RE: Re: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Reading his stuff (I've glanced at a bit of it, and also at second

>hand descriptions of it), it sounds credible in the same way that a

>lot of conspiracy stuff sounds credible. Knowledgeable people here

>in San Francisco that I've spoken to (granted, not scientists) seem

>to think that his work is not held in high repute.

I haven't read Duesberg (yet?) but I am aware that there's some

well-nigh religious fervor in the AIDS community about the subject,

so I wouldn't count on knowledgeable people actually being correct.

-

[Guest guest]

> That said, I'm certainly not _endorsing_ the idea that HIV doesn't

> cause AIDS. I just consider it not impossible.

I think the definition of " cause " is part of the problem.

A poppy seed " causes " a poppy, but only if it's planted in fertile ground

and receives appropriate moisture, heat, light, nutrients, etc. At any point

the process might be aborted by environmental factors, or even a defect in

the seed itself.

Some seeds are extremely adaptable and will sprout in most soils and under

nearly any conditions. We call these " weeds. " Others require highly

specialized conditions to complete their life cycle.

That's how pathogens are, too. They are all different, just as all hosts are

different. How they spread, how they get a foot hold, and the course they

take after entering the host, will vary.

But to people who define " cause " as meaning, " In every single circumstance

when you expose any host to that pathogen, an identical course of illness

will result in all hosts, " then no, there is no such thing as a pathogen

that " causes " disease.

The problem with that is that, as I pointed out before, it's a straw man

argument.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Raising Our Dogs Holistically Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>Good decision. You won't listen to my crap and I won't listen to yours.

>Enjoy your chemotherapy.

I'm having an annoying problem with the list today -- some messages

aren't showing up, others are showing up ridiculously delayed. This

means I'm probably not catching some list rule violations.

None of what you say is technically an ad hominem, but the

chemotherapy crack seems uncalled for even though I have yet to see

Christie's post, and I'd ask that you try to remain civil even if you

feel offended by some people's disagreement with you.

-

[Guest guest]

" A man may not call his mother an eel until he has first dressed her in

an eel suit "

Tarnatius the Elder

RE: Re: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?

Gene-

>Again - this is always quite classic. When encountering a fool, you are

>asked to be an expert in a subject, or become one, in order to counter

>a claim that (from everything that I can understand) is not considered

>seriously by an enormous majority of AIDS researchers. Far beyond the

>majority that may belive that saturated fats are bad for you....but you

>stated it as fact. I think that the burden of proof is on you.

" The demonization of saturated fat and cholesterol seems pretty darn

overwhelming to me in mainstream circles, so except for the recent

blip of low-carb advocacy, I'm not sure how possible that is. Also,

I think AIDS theory is probably earlier in its lifecycle. "

Well, obviously AIDS theory is earlier in its 'lifecycle', but I'm not

sure what that has to do with the point...

Yeah - the preponderance of anti-saturated fat information seems

overwhelming, but I've encountered some relatively high profile

counterarguments - for instance there was an article in the NY Times

Magazine a couple of years ago by something or other, about which

there was some controversy. (I can probably dig up the reference if

necessary). And I think that there have been tantalizing tidbits that

the Atkins diet doesn't lead to the disasterous health results that are

often predicted. But it's my impression that the Dueseberg (sp?)

theories aren't taken seriously at all by knowledgeable people. But - I

will defer to more knowledgeable people who have already been posting on

the subject. I am far from an expert - and my opinion has primarily been

formed by people more knowledgeable than myself telling me that what he

says just doesn't hold together.

>But, I doubt (am I wrong?) that you are an expert in

>the field yourself. You've just found someone whose views you find

>attractive, you state them as fact, and anyone who doubts them is a

>flake. Cool.

" I haven't read Duesberg (no previous incentive to research AIDS) but

I'm pretty sure I remember AIDS skepticism showing up in Red Flags

Daily, and RFD isn't a flakey publication.

That said, I'm certainly not _endorsing_ the idea that HIV doesn't

cause AIDS. I just consider it not impossible. "

Who said anything about 'impossible'? It is also possible that saturated

fats are bad for you.

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?

Gene-

>Reading his stuff (I've glanced at a bit of it, and also at second

>hand descriptions of it), it sounds credible in the same way that a

>lot of conspiracy stuff sounds credible. Knowledgeable people here

>in San Francisco that I've spoken to (granted, not scientists) seem

>to think that his work is not held in high repute.

" I haven't read Duesberg (yet?) but I am aware that there's some

well-nigh religious fervor in the AIDS community about the subject,

so I wouldn't count on knowledgeable people actually being correct. "

? So you wouldn't count on my ability to differentiate religious fervor

from more balanced views? Of course, you would have no reason to, but I

certainly know these people well enough to know that there is no

'religious fervor' here. Of course - Deuesberg (looks like my spelling

gets worse each time) may be right...but that's just not my impression.

One could spend all of one's waking hours researching this and that, to

determine these things beyond a doubt. Did the U.S. Government plan and

carry out the events of 9/11....search the web. There is lots of stuff -

and much of it sounds superficially convincing. But, just because I have

somewhat individualistic views doesn't mean that I must subscribe to

every dissident view that comes along that has some 'experts' behind it.

-

[Guest guest]

Re: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?

> You know, this type of crap is why I am so reluctant

> to participate in arguments about AIDS like this one.

" Good decision. You won't listen to my crap and I won't listen to yours.

Enjoy your chemotherapy. Chi "

" I have never met a nasty microbe, but I have met nasty people. "

Also, Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> It is your opinion that I was " awfully quick ... " . What do you base

> your opinion of my actions on?

I didn't mean " quick " to refer to the speed with which you drew the

conclusions, but rather the amount of evidence with which you draw the

conclusions. In other words, I'm saying you are drawing conclusions

from evidence that is not conclusive, or, rather, doesn't justify

those particular conclusions, without considering the various

uncertainties and nuances that could be or are evidently present.

> > In this case, to exonerate the terrain as the paramount

> > factor in disease without affording sufficient status

> > to the microbe would be to ignore the implications of

> > the 25 years of rabbit experiments Price did inducing

> > diseases with microbes from root canaled teeth.

> You are awfully quick to come to that conclusion. Try reading 4

> volumes of " The Albrecht Papers " and " Soil Grass and Cancer " and see

> whether or not they support your position or mine. You won't do that

> awfully quickly, I can assure you.

I don't quite see how you think that some given book can automatically

nullify other research, but if there is such a way, I believe you'd be

able to summarize it succinctly much in the way I am able to say that

inducing various diseases by exposing an organism to a pathogen shows

that the pathogen can act as an independent factor in causing the

disease. And we could communicate on that point and so forth.

> Please provide an example and please explain what you mean by " quite

> healthy folks " as I am not sure what it means.

Very well; I'll try to come back to this tomorrow or in the next day.

> > There are examples in NAPD of nutrition providing protection

> > from diseases, but there is *no clear example* conclusively

> > showing the introduction of a *new* microbe, resistance

> > to which was conferred on the population through diet.

>

> Do you think HIV is a new microbe or a newly discovered microbe?

I don't know much abou the HIV issue, but it isn't relevant to my

point. My point was that immunity or lack of immunity to a given

disease can be dependent on genetic and other circumstances dictated

by past exposure, and since Price did not demonstrate that in any

given resistant population that they were resistant to newly

encountered diseases, his research doesn't conclusively show that

dietary soundness can confer immunity to newly encountered diseases.

You are drawing a grand, universal principle, whereas there are many

nuances you are overlooking.

> > There are many things suggested by NAPD that are not

> > conclusively shown and leave room to consider other research.

> > The existence and indentity of activator X is one of them,

> > and the interaction between diet, previous historical

> > populational exposure, and current circumstantial

> > exposure to a microbe and how they interact to produce

> > disease is another one. NAPD doesn't provide clear,

> > conclusive answers on either of them.

>

> Weston Price left no doubt as to the existence and identity of

> activator X. He explained it was the result obtained from a chemical

> test developed by Yoder for antirachitic properties.

Yoder's test did not test for antirachitic properties. It tested for

peroxide gases evolved from a substance. A positive reading on the

Yoder test does not guarantee any antirachitic property of the

substance at all, which is why turpentine and mineral oil test high in

" activator X " but have no antirachitic property.

> NAPD didn't leave any doubt in my mind about the relationship

> between being healthy by being well fed and exposure to any known or

> previously unknown microbe.

Then you again demonstrate my point. NAPD did not show any rigorous

treatment of the subject capable of differentiating between previously

encountered or unencountered microbes, yet the question is sealed and

shut for you.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

On 1/17/06, Berg <bberg@...> wrote:

> > There

> > are examples in NAPD of nutrition providing protection from diseases,

> > but there is *no clear example* conclusively showing the introduction

> > of a *new* microbe, resistance to which was conferred on the

> > population through diet.

>

> Doesn't history provide a pretty good approximation of such an experiment

> in, for example, the introduction of smallpox to indigenous American

> populations?

Well this is what I first had in mind but I thought I would refresh my

thoughts before bringing it up. But yes, I would agree.

What I was saying, of course, was that in the instances in which

primitives were immune to any given microbe (like tb, for example) in

NAPD, there was no evidence that this was a newly encountered microbe

like experienced by native populations all over the Americas.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> > Please provide an example and please explain what you mean by " quite

> > healthy folks " as I am not sure what it means.

>

> Very well; I'll try to come back to this tomorrow or in the next day.

Ok, since offered it, let's start with the natives of the

Americas all over. What is your response to the interpretation that

the mass die-offs upon exposure to new microbes reflects the capacity

of some microbes to which a population has had no training in immunity

to overcome even a very healthy terrain? Moreover, why were the

Europeans immune to the very same diseases? Were the Europeans in

better health, eating better diets, from better soil?

There are other examples. One interesting example is the Kung San of

the Kalahari. Their food is nutritious enough that they are immune to

tooth decay, yet they are not immune to the venereal diseases and some

other infectious diseases that they have encountered from contact with

Europeans. Perhaps there is some threshold for soil quality and

dietary soundness that establishes immunity to tooth decay that is

lesser than the threshold required for immunity to infectious

diseases, but such hasn't been demonstrated, and an example of a

population immune to tooth decay and and not immune to infectious

diseases clearly shows that one can differentiate the two, and

contradicts the general principle of the two going hand in hand

expressed in NAPD if one is to assume the unjustified conclusion that

in every instance immunity to any given infectious disease will follow

exactly the same model as did immunity to tb for the Gaelicks for

example.

> > Weston Price left no doubt as to the existence and identity of

> > activator X. He explained it was the result obtained from a chemical

> > test developed by Yoder for antirachitic properties.

>

> Yoder's test did not test for antirachitic properties. It tested for

> peroxide gases evolved from a substance. A positive reading on the

> Yoder test does not guarantee any antirachitic property of the

> substance at all, which is why turpentine and mineral oil test high in

> " activator X " but have no antirachitic property.

Let me further point out that the antirachitic properties, as is

clearly and abundantly established, are due to vitamin D3 in all

species and are also accomplished by vitamin D2 in some species.

You backed out of this conversation the last time we had it, in which,

in my view, I reasoned compellingly that a) NAPD fails to show

conclusively that vitamin D is incorporated within the X Factor

complex any more than is vitamin A and that Price didn't

conclusively differentiate the X factor from vitamin D3, or for that

matter from combined effects of vitamins A and D. (I admit full well

there is evidence suggestive of a third factor, but this is different

from a rigorous separation of the various factors that is standard in

science).

If you recall, you had argued that it was sufficiently differentiated

from D3 by being differentiated from D2, which was marked by a

coincidental error in believing that D3 is not a product of animal

bodies, when, in fact, it is *exactly* that.

Finally, Price did not identify the X factor. Vitamin D is

identified; vitamin A is identified. We know their molecular weights,

their chemical structures, how they are synthesized, how they are

degraded. None of this is done for the elusive activator X. All of

this is layed out abundantly in thousands of studies in great detail

for the other vitamins. NAPD is a great start in suggesting such

research into the effects conferred upon by " activator X " but it is a

long way from having accomplished such identification.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> Hahaha. Are you now passing yourself off as an expert on weeds and

> seeds too?

> Please name the seeds that are extremely adaptable and will sprout

> in most soils and under nearly any conditions.

> In fact, the plants that we may call weeds growing in any area tell

> the informed person something about the soil fertility. This is

> because different weeds require different soil fertility conditions

> to germinate and grow. Of course, this is another example in nature

> of the terrain being everything and the seed being nothing. The

> plant does not create the terrain, the terrain determines the seed

> that will germinate and grow there.

In pointing out a technical flaw in her analogy, you are giving more

strength to its power to demonstrate the principle: if different

" weeds " all have their own ideal " terrain, " and, analogously, various

microbes all have their own ideal " terrain, " then one cannot

necessarily establish a terrain that is invincible to all microbes.

Pathogens, like beneficial organisms, and like host species, and so

on, evolve over time, as well. It would be beneficial for a pathogen

to evolve the capacity to tolerate otherwise harsh conditions. If a

pathogen evolves such a capacity to inhabit a terrain that generally

is inhibitive of pathogens, then such a terrain would cease to be

inhibitive for that particular pathogen.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

>> this is another example in nature

of the terrain being everything and the seed being nothing. The

plant does not create the terrain, the terrain determines the seed

that will germinate and grow there. <<

If the seed isn't there, it won't germinate and grow. And a turnip seed

can't grow into a peony.

The seed AND the terrain are both important. That's my whole point. We

naturally want it to be all terrain, because that gives us a sense of

control. That's just human nature, to decide that we can ward disease and

tragedy off with proper diet and lifestyle, or by chanting in a field at

midnight, or shoving a virgin into a volcano. But it's still magical

thinking. Microbes do exist, and sometimes they cause disease. No living

creature is at peak health every single moment of his or her life. It's

impossible. Disease resistance is something that will ebb and flow for every

individual, and even the strongest, best-fed, most dazzlingly healthy

creature can succumb to something in a moment of weakness, fatigue, or sleep

deprivation. We're only fooling ourselves if we believe otherwise.

Does that mean that terrain means NOTHING? Not at all. The " seed is all "

folks are also blind and wrong. It goes both ways. It's the whole complex

system that matters, and things we can do that influence the system, not one

factor in isolation.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Raising Our Dogs Holistically Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of dkemnitz2000

> Hey could I ask what you mean here by evolve? I know I

> shouldn't ask cause I never understand your explanations But

> I wanted to hear

> your definition of evolve. Dennis

Like all other known forms of life, pathogens store the information

necessary to reproduce in their DNA. Each time the pathogen reproduces, it

makes one copy of its DNA to give to each of its offspring. Occasionally an

error is made when copying the DNA. This results in a mutation, meaning that

the new pathogen(s) will be slightly different from the old ones. If this

mutation is beneficial--that is, if it gives the new pathogen a better

chance of reproducing--the mutation will become more common due to the

pathogen and its descendants reproducing more frequently. Thus, over time,

pathogens tend to become stronger and better able to overcome our defenses

against them.

[Guest guest]

That's a superficial contention, and doesn't mean population growth is

attributable to birth rates. As the /maquerequere /in Johannesburg

attests, South Africa had an extremely liberal immigration policy, but

now troops are stationed at the Limpopo to turn back the tide of

destitute Zimbabweans. There is a horrible infant mortality rate,

attributable to the abhorrent number of babies born HIV+, and birth

rates are on the decline. The government continually makes adjustments

to population statistics, accounting for the staggering AIDS death rates

(a second " with AIDS " number is usually presented with regular

populations predictions). Population statistics for Zimbabwe indicate

that the death rate is now higher than the birth rate.

soilfertility wrote:

>These

>tests are not even used in Africa where the syndrome AIDS is diagnosed

>from clinical symptoms (lol).

>Check what happened to the population in South Africa in the last

>census. It went up.

>

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>Of course, this is another example in nature

>of the terrain being everything and the seed being nothing.

I know you've warned against hybrid crops, so unless you've changed

your mind, you're contradicting yourself by saying the seed -- and

therefore its genes -- are meaningless.

-

[Guest guest]

Tarnatius-

>Yeah - the preponderance of anti-saturated fat information seems

>overwhelming, but I've encountered some relatively high profile

>counterarguments - for instance there was an article in the NY Times

>Magazine a couple of years ago by something or other, about which

>there was some controversy. (I can probably dig up the reference if

>necessary). And I think that there have been tantalizing tidbits that

>the Atkins diet doesn't lead to the disasterous health results that are

>often predicted.

I mentioned the occasional intrusions of low-carb theory, but I think

that's because the cholesterol hypothesis is much further into its

life cycle and because the effects of the theory are much more

widespread. More people experience the contradictions and there's

been more time for this to result in at least a little skepticism

here and there.

So yes, I should've granted you that AIDS theory is definitely more

monolithic, but I don't think the difference is that dramatic when

you account for those two factors.

>Who said anything about 'impossible'? It is also possible that saturated

>fats are bad for you.

It's also possible that I'll turn into an egg tomorrow morning at

9:32:11am EST, but I very much doubt it'll happen.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>? So you wouldn't count on my ability to differentiate religious fervor

>from more balanced views? Of course, you would have no reason to, but I

>certainly know these people well enough to know that there is no

>'religious fervor' here. Of course - Deuesberg (looks like my spelling

>gets worse each time) may be right...but that's just not my impression.

I don't know you nearly well enough to count on your ability to

discern truth, but that's really not the point. It's very hard to

come to accurate conclusions when prevailing theory is

incorrect. It's taken me years to learn as much as I have about

health and nutrition -- and I still have vast realms of information

to learn and doubtless plenty to unlearn too. So I'm not making any

kind of pejorative comment about your intelligence or ability by not

placing much weight on a casual conclusion borrowed almost entirely

from other people without much independent research. The fact that

they're not possessed by religious fervor isn't really relevant,

because what religious fervor there is contributes to the

informational and economic ecology in which skepticism has difficulty

flourishing. It's the same with nutritional theory. There are some

people with irrational convictions and others who just accept what's

presented without demonstrating any fanaticism themselves, but the

overall ecology makes it difficult for competing theories to get a foothold.

And all that said, maybe Duesberg is FOS. I haven't looked into

it. I'm just not inclined to automatically trust the mainstream

medical establishment when it's given us the cholesterol theory (and

indeed an entire through-the-looking-glass systema of nutrition,

physiology and health) and garbage like bird flu hysteria.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/18/06, Berg <bberg@...> wrote:

> > [mailto: ] On Behalf Of dkemnitz2000

> > Hey could I ask what you mean here by evolve? I know I

> > shouldn't ask cause I never understand your explanations But

> > I wanted to hear

> > your definition of evolve. Dennis

>

> Like all other known forms of life, pathogens store the information

> necessary to reproduce in their DNA. Each time the pathogen reproduces, it

> makes one copy of its DNA to give to each of its offspring. Occasionally an

> error is made when copying the DNA. This results in a mutation, meaning that

> the new pathogen(s) will be slightly different from the old ones. If this

> mutation is beneficial--that is, if it gives the new pathogen a better

> chance of reproducing--the mutation will become more common due to the

> pathogen and its descendants reproducing more frequently. Thus, over time,

> pathogens tend to become stronger and better able to overcome our defenses

> against them.

Thanks . And in addition to what said, the proportion

of individuals with any given preexisting gene in a population will

change over time in reaction to the environment. Although in this

particular case, unlike the one offers above, the property

conferred by a gene whose proportion in the population is changing

might not be something fundamentally new, since microbes must act at a

certain critical mass to exert some effects, a sharp environmental

change could cause a mass reproportionment of the genes in the

population, such that at the level of the population, the property is

new, simply because a critical mass of the microbes now possess it,

their competitors in the population having been weeded out.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>I treat people the way they treat me, so I respond in kind.

I understand, though I STILL haven't gotten all the emails necessary

to see for myself where inconsiderate language first arose, but that

doesn't entirely matter because I ask everyone on this list to be

polite regardless of perceived impoliteness. Wanita and I will deal

with rule violations ourselves.

-

[Guest guest]

>Who said anything about 'impossible'? It is also possible that

>saturated fats are bad for you.

" It's also possible that I'll turn into an egg tomorrow morning at

9:32:11am EST, but I very much doubt it'll happen. "

Well, I would not agree that this is possible

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> " It's also possible that I'll turn into an egg tomorrow morning at

>9:32:11am EST, but I very much doubt it'll happen. "

>

>Well, I would not agree that this is possible

Colloquially speaking, I agree. Technically speaking, you're wrong. ;-)

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Maybe you (someone?) could take him some

>chicken coconut soup and eat it in silence w/him.

Sadly, geography precludes this. It's great advice, though.

>At 6 weeks, the

>wife came to visit and told me I had a defeatist attitude and that's

>why I was sick.

People like that should be fed to very slow-moving carnivorous

insects. There are few types I hate more.

>Compare that to my American friend who came and told me I had a

>defeatist attitude. I felt loved and cherished and safe -- for at

>least those moments.

>

>Your friend needs some love like that. He can get through this. He

>just doesn't know it yet. He needs his friends to carry him until he

>does.

You're right, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate your post.

-

[Guest guest]

>Compare that to my American friend who came and told me I had a

>defeatist attitude. I felt loved and cherished and safe -- for at

>least those moments.

>

>Your friend needs some love like that. He can get through this. He

>just doesn't know it yet. He needs his friends to carry him until he

>does.

>

>

, this story is so moving. I've read it before but can't re-read it

without tearing up again. Thanks for letting your Maasai friends once again

remind us of what is truly valuable in this world.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Dennis,

> ---and , I'm quoting one of the scientists I referred

> to yesterday, " without DNA there is no self-replication but without

> self-replication there is no natural selection (evolution) so we

> can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without

> assuming the existence of the very thing we're trying to explain

> (evolution). Perhaps you're referring to something some folks

> consider micro-evolution. As you guys indicated an organism is

> necessary before it makes DNA, RNA, ie self replicates.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything either of us just

said. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different theories dealt with

distinctly. What I said about pathogens is evident and observable and

not speculative, and therefore not very questionable.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> > >Of course, this is another example in nature

> > >of the terrain being everything and the seed being nothing.

> > I know you've warned against hybrid crops, so unless you've changed

> > your mind, you're contradicting yourself by saying the seed -- and

> > therefore its genes -- are meaningless.

> Hi :

> I am not contradicting myself, I am actually being very consistent.

I read your post and find your analysis of weeds, plants, and soil,

totally sensible and consistent. However, your analogy fails in

certain observable ways.

First to note what should be evident, it is fraught with the danger of

serious error to generalize even between mamallian species about the

effect even of a single chemical, and the magnitude of that danger

runs much deeper when comparing, for example, humans to birds. Yet

you are freely generalizing very broad concepts between not even

plants and humans at this point, but even soil and humans.

While there may be valualbe points to be made by using such analogies,

the fact is that we know a lot about human immunology, and it doesn't

work the same way as plant immunology, and it certainly doesn't work

the same way as soil " immunology, " if you want to call it that.

One clear difference between human immunology and soil " immunity " to

" weeds " is that both past exposure and genetics can contribute to the

immunity to specific diseases. As long as the seeds are somewhat

available, you may go back and forth over time to the same cycles of

plants as the conditions of a soil change, whereas outbreaks of

certain types of diseases in human history often cause a massive

dieoff and then disappear, and the next big strike is with a

*different* organism, because those who are left have acquired

immunity.

Look at the black death for example. Yes, there were agricultural

misfortunes around the time it came about, but after it killed a third

of Europe, it didn't come back when soils the world over went through

much trouble, lowering the immunity of the people.

Or look at how the Europeans brought all kinds of diseases that

ravaged natives of the Americas all over. Even if some of the native

groups had declining skull sizes since Columbian times, and even if

some of them or even all of them didn't have perfect diets, it is

difficult to conceive that the Europeans diets could possibly have

been better, since the Europeans quite clearly wrecked the soil while

the natives tended to maintain it, or at least many of them did, in

many areas where they hunted and left the woods rather than cutting

them down. Yet 65% or more of the natives were killed off extremely

quickly by infectious diseases brought by the Europeans, while the

Europeans had immunity. Because the Europeans had specific immunity

to those diseases.

This doesn't happen with soil and weeds. Soil does not have B cells

that provide " memory " to the immune system that, having experienced a

" weed " before can provide specific immunity to that weed.

In some ways there are analogous elements, but they are very different

processes in the majority of ways and stretching the analogy can

easily lead to unjustified conflations.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Dennis,

> Is this info below your definition of evolve?

THE definition of " evolve " is to change over time. Cultures evolve;

the genetics of populations evolve. Brand new ideas or technologies

in a culture can contribute to its evolution, but are not necessary

for it to evolve; mutations in the genes of a population can

contribute to its evolution, but are not necessary for it to evolve.

The ebb and flow of *proportions* of preexisting genes in a population

in response to environment is genetic evolution, even though it does

not require mutation. For example, if a given species of moth, the

individuals of whom may appear black, white, or somewhere in between,

is exposed to different environments at different times or in

different areas, where they may be more likely to be against a light

background at times, and a dark background at others, that

population's color will " evolve " according to the environmental

circumstances, because the moths who stand out more will get preyed

upon more and therefore get eaten and die more. So if the

environmental background is very light, the darker and black moths

will stand out and die more, leaving more room for the very light

moths who blend in well to reproduce, and vice versa. This is

evolution, is not necessarily directional, and does not require

mutations -- which do, verifiably occur, which is a separate point.

Likewise, the characteristics of the individuals of a bacterial

population are not uniform. Perhaps, for example, 1% of them,

Variant-Beta secrete adhesion protein x, protein-digesting enzyme y

and toxin z that allows them to cause a certain effect a in a host,

but that the critical mass required to secrete these things and

actually *cause* that effect is 10 population units. These 1% also

have a gene that makes them resistant to Antibiotic 1. Most of the

99%, whom we will call Variant-Alpha, neither have these effects nor

are resistant to Antibiotic 1.

Assume that there is a crowding effect, where in the presence of

Variant-Alpha, Variant-Beta is kept in check at 1% of the population.

Say 100 population units *total* infect a host, of which only 1

population unit (1%) is Variant-Beta. If a dose of Antibiotic 1 is

used, it will cause the population to " evolve " because the

*proportion* of genetic variants in the population will change. The

longer that Antibiotic 1 is used for, and the higher the dose, the

more that Variant-Alpha will be combatted while Variant-Beta will not

be affected. By removing the crowding effect or whatever mechanism by

which Variant-Alpha keeps Variant-Beta from becoming more than 1% of

the population, thanks to the changing environment provided by

Antiobiotic 1, Variant-Beta will become the dominant variant in the

population.

Thus, room is made for Variant-Beta to expand beyond the threhold of

10 Population Units. Once that threshold is met, the specific toxic

effects occuring in the host are different.

Thus, the specific toxic effects change -- evolve -- in response to

environments, even by mechanisms that do not require mutations.

>Where did you

> get all that info? What does it mean?? I don't get it? " Microbes

> must act at a certain critical mass to exert some effects, a sharp

> environmental change COULD cause a mass reproportionment of the

> genes...... " HOW you going to change my genes by sending me to the

> north pole or the moon? It isn't that simple is it?

You are an individual, not a population. Individuals do not evolve;

populations evolve.

If you are interested in the subject, I suggest you pick up a basic

college biology textbook and read the chapter on evolution. I know

you work in a lab so maybe you have seen this information before, but,

while I'm sure your totally capable, you don't seem to be familiar

with the basic evolutionary concepts. You might also want to check

out http://www.talkorigins.org.

I don't mean that to be remotely insulting, but a basic introductory

textbook entry on it might be able to explain the introductory basics

to evolution more concisely than me.

Not that I mind you asking.

> MAYBE all the

> microbes need is information (from the designer?) " to exert some

> effects " . Dennis

The question isn't why they exert some effects. It's why those

effects can evolve over time within a population. Natural selection

is a much simpler explanation, is observable, and is self-evident.

Moreover, one would expect a Creator to be quite capable of creating a

universe that can flourish itself, and surely one would consider the

creation of something with creative capacity itself to be a more

impressive creative feat than the creation of something that needed to

be babysat and tinkered with everytime a change was required. One

would also think said Creator wouldn't be insecure about evidence that

his creation unravels life with its own intricate processes would

somehow nullify his creative power when it would so obviously exalt

it.

In any case, it is a very simple and elegant explanation that

environments filter populations for the individuals best-suited to

that environment. It is a basic principle of basic logic that this

*must* happen, because we know that when something dies, it ceases to

exist. It is that basic and fundamental.

You can question exactly what the implications of natural selection

are and exactly to what extent they are responsible for the entirety

of life itself if you choose, but one can't be reasonable and

simultaneously deny the self-evident fact that natural selection is an

operative force in the genetic evolution of populations.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html