Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (82179)	2/17/2002 12:25:41 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 116796

One more post -- statistics of Cancer, (you can use this math to predict the price of gold. Honest. It's from Markov chains and Stochastic modelling.) The popular thesis is that Cancer, (according to some people who should know better that call themselves statisticians), is a disease that selects those who survive the diseases of yore, to make it to the more prevalent advanced age of today. You have to die of something, if nothing else kills you it is tbought. Thus accounting for the rise in Cancer. So to continue their argument we look at the women's population and lung cancer. Lung cancer is the leading cause of death of the cancers. Since 1960, women's lung cancer has increased 440%. 4.4 times. So by simple inference, their life expectancy has must have increased 440%. Or perhaps 440% more are surviving to old age to die of the inevitable Lung Cancer. Yes, that seems likely. The 60's were a primitive time. You don't suppose its all marijuana smoking related do you? No, it says in this tract published, that its the longer life expectancy of today that is giving us all Cancer. Its the curse of universal octogenarianism. People lived to 72 in 1960. They live to 71 now, and that is a -1.5% increase in average age of death. Lung cancer, increasing 4.4 times, accounts for half of cancer deaths, and Cancer for how many? Let's say 27% of all deaths -- I saw that somewhere -- Uh, multiply by the square root of the variance, divide by the negative increase - (13.5-13.5/4.4)/(-1.5) = 6.96 and just a minute -- I get it, we have a negative 696.0% correlation of Lung Cancer with age in women since 1960. (So Lung Cancer is causing more death - causing age to decrease thereby becoming the mostly increased killer of what age that now remains. It really sneaks up on you. I suppose if knocked everbody off at 12 that would be the definition of old age, saving it from being called a disease of cause that kills you, and not a disease of inevitability.) There, it's is clear. Cancer is cause by death, not axle grease on one horse shays. Since 1960, a time we may recall when women who did not die of lung cancer where dropped on barrows that wended their way from home to home, as the cry of "throw out your dead" rang its clarion call in your neighbourhood. You recall those grim times of the youthful death of the fair sex from all manner of pestilence, don't you? Far happier now that Mum kicks the bucket at 90 today hacking and shivering of the women's lung fits. So many grannies line the Wretch and Wheeze Sanitarium today that its hard to get down a hospital aisle. The trouble with the age theory of sole agency of cancer is that it presupposes that most of who used to die younger now prefer Cancer as a disease, whereas they long ago did not, if they survived at all. All diseases that kill today, given a longer lasting population are perforce diseases of age. The heart diseases too are related to lifestyle, body type, bacterial and viral agents, diet, and age. All diseases are killing later to produce the longer average. All modern day diseases are diseases of age. Why should their mortality be less effected amongst the old than Cancer? What must be assumed is that given this longer age, Cancer stands out to increase as a killer, and heart disease, the biggest killer in some societies, (not in GBR) does not increase as much with the advanced age of society. Passing strange don't you think? EC<:-}