Thank you for a lesson in basic averages. You're still completely clueless.
You're attempting to measure health based on diet between two groups. One group regularly receives medical and dental care. One group does not.
I don't care what bat-shit psycho crap you want, because if you find some hillfolk in the US who haven't seen a doctor in their lives, they're going to have a life expectancy in their mid 50's because most of them are likely to die from abscessed teeth or broken legs or a frigging cold.
You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young.
You can't pick and choose who to factor in and out for health and get a useful result, it's idiotic. Total mortality figures is a better statistic than selected mortality statistic, because infant mortality is a golden example of the total capability of a countries health care. Basically, if you can't afford to wash your hands in alcohol before delivering a baby to make it hygienic, then you're fucked.
I don't care if my diet isn't causing me longevity, I have a doctor. He's called a Cardiac Surgeon and he performs heart surgeries. This is why I live in the west and did not die as a 7 year old of sepsis from a broken leg.
You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young.
No, I'm not. Mainly because I'd have needed to use the words "dog" and "wolf" to literally be talking about them. Literally, Joe Biden. But also because I'm not even figuratively speaking of them.
But since you created the analogy:
The "wolves" that don't die young live far longer than the "dogs" that don't die young due to the "wolves" better diet and in spite of the "dogs" having access to vets and living in houses.
When you're comparing the health of adults you can't use information pertaining to the health of children. The factor is itself defined in the equation.
You're attempting to measure health based on diet between two groups. One group regularly receives medical and dental care. One group does not.
I don't care what bat-shit psycho crap you want, because if you find some hillfolk in the US who haven't seen a doctor in their lives, they're going to have a life expectancy in their mid 50's because most of them are likely to die from abscessed teeth or broken legs or a frigging cold.
You're literally comparing dogs to wolves for health. Dogs live in houses and go to vets, and yes get fed shitty food. Wolves live in the wild and face hardships with no access to care and die young.
You can't pick and choose who to factor in and out for health and get a useful result, it's idiotic. Total mortality figures is a better statistic than selected mortality statistic, because infant mortality is a golden example of the total capability of a countries health care. Basically, if you can't afford to wash your hands in alcohol before delivering a baby to make it hygienic, then you're fucked.
I don't care if my diet isn't causing me longevity, I have a doctor. He's called a Cardiac Surgeon and he performs heart surgeries. This is why I live in the west and did not die as a 7 year old of sepsis from a broken leg.