Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Dirty Stinking Government HealthcareFollow

#77 Oct 23 2009 at 11:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Varus 2.0 wrote:
...and then people wholeheartedly believe that Columbus discovered America and matter is solid.


By discovered I hope you mean 'was the first eurocentric faction that found, made lasting settlement efforts, and started a wave of trans-oceanic colonization on the continent, and that this information is simplified for kids such that they can get a basic understanding of historical data and continue to build on this data in the future like a competent thinking being'. His voyage may also have resulted in millions of syphilis induced deaths in Europe, but we tend to paraphrase for people who don't yet understand.


And matter can be a solid. It's a phase transformation based on temperature, pressure etc. What, you meant to say "Noo, there are atoms, and all that space in there" Yeah no kidding. Solid does not mean the equivalent of matter-type singularity whereby all available potential space is filled with stuff. Not even black holes subscribe to that. Keep showing that you know absolutely nothing about how things work, Ace.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#78 Oct 23 2009 at 11:16 AM Rating: Decent
**
559 posts
Quote:
It's nice that you have no coherent ideas about pathogenic activity yet are able to make such strident recommendations to the heath-care community.


Once again, I'm not making any declarative statements or giving anyone advice, I'm simply offering relevant questions to those interested in a comprehensive understanding. Do you understand the difference between questions and statements?

The article did the same thing. It didn't recommend people to not get the vaccine, it doesn't say that the vaccine doesn't work, it simply asks more relevant questions and presents alternative viewpoints from professionals.

Why is it when you ask further relevant questions about something, people assume you are making declarative statements opposed to whatever you're questioning?

I think its because people want to believe they know what they are talking about when in reality there is much uncertainty in everything, and being uncomfortable with uncertainty they set out to attack whoever started asking the relevant questions as if they have an opposing position to defend.

So, I'm not saying the vaccine doesn't work, I'm not saying you shouldn't get it (by all means if you think its going to help you then shoot up!), I'm just saying that the data isn't clear and we cannot be absolutely certain at this time that the vaccine is worth the effort. There's no implied assumptions in those statements, by the way.

#79 Oct 23 2009 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
Keep showing that you know absolutely nothing about how things work, Ace.
But he's talked to Experts! Real Experts!

Quote:
I'm not making any declarative statements or giving anyone advice, I'm simply offering relevant questions to those interested in a comprehensive understanding.
I'm not saying your moms a *****, I'm just asking why she has all this money.

Edited, Oct 23rd 2009 12:20pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#80 Oct 23 2009 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Once again, I'm not making any declarative statements or giving anyone advice, I'm simply offering relevant questions to those interested in a comprehensive understanding. Do you understand the difference between questions and statements?
No the questions are not relevant. They are asinine.

Quote:
The article did the same thing. It didn't recommend people to not get the vaccine, it doesn't say that the vaccine doesn't work, it simply asks more relevant questions and presents alternative viewpoints from professionals
No, It makes up idiocy based on idiocy.

Quote:
Why is it when you ask further relevant questions about something, people assume you are making declarative statements opposed to whatever you're questioning?
Because your questions are so retarded, we can't imagining a sane person asking them.

Quote:
I think its because people want to believe they know what they are talking about when in reality there is much uncertainty in everything, and being uncomfortable with uncertainty they set out to attack whoever started asking the relevant questions as if they have an opposing position to defend
It's because when you throw in factually incorrect or obscuring hogwash you make things that are not at all difficult to understand "uncertain".

Quote:
So, I'm not saying the vaccine doesn't work, I'm not saying you shouldn't get it (by all means if you think its going to help you then shoot up!), I'm just saying that the data isn't clear and we cannot be absolutely certain at this time that the vaccine is worth the effort. There's no implied assumptions in those statements, by the way.
Yes it is. The data is very clear. There is a reason this person was laughed at by the scientific community. And worth the effort? You can easily calculate that, based on system modeling and a rudimentary understanding of economics.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#81 Oct 23 2009 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Joph wrote:
I don't think it should be compulsory (although some vaccines are depending on the workplace; Flea has to be up on her vaccines to work in her hospital), I just thought you were wrong in your statement that getting vaccinated is about the health of the health care profressional.



Joph wrote:
The idea isn't to be sure health care workers enjoy long and healthy lives, it's to help prevent them from becoming vectors for spreading diseases.


I'd just like to repost these two excellent points since a couple people don't seem to understand large scale public health policy.

I can't believe that an EMT, who got vaccinated in order to have their job, doesn't understand the reasoning behind vaccinating the health-care worker.

Edited, Oct 23rd 2009 11:47am by baelnic
#82 Oct 23 2009 at 11:54 AM Rating: Decent
**
559 posts
Timelord, thank you for explaining my point that it is much more complicated than believing that Colombus discovered America or that matter is solid. We shouldn't be teaching our children this crap. They are more capable of understanding nuance and complex systems then we give them credit for, and a full explanation should not be withheld just because it is ASSUMED they wouldn't understand complexity.

Quote:
Maybe the shots weaken your ability to adapt your immune system to this new disease thus making you weaker each consecutive flu season and more in need of said shots?


Is this what you are talking about CBD? I should explain what I meant more fully.

First of all I want to make sure that everyone understands what the word MAYBE means. It identifies a possibility, not a certain reality. it is not a declarative statement of any kind. It is an invitation to question. Since some of you are so intent on claiming that I am making declarative statements when I used the word maybe, I will put a disclaimer here that I am not making up facts, I am simply considering possibilities. I don't necessarily believe in this nor does it imply anything else you might assume.

This should probably address about 80% of the posts, so if you are truly interested in questioning this stuff and not trying to score points by insulting people for things they didn't say or mean, then continue reading.

We know that flu constantly changes/adapts to the human immune system (and to medicines) over time. Some of these changes take as little as one flu season. However, we are unable to predict how and when these flu strains will adapt and change. The reason they are advising NOT to use Tamiflu early in the season or without serious cases is because they are afraid this new strain will develop a resistance early on and become more deadly. We also THINK/BELIEVE/SPECULATE that this new strain MIGHT trick immune systems into attacking themselves or the host in which it resides, thus enabling it to kill people who may otherwise have healthy immune systems.

We also know, according to theories of evolution, that our immune system has been adapting to new biological threats over our species lifetime. However, we are unable to predict how and when our bodies will change to be able to defeat these new threats (probably not within a lifetime if that is an assumption you are making, although we can't be absolutely certain.)

My statement quoted above meant this: What if (IF is a conditional, not a declarative statement,) by injecting yourself with a vaccine, you were

1) allowing the flu to adapt/mutate more rapidly thus creating a more dangerous flu strain for yourself and others around you and

2) teaching your body and your immune system that it needs to target a specific/static threat when the threat is really more general/dynamic and

3) teaching your body that it may rely on seasonal flu vaccines to develop specific immunities thus weakening your immune system's ability to identify and defeat potential new dynamic threats?

What we are doing now is taking a natural process that has been working for billions of years and trying to force it to work more quickly for us and in a more convenient and economical way. I am very wary of interfering with the natural process of evolution in this manner, and we don't know how these things will affect us 100, 2000, or 10,000 years in the future because there is no way we can possibly test that. I'm not saying that it won't work or that it will endanger us in any way, but I am saying that we don't know that it will not.

If we had a comprehensive understanding of the immune system and how it adapts to new threats, we would have solved problems like cancer and AIDS long ago.
#83 Oct 23 2009 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
I am simply considering possibilities. I don't necessarily believe in this nor does it imply anything else you might assume.

This should probably address about 80% of the posts
So pretty much all of your posts are useless crap? Glad you came around.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#84 Oct 23 2009 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Timelord, thank you for explaining my point that it is much more complicated than believing that Colombus discovered America or that matter is solid. We shouldn't be teaching our children this crap. They are more capable of understanding nuance and complex systems then we give them credit for, and a full explanation should not be withheld just because it is ASSUMED they wouldn't understand complexity.


Uh, that information's complexity is aimed at 4-6 year old kids, so...uh, I don't get your point.

Quote:
1) allowing the flu to adapt/mutate more rapidly thus creating a more dangerous flu strain for yourself and others around you and

2) teaching your body and your immune system that it needs to target a specific/static threat when the threat is really more general/dynamic and

3) teaching your body that it may rely on seasonal flu vaccines to develop specific immunities thus weakening your immune system's ability to identify and defeat potential new dynamic threats?
No, you're immunoresponse system essentially has a threat database. The vaccine tosses some minimal threats your way so your system can effectively them to their threat watchlist and keep a lookout for them.

Quote:
What we are doing now is taking a natural process that has been working for billions of years and trying to force it to work more quickly for us and in a more convenient and economical way. I am very wary of interfering with the natural process of evolution in this manner, and we don't know how these things will affect us 100, 2000, or 10,000 years in the future because there is no way we can possibly test that. I'm not saying that it won't work or that it will endanger us in any way, but I am saying that we don't know that it will not.
You're wary of taking an active rather than passive role in response to natural processes? Well, sorry, but that's been the basis for society for the past 10,000+ years. Seems we've been wrong ever since animal husbandry, stone tool and fire making.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#85 Oct 23 2009 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
soulshaver wrote:
If we had a comprehensive understanding of the immune system and how it adapts to new threats, we would have solved problems like cancer and AIDS long ago.


Simple statements like this make it impossible to reply to you at all without rewriting my entire biology textbook. It's almost a shame.
#86 Oct 23 2009 at 12:57 PM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Quote:
Simple statements like this make it impossible to reply to you at all without rewriting my entire biology textbook. It's almost a shame.


Timelordwho thinks he can do it with one sentence of broken, nonsensical English. Go ahead and give it a try.
#87 Oct 23 2009 at 1:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Timelordwho thinks he can do it with one sentence of broken, nonsensical English. Go ahead and give it a try.


Pick a sentence you can't understand and I'll find a child to explain it to you.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#88 Oct 23 2009 at 1:03 PM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Quote:
No, you're immunoresponse system essentially has a threat database. The vaccine tosses some minimal threats your way so your system can effectively them to their threat watchlist and keep a lookout for them.


Oh so its like a virus database, huh? LOL. Have you actually reduced our entire immune defense system and its interaction with the environment over billions of years to one sentence without a clear meaning or explanation?

It is impressive how people can so delude themselves into thinking that their common sense way of understanding things is actually the way things are. I'm quiet confident, although not an expert myself, that the immune system is much more complex than what you've described here. And when I mention the immune system, I'm not talking ONLY about building a resistance to viruses. There are many correlations between major organs and the immune system that we still don't understand.

Since you said no, I'm assuming that you think that getting a vaccine will not enable the virus to adapt/change more rapidly if it encounters that vaccine in your body? Is this the case?
#89 Oct 23 2009 at 1:06 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
soulshaver wrote:
Timelordwho thinks he can do it with one sentence of broken, nonsensical English. Go ahead and give it a try.


Trying to explain the complexities of cancer and HIV infection and how they don't necessarily correlate to a lack of understanding about our immune system is like teaching high school freshmen multivariate calculus. You can't understand because you lack the basic knowledge you think you have.

soulshaver wrote:
I'm quiet confident, although not an expert myself, that the immune system is much more complex than what you've described here


"I don't know what I'm talking about, but you're wrong!"

Ok, gbaji. Got anything else you want to share?

Edited, Oct 23rd 2009 3:06pm by CBD
#90 Oct 23 2009 at 1:13 PM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Quote:
Trying to explain the complexities of cancer and HIV infection and how they don't necessarily correlate to a lack of understanding about our immune system is like teaching high school freshmen multivariate calculus. You can't understand because you lack the basic knowledge you think you have.


This is the problem with our education system that I mentioned earlier. We assume that "freshmen" don't have the capacity to understand multivariate calculus.

If you don't have anything to offer besides "I know better than you so I'm not going to sink to your level to explain it" why bother posting? At least I have offered some reasonable dialog addressing the issue and have attempted to explain myself.

Sometimes this board has nothing more than a bunch of pathetic egoists trying to insult each other so they can rate themselves up and down, regardless of whether the insult fits or whether the person meant what they were accused of.

Grow up and post something meaningful not a bunch of diversionary *********
#91 Oct 23 2009 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
The problem you have is that you are treating the flu like a bacterial infection.

Bacteria develop resistances rapidly because of a natural selection process. Those bacteria resistant to whatever agent you use will have less competition for resources and will be able to replicate more quickly.

Viral infections work differently. Generally viruses don't have to compete with other viruses for resources. Viruses replicate by hijacking somatic cell functions and use them to replicate. Not only do the somatic cells specifically targeted by a particular virus incredibly outnumber the virus, multiple viruses can infect a single cell.

In fact, a major pathway for influenza derivation and mutation comes from two influenza viruses infecting the same cell. I won't get into the specifics, but basically the genetic information of the two can be arbitrarily combined within the cell thus creating a new strain.

By giving your body a deactivated form of the virus (flu shot) you give your body a preemptive strike against a particular strain of flu, lowering its chances of infecting cells thus decreasing mutation by that particular pathway.
#92 Oct 23 2009 at 1:19 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
soulshaver wrote:
This is the problem with our education system that I mentioned earlier. We assume that "freshmen" don't have the capacity to understand multivariate calculus.


Wrong, the vast majority don't have the necessary mathematical background to understand it. That was, you know, the entire point. So - just for the record - you were the first one here to make that assumption. Congratulations!

soulshaver wrote:
If you don't have anything to offer besides "I know better than you so I'm not going to sink to your level to explain it" why bother posting? At least I have offered some reasonable dialog addressing the issue and have attempted to explain myself.


Wrong, the point was that in order to explain just HIV infection I'd either have to write an absurd amount (which I don't have time to do) or spend the next three pages clarifying myself (which I also don't have the time to do). See how that works?

soulshaver wrote:
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


There, there. Maybe someday you'll know what you're talking about before you jump into a conversation, yeah? That way us big ol' meanies won't have to point out that you're making sh*t up as you go. :(

Edited, Oct 23rd 2009 3:20pm by CBD
#93 Oct 23 2009 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Oh so its like a virus database, huh? LOL. Have you actually reduced our entire immune defense system and its interaction with the environment over billions of years to one sentence without a clear meaning or explanation?


Yeah, actually it is. T-cells record threat information after responding, so that future iterations of helper T-cells can identify threats and put the equivalent of a target lock/marker(Antibodies) which not only classify the type of threat but also the proper response on them Killer cells then dispose of things that have been marked by using the method indicated. The white blood cells 'learn' from doing their job, and giving them an easy target to kill that exhibits the same properties does in fact add them to that 'database'.

It's not like I was using especially dense language...

Quote:
Since you said no, I'm assuming that you think that getting a vaccine will not enable the virus to adapt/change more rapidly if it encounters that vaccine in your body? Is this the case?
Well duh. A virus encountering dead versions of itself (that don't actually exist since they've been reprocessed anyway) does not make it evolve more rapidly. Encountering a threat that is killing them does, since the survivors will generally be the ones who are randomly mutants. Seeing as the core strain has been killed off by your crack squad of T-cells then naturally the virus will have mutated. But there are still less threats overall so your immune system has a much better shot at neutralizing the threat significantly faster and with less complications that not.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#94 Oct 23 2009 at 1:38 PM Rating: Decent
**
559 posts
Quote:
The problem you have is that you are treating the flu like a bacterial infection.

Bacteria develop resistances rapidly because of a natural selection process. Those bacteria resistant to whatever agent you use will have less competition for resources and will be able to replicate more quickly.

Viral infections work differently. Generally viruses don't have to compete with other viruses for resources. Viruses replicate by hijacking somatic cell functions and use them to replicate. Not only do the somatic cells specifically targeted by a particular virus incredibly outnumber the virus, multiple viruses can infect a single cell.

In fact, a major pathway for influenza derivation and mutation comes from two influenza viruses infecting the same cell. I won't get into the specifics, but basically the genetic information of the two can be arbitrarily combined within the cell thus creating a new strain.

By giving your body a deactivated form of the virus (flu shot) you give your body a preemptive strike against a particular strain of flu, lowering its chances of infecting cells thus decreasing mutation by that particular pathway.


A beautiful, concise explanation. Thank you for being informative and reasonable, and not insulting. And I do understand the point/purpose of the vaccine and, for the record, I don't believe its a bad thing, or that it doesn't work, or that it will lead to bad things. But I don't dismiss that as an impossibility either. My questions are these:

We see specific cases in which certain viruses behave in certain ways, but would it be fair to say that all viruses behave in the same way? Scientifically speaking, the only way to know for sure how a specific virus will act in an environment is to do exhaustive and comprehensive testing. Another words, could what we assumed about all viruses in the past not NECESSARILY be true about this particular strain? I understand there is no reason to believe that it is different (as far as I know), but is it possible?

The reason I bring this up is because some of the chatter I have been reading/hearing is fear that this new strain will somehow mutate/combine with bird flu which has a much stronger ability to mutate and adapt to its new host much more rapidly.

http://www.birdflumanual.com/articles/influenzaEvolutionAdaptation.asp

#95 Oct 23 2009 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Edit - Bard beat me to it.

Quote:
We see specific cases in which certain viruses behave in certain ways, but would it be fair to say that all viruses behave in the same way? Scientifically speaking, the only way to know for sure how a specific virus will act in an environment is to do exhaustive and comprehensive testing. Another words, could what we assumed about all viruses in the past not NECESSARILY be true about this particular strain? I understand there is no reason to believe that it is different (as far as I know), but is it possible?


Effective medicine can be practiced before exhaustive scientific data comes. Antibiotics were effectively used long before we ever understood that bacteria could develop resistance to it. Should we have not saved millions of lives with them before we knew this troubling outcome?


Edited, Oct 23rd 2009 2:01pm by baelnic
#96 Oct 23 2009 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
soulshaver wrote:
Another words, could what we assumed about all viruses in the past not NECESSARILY be true about this particular strain? I understand there is no reason to believe that it is different (as far as I know), but is it possible?

Yes, all flu strains (labeled under the umbrella of influenza) infiltrate the same particular somatic cell in the same way and use identical mechanisms for persuading the cell to use their genetic information to produce more viruses. You cannot, however, extrapolate these mechanisms to other, unrelated viruses (polio, HIV, etc)

#97 Oct 23 2009 at 2:34 PM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Quote:
Antibiotics were effectively used long before we ever understood that bacteria could develop resistance to it. Should we have not saved millions of lives with them before we knew this troubling outcome?


Again, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't take the vaccine, I'm simply questioning it. Lets look at it this way. How do we know that we wouldn't have been better off if we hadn't used antibiotics so prolifically. Maybe our immune systems would have caught up more rapidly than we suspected, and the bacteria wouldn't have developed a resistance, so we would be able to more effectively use antibiotics in the future for only the most serious cases. On top of that, its very difficult to measure how many lives were "saved" because we don't know what would have happened if some of those people hadn't taken the drugs, if their immune system could have fought it off or not.

I think the point that Bard was making, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don't usually see a virus adapt/change as rapidly to a host as bacteria.

I'm not questioning the method the viruses use to replicate and attach themselves to host cells, I'm asking "what if this virus is able to adapt and change more quickly than viruses we have seen in the past?" Different flu viruses do evolve and behave differently.

Consider the following quotes from the webpage I cited with regard to the evolution of influenza viruses.

http://www.birdflumanual.com/articles/influenzaEvolutionAdaptation.asp

Quote:
Studies show that genetic reassortment between avian and human flu strains led to the creation of the viruses that caused both these minor pandemics. In contrast, the 1918 pandemic virus adapted to humans by way of mutation and recombination. This alternative method of adaptation to humankind may contribute to the lethality of the virus because our immune system is less ready to deal with it.


Quote:
Flu genes are inherently unstable and mutate regularly. A genetic mutation occurs through the imperfect recopying of genes during viral reproduction. Mutation is a very important source of variability for the flu. It helps it adapt quickly to a new environment or host.


Quote:
For the flu, successful and rapid adaptation to a new host animal is entirely dependent on frequently throwing the genetic dice. Adaptation means making it easer for the virus to enter and infect the target host’s cells. Its survival depends upon its ability to adapt.


Quote:
In October 2005 the team shocked the virology and medical world with their second major finding. The Spanish Flu evolved from the avian world to humans on the strength of mutation and recombination alone without recourse to reassortment.


The virology and medical world was shocked in 2005 because their previous set of assumptions about how influenza viruses adapt and mutate had been false. Flu viruses, especially NEW strains that we haven't had a chance to study, are not as predictable and well understood as some of you may like to believe.

#98 Oct 23 2009 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
soulshaver, do you actually know anything at all about medicine or biology? I'm not accusing you here, but I want to know your background.

Asking vague leading questions you happened to pull from some blog without any actual understanding on your part is useless. You shouldn't be surprised when people rightly treat you like an idiot. Come with some information and this won't happen.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#99 Oct 23 2009 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Quote:
How do we know that we wouldn't have been better off if we hadn't used antibiotics so prolifically.


Because our morbidity and mortality rates are stupidly lower than they were without antibiotics. We have millions of people that are alive that wouldn't have been without them.

Are you one of those people that don't want them to turn on the LHC because you're worried the world might end?
#100 Oct 23 2009 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
soulshaver wrote:

Again, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't take the vaccine, I'm simply questioning it. Lets look at it this way. How do we know that we wouldn't have been better off if we hadn't used antibiotics so prolifically. Maybe our immune systems would have caught up more rapidly than we suspected, and the bacteria wouldn't have developed a resistance, so we would be able to more effectively use antibiotics in the future for only the most serious cases. On top of that, its very difficult to measure how many lives were "saved" because we don't know what would have happened if some of those people hadn't taken the drugs, if their immune system could have fought it off or not.

As long as we are throwing out obscure hypotheticals, what if your grandfather was saved from a life threatening bacterial infection by penicillin? You may not even be here if it wasn't for medical technology.


Quote:
I think the point that Bard was making, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don't usually see a virus adapt/change as rapidly to a host as bacteria.

It was more that you can't make broad generalizations about illnesses and infections.


If I understand your argument, you are saying that if we had never began relying on antibiotics and vaccines that our immune systems would be strong enough on their own to ward of diseases. I understand where you are coming from, but I feel that you aren't thinking it all the way through.

Think back a couple hundred years, back when medical technology was minimal. Death from infection was rampant, regardless of the fact that the same illnesses and diseases had been killing them for generations. Evolution takes generations and generations to happen. This puts us at a disadvantage since generations/reproduction for humans is approx. every 20 years while bacteria have a replication time of as little as 20 minutes.

Basically what I'm saying is that bacteria will ALWAYS outshine us in the mutation/evolution department. Without modern medicine, bacteria will just trample us. Regardless of how many new defenses our body can come up with, bacteria will find a way around it in a matter of years.
#101 Oct 23 2009 at 3:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Basically what I'm saying is that bacteria will ALWAYS outshine us in the mutation/evolution department. Without modern medicine, bacteria will just trample us. Regardless of how many new defenses our body can come up with, bacteria will find a way around it in a matter of years.


Well, at least until we get (good) nano-biotech.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 377 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (377)