The effect of bacteriophages is to maintain a relatively diverse population of bacteria in our guts, by a mechanism that uses up some of
the food we put into our guts.
bacteria to much less useful bacteriophages.
over-confident willingness to reinterpret stuff as if it fitted your silly ideas.
Hi,
I guess we have a different definition of "ideally", I was talking from a practical health standpoint, whereas your definition (which I believe you recently modified) is not based in reality, but is based in your own idea of what is best, ie ignorance. I think your definition of "ideally" means that ideally the laws of nature wouldn't apply and Bill and his Monsanto friends could make lots of money without harming the real world, nice idea but proven to be incorrect!
"Ideally" means in the best possible world. In that world we wouldn't have to eat extra to sustain a population of a bacteriophages which is the current way that evolution has come up with to keep the bacterial population of our guts reasonably diverse.
You are too ignorant to see that as a cost, and too dim to realise that genetic engineering could produce strains of gut bacteria which could use other - cheaper - signalling systems to maintain diversity.
Such organisms would exploit a slightly different set of "the laws of nature" to get a more favourable result for us. I can't see how Monsanto could make any money out of developing these - slightly modified - bacteria so it isn't a job they'd be likely to take on.
Shaw said "the reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man".
formatting link
We don't have a different definition of "ideally". We do have a different understanding of the world - you don't understand it in any practical detail, and I understand some of it.
You are too ignorant to realise that we can adapt the world to suit us better - and have done so with such tricks as vaccination, which you clearly don't understand, let alone appreciate correctly.
Don't be any more stupid than you have to. Putting detail onto the branches of tree of life that include viruses may be new, but the idea that we all go back to a common ancestor (or more strictly speaking, a common ancestral mess) is almost as old as Darwin's "Origin of Species".
However life may have begun, the separate branches are now clearly distinguishable - no matter how much you may sound like a gibbering ape, you wouldn't be able to manage to mate with one and produce viable offspring.
The human body definitely benefits form being free of viruses that can parasitise human cells. Viruses that can't parasitise human cells - like bacteriophage which can only replicate inside specific strains of bacteria - are largely irrelevant. They cost us a bit because we feed the bacteria that the bacteriophages parasitise, but it's a small maintenance cost rather than a direct threat to our immediate survival.
Why do you think the human body benefits from being free of viruses that infect human cells? There are many cases of organisms ie gut bacteria having a protective effect for the host, ie makes sense that certain viruses would have some similar type of beneficial effect on the host. Also the human immune system and other systems benefit from successfully fighting infections. Also not to mention how the connected tree of life containing viruses, provides a species like humans with genetic diversity via infection. In a reductionist world you may be correct but in reality, trying to make black and white determinations of what is healthy that go against what is natural are usually wrong, bacteria and viruses are natural!
Actually, it doesn't. Gut bacteria makes stuff - some of that stuff helps u s.
Viruses exist to hijack cell machinery to make more viruses, killing the ce ll in the process. Where's the benefit in that?
Not all that often. They get better at fighting subsequent infections if th ey survive the first. The organism as a whole can take a lot of permanent d amage in the first encounter, so the benefit is by no means guaranteed. Tra ining the immune system against a deliberately weakened opponent does often make it more effective without much risk of damaging the organism in the p rocess - but that's called innoculation or vaccination and you don't like i t.
Not enough to matter. In fact humans and higher primates have their own eng ine for generating genetic diversity
formatting link
What viruses mainly do is make us sick.
Sadly for your daffy ideas,we happen to live in a world where reductionism works better than woolly-headed holism - at least when the "holism" is prac tised by ignorant half-wits like you.
Quite how you can think you are preaching holism when you know very little about what is actually going on escapes me, but you are such a consistent h alf-wit that you probably don't even realise that you need to know about th e component parts before you can preach about the whole.
"Social scientist and physician Nicholas A. Christakis explains that "for t he last few centuries, the Cartesian project in science has been to break m atter down into ever smaller bits, in the pursuit of understanding. And thi s works, to some extent... but putting things back together in order to und erstand them is harder, and typically comes later in the development of a s cientist or in the development of science."
You want to claim that your point of view is holistic when you don't know r emotely enough about how the parts work together to have any idea of why th e whole might look like more than the sum of it's parts.
damage in the first encounter, so the benefit is by no means guaranteed. Training the immune system against a deliberately weakened opponent does often make it more effective without much risk of damaging the organism in the process - but that's called innoculation or vaccination and you don't like it.
practised by ignorant half-wits like you.
half-wit that you probably don't even realise that you need to know about the component parts before you can preach about the whole.
break matter down into ever smaller bits, in the pursuit of understanding. And this works, to some extent... but putting things back together in order to understand them is harder, and typically comes later in the development of a scientist or in the development of science."
of why the whole might look like more than the sum of it's parts.
Hi,
With intuition you can realize that even if all the reduced parts, or even a large subset of the reduced parts, are unknown, a holistic view can still be justified. It is just a matter of how much "proof" is considered needed, and how much reduced information is desired to be focused on. It is probabilities basically, learning the fundamentals of a system to an extent that allows a certain simplified overview or expected result to be believed.
Even if a holistic view or framework exists, it doesn't mean the reductionist tools can't still be used to build specific knowledge, a holistic view just allows for more choice and awareness/insight into the specific knowledge, it can also be corrected from specific knowledge gained.
The most holistic view is justified even with no knowledge of the reduced parts.
You seem to choose to neglect acknowledging a holistic view, and rather ignore or discount external knowledge or systems if they don't suit your own concept of what is ideal, which you also likely consider holistic. For example how you say it isn't ideal how gut bacteria and viruses exist in the human body, you believe you have a solution better than what already exists, however this type of belief system of over-riding nature's solutions with Frankenstein minimally thought out experiments on poorly understood biology, has been proven to be incorrect time and time again, and the proof is evident just by looking at some of the details of GMO's:
formatting link
It's up to you to have your own holistic ideal viewpoint, but just ask yourself why is there a divergence between the natural world's holistic solutions and your own internal one generated by your reductionist thoughts? If people who try to modify the world with technology would give some thought to the consequences of their minimally thought out ideas, technology could actually be more harmonious with the pre-existing natural holistic systems we live in, that would create a new holistic hybrid with technology, but having a lack of respect for natural systems, ie if you can't respect the smallest forms of life in the holistic natural system, ie gut bacteria and viruses, it will never lead to that correct solution, since it is a fundamental lack of respect for nature.
ism > > works better than woolly-headed holism - at least when the "holism" is
tle > > about what is actually going on escapes me, but you are such a cons istent
or
k
er
ow
Your intuition tells you any number of nonsensical things.
Rational processes are supposed to lead to the same conclusion when followe d by other rational people.
You'll believe any kind of rubbish if it appeals to you.
Twaddle. Holism is only worth the extra effort if you've got a tolerably ex act idea of what all the component elements are doing. You don't even have a clear idea of the difference between a bacterium and a virus.
Absolutely not, As practised by you, it's used as an excuse to pontificate about stuff that you know very little about.
onsumers-E-web.pdf
It doesn't seem to contain any details about GMO's, just lots of alarmist c omplaints that nobody has looked in sufficient detail into the consequences of consuming GMO's. Judging from the tenor of the writing, it seems unlike ly that anybody could ever satisfy the authors that a particular investigat ion had been thorough enough
No existing system is "holistic". The word describes a point of view.
Nature isn't there to be respected - it's there to be understood, including all it's manifest defects. You don't respect it enough to understand even the simplest details of the way it actually works. You don't even have a cl ear idea of the difference between a bacterium and a virus.
Evolution doesn't deliver any kind of optimal solution, it just delivers th e best solution you can get from a process of continuous modification run f or a finite time.
The genome doesn't incorporate error-detection and correction because there 's no continuous path from a system that doesn't have error detection and c orrection to a system that does.
A genome with error detection and correction would be better than any natur al system, but we'll have to design it for ourselves.
You are confusing "natural" - which just means that something exists now - and "holistic" which depends on an appreciation of how something works as a complete system, which is a skill a systems engineer is supposed to cultiv ate when working on unnatural - designed - systems.
The two concepts don't really fit together, and neither is any kind of hall mark of quality.
elements are doing. You don't even have a clear idea of the difference between a bacterium and a virus.
Hi,
The burden of proof of understanding the elements of nature isn't on me, it is morally and practically on people who take basic ideas from nature, patent them, and then disrupt healthy ecosystems by applying them. I've only identified a few of the multitude of problems associated with this type of reductionist profit making that you defend, I don't claim to know all the details of how nature works, just the opposite, I claim that it is too complex to realistically expect to be able to try to interfere with it successfully in many cases, therefore the burden of understanding nature rightly belongs to those who would have the hubris to try to modify nature. Unfortunately the people modifying nature technologically in the worst ways, ie Monsanto, don't acknowledge this burden, and see only improvements on nature in their untested/unproven ideas, which is really a thin veil to cover up their real motive of profiting off of destruction of natural diversity.
has looked in sufficient detail into the consequences of consuming GMO's. Judging from the tenor of the writing, it seems unlikely that anybody could ever satisfy the authors that a particular investigation had been thorough enough
to understand even the simplest details of the way it actually works. You don't even have a clear idea of the difference between a bacterium and a virus.
Your path of "understanding" nature is to the detriment of nature, there are ways to understand nature, and the best way is by successfully improving nature around you. All your idea of understanding does is destroy nature, but after all that you still don't understand nature, it is just a thinly veiled excuse for destruction and profit at the expense of natural diversity. All the species going extinct due to monoculture and Monsanto which you support, those will never be understood, but if nature was improved naturally, with maintaining or increasing diversity, there is plenty of time to understand it properly. Your rush to "understand" nature is a destructive journey to having so little nature left that your reductionist mind can understand it, but still probably incorrect in basic premises, ie that viruses are not good in the body lol :D I guess ideally that is why you would like viruses to not exist so that it is simple enough to understand.
cheers, Jamie
for a finite time.
correction to a system that does.
something works as a complete system, which is a skill a systems engineer is supposed to cultivate when working on unnatural - designed - systems.
In fact clowns like you and Jamie would want to look in ever-increasing detail to make sure that GMO's were never approved. That's the tenor of that report.
You wouldn't have clue what the finding meant. but you'd be sure that they weren't detailed enough.
I don't have any friends in Monsanto, and I'm fully in favour of labelling GMO's. If half-wits like Jamie and Joey Hey can be frightened into paying r idiculous prices for non-GMO foods, they won't have as much money or time t o waste on lying propaganda against GMO foods, vaccinations and all their o ther irrationally selected bogeymen.
I smell one of your favourite, off-topic, has nothing to do with what we are discussing, ad hominem attacks.
If with 'ever-increasing detail' you mean performing a Seralini-like study in the effects of a slightly longer use of GMO corn as food than Monsanto did and then finding that *then* it causes cancer, death, reproductive pathologies, then I can not see what is wrong about that.
Seralini's study was detailed enough. He found that Monsanto's GMO corn is causing cancer in something like
100% of the test subjects. I rest my case there, seems clear enough to me.
Sadly, what you eat doesn't entirely determine how you get sick, and paying the farmer more is not a reliable route to paying your - medical - doctor less.
If you manage to avoid obesity, trace element deficiencies in your food, and the obvious contaminants, including parasitic organisms, you've done all that's useful in minimising your medical bills.
Not getting old, not getting cancer and not getting some infectious disease would be a whole lot more effective, but farmers can't help much with any of them.
Of course Seralini found that. His study was carried out on Sprague-Dawley rats, which get cancer at a high rate over their lifetime.
The interesting question was whether they got cancer significantly faster o n a GMO diet, and he didn't test with enough rats to be in a position to cl aim signficance.
This would have been a deliberate choice if Seralini was competent enough t o produce useful results. Since the results were publicised in a way that m ade it clear that they served a propaganda agenda, rather than a research a genda, you've got to be a sucker to take them seriously.
You are right and you know that I am right. What you eat doesn't _entirely_ determine how you get sick but it goes a long way. And of course you shouldn't hand a blank cheque to any farmer, but only buy from an organic farmer that really grows really organic food of a high quality. But that was already quite obvious to you, wasn't it, or do you want to insist that you really didn't understand that?
'obvious contaminants', there you got an important factor, thank you. :)
Oh you silly little boy sometimes... This includes cancer and infectious diseases, don't you get it? And don't forget to go into the sun enough and in a proper way. Vitamin D supports your innate immune system which can help fighting off infectious diseases or help keeping them in check until the immune system has obtained enough specific antibodies to fight them off.
Probably not. Organic food is fine, but tends to be expensive. I doubt if t he extra money buys you much in the way of extra health, and nowhere near e nough to justify the higher prices
Quite a few things are obvious to me that don't even seem to occur to you. Do tell me what you think I'm claiming that I don't understand, and I may e ven try to set you right, though I may not be able to dumb the story down e nough to make it accessible to you.
,
e
Probably not obvious to you, but it's a long list and wouldn't fit here.
h
We've already got a farm regulation system that makes farm produce reasonab ly free of infectious organisms and carcinogens. Most people get cancer bec ause their DNA copying system makes mistakes without any help from the envi ronment. Skin cancers are an exception, and they are popular in Australia, but that's from the sun, not from any farm.
Getting vitamin D from a bottle is whole lot safer than getting it from sun bathing.
I'm a bit surprised that you specify vitamin D as being especially helpful to the innate - unspecific - immune system
formatting link
It's got a lot of components, and nobody I've read has suggested that vitam in D has an important role in keeping even one of them up to snuff.
formatting link
does quote a chapter from an Elsevier text that does make that sort of clai m, but the author - Martin Hewison - does seem to have bee in his bonnet o n the subject. He is a professor of medicine, but medical training isn't ai med at producing scientists, but rather at producing medical practitioners, and the skill sets required are different. Medical professors have espouse d some very silly ideas, and while evidence-based medicine is devoted to we aning the profession off its more expensive and extravagant delusions, vita min D is cheap, and has few reported side effects.
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.