On Jan 8, 12:31 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]>
wrote:
> There are quite a number of factors that effect longevity and prohibit
> a discussion in the generalities presented here. Poverty, war,
> industrial pollutants - even say, the lead used in the aqueduct system
> of ancient Rome, would all effect longevity. So, we can both talk
> crap until gabby's cow comes home, but I doubt it would lend anything
> remotely interesting to the conversation, unless of course, you get
> your jollies from talking crap.
Nevertheless. The key point I was making to counter your ant-science
rant still holds true.
> Here in the 21st century, if we are fortunate enough to live in a
> society that is relatively free of toxins,
Relative to when! Urummph! We have never before the 20th century had
anything compared to levels of radioactivity. Although Roman cities
had much lead around there were no dioxins and a million other by-
products of the modern world from plastics etc. Now tell the victims
of Bhopahl that the modern world provides a toxin free environment.
has an adequate food and
> water supply,
Tell that to Sub Saharan Africa.
provides a level of education that allows development of
> intellect and choices for health care that allow for medical support
> in times of birth, death and medical crisis - we have the basic tools
> we need for health and can expect to live about 80 years now, less for
> men and barring an unforseen accident. I haven't seen any data to
> convince me that, given the same advantages, people in the year 1000
> or 1500 might not have the same expectancy.
And yet ALL the archaeological evidence tells us that this was simply
not so. The fact that you have not included Bubonic Plague, Thyphus,
Thypoid, Mumps, Measles, and a vast list of other diseases in your
consideration is that the horrible medical science has virtually wiped
them out of our consciousness in the Western World. As recently as the
1940s people were dieing of simple skin boils until the advent of
antibiotics.
We are privileged to die of things like cancer and heart failure as
people of the middle ages rarely lived long enough to achieve such
bourgeois diseases. Indeed it is s measure of a country's wealth and
health care that the proportion of people who succumb to these
diseases is a measure of its progress.
Problem is, very few
> people had these advantages back then. I don't think that we can look
> at statistics that cover entire populations and averages, without
> looking at the living conditions cultural resources also.
>
> My point is, manipulating DNA to prevent illness is like taking a pill
> because an uncomfortable symptom is occuring without knowing
> definitively the nature of the illness.
It is a wonderful idea. The future for medicine. Cancer is the most
dificult thing to treat because a cancer cell is almost identical to
all other cells in the body in which it is found. Killing the cell
also kills the host. But if we could identify the tiny genetic
difference between a cancer cell and the host's DNA we would have the
means to target those cells. Many of the new treatments inhibit
specific protiens that these cells are making. Attacking the DNA
specifically is one more step.
Too much of that goes on now,
> and is counterproductive to health.
Indeed such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy. BUT targeting the
specific DNA of a cancer cell would improve this problem.
I think we are quick to jump the
> gun and take something and would be better off in most cases, allowing
> the body to heal itself, which it is designed to do.
If only the body were designed - it might behave more logically.
I am not saying
> that all medicine has no value (it seems to me this is what you
> heard.) I am glad for the wonderful advances to medicine in the past
> century, marvel at the images we can see of a fetus in the womb, see
> arthroscopic and laser surgery as welcome alternatives, love the
> little cameras that can be fed into us to allow internal imaging. But
> I do think that here in the US, testing is over used and
> pharmaceuticals are over prescribed. My opinion. I expect to
> disagree with anyone who believes in taking lots of them. That's OK
> with me.
>
> On Jan 8, 6:46 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 7, 11:01 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Self regulation is a myth. Before modern medicine people would just
> > > bloody die of the most simple thing.:
>
> > > This might have been true in England. But there are cultures
> > > throughout the world that proved longevity through diet and natural
> > > medicine. The Egyptians were said to have often lived over a century,
> > > at least those who did not die in servitude or the military.
>
> > I am sorry but you are talking utter crap.
> > From Archaeology typical figures for longevity rarely exceed a 45 year
> > average.
>
> > > On Jan 7, 2:22 pm, 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
