Re: This used to be on disease and immunity

Eric Brunner (
17 Jul 1996 22:00:56 GMT

Gerold Firl ( wrote:
: In article <4sgea7$>, (Eric Brunner) writes:

: |> : >I'd also be interested (slightly) to know what "slant" you perceive, and
: |> : >how you reached that perception, and so forth.

: Eric, your slant is obvious. Remember your frantic defense of vine
: deloria? I have asked you several times now for an explanation of how
: you can defend a loony-tune buffoon like deloria, and you have never
: deigned to reply; the reason, of course, is quite clear. Deloria is an
: indian, so no matter how pathetically transparent his errors, you can
: not bring yourself to acknowledge them. You are trapped within a rigid
: us vs. them ideology, and your dogmatic blinders are set on narrow
: focus.

Not quite. I've spoken with Professor Deloria and have in progress some
work which I know he will consider when undertaking the second and third
parts of his projected three-part work. I applaud his taking, however
clumsily, scientism that is neither scientific, nor even self-aware of
its ethnocentricism, to task.

My criticism are for his ears first, of defects of method. In spite of the
milage that cataclysmic net-kooks (the Ted Hodders of sundry newsgroups),
and hyperdiffusionist net-kooks (the Steve Whittets of sundry newsgroups),
and the creationists net-kooks (too many to mention), and the pseudo-
scientism net-kooks (the Gerold Firls of sundry newsgroups), each get out
of their divergent purpose-built readings of his last book length work,
news groups and net kookery is not the first or best place to attempt real

You'll just have to wait, and don't forget to capitalize proper names.

: You're thus trapped between your ethnocentrism and your pose of
: fearlessly seeking the truth, no matter how painful for conventional
: wisdom. You can neither acknowledge the errors of deloria nor admit your
: ideological partisanship. Sad, actually.

See above.

: |> Philip Deitiker ( wrote:

: |> : Then let's get the discussion back to those aspects of genetics,
: |> : immunity, interpreted epidemiological data, and relative sources of
: |> : mortality.

: |> 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.

: Once again we see eric's ideology. Here's another sample of his
: hysterical fear of biology and genetics:

: |> : 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.

: Notice the "bzzt"? That is derived from tv gameshows, where the hidden,
: off-screen "judges" use "the buzzer" to convey their theological
: dictate.

I wasn't aware that a theological "reading" of TV game shows was common.

: The doctrine according to eric has been revealed: the only
: things adapting in post-holocene times are pathogens, *not peoples*!
: (Emphasis added, as if it were necessary. The agenda is obvious.)

: Whence the phobia? How do you plan to enforce your decree? Biological
: organisms evolve, whether you like it or not, and epidemics are an
: especially blatent example. A 90% die-off will produce a genetic shift,
: especially in small populations, and *especially* in the genetics of the
: immune system. You can argue that acquired immunity is more significant
: than genetic resistance, and in the case of the individual that is
: certainly true; I'd much rather have an acquired immunity than a genetic
: resistance when confronted with an infection. Genetic resistance makes
: it more probable that I'll survive, but acquired immunity is a sure
: thing.

: In the face of an epidemic, however, genetic immunity can make the
: difference between cultural survival and extinction. A 30% mortality
: rate is a different kind of catastrophe than 90% mortality. A culture
: can bounce back fairly quickly from an epidemic with a 30% kill rate
: (look at europe after the plague) but a 90% mortality makes a culture
: extremely vulnurable. Unless they are given a lot of time to recover, in
: complete isolation from others, that kind of demographic collapse is
: almost certainly fatal. Genetic resistance makes a big difference at
: that level.

Sigh. Maybe it is the water.

: --
: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
: Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
: me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf

Eric Brunner