Ernie : Your point is well taken. But there is another consideration. Two news items caught my attention this morning. One was a story about making parts of a university ( think it was London U ) in England alcohol free because of Muslim sensitivities. The other was a political cartoon that spoofed Mormon aversion to coffee by depicting a hypothetical President Romney outlawing coffee in government buildings. In the absence of solid science or the authority of science what we end up with is exactly what you suggest. Who "wins" when making health choices ? Whoever controls or strongly influences political power. Uhhh, we need to do better than that. A related matter concerns "Amish fundamentalists" who refuse to use those safety triangles on their buggies. If it means more accidents and injury that is OK because the triangles are "Satanic." With a little digging we probably could come up with a lengthy list of similar irrationalities or, anyway, of unproven religious or cultural claims. What do we do about them ? "Nothing" as a default answer would seem to not be such a hot idea, causing more harm than good by decision avoidance. Is there a Radical Centrist way to solve this kind of problem ? It would be useful if there was. Billy ======================================== 4/16/2012 11:33:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Billy, I agree, but the answers are unlikely to be cut and dried, and ideology can easily trump science. Even with you. Sure, skin coverings reduce Vitamin D, but also reduce skin cancer. Excessive fasting can be dangerous, but excessive consumption is far more deadly, and periodic fasting may create a better psychological balance. The issues are so entangled, that I suspect it would be difficult to come up with concrete data that wasn't hopelessly biased. -- Ernie P. On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:14 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Science and Health and Radical Centrism The following article, while not directly RC relevant, nonetheless may have some interest here for its implications. We live in a globalizing age, if we aren't already global, and, thanks to the Internet, we live in a time of vast choices, including choices to accept and use traditional medicines. Something that Jonathan Haidt said during his lecture on C-Span was addressed to the liberals in his audience. They had just chuckled about the 'superstitious' beliefs of traditionalist Christians. At this Haidt ( pronounced "height" ) asked the audience if any of them had ever visited a natural foods store recently. For in these clearly liberal-in-inspiration shops are not only foods to eat but a plethora of claims to digest --claims for virtually magical powers for certain herbs, claims about toxins and detoxification regimens, claims about vegetarianism, claims about the environment and organics, and on and on, most of which are questionable and some of which are completely bogus. Here is a look at traditional Chinese medicines. This leads to other questions. What about additional culture-based ( which may well mean religion based ) practices that may have a connection to health ? It now is fairly well established that any kind of fasting longer than, say, a day or so, has adverse health effects. It also is clear that customs which promote endogamy --marriage within a cultural group, sometimes narrowly defined to mean clan subgroups-- have deleterious consequences. Conversely, some practices are good for one's health. This seems to be true for some forms of yoga, maybe most forms of yoga, but is it true for all forms of yoga ? And what about food avoidance ? We also know that, given historic problems with pork because of difficulty in "keeping" it over any significant period of time, it was best policy to avoid pork eating unless the animal was consumed shortly after slaughter. Mozart, for instance, seems to have died because of food poisoning caused by eating spoiled pork. But are important nutrients sacrificed by pork avoidance ? Maybe not, but it is worth asking the question. And asking something similar for other food taboos or food preferences. Then there is Muslim practice of "covering" for women. What does this do for women's vitamin needs ? With limited exposure to sunlight, what are the health costs for them ? Not to mention the social costs associated with strict gender segregation. In short, we are also entering an age when traditional values and practices are coming under increasing scrutiny by scientists and other researchers. It would seem to be a safe bet that some traditions won't pass the test. It would also seem to be true, as also discussed in the article, that some traditional customs, remedies, etc, will be validated as really good for you and, whatever religious or national origin, will spread all over the world. Billy from the site : Science / _aaas.org_ (http://aaas.org/) Dangers of Chinese Medicine Brought to Light by DNA Studies by Kai Kupferschmidt on 12 April 2012 Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is enjoying increasing popularity all over the world. But two molecular genetics studies published this week show that the trendy treatments can be harmful, as well. The papers focus attention on the fact that not all of their ingredients are listed, or even legal, and that some can cause cancer. "These two studies show very clearly how dangerous the products of TCM can be," says Fritz Sörgel, the head of the Institute for Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Research in Nuremberg, Germany, who was not involved in the work. "The public needs to be better informed about these dangers." Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on TCM products each year—a growing portion of it on the Internet—and some scientists are looking at these preparations hoping to discover new pharmacological substances. Many would like to emulate the success of Tu Youyou, the Chinese scientist who isolated _artemisinin_ (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/lasker-award-rekindles-debate-ov.html?ref=hp) , now the world's most important malaria drug, from an ancient Chinese medicine. Tu won a Lasker award last year and is rumored to be a Nobel candidate. But critics have long warned that some mixtures can also contain naturally occurring toxins, contaminants like heavy metals, added substances such as steroids that make them appear more effective, and traces of animals that are endangered and trade-restricted. Now, researchers at Murdoch University in Australia have investigated the problem using modern sequencing technology. The team, based at the university's Australian Wildlife Forensic Services and Ancient DNA Laboratory in Perth, analyzed 15 samples of traditional Chinese medicine seized by Australian border officials. "We took these traditional preparations, smashed them to pieces, and extracted the DNA from the powder," explains molecular geneticist Michael Bunce. The scientists then fished out copies of two specific genes, trnL, a chloroplast gene common to all plants, and 16srRNA, conserved among plants and animals, and multiplied and sequenced them. By comparing the sequences to those in genetic databases, they could pinpoint the animals and plants used to make the medicine. "Sometimes we really struggled to assign a particular DNA to a particular species," Bunce says. But as genetic databases expand, this should become easier. Some products contained material from animals classified as vulnerable or critically endangered, such as the Asiatic black bear and the Saiga antelope —just as the producers claimed. But often, _the medicine also harbored ingredients not mentioned on the packaging_ (http://www.plosgenetics.org/doi/pgen.1002657) , the team reports online today in PLoS Genetics. "For example, a product labeled 100 percent Saiga antelope contained considerable quantities of goat and sheep DNA," Bunce writes. "Using DNA to identify the animal species and thus prove illegal trading is very elegant," says Dietmar Lieckfeldt, who works in molecular forensics at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Berlin, Germany. Identifying animals by their DNA has been possible for a while, he says, but the next-generation sequencing technology makes it possible to nail different species in a mixture very quickly. In the herbal preparations, Bunce and his colleagues found members of 68 different plant families, among them plants of the genera Ephedra and Asarum. Both can contain toxic chemicals such as aristolochic acid, a compound banned in many countries because it causes kidney disease and cancer of the upper urinary tract (UUC). While detecting DNA from a certain species does not mean that a toxin produced by that plant is present, chemical analysis of one of the four samples containing Asarum DNA did turn up aristolochic acid. The threat posed by aristolochic acid is also highlighted in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday. The researchers, led by pharmacologist Arthur Grollman of Stony Brook University, focused on Taiwan, the country with the highest rate of UUC in the world. A previous analysis had shown that roughly one-third of the Taiwanese population consumed herbs likely to contain aristolochic acid. The scientists sequenced the tumors of 151 patients with UUC. Among patients with characteristic mutations in the important tumor-suppressor gene TP53 —which make people more vulnerable to cancer—84% also showed a known molecular signature of exposure to aristolochic acid, they found. The study provides compelling evidence that _aristolochic acid is a primary cause of UUC in Taiwan_ (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/04/03/1119920109.abstract) , the authors argue. Bunce and his colleagues also found DNA from plant families known to contain medicinally important species that could pose risks when used in combination with other drugs, as well as DNA from soybean and plants of the cashew family, which can contain allergens. "This just shows that the ingredients in these preparations aren't accurately declared," Bunce argues. Indeed, says Sörgel, the studies show that partaking in traditional Chinese herbal medicine is a gamble: "We just don't know enough about it." -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
