Pardon', Mam'selle

Posted by Sparrow on Dec 20, 2001 at 08:39 (

Re: C'mon, get it sorted out... (Amaranth Rose)

I'm not intending to appear absolutist here (recall, there are absolutely NO absolutes ). I did allow that Genetics is a factor. What I griped about was the attitude (tho, as I now modify, was NOT specifically endorsed by Richard Linney) that "all we need to do is more molecular biology stuff" and we'll have the answers! All that this attitude guarantees is a spurious "Cottage Industry" (very akin to the thinking behind chick studies on refractive error in the vision sciences -- no matter that the collagen is the wrong kind, the innervation is reversed, the ages of the animals is 'WAY wrong, and the animal is not binocular, WE'RE DOIN' SCIENCE! Sheesh!)

AR, I have no argument about genetic predispositions toward diseases and their triggers in the environment. I understand that well, I believe.

BUT! I've said this next 2-3 times before and I don't know if I'm not expressing it properly enough, or if younz guys are so "CW" that you can't hear me: I see no evidence that Science is exploring ANY connection between life-stress and disease in any primary etiological relationship. People can quickly scare themselves to death, but is it always triggering of latent DNA faults, ?'solamente'?

HERE, looky -- Is it not possible for people to poison themselves to death by their toxic reactions? I think that that's pretty well documented in the literature. So, then, will not a SLooooooW toxicity alter the DNA to give the *appearance* of congenetic (is that a word?) disease? Is anybody thinkng in these lines?

Huh? Huh? Do you hear my question now?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]