"free range" and "additive-free" is well down the list. Your ideas about "good nutrition" are just another corporate money-spinner, but you haven't
noticed it yet.
Hi,
Hopefully your definition of food bifurcates a couple times - right now it is lumping together nutritious food and processed food together.
cheers, Jamie
They get it free with their monthly talking points.
-- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
BS > There wasn't a lot of hard science in your "big picture" - it was in fact all opinion, and supported by exactly zero evidence. G > Evolution is textbook hard science, Slow man. BS > Sure, but Social Darwinism isn't. Your argument was superficial and incorrect, as I pointed out at the time. Pointing out the long term evolution of immunity is exactly the opposite of social darwinism. It's not "social" at all. So much so that in this particular issue, man's immediate personal emotional (social) needs run counter to the stated goal if observed from an evolutionary (hard science) perspective. The pro-vaccination crowd commonly presents supposedly "hard science" arguments based on short term statistical results. I merely pointed out that the short term gains of vaccination could easily backfire when considered from a really long term evolutionary perspective. Hard science supports vaccination ONLY in the short term, but supports the anti-vaccine people very well on an evolutionary time scale. Isn't it cheating to look only at the short term outcome and ignore the evolutionary effects? I just searched and it appears that epidemiology has been forced to address evolution in parasites (diseases) because of the shorter time scale. So far it looks like epidemiology totally ignores evolution of our human immune system.
fact all opinion, and supported by exactly zero evidence.
incorrect, as I pointed out at the time.
Like "social darwinism" you "evolutionary argument" was based on a grossly over-simplified idea of what was going one. It was an example of the same k ind intellectual defect, nothing more.
That doesn't seem to be true. The subject is of interest to evolutionary bi ologists, and we do know how our immune system differs significantly from t hat of the jawless vetebrates. Ours is - in fact - very similar to that of the higher primates.
The human immune system produces a lot of different antibodies which react to the surface proteins of bacteria and viruses. The number is large, if ne cessarily finite but seems to be big enough to cover the possible range of pathogens. Any antibody that recognises a foreign protein starts off a proc ess that generates a lot more antibodies which direct killer T-cells to dis pose of the invaders.
Vaccination exploits this feature by providing enough foreign protein to ki ck-start this process, so that there are lots of antibodies around when a r eal target pathogen appears.
The fine-tuning of the immune system that has been going on in recent human evolution seems have been confined to adjusting the speed and specificity of the antibody response - we've opted for a faster, less specific, respons e which stops pathogens faster, at the cost of lumbering us with more false positives in terms of auto-immune disease.
Your enthusiasm for giving up on vaccines would push us further down that p ath.
You think that a population that had to mount it's own immune response, rat her than taking advantage of vaccination would evolve a "better" immune sys tem, but in this context, "better" is likely to involve a higher risk of au to-immune disease, including arthritis.
Vaccination, in fact, just deals with a very narrow spectrum of the disease s to which we are exposed - in practice just the ones that make us very sic k (which evolution makes less fatal - there's no evolutionary advantage in killing your host and the ideal condition for the pathogen to induce is one where the host is infectious and mobile for as long as possible).
Claiming that vaccination is preserving the "less fit" is a very superficia l and misleading way of looking at what's going on.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
That is what medicine does in general - it tries to save people who would otherwise die. Yes, if they were just allowed to die (or be euthanized or sterilized in the case of non-fatal defects) the gene pool would be "stronger", in the sense that a descendant would be more likely to survive in some post-apocalyptic fall-of-civilization scenario. But that is not what a civilized society does.
The idea was more popular during the first part of the last century, but seems to have fallen out of favour these days. Due to some unfortunate misunderstandings and implementation issues in the 30's I think.
-- John Devereux
BS > There wasn't a lot of hard science in your "big picture" - it was BS > in fact all opinion, and supported by exactly zero evidence. G > Evolution is textbook hard science, Slow man. BS > Sure, but Social Darwinism isn't. Your argument was BS > superficial and incorrect, as I pointed out at the time. G > Pointing out the long term evolution of immunity G > is exactly the opposite of social darwinism. G > It's not "social" at all. BS > Like "social darwinism" you "evolutionary argument" BS > was based on a grossly over-simplified idea of what BS > was going one. It was an example of the same kind BS > intellectual defect, nothing more. You likened two things that were opposite. Then you accuse me of an intellectual defect? Slow man, you are a hoot! G > So much so that in this particular issue, man's G > immediate personal emotional (social) needs run G > counter to the stated goal if observed from an G > evolutionary (hard science) perspective. G > G > The pro-vaccination crowd commonly presents G > supposedly "hard science" arguments based G > on short term statistical results. G > G > I merely pointed out that the short term G > gains of vaccination could easily backfire G > when considered from a really long term G > evolutionary perspective. G > G > Hard science supports vaccination ONLY G > in the short term, but supports the G > anti-vaccine people very well on an G > evolutionary time scale. G > G > Isn't it cheating to look only at the G > short term outcome and ignore the G > evolutionary effects? G > G > I just searched and it appears that G > epidemiology has been forced to address G > evolution in parasites (diseases) G > because of the shorter time scale. G > G > So far it looks like epidemiology G > totally ignores evolution of our G > human immune system. John Devereux wrote
See bottom response to Slow Man. G > I just searched and it appears that G > epidemiology has been forced to address G > evolution in parasites (diseases) G > because of the shorter time scale. G > G > So far it looks like epidemiology G > totally ignores evolution of our G > human immune system. [...] BS > Vaccination exploits this feature by providing enough BS > foreign protein to kick-start this process, so that BS > there are lots of antibodies around when a real target BS > pathogen appears. BS > BS > The fine-tuning of the immune system that has been going BS > on in recent human evolution seems have been confined BS > to adjusting the speed and specificity of the antibody BS > response - we've opted for a faster, less specific, BS > response which stops pathogens faster, at the cost BS > of lumbering us with more false positives in terms BS > of auto-immune disease. It's astounding that you brought up auto-immune disease connected with false positives yet you didn't consider that as a result of vaccines representing a false positive and possibly causing auto-immune disease. BS > Your enthusiasm for giving up on vaccines BS > would push us further down that path. I proposed no such thing, Slow man. I mostly objected to the pro-vaccination people using "hard science" to steamroller the tiny voice of concern that we must maintain. You think that anti-vaccine concerns are kooky. I see both extremes as KOOKY. Placing "blind faith" in vaccines carte blanche is AT LEAST as dangerous as vaccine conspiracy theory people. But you're a stateist and a Socialist, Slow Man. Of course you have blind faith in huge bureaucroacy. BS > You think that a population that had to mount it's own immune response, rather than taking advantage of vaccination would evolve a "better" immune system, but in this context, "better" is likely to involve a higher risk of auto-immune disease, including arthritis.
BS > Vaccination, in fact, just deals with a very narrow spectrum of the diseases to which we are exposed - in practice just the ones that make us very sick (which evolution makes less fatal - there's no evolutionary advantage in killing your host and the ideal condition for the pathogen to induce is one where the host is infectious and mobile for as long as possible). BS > Claiming that vaccination is preserving BS > the "less fit" is a very superficial and BS > misleading way of looking at what's going on. Bull Squat BS. Just wicked "hard science". I didn't say it was nice. I didn't say I advocate it. You of all people should have recognized the hard science that socialists LOVE so very much! You didn't even name it! It's called Eugenics! Hard Science, yet evil. And by the way, it was practiced by those evil people from the 1940's with your ideology whom you claim stole the NAME ONLY of your beloved Socialism. But even more astoundingly, even after all of that nightmare, Eugenics was still practiced globally well into the 1980's though it was usually not called by that name to avoid the stigma. Sloman, Did you ever see the movies: Rabbit Proof Fence? The Gods Must Be Crazy? Tell me what you know of the treatment of Abo's in your current homeland? How their kids were stolen by the STATE to try to turn them into respectable white people? How did that all work out? Tell the truth. Tell me some more about the glories of socialism and social work as practiced on the Abos!
I associated two examples of pernicious nonsense. It's not altogether surprising that you fail to recognise the common intell ectual defect involved.
You may like to think so. Sadly, it's you that's providing the comic elemen t.
Your perspective doesn't owe anything to hard science.
It's actual hard science. Vaccination does save lives. There are low freque ncy side effects but they don't create anything like as many victims.
Since you clearly have no idea how the immune system is evolving at the mom ent, this was mere speculation - it had nothing to do with science - hard o r soft - at all.
And you evidence for the second - false - claim is?
You haven't got a clue how the immune system is evolving at the moment. Cla iming that stopping vaccination would speed it's evolution in a favourable direct is simply wishful thinking. Since the likely route of further evolut ion would be towards and even-more more over-sensitive immune system and mo re auto-immune disease is maliciously misleading wishful thinking.
You might have been wiser to search before you started pontificating.
l y tAn ill-informed and totally false claim, as evidenced by this URL, which yo u seem to have snipped
You'd find it less astounding if you were aware that everybody involved has considered this possibility and found that there's no evidence for it.
You may think so, but you don't think very well.
The ill-formed voices of concern get a lot more air time than the vile inad equacies of their "evidence" deserves
I see them as ill-informed and ill-equipped to construct plausible argument s. Sadly, their ignorance allows them to construct convoiicning, if mis-lea ding arguments.
That because you don't understand the science involved, which make your opi nion just extra irrelevant froth.
It would be, if all vaccination's supporters were blind. Happily it's more influential supporters are influential precisely because they are familiar with the scientific evidence and it's practical signficance. You might aspi re to being equally well educated, but dogmatic nitwits aren't easily educa ted.
In your eyes.
The bit of the bureaucracy involved isn't all that large, and the members t hat I can call an acquaintances were tolerably clever. I don't have blind f aith in anything, but the scientific case for vaccination is clear and comp rehensive.
You like to think so, but you can't construct a rational argument that supp orts this point of view.
Socialists do like hard science. Marx and Engels basically introduced stati stical evidence into economic debate, and provided a rational basis for dis cussing politics and economics.
Right-wing nitwits like to assert their fatuous opinions as if they had som e intrinsic value, without having to g to the bother of learning a bit abou t the subjects on which they pontificate. They don't like science - all too often it disagrees with what they want to believe.
Scarcely hard science. None of the pro-eugenics nitwits ever went to the tr ouble of establishing that the defects they wanted to select out of the pop ulation were in fact hereditary.
Quite a bit. Their life expectancy is shorter than that of the average Aust ralian, unemployment levels higher, educational attainments poorer, and the y are much more likely to die of diabetes and alcohol abuse.
They may do worse than Native Americans in the USA. There's no eugenics inv olved - it's simply cross-cultural problems.
It did work from time to time, but it was totally immoral.
Not well, but it does seem to be getting better. Some aboriginal communitie s are coming to terms with western culture, and have worked out ways of ear ning western levels of incomes without losing their identities.
I never do anything else.
It's been well documented. Perhaps not well enough, but well enough for you to have found out. The worst anti-aboriginal excesses weren't practiced by socialists (who mainly wanted to enroll them in trade unions) but by Chris tian missionaries (who wanted to make them into properly dressed parishione rs).
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ome intrinsic value, without having to g to the bother of learning a bit ab out the subjects on which they pontificate. They don't like science - all t oo often it disagrees with what they want to believe.
---- Naturally you think you don't do ANY of those things! LOL
--- Your claim is fatuous, since being as intelligent as you claim to be should make you aware that one's personal idiosyncrazies often filter one's inputs in order to make them more palatable to - and thus mask their real content from - the viewer.
That being the case, it becomes _impossible_ to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and reports made as to the veracity of the hues of colors viewed through one's filters will be what one chooses to _see_, not what _is_.
-- JF
of the jawless vetebrates. Ours is - in fact - very similar to that of the higher primates.
necessarily finite but seems to be big enough to cover the possible range of pathogens. Any antibody that recognises a foreign protein starts off a process
that generates a lot more antibodies which direct killer T-cells to dispose of the invaders.
target pathogen appears.
antibody response - we've opted for a faster, less specific, response which stops pathogens faster, at the cost of lumbering us with more false positives in
terms of auto-immune disease.
in this context, "better" is likely to involve a higher risk of auto-immune disease, including arthritis.
evolution makes less fatal - there's no evolutionary advantage in killing your host and the ideal condition for the pathogen to induce is one where the host is
infectious and mobile for as long as possible).
Hi,
That's the worst argument for vaccines I ever heard :) Most people aren't going to buy that one. Counter productive to tell people their immune systems are an inherent problem but we have a needle to fix ya and prevent arthritis. And the same corporations injecting vaccines can sell high carbohydrate processed food and stressful lifestyles at the same time to cause arthritis.
cheers, Jamie
Scarcely. I could have written that I never post anything that I don't believe to be true, which has exactly the same information content.
You have chosen to interpret what I wrote as if I thought that I had some private access to a perfect verification service, but I've never made any such claim, and the implication that I might be making such a claim is libellous.
You may not think so, but you can't think straight.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
aren't going to buy that one. Counter productive to tell people
The argument was that not vaccinating now might lead future generations to evolve in a way that would make arthritis and other auto-immune diseases more likely.
The needle now doesn't seem to be doing a thing for or against this generation's arthritis.
And your evidence for this implausible claim is?
Sorry Jamie, but you've already posted quite enough to demonstrate that you can't think straight - there's no further need to waste of bandwidth reminding us of this all too obvious fact.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
likely.
of this all too obvious fact.
Hi,
Diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, dementia, and most other health problems are directly caused by poor nutrition and stress, taking drugs to try to fix those problems is counter productive and doesn't fix the problem. Just a couple days ago I heard about how dementia is triggered by high stress mid life events such as divorce, people that go through high stress events in mid life have a much higher chance of developing dementia, and the nutrition link also associates it with diabetes type2 metabolic syndrome.
cheers, Jamie
Agreed, but even so, not quite as spectacularly stupid as actively announcing that that's how they found him, which they did as part of patting themselves on the back for their cleverness in so doing.
Cheers, James Arthur
My Mom worked for a glam doctor, catering to the ultra-elites. She'd regularly infuse 50-75g vitamin C, I.V. He was a good man and a good doctor--and the patients insisted it did them good--but I never saw the evidence to support it.
In fact, giving lovely anti-oxidant supplements to lungcancer patients makes their cancer cells much healthier, which is not exactly what the patients were hoping for.
Cheers, James Arthur
I'm not sure how relevant ageing illnesses like those you mention when discussing evolution? When until 200 years ago life expectancy was generally the mid 30s?
Can't you see we take drug to fix the problems evolution has given us?
-- Mike Perkins Video Solutions Ltd www.videosolutions.ltd.uk
to evolve in a way that would make arthritis and other auto-immune disease s more likely.
eration's arthritis.
you can't think straight - there's no further need to waste of bandwidth r eminding us of this all too obvious fact.
This is a spectacular - and false - generalisation based on total ignorance .
For example, diabetes is not one but two diseases. Type 1 diabetes is conge nital, and isn't cause either by poor nutrition or stress. Taking insulin k eeps the patient alive - which solves the short term problem, and looks any thing but counter-productive to the sufferer and their relatives.
Type 2 diabetes is a consequence of excessively generous nutrition. You won 't get it if your body-mass-index stays at 22 or below. Again, it can be co ntrolled by drugs.
Heart disease is a much bigger catch-all. I've got three different heart di seases, only one of which - a very minor coronary artery occlusion - could be blamed on a "poor" - which is to say a Western relatively high-fat - die t.
But you can't cite the study. Most of this kind of stuff turns out to be co rrelation rather than causation.
Early dementia is just the kind of mental change that makes divorce, mid-li fe crises and compulsive over-eating more likely. If your study hasn't work ed out how to control for that it's unlikely to be worth the pixels that di splay it.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Hi,
Those aren't ageing illnesses, they are illnesses of modern society, as can be seen by the rising incidence of these illnesses. Also almost all drugs aren't for fixing genetic problems, most are band-aid solutions for poor diet/stress. Genetically humans life expectancy hasn't changed probably, the lower life expectancy you mention, ie. mid
30's, reflects much higher infant mortality which when averaged with older people dying brought average life expectancy way down, if you don't take into account infant mortality the life expectancy of adults over time has been a lot more constant. Drugs are mostly taken to mask avoidable problems.cheers, Jamie
likely.
us of this all too obvious fact.
the patient alive - which solves the short term problem, and looks anything but counter-productive to the sufferer and their relatives.
by drugs.
blamed on a "poor" - which is to say a Western relatively high-fat - diet.
Hi,
I was referring to type 2 "adult onset" diabetes which is at epidemic proportions when you include the metabolic syndrome early stage of type
2 diabetes. Metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes are linked to dementia, arthritis and many other diseases. The majority of these linked diseases are treatable with proper nutrition, and treating them individually with drugs is what is counter productive.cheers, Jamie
out how to control for that it's unlikely to be worth the pixels that display it.
>
Cite? That seems remarkable; even healthy people are at some risk, certainly not zero.
I found an article quite quickly which seems to show a "reasonable" risk:
All their data show a monotonous mapping of risk to BMI, but even for the lowest risk category, it's hardly less than 10 percent (except for the older age group, which I expect can be explained as, having more life to live produces a higher remaining-lifetime risk).
Likewise, their data shows that being morbidly obese doesn't guarantee you to have diabetes, though if you had just a handful of such people in question, you'd very likely have several sufferers among them.
Tim
-- Seven Transistor Labs Electrical Engineering Consultation Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.