Re: advances cited in research on MS

[Guest guest]

Its telling how so much (all?) of the research that seems to get funded

today is on genetic bases to disease, and how research on toxicity seems to

be getting de-emphasized.

I read a paper recently that said that this whole push to find genetic

causes for all diseases is a trap because the real causes of many diseases

can be masked by the risk factors being widespread ones, but they are out

there.

For example, until fairly recently, toboacco smoke was such a widespread

risk factor that almost everyone had exposure to it, either because they

smoked, or because they lived with somebody who smoked. This made it

difficult to identify it as a risk factor through statistics for that

reason. But people eventually identified that indeed it did cause cancer..

thank goodness..

*But it could easily have not happened in the current funding environment!!*

(Instead, the paper pointed out that these trend-following scientists today

would probably be looking for genetic factors and say that people's genetics

caused lung cancer and would have completely overlooked the tobacco-cancer

connection.)

The thing that disturbs me is that genetics has been historically used to

blame illnesses on the people who suffer from them, and to divert attention

from the things that cause them.

Industry is setting the stage for things like genetic testing to weed out

the 'genetically suceptible' from things like jobs, housing, and insurance

coverage..

They feel that it would be much less expensive for them to simply pay

lobbyists to get favorable legislation passed to keep this legal in the face

of public opposition than it would be to clean up their acts..

God forbid that our highways might be overrun with weeds or that our

clothing might be more wrinkly, or that our food might need to be cooked a

little differently (without non-stick coatings)

[Guest guest]

What their deliberately leaving out the equation is that certain

genotypes are more predisposed to environmental factors. people that

are susceptible to heart disease have to be a lot more careful about

what they eat, and weather they smoke or not. Where they didn't have

to worry about it 200 years ago because they were forced into a diet

that didn't put them at risk, nor did they smoke.

Same thing with breast cancer. Clearly their are genes that vastly

increase the likely hood of acquiring the disease in this century,

but 200 years ago before environmental factors played any role my

guess is the risk wasn't even an issue.

Indians are extremely susceptible to alcoholism.

Mexican immigrant's are extremely susceptible to obesity but probably

only when their introduced to an American diet.

Clearly genes are very influential in disease, but this doesn't by any

means eclipse other factors as one would be led to believe.

It's funny if you talk to people in these fields of research they get

angry if you suggest their findings are biased or misleading. But

it's so patently obvious to any objective observer.

If you talk to a Dr that is pro psychotropic, he will tell you that

the nebulous diagnosis of adhd is a real disorder in which treatment

with drugs is reasonable, and ignore other factors. Like you could

take a 13 year old and put them in a class room and he isn't paying

any attention to the teacher at all but if you hand him an xbox he

will stay riveted to it for hours.

Depression is a mechanism to protect you from doing things that are

not in your best interest, if you didn't regret things and feel

depressed over them than you would keep doing them over and over, and

this would ultimately be more harmful than the depression itself. A

Dr will tell you depression is a disorder, but my feeling is it's an

important mechanism that's helped our ancestor's to survive.

A Dr though the power of suggestion will convince the person that

their is something wrong with them and steer them to a multifaceted

path of destruction with drugs.

Mold related illness is a great example, one of the more profound

symptoms is depression, psychotropic's would mask this and reduce your

likely hood of making the change necessary to remove yourself from the

situation.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:38:18 -0400, you wrote:

>Its telling how so much (all?) of the research that seems to get funded

>today is on genetic bases to disease, and how research on toxicity seems to

>be getting de-emphasized.

>

>I read a paper recently that said that this whole push to find genetic

>causes for all diseases is a trap because the real causes of many diseases

>can be masked by the risk factors being widespread ones, but they are out

>there.

>

>For example, until fairly recently, toboacco smoke was such a widespread

>risk factor that almost everyone had exposure to it, either because they

>smoked, or because they lived with somebody who smoked. This made it

>difficult to identify it as a risk factor through statistics for that

>reason. But people eventually identified that indeed it did cause cancer..

>thank goodness..

>

>*But it could easily have not happened in the current funding environment!!*

>

>(Instead, the paper pointed out that these trend-following scientists today

>would probably be looking for genetic factors and say that people's genetics

>caused lung cancer and would have completely overlooked the tobacco-cancer

>connection.)

>

>The thing that disturbs me is that genetics has been historically used to

>blame illnesses on the people who suffer from them, and to divert attention

>from the things that cause them.

>

>Industry is setting the stage for things like genetic testing to weed out

>the 'genetically suceptible' from things like jobs, housing, and insurance

>coverage..

>

>They feel that it would be much less expensive for them to simply pay

>lobbyists to get favorable legislation passed to keep this legal in the face

>of public opposition than it would be to clean up their acts..

>

>God forbid that our highways might be overrun with weeds or that our

>clothing might be more wrinkly, or that our food might need to be cooked a

>little differently (without non-stick coatings)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Excellent response, !!!! All makes sense to me.

Sue

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sue,

I am sure that the people on the other side would be appalled at my

suggestion that we not use their drugs. They undoubtedly would use

some rare instance where an individual went off the deep end and imply

it was because they went off their drugs, excuse me, medication.

My question to them would be if we never gave the subject any drugs in

the first place would this of even happened?

You open a Pandora's box when you start trying to override the brains

ability to regulate it 'self. But in this culture where everyone

want's a pill or quick fix to a problem were an easy mark.

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 14:57:31 EDT, you wrote:

>

>Excellent response, !!!! All makes sense to me.

>

>Sue

>

>

>

>

>

>