longer than Men

We have a confirmation of the 1871 census, that medical advancement has contributed little to longevity once a person makes to the age of 20.  In this case the non-combatant veterans from New Zealand live an average of 74.2 years.   Moreover combatants who survived the war lived 1.7 years shorter, 72.5 years.  And these results occurred during the period when cigarettes when from under 10% to over 45% of adult population by 1972.  Those who some a pack a day shorten their life an average of 9 years--jk.

An adult male in 1871 U.K. lived almost as long (75 years) as a male today (77)---WHY?


An adult male in 1871 U.K. lived almost as long (75 years) as a male today (77)---WHY?

Given the great increase in survival of the two principle reapers of the elderly, cancer and heart attacks, plus the [i]reduction in adult deaths from infectious diseases, strokes, kidney stones, and physical traumas, this entails that various conditions in the UK (and US) are shortening life sufficiently to reduce significantly the improvements in medical treatment, sanitation, and immunology that extend the life of adults of this century compared to those of the late 19th century..  And in the 19th century there were extremely unhealthy work conditions in certain industries, such as mining, smelting, and textiles; something is very amiss as to our current longevity.  What has countered the benefit in the reduction in smoking?

The answer is simple we have poisoned every cell in our body with excessive dietary sugar. Fructose, a very reactive sugar, one half of sucrose (table sugar) goes from the hepatic portal vein to the liver for metabolism.  It is metabolized after glucose.  In the liver it damages the liver cells and their mitochondria by a process known as fructosylation (also called glycation) where it bonds to proteins and unsaturated fats in the cell wall, which thereby hinders their functions.  On the western diet, which averages over 180 grams of sugar a day all sources—up from 30 grams a day 2 centuries ago—overwhelms the cellular repair systems and also damages these systems.  For about 90% of adults their cellular systems have been damaged and these people--including many of normal weight—they are at elevated risks for non-infectious conditions, known as conditions associated with the western diet—see link for list.  Fructose is a slow poison which first affects the liver and this causes other issues which eventually affect every cell in the body:  it has been in journal articles compared to ethanol, which also goes to the liver and damages it, only it is even worse.  The second big hit is the weird chemicals we take given to us by the dupes of pharma, known as physicians.  Pharma is in the business of treating illness, and they have replaced tobacco as the second great health disaster. 

  • Spain: 79.08 years in 2002, 81.07 years in 2010
  • Australia: 80 years in 2002, 81.72 years in 2010
  • Italy: 79.25 years in 2002, 80.33 years in 2010
  • France: 79.05 years in 2002, 81.09 years in 2010
  • Germany: 77.78 years in 2002, 79.41 years in 2010
  • UK: 80 years in 2002, 81.73 years in 2010
  • USA: 77.4 years in 2002, 78.24 years in 2010
  • Monaco: 79.12 years in 2002, 89.73 years in 2011 {Suspect failed to confirm in link, etc}
  • Canada, 78.6 years in 2002; 81.9 years in 2009, 78.8 for men, 83.3 for women

Longevity and lifestyle     Wikipedia “longevity” 2015, unchanged February 2018

“Evidence-based studies indicate that longevity is based on two major factors, genetics and lifestyle choices.[6] Twin studies have estimated that approximately 20-30% of an individual’s lifespan is related to genetics, the rest is due to individual behaviors and environmental factors which can be modified.[7] Recent studies find that even modest amounts of leisure time physical exercise can extend life expectancy by as much as 4.5 years.[7] 

In preindustrial times, deaths at young and middle age were common, and life-spans over 70 years were comparatively rare. This is not due to genetics, but because of environmental factors such as disease, accidents, and malnutrition, especially since the former were not generally treatable with pre-20th century medicine. Deaths from childbirth were common in women, and many children did not live past infancy. In addition, most people who did attain old age were likely to die quickly from the above-mentioned untreatable health problems. Despite this, we do find a large number of examples of pre-20th century individuals attaining life-spans of 75 years or greater, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Cato the Elder, Thomas Hobbes, Eric of Pomerania, Christopher Polhem, and Michaelangelo. This was also true for poorer people like peasants or laborers. Genealogists will almost certainly find ancestors living to their 70s, 80s and even 90s several hundred years ago.

For example, an 1871 census in the UK (the first of its kind) found the average male life expectancy as being 44, but if infant mortality is subtracted, males who lived to adulthood averaged 75 years. The present male life expectancy in the UK is 77 years for males and 81 for females (the United States averages 74 for males and 80 for females).  Women would have fared worse because of risk from bearing children and effect of repeated pregnancies….”        




An important fact can shoot down a beautiful, logic theory.  Several theories concerning conditions of the western diet and western lifestyle has been promoted as a way of deflecting research, discussion, and appropriate response to a major health issue.  There is a pattern to it which is why I use the labels tobacco science, tobacco ethics, and scientists for hire.  In this pattern is a verboten list is the real causes while minor causes are promoted to major causes. Tobacco has been on that verboten list since the 1920 for cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), and even to this day its role in CVD is downplayed—even though for those who smoke a pack a day lifelong there are more excess deaths from CVD than cancers.  The corporate press and corporate shadow government and the failure to place the people before profits entails that there is a well-established pattern, thus my illusion to tobacco.  This explains the confusion and cognitive dissonance that mankind has about the health villains.


We should be asking what has gone wrong with our health, what has brought on the conditions of the western society/diet, the joint problems, the osteoporosis, the heart burn,  the dementia, the diabetes, the out of control growth in adipose (fat)  tissues and its broken weight-regulatory system, and the cardiovascular disease with its hypertension, strokes and heart attacks.  Instead of unveiling its major cause, we get in the press a parade of minor causes:  among them is stress (cortisol theory), sedinatary lifestyle, and reactive oxygen species.  And we get a parade of fake fixes:  prescription drugs, vitamin pills, supplements, miracle foods, and the advice to exercise more and eat less.  But once the weight regulatory system is broken and there has been for over 2 years excess weight, that system resets to the new weight, and for them there is the yo-yo diet as the system gradual restores the adipose tissue to its prior level. Yes we should be asking what has gone wrong. 


We should be asking why do the elderly among aboriginal societies on their traditional diet have virtual not of those conditions and cancer is about 1/5th our rate?   Why were these conditions rare among the masses in the preindustrial and early industrial western societies?  Why was the reduction in smoking, which declined from 46% of adults in 1970 to 16% in 2015, have not produced a corresponding reduction in deaths from CVD?  But the answer is not in the interest of pharma who profits from illness and the food manufactures who have changed our diet during the 20th century.   The answer, the big one driving our health disaster is the amount of reactive sugar consumed all sources fructose, which is one half of the disaccharide sucrose (table sugar).  The US average is 120 pounds yearly, with one half consuming more. 


What I  want you to do is read the abstract of an a article that appeared in an Ophthalmology journal in 1995.  It is an example of a minor cause become major.


The role of free radicals in disease


Evidence is accumulating that most of the degenerative diseases that afflict humanity have their origin in deleterious free radical reactions. These diseases include atherosclerosis, cancer, inflammatory joint disease, asthma, diabetes, senile dementia and degenerative eye disease. The process of biological ageing might also have a free radical basis. Most free radical damage to cells involves oxygen free radicals or, more generally, activated oxygen species (AOS) which include non-radical species such as singlet oxygen and hydrogen peroxide as well as free radicals. The AOS can damage genetic material, cause lipid peroxidation in cell membranes, and inactivate membrane-bound enzymes. Humans are well endowed with antioxidant defences against AOS; these antioxidants, or free radical scavengers, include ascorbic acid (vitamin C), α-tocopherol (vitamin E), beta-carotene, coenzyme Q10, enzymes such as catalase and superoxide dismutase, and trace elements including selenium and zinc. The eye is an organ with intense AOS activity, and it requires high levels of antioxidants to protect its unsaturated fatty acids. The human species is not genetically adapted to survive past middle age,[contradicted by the article above and our current average age of death in the 7th decade] and it appears that antioxidant supplementation of our diet is needed to ensure a more healthy elderly population. 


The problem with this answer is that as in the article on longevity of adult men is the fact that shoots down  their theory.  They didn’t, nor do the aboriginal peoples on a traditional diet take antioxidants supplements.  All people are exposed to AOS, thus it cannot explain the health disaster.  Yes such supplements, they are a good idea, and I take them in a mega dose.  The evidence for their benefits are compelling, but pharma who is in the business of treating illness educates the doctors that they are useless, and they do studies to prove it.   





And true to the business pattern others are seldom listed in our main source of information the corporate media.  These minor causes include GMO crops, chemical pollutents, pesticides, ethanol, and prescription and over-the-counter drugs. 



 Behind the bad science is corporation being corporations. The case against tobacco was essentially complete by the mid nineteen twenties.  A summation of the evidence based on journal published research was set out by Dr. Kellogue the founder of the cereal company.  A public figure who had a major clinic for health not far below Lester Burbank and Thomas Edison. 


We have a confirmation of the 1871 census, that medical advancement has contributed little to longevity once a person makes to the age of 20.  In this case the non-combatant veterans from New Zealand live an average of 74.2 years.   Moreover combatants who survived the war lived 1.7 years shorter, 72.5 years.  And these results occurred during the period when cigarettes when from under 10% to over 45% of adult population by 1972.  Those who some a pack a day shorten their life an average of 9 years--jk.


Christmas 2014: In Love and War

Mortality of first world war military personnel: comparison of two military cohorts

Objective To identify the impact of the first world war on the lifespan of participating military personnel (including in veterans who survived the war).


Design Comparison of two cohorts of military personnel, followed to death.


Setting Military personnel leaving New Zealand to participate in the first world war.

Participants From a dataset of the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces, we randomly selected participants who embarked on troopships in 1914 and a comparison non-combat cohort who departed on troopships in late 1918 (350 in each group).


Main outcome measures Lifespan based on dates of birth and death from a range of sources (such as individual military files and an official database of birth and death records).


Results A quarter of the 1914 cohort died during the war, with deaths from injury predominating (94%) over deaths from disease (6%). This cohort had a significantly shorter lifespan than the late 1918 “non-combat” cohort, with median ages of death being 65.9 versus 74.2, respectively (a difference of 8.3 years shown also in Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log rank P<0.001). The difference for the lifespan of veterans in the postwar period was more modest, with median ages of death being 72.6 versus 74.3, respectively (a difference of 1.7 years, log rank P=0.043). There was no evidence for differences between the cohorts in terms of occupational class, based on occupation at enlistment.


Conclusions Military personnel going to the first world war in 1914 from New Zealand lost around eight years of life (relative to a comparable military cohort). In the postwar period they continued to have an increased risk of premature death.