cont'd...forgive me....
Conclusions.
Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.
Funding: This work was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports.
Now I get it! They thought people would trust them implicitly, wouldn't bother to go read the other site (well I just read the conclusion but JunkScience's entire compliment on that article refutes the damned thing).
Somewhere, up above in all their scam and my comments, they
stated when paraphrasing that Netherland scientific research article: (enterfalsehood) "The greatest differences in healthcare costs, they wrote, are not those caused by smoking, or obesity related diseases, but by unrelated diseases that occur with aging and living longer. They conclude that medical costs will not be saved by "preventing obesity." (endfalsehood)
What I understood by the
original, undiluted and probably factual article, is that while prevention for obesity is a good way to help lower the cost of obese-related diseases, it don't count for shit because of all the other diseases peope shake hands with and put in their pockets from their embryonic state until the age of whenever one becomes obese, becauseeee those diseases unrelated to obesity are gonna increase the cost for health care anyway. Although obseity-prevention is a cost-effective way of improving the Netherland's people's health as their study was taken from a database in Netherland (they never said it was for Americans, or Italians or the Leprechans hiding in Ireland either but you know that game, broken-telephone?)
Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy living people and lowest for smokers.
The Netherland people wrote that life expectancy is HIGHEST among healthy-living people and LOWEST for smokers. I'm debating now on whether I should go call a news station and tell them I have breaking news of the US yet again, or one of their lackeys from FoxNews, blanketing the American people's eyes with outrageous propraganda mitigating the real issues in order to further their messed up, selfish, exploiting goals----
So, I'm ready to discount all the rest now. Yea, JunkScience, how ironic.
*btw, I'm not venting at you, make no mistake, I'm just Fe-ing out of my belly button.
If you think I'm spouting crap. Please read all information for yourself on:
The Real Netherland study WHICH STATES IT'S A SIMULATION, ANYWAY vs JunkScience
You said you find it interesting. Were you waiting for people to accept or reject these articles before commenting yourself? If so, how verrrry sly of you~~!
Dejavu--- and lastly, as much as I hope this site is a hoax, it doesn't seem that way....
Too lazy to edit, so sorry for typos, but my arguments are very sane and I wager a more accurate rendition of BOTH JunkScience and "The Netherland's Report".
Edit: This was so trying....
Last Edit So Help Me: "Until age 56 years, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers".
I somehow overlooked 'expenditure'. So, it still costs more for obese people until 56yrs. etc And the life expectancy being higher for healthier people etc is rescinded (based off what was actually said). But there
are differences with life expectancy, so a healthier person will cost more because they LIVE longer and probably it cost lowest for smokers because they die out sooner. Okie *wiped out*