Paul Saladino· MD
Notions that their life span is short are skewed by higher rates of infant and childhood mortality. If they make it to adulthood they live just as long as us and avoid chronic disease.
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Notions that their life span is short are skewed by higher rates of infant and childhood mortality. If they make it to adulthood they live just as long as us and avoid chronic disease.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
and when we get rid of that data and we sort of re-qualify or recalculate the data looking at a more level playing field or a reason of a landscape we see something quite interesting which is this squaring of the mortality curve this compression of morbidity there's something very very interesting there as well so that's important to point out and and it's often something that I want to express in rebuttal to those who would argue that caveman life that you know cavemen didn't live a long time and it's like well if we're using indigenous peoples as any indication if they got 250 years old without getting eaten by a saber-toothed tiger falling off a cliff having an infectious disease or dying in infancy or childbirth they were probably going to be pretty darn healthy healthier than us