Re: This used to be on disease and immunity
Philip Deitiker (email@example.com)
Wed, 17 Jul 1996 01:24:40 GMT
firstname.lastname@example.org (Eric Brunner) wrote:
>Philip Deitiker (email@example.com) wrote:
>: Not that
>: they are reliable, but they suggests that not all written reports were
>: accurate as written, and the behavior is consitent with colonial
>: behaviors in other areas were better documentation had occured.
>: From a scientific point of view how does one _really_ (meaning
>: definitatively) assess the relative impact of disease, dimunition of a
>: favorable lifestyle, and aggression in overall mortality rates, if one
>: is going to matter of fact quote mortality as disease mortality.
>That is a line of work that has been ongoing in Contact Period Studies for
>over two decades, and in "interacting" with MB, Domingo, and myself with a
>stylistic "grin" you've been speaking to scholars. Rather inutile at that.
Self proclaimed, huh.
I'm beginning to formalized a hypothesis about how you interpret the
biological sciences, and from a biologists point of view I don't
thinks its a favorable one: I will outline the deficiencies in your
responses below (after attempted de-encryptation)
>: Then let's get the discussion back to those aspects of genetics,
>: immunity, interpreted epidemiological data, and relative sources of
>Bzzt. Genetics (human) is not causal, except to the obsedes (obsessives) of
>Eurocentricism. Epidemiological data is not. The role of immunity is rather
>limited to specific pathogens with specific host behaviors.
This is a clear demonstration of your lack of understanding of modern
human genetics. Populations genetics of humans is quickly becoming
foundation to modern human medicine. Familial diseases and familial
predisposition to disease can be linked both the their recent lineages
and to the populations from which they come from. There is no
eurocentrism about this its about recognizing early gentic defects and
predispositions and extending lifespans and/or the qualtiy of life.
>From a medical point of view europeans have become choice material for
a number of deleterious inheritable diseases which are not found or
found at low relative frequencies in other populations, so the focus
of the studies is not to demostrate european superiority, but to save
the lives of those persons first presenting defect. Secondly with
respect to immunity, there are very critical factors of immune
recognition (HLA types) which vary even between closely related
populations the best current example was presented by a well-renowned
japanese professor in a recent issue of science (which I gave as a
references) demonstrating the differences in HLA repertoire in asia,
north and south america. The amount of variation is astounding when
one compares this variation with variation in other expressed exons.
Anyone who denies this is contributive to immune recognition, i would
say that i need to question their scholarship.
>: >The import of such nomenclature does not exist by simple assertion.
>: Sure it does when we talk about the most formidable mechanism of
>: mutation certainly we have to consider gene conversion and being a
>: subset of recombination linkage groups and complimentation groups and
>Bzzt. The only thing(s) adapting in post-Holocene time are pathogens, not
>peoples. The sole non-trivial (in terms of causation) area of interest for
>biological adaptations is non-human.
Bzzt. Humans are always evolving, an average of 1 point mutation
occurs per generation in humans, probably 100's of recombinational
events, some even producing new alleles. Humans are always adapting,
this goes with out even discussing considering that homeostasis
inherant in mamalian lineages. Adaptation and Evolution are 2
differnet things, this I think any basic genetics course will teach
>Cause and effect. The usual sense. Did I manage to improve on the spelling?
Overly simplistic. Why. Because without immunity everyone dies.
Without some mechanism of detecting and removing a new pathogens
humans don't exist. period. The genetics and health are foundational
to immunity. Its not by simple luck that people survive epidemics, if
I had to define survivability in order I would say:
1. Initial dose of pathogen
2. health of dermis and nonspecific barriers
3. genetics of antigen presentation, genetics of cytokine production
to a lesser degree, resting b-cell and t-cell receptor repertoire
4. health of immune system
5. countermeasures taken during before (weight, nutrition) and during
(rest, fluids and nutrition) vartiant with specific disease
Again this is an example of how you fail to recognize work done in
improving survivability for a number of diseases.
>: > are relevant to the actual depopulative events, of
>: >those I've noticed you mentioning when not attempting to pass yourself off
>: >as understanding Domingo or MB.
>: No, what I challenge of the data is the ability to ascribe precisely
>: all the factors related in the population declines, sort as if one was
>: a forensic pathogist and ranking all teh related causes of death.
>: I find the interpretation overly generalistic. something like:
>Describe, not ascribe, and precision and universal inclusion are both rather
>ambitious goals in forensics when the subjects at hand have been "dry" for
>a significant fraction of a milliena.
One still must approximate by comparing historical records as well as
biological remnants. One has to assume contributing factors, they are
almost always present and are a source of great variation. If this
weren't true why would aboriginal cultures invest such effort in the
definition of therapuetic plants and treatments.
>: Healthy endemic people -------(epidemic disease)-----> 95% mortality
>Try "No OW dual-pathway domesticant pathogens + dual-pathway domesticant
>pathogens yeilds significant die-backs of virgin soil populations, on the
>order of 90% within one century". Health is relative, presence or absence
>of specific pathogens isn't.
Again, I question your assesment, although health is relative there
are some fundemental requirements. When one discusses immunity see
above. I can assure you that certain behaviors with even low fatality
diseases can greatly increase the possibility of death. Secondly,
exposure dose _can_ and has been shown repeatedly to affect the course
>: From what I know about the biology of humans this type of discussion
>: makes my stomach crawl. Especially given all the epidemiological
>: factors (not related to genetics) associated with many of the epidemic
>: diseases that plaque current/scientifically-assessing modern society.
>: IOW, I think that we must expect similar phenomena to pertain to
>: epidemic diseases of the 15th to 19th century in which we have not had
>: the greater opportunity to study related factors in disease
>The study of isolates, European Atlantic, and VS events runs well into
>the 19th. Your point is?
The point is that for 1990's technology, some of the diseases that are
question here are no longer and haven't been studied in 30 years due
to successful immunization programs, the susceptibility have been most
critically examined for 'current' diseases during the last 30 years.
It difficult to say for sure in many cases what types of contributing
factors are most important, and as you've pointed out the course of
infection varies with disease. The point is if you want to know for
sure one has to study the specific disease or related disease in
control animals. Then I think its possible to weigh genetics, health
and first contact stocasms of infection.
Again, you can close this door if you like, I think the future will
prove you wrong, the trend I see in your remarks is indicative of some
predisposing feelings about both biology and history.