For the cow's puke sake, chazwin, please give a scientifically correct definition of "natural environment", say, in contrast to an unnatural environment. Life expectancy figures will be our next topic then.
On 7 Jan., 20:22, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > This seems to me to be the typical anti-science model that is > pervading our "alternative" consciousness. It is unfortunate and > dangerous as most proponents choose to ignore the massive advances > that have been made and would throw the baby out with the bath-water. > This has led to an increase in some diseases that were sorted because > people have been failing to participate in inoculation programmes. > > On Jan 7, 2:39 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I think this is just a longer extension of the old, broken medical > > model - we have to "do" something (take something, manipulate > > something, remove something, add a device to the body) every time we > > are uncomfortable with the way it is performing. The body heals > > itself naturally and often has what is sometimes referred to as > > "healing crisis" which can appear to be "illness" but is, instead, the > > natural function of the bodies adaptation and change function. By > > traumatizing the body with a medical interruption to this process > > instead of allowing the body its natural healing cycles, we delay or > > destroy the healing. I am not talking about mending a broken bone or > > life saving measures (although some of what is considered life saving > > I find questionable.) Take the bacterial strep pneumonia, a bacteria > > found everywhere that lives dormant in everyone. Occasionally, and we > > don't know why, it takes over the body and in a very short time can be > > fatal. Yet we live peacefully with it in most cases. > > > I don't think we understand enough about the true nature of illness to > > start changing our DNA to stop it. Our current model of illness > > intervention (pharmaceuticals and surgeries) has prolonged life but > > the quality of that life is questionable and it is highly doubtful > > that it makes us any healthier overall. In fact, quite the opposite. > > The healthiest people I know are the ones that take no pills on a > > daily basis. The unhealthiest are the ones (and there are MANY) that > > take handfuls each day. > > You are mistaking cause and effect. Unhealthy people need the pills > because they are unhealthy. Old people get to a stage when pills are > what keep them going. When I say old I mean 40+. Life expectancy has > massively increased with the advent of modern medicine. > I am now 48. > I get gout (hereditry), for which I can choose to take allapurinol OR, > my choice, avoid protien rich food. I have managed to avoid the drug > by taking care of my diet. But however careful I am the number of > attacks is getting more frequent. > I also have a gall stone. To avoid liver pain I have to keep my fat > intake to a minimum. This I do with some success. > I also have acid reflux. This is caused by a diet with too much > carbohydrate. > I think you can see where this is going. > I can't survive on boiled cabbage and lettuce. So I treat the acid > with Lansoprazole and seem to be doing okay. > Getting cancer fucked up this carefully conceived and balanced > strategy. > > Currently, our medical model catches people > > > as soon as they begin to use the system - antibiotics to treat colds, > > if the lungs are wheezing, prescribe an inhaler, > > As there is no other alternative to Asthma, I think the inhaler route > is great. I have one at hand at all times. > > a mild heart > > > palpitation, heart medication, anxiety, anti anxiety pills... on and > > on until the body is completely out of balance and not able to self > > regulate. > > Self regulation is a myth. Before modern medicine people would just > bloody die of the most simple thing. Evolution has not equipped us > well enough. In a natural environment child mortality is massive, and > longevity is much shorter. > In H/g societies during the Palaeolithic life expectancy was around 40 > years. > > > > > Our DNA has a natural evolution of change that allows our conscious > > evolution. Because we have the science to manipulate it doesn't mean > > it is always beneficial for us to do so. > > But it is mostly. > > > > > On Jan 6, 11:36 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We've known for a long time that our antibody-forming system adapts > > > itself to every microbe we encounter. What we didn't understand fully > > > is exactly how this happens. Now that we know, we can begin to find > > > ways to manipulate this process so illnesses can be prevented or made > > > significantly less dangerous. > > > > When the body encounters a foreign invader, like a virus or bacterium, > > > it immediately begins to find a way to neutralize it by means of > > > cellular or antibody-mediated defenses. Part of the process involves > > > tailoring the genes that code for antibodies to specific viruses or > > > bacteria. Researchers have known that this involves two types of > > > genetic manipulation. One type changes a single gene at a time, and > > > the other type changes multiple genes at the same time. Multiple > > > genes can be modified simultaneously to make the "evolutionary leap" > > > necessary to stave off infection. You treat DNA responsible for making > > > antibody molecules with an enzyme, called activation-induced > > > deaminase, while the DNA copies RNA polymerase. Like a scanner, RNA > > > polymerase moves across the DNA to copy it. When this scanning process > > > moves smoothly, there were either single mutations or no mutations. > > > We can now stall the RNA polymerase (under certain conditions) as it > > > "scans", causing cluster mutations in the DNA, adapting our > > > antibodies for a rapid and effective response to a new microbial > > > invader. Germs are mutating all over the place - we can now "plan" > > > mutations of our own to save us as global warming makes infectious > > > diseases one the biggest threats to human survival. Personally, I > > > would rather leap into a new form of existence much more sensible than > > > the human one, No work seems to being done on this. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
