MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Disease is Never Fatal (Health)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am about to tell you something new.

I say this because, what I am about to tell you will strike you as so eminently reasonable that you will assume you've heard it before and have known it all along.

No one has ever died of a disease.

Diseases do not kill their hosts. If a disease was incompatible with its host, it couldn't manage to infect that host. We only ever get infected by compatible viri and bacillus.

What kills us is the cure.

Or rather, killing us is the cure.

When a host becomes infected, the body immediately goes into emergency mode to destroy that infection. Or rather, the single-celled organisms within us tell the body to go into emergency mode and our body dutifully does as it's told.

This emergency mode is what manifests as the specific symptoms of the particular infection. Many or most of the symptoms of the disease are the body's particular counter-measures used against the infection (or the infection's response to those counter-measures). Our ailing bodies and minds are collateral damage in a war between two colonies of single-celled organisms battling for control of the host.

But our bodies come equipped with a fail-safe mechanism. If our native species of bacilli and virii determine that all is lost, still they will not surrender. Instead, they hit the self-destruct button. One by one, the body's organs begin to shut down, denying the invader any succor from its victory.

The battle for one body is lost but, by burning the fields, the species as a whole can be saved.

But saved....for whom?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Bit surprised this has not generated any discussion.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It's just too radically breathtaking for the likes of us. You have to bring it down a notch or two. I'm surprised my DVD posting got no response but I've learned to be philosophical about these things.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't see how the sarcasm was warranted. Your DVD posting was definitely noted with unexpressed enthusiasm and excitement, though I can't yet order it in my region (as you mentioned). Can't wait to do so!

I continue work on the book version. It's very slow going now as I'm nearing the end and the source material is running out.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What sarcasm? I was simply giving you my opinion as to why you didn't get responses. It certainly applied to me and (as usual) that meant I assumed it applied to everyone else.

Your DVD posting was definitely noted with unexpressed enthusiasm and excitement

Again I am baffled. If you personally were enthused and excited, you might have mentioned it. I'm not telepathic -- at least not over those sort of distances. And, unless you are, you can't know whether anybody else is enthused and excited since nobody has posted (nor on the Megalithic Empire either for that matter).

Please note, the moment has passed and enthusiasm and excitement should not now be expressed. Sigh. Never you mind, old son, there'll be another DVD on something or other in a few years time. They're like London buses.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Again I am baffled. If you personally were enthused and excited, you might have mentioned it.


You're absolutely right. I happened to read the post while talking with my wife as I ate dinner and felt too preoccupied to hit the reply button, to type that congratulatory message. I assumed everyone else would do so, and my lack of response would not be missed.

I did talk about it with my wife though as I ate! There was much enthusiasm.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ah, my wife ate my homework. Your explanation, though somewhat overelaborate, is accepted.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
I am about to tell you something new.

I say this because, what I am about to tell you will strike you as so eminently reasonable that you will assume you've heard it before and have known it all along.

No one has ever died of a disease.

Diseases do not kill their hosts. If a disease was incompatible with its host, it couldn't manage to infect that host. We only ever get infected by compatible viri and bacillus.

What kills us is the cure.

Or rather, killing us is the cure.

When a host becomes infected, the body immediately goes into emergency mode to destroy that infection. Or rather, the single-celled organisms within us tell the body to go into emergency mode and our body dutifully does as it's told.

This emergency mode is what manifests as the specific symptoms of the particular infection. Many or most of the symptoms of the disease are the body's particular counter-measures used against the infection (or the infection's response to those counter-measures). Our ailing bodies and minds are collateral damage in a war between two colonies of single-celled organisms battling for control of the host.

But our bodies come equipped with a fail-safe mechanism. If our native species of bacilli and virii determine that all is lost, still they will not surrender. Instead, they hit the self-destruct button. One by one, the body's organs begin to shut down, denying the invader any succor from its victory.

The battle for one body is lost but, by burning the fields, the species as a whole can be saved.

But saved....for whom?


Maybe if your body is failing to repair itself....it doesn't give up... it tries a reboot.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A reboot?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well why not..

My Dtr has a female friend, whose boyfriend was at a drinking party. You know the sort, you get drunk, and test yourself with dares. Net result he ended up with a serious brain injury.......after falling down the stairs.

The medical treatment was to put him into a medically induced coma and then wait.....

Three or four days later they operated.

Hey presto he is now almost fully recovered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_coma.

By partially closing down a organ your body is not self destructing, you are maximising your survival chance, by diverting energy resources to where they are more needed.

The problem comes when your body is shifting resources, on too many fronts. More than one organ needs to partially close.

Your defences become overloaded.

Still you don't give up or self destruct, your organs try more and more elaborate forms of closure.

The logic is to reboot.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hey dont try this at home.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am sure that you missed the entire point of my original post.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As I keep reminding you, Ishmael, "Whose fault is that?"
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'm not sure I've grasped the medical science (or even if this is the right thread) but whole populations are apparently becoming more resistant to antibiotics.

Person A regularly takes antibiotics, he'll need stronger and stronger doses and eventually be resistant to all the currently prescribed ones, but if B very rarely has to take antibiotics, why would his resistance be affected by A's predicament? (Of course it is foolhardy to prescribe antibiotics to a pregnant woman and would surely only be done in serious cases.)

It may be the dead animals we eat are pumped full of drugs but presumably food standards agencies, at least in the west, monitor this. (Are veggies noticeably healthier than everyone else?)

On a sociological note, a doctor interviewed on the news explained, rather lamely I thought, that patients 'demanded antibiotics'. It would seem that GPs nowadays aren't in the driving seat.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Something like 90% of the sales of antibiotics in the UK are to vets for herd or flock treatment. So it's in the food chain for all meat-eaters. Whether the antibiotics are broken down by cooking the meat is hard to determine.

See (e.g.) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/veterinary-antimicrobial-resistance-and-sales-surveillance-2013

Fluoroquinolones are synthetic antibiotics developed in the 1970s and introduced into human medicine in the 1980s ... the World Health Organisation (WHO) has classified these drugs as ‘critically important in human medicine’ and said that efforts to reduce antibiotic use in farm animals should prioritise the fluoroquinolones and another antibiotic class known as the modern cephalosporins. The reason for the WHO’s concern is that there is clear evidence that most antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter and Salmonella infections in humans comes from farm antibiotic use.


https://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=T_9ATk3bieI%3D&tabid=1715
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group