|
I'll tell you why diseases are on the "rise." (although statistically I find no mention that today more people live in a diseased state than at any other time in history)
1. People live longer. Many of the diseases you're talking about are a product of aging. Why did we have no Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, and why do we have increased rates of cancer? Because people live longer. Your DNA slowly and naturally oxidizes throughout your entire life. Eventually you have problems. 4,000 years ago people lived to the ripe old age of 30. Now, people live to be 80 and beyond. That's 50 more years of in which to aquire disease.
2. Diseases are diagnosed better now. Thousands of years ago there were three forms of death. Either you died of a traumatic incident, you got "sick" and died, or you died of "old age." Now, every time someone dies, we have to have an explaination for it. Heart disease, CHF, diabetes, etc. Today every time a person has any type of chronic condition, we give it a name and slap it on them. 1,000 years ago you lived with what you had, and no one put a name on it. Now we have names for all these different diseases that have been around forever, and so now we have lots of people walking around with labels on. It may seem that we are more disease-prone today, but I would argue the opposite. We name and diagnose more diseases today, but we actually have less as a percentage of the overall population.
Taking antibiotics does not make bacteria "more powerful," it simply makes tham drug resistant. There is a difference. Before the advent of antibiotics many people died of infections we today consider benign. With drug resistant bacteria, you can no longer treat them with common antibiotics, but the body fights them in exactly the same manner as any other infection. It is no more "powerful" than the previous line of bacteria other than you can no longer treat it with the "older" antibiotics. If you are going to equate the "power" of a bacteria with its resistance to medicine I guess you're conceding that the power of a disease is relative to its strength against modern drug treatment and not as it acts against our own immune system. The diseases are only "more deadly" because they are no longer treatable with medicine. They are no "more deadly" than the non drug-resistant strains. If you don't take antibiotics, the drug-resistant and non drug-resistant strains will kill you just the same.
And I beg to differ, you told me that native Americans didn't have type I diabetes, in fact you said:
| quote: | | As for diabetes: yes, I know about that. Its just the same story for tuberculosis. My point is, natives dont have it. |
You also said:
| quote: | | Diabetes: refer to what I just said. We have created this disease. Natives never had this originally. |
You then equated tuberculosis with diabetes: (from first quote)
| quote: | | As for diabetes: yes, I know about that. Its just the same story for tuberculosis. |
So, either you're confusing diabetes with a communicable disease or you're confused as to what the etiology of a genetically inheritable disease is. Dietary changes, especially post-partum, are not going to do a thing about these diseases. And unless you're genetically engineering the fetus, I'm not seeing where your genetic engineering argument has any merit. It's also of significance to note that diabetes as well as the diseases I list below have been around for a lot longer than we've been genetically engineering anything. These diseases are found natively within populations and have nothing to do with any part of your pharmaceutical company diatribe.
Would you like some examples?
Tay-sachs in the Ashkenazi
Sickle-cell anemia in West Africans
Beta thalassemia in the Mediterranean region
Diabetes in the Pima Indians (oh, what's that?)
Cystic fibrosis in European Americans
PKU in the Scottish and Irish
Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency and Italians
Can you show me the genetic engineering that caused these diseases?
Last edited by NeoPhono on May-29-2006 at 17:37
|