Ireland is Ireland. England is England. Last time I checked they were two different countries. If you want to understand why the Irish have little regard for the English, you may want to look into 600 years of benign neglect of their welfare as well as a domination of their populace. Irish records were well kept but often in wooden buildings which were burnt often, sometimes for some reason by English people for some reason.
So we are wise if we agree with Gord, whereas we are unwise if we do not? Well I say the same thing. Unwise to disagree with me. You are always wrong.
What I said was true. Disprove the issues in England concerning the prevalence of these types Cancer as a leading cause of death. I think if you think about it for a while you will see that the absence of prostate cancer being a leading cause of death is not explainable by the suppositions that 1. a long time ago, people did not keep records. 2. they did not recognize cancers or care about them. 3. or they did not live long enough to get cancer.
These above types of reasoning are not proven, suppositional, and not effectively proof. They are not effective proof, because of two things. One reason is that if people did not know what people died of, how do YOU know it was or was not prostate or breast cancer? Second, people not living long enough presupposes that all other diseases such as heart disease killed people far quicker then than do now? Is this in evidence? To what extent does modern medicine prolong life? Evidence is our lifestyles are poorer, so ancient time must have had FEWER things that killed earlier, not more, as the prolongation of life is through better public health, not medecine. (again you would have to research this fact on your own. It is true but not widely admitted.) This is a difficult argument, so you must follow it carefully. What cause earlier deaths in times gone by? One war, another is plagues, and another is infant mortality. You can remove infants and war as causing a spike in statistics because they would not affect the prevalence of disease as to the killers that remained for those who survived. So can we remove plagues, and poisons too in the same way. Evryone knows what those people died of. Who was left must have had the same likelihood of dying of breast cancer as we do today. As I said if you reached 50 in 1850 you had just as good a chance of reaching 75 as you do today. As a matter of fact if you reached 50 in year 0 you had as good a chance of reaching 75 as you do today. So the question must be asked. What killed these people who lived as long as we do today? Would that not be noticed and symptoms reported on and mentioned in literature? I am sure it would. You would have Enlgish writers in the 17 century saying, "survive the war and plague and have a good heart but cancer is gonna get you in the pecker for sure" Believe me they did know of it and write of it. But if it were leading killer of the old we sure don't hear about it.
It is today. Percentage wise. It is not the totals who die of a disease of all ages but the percentages killed who died at any age. We do have a handle on this.
EC<:-} |
