The Flatline

Written by Dr. Alejandro Diaz on November 18, 2024. Posted in Current News

Life expectancy is one of the most relevant measures of health outcomes.

Historical data on this issue tells the story of the revolutionary medical advancements of the last centuries. Over the last 100 years, life expectancy has risen dramatically.

Rapid industrialization and scientific advancements have reduced the early mortality risk tremendously. Since 1900, life expectancy has doubled in nearly every corner of the globe.

However, something extremely interesting happened at the turn of this last decade. For the first time in over 60 years, global life expectancy dropped. This wasn’t an isolated trend, by the way.

Life expectancy had been flatlining for about the past 10 years globally, and 30 years in some developed nations, particularly the United States.

What’s the reason behind this flatline?

To dive into the hows and whys behind the stagnation, it is important to first understand how this data is measured and what it means for health outcomes. Life expectancy refers to the number of years the average person within a selected population can expect to live.

Although there are various methods, the most common is referred to as “period life expectancy.”

This method calculates the period during which a person born in the year of measurement can expect to live if the death rates stay constant.

Life expectancy is widely considered to be one of the most relevant indicators in the measurement of the health of a population.

Experts believe that this is a more accurate measure than other comparable indicators, like total mortality. More broadly, some refer to it as a clear indicator of human progress.

Regardless of the many interpretations, it is clear that this is a relevant global health statistic.

Life expectancy is not only a health indicator—it’s a Biopolitikal indicator. It accurately quantifies the relationship between policy and the health outcomes of governed populations.

This statistic can measurably grade the quality of public health policy. The coordination of those in charge of scientific/medical advancements, in conjunction with policymakers, has driven improvements. This outlines the importance of this measurement and how it is indicative of recent systemic failures on the Biopolitikal level.

Globally, the stagnation of this metric coincides with the increased incidence of chronic diseases.

It seems that much of the detriment, not only in life expectancy data but in disease burden generally—particularly non-communicable disease burden—begins around the year 1990.

The medical advancements of the prior century appear to have leveled off in their impact on health outcomes.

Among developed nations, the United States stands out, with life expectancy lagging behind comparable nations.

The situation of the United States is quite particular in the sense that it represents some of the highest expenditures per capita on healthcare but lies around the mid-range of the spectrum in terms of overall health outcomes.

In this specific chart above, it measures life expectancy. The United States has been the most affected country by the global chronic disease epidemic, by far.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report from earlier this year in February stated that around 130 million people suffer from some sort of chronic disease in the United States.

The figure has risen by nearly 50 million in the last 30 years. This represents a clear Biopolitikal failure. One study out of California mentioned the increase in circulatory disease as one of, if not the main, contributors to the stagnation of American life expectancy “post-2010.”

This chronic disease data is reflected in life expectancy rates. From 1960 to 1990, the U.S. life expectancy rate rose nearly six years; in the next 30-year period from 1990 to 2020, it rose only two years. The correlation is clear.

The data is similar globally; however, the United States is a special case.

In the previously mentioned CDC report, they also estimate that around 90% of the over $4 trillion USD in yearly federal health expenditures go to managing chronic diseases. This shows that not only is the chronic disease epidemic costing the government trillions in taxpayer dollars, but also that some are making billions in treating them.

This, of course, is in the United States. But what does the global data suggest? In Europe, experts suggest that around 70% of all deaths on the continent originate from chronic diseases, specifically cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Despite the economic disparities, data out of Latin America shows a very similar story. The WHO estimates that around 63% of men and 60% of women are considered overweight in the region.

These figures represent incentives for the system to keep the patient sick in perpetuity, contributing to stagnating life expectancy rates.

However, this also represents an enormous opportunity for us to make a positive transformation in the Biopolitikal framework.

The Path Forward

To reverse this tendency we must course correct. The solution lies in the collective decision-making processes. A critical review of the current landscape is a necessity.

We must review certain aspects influencing the chronic health epidemic and the general detriment of health outcomes across the board. That means looking at the root causes. In my professional opinion, I would include in that list the current vaccine schedule.

Is it really necessary for people to receive the nearly 70 vaccines that are on the recommended immunization schedules from the moment they practically leave the womb to adulthood? When most deadly infectious diseases have been eradicated globally. What effects are these having on children? Could this be why we’re seeing widespread immunosuppression in the global population?

Food and agriculture policy must be modified. Last week we discussed the effects of the dangerous chemicals and additives included in the global food supply. Many of these have been linked to long-term health issues, including hormonal disruption, obesity, ADHD, and chronic diseases.

These additives compromise the nutritional value of food and contribute to the global rise in non-communicable diseases by promoting unhealthy dietary patterns.

Additionally, overmedication further exacerbates these ailments. Instead of addressing the root dietary issues, doctors resort to pharmaceuticals.

I would go so far as to argue that this critical review should extend to medical school curricula. Curriculums should be modified to include further training on nutrition, functional medicine, etc., giving medical graduates a new understanding to take on these public health crises.

Medical schools don’t teach you how to think; they teach you what to think.

Transforming, from a policy perspective, the way we look at public health is necessary. We as a society must collectively broaden our perspective to consider these alternative approaches.

Luckily, the point of inflection is now. Global attitudes toward this line of thinking are shifting rapidly. There is immense enthusiasm arising from the possibility of real reform coming to the highest levels of Biopolitikal decision-making.

With today’s announcement, it seems as though we are even closer than we think of it all coming to fruition. As of today, November 14th, President-Elect Donald J.

Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services, definitely the most qualified for the position.

As I have mentioned repeatedly in my substack posts, whatever the United States does, the world will follow. Parting from this principle, Global Biopolitiks is set to experience a massive shift in the coming years.

See more here Substack

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.