Beekeeping Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Man, you go away for a few days and the thread takes off. My apologies is I miss a "major" point...out of laziness I'm just going to refer to post #'s rather than quote.

@roadkillbobb/post 10
Conflicting data in science is normal, and these conflicts resolve over time. If you only look at one or two choice studies, and ignore the rest, you'll see what you want to see...if you look at the summation of research there is usually one clear answer. To help people cut through the noise, there are a number of scientific organisations that publish summary data and advisory guidelines, which is a good place to start. In terms of people dying, you've got your data backwards. Mortality is down across all non-elderly age groups. Fewer people are dying from when they're newborns to when they're in their 60's than at any time in the past. We are living longer, and healthier lives then at any point in recorded human history. There are increased incidence of many age-related disease (heart disease, cancer, etc) - but those increased incidences are a direct product of us living longer. More people living to old age = more people with age-related disease. Basically, because we no longer die before 40 from nasty infections we instead get to live until 80 and die of all sorts of "wonderful" things that result from when you extend your lifespan beyond that which we evolved for. On an unrelated note, BPA is considered safe at the levels used in foods; its endocrine disruption effect (at the levels used) are on par with eating soy (which contains phytoestorgen compounds similar to BPA). Most of the hysteria about BPA is just that - hysteria. One study found a weak correlation that couldn't be replicated by larger studies, but that first study got people worked up, and the later work was ignored.

/post 12
Your claim of global warming as a scam is a pretty good indication that you are not basing your opinions on facts or science, and are full-on into quackery. The data is clear, and the consensus among scientists is absolute. On a related note, "global warming" was never changed to "climate change"; both terms were introduced early in climatology research (1960's-ish), and are terms which are used to refer to distinct processes. Global warming refers to the observed phenomenon that global mean temperature is rising. Climate change refers to the outcome of that warming - e.g. temperature-driven changes in climate. In the scientific literature those terms are not used interchangeably; they have well defined and broadly accepted definitions, and are used to communicate specific (though related) concepts.

@Royalcoachman/post 11
You are mistaken about cancer risk in famers; age-matched cancer rates in farmers are much lower than in the general population. That link will take you to a table from the agricultural health study which lists the risk of cancer relative to the general population (a risk of 1.0 = same risk, below 1 = lower risk, above 1 = higher risk; numbers in bold indicated differences that are statistically significant); on average, US farmers get cancer at a rate 85% that of the general US population. There are a few types of cancers more common in farmers - skin/lip cancer is more common, due to higher levels of sun exposure. Ovarian and prostate cancers are also higher, but links to pesticides are not suspected. To date no pesticide has been linked to any of the small number of cancers that have higher incidences in farmers.

In terms of brainwashing, all I can say is that I spent over a decade being trained in critical data analysis (I'm a scientist, btw), my career is dependent on maintaining objectivity, and that none of my sources are from industry. I too distrust industry sources, which is why I base my knowledge predominantly on data/publications form other independent scientists whom, like myself, engage in research funded by NGO's and governmental grants and are completely independent of any industry interests...plus, I have the advantage of experience which gives me the ability to judge the veracity of individual data sets on things like the robustness of the experimental method used/etc.

@Gypsi /post 15
The link between mercury, aluminium and other vaccine compounds causing autism has been conclusively disproven. Removal of mercury and alum from most (in some countries, all) childhood vaccines did not change incidence, nor is there a correlation between the amounts of these compounds you are exposed to and your risk of autism. Even the "epidemic" in autism has shown to not be real (in the sense that there has been no increase in actual incidence) - its an "epidemic" of proper diagnosis; rates of the exclusionary diagnosis of mental retardation (i.e. what a physician records when s/he has a patient with mental deficiencies but cannot assign a specific disease as a cause) have fallen in lock-step with increases in autism diagnoses. Moreover, if you take adult born prior to the onset of the 'epidemic' and apply modern autism diagnostic criteria, you find the same rate of autism as you do in children born recently. In other words, there is no epidemic in the sense that the real rate of disease is increasing. Rather, MD's are doing a much better job of diagnosing kids, and instead of simply saying "your kid has mental retardation", are instead going the extra mile and drilling down to a specific diagnosis.

Despite the "epidemic" being shown to be a result of improved diagnosis, there still is an interest in what causes autism. Recent findings has demonstrated that autism forms in the 2nd trimester of pregnancy, and results from defects in a very specific genetic network responsible for the formation of specific centres in the brain - i.e. whether or not you become autistic is determined months prior to your birth, and long before you get your first vax.

@Gypsi / post 17, @roadkill / post 16
Antibacterial soap/etc are a huge problem, but not at the level of us humans. Our immune systems function fine after the use of the soaps, in fact, a few studies suggest that these soaps enhance our immune system by killing bacteria, which then act on the immune system in a manner similar to a vaccine. Its actually an issue as these immune responses can skew towards an allergy-type-response, where people end up hyper-responding to the bacteria...good from the perspective of fighting off the infection, but bad from the perspective of people ending up with moderate skin irritation to something that shouldn't progress past a pimple. The real issue with these soaps is that their broad use is leading to the evolution of resistance to the antibacterial compounds in them - meaning, these soaps are loosing efficacy. This is causing serious issues where these soaps are actually required (e.g. hospitals, care centres, etc). Full disclosure - one of the projects in my lab studies a form of multidrug resistant (including triclosan) Stphylococcus aureus.

Bryan
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,522 Posts
Bryan,

I'm going to comment on the autism, on everything else we are relatively in agreement. I have lived in Texas 40 years and watched out climate shift here, and where I lived before, I do believe that humans are responsible for ocean acidification and temperature increases. The methane cloud over the Four Corners region is directly related to natural gas drilling and fracking and methane is a far more powerful heat trapper than CO2.

on the autism, the cause of the genetic mutation in second trimester could not be due to ingestion of mercury whether from eating excessive amounts of seafood during pregnancy or mercury in environmental pollution whether airborne (burning of coal) or water borne?

I have the questions but no time to do the research on a lot of things. At one time older father was thought to contribute to autism due to weakness of the sperm.

anyway, I have all the questions but no time to research today, and I have a lot of work to do, glad to see you back. I enjoy thoughtful conversation even when I don't have time to reply much.

Alice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
Good afternoon, SG, again I respect you time and effort and knowledge on the subjects..BUT..I would really like to see some links of where your info comes from to read up on what you are saying so I can compare and analyze the info my self , not that I dont trust you, I trust no one, I have my reasons I wont get into here, it really doesnt matter for the info at hand..I disagree on some of the issues and your explanations, hence I would like to see the links to the info..
have you studied the combined collection of all the so called safe chemicals and amounts in the human body? when you go to the Dr or pharmacy they ask all the time about what else you are taking and now they also ask what herbal or vitamin supplements you are taking as mixing them have bad results, the same would be making a cocktail of compounds in the human body...
I do agree we live longer and die from what we use to die with, but im not convinced that is just natures way..growth hormones in our food that are designed to make everything grow fast I feel does the same with all the bad cells in our body, so in simple forms the bad cells out perform the good cells and immune system, when I was in grade school most of the girls had flat chests, now..well I wish I was back in school along with enlarged organs and other issues that werent here before all the additives to food.
again you keep telling us that whatever we hear on the internet is false, I have a hard time believing the im right and all esle is wron from anyone, again absolutely no disrespect to you, im just being honest that im not going to have my mind changed by a few people with different explanations and poo pooing all others that arent what you believe..again hence the request for links to where your info comes from..
I believe there is plenty of false info out there, but big business and big money run the world, so when you say big industry doesnt impact your studies then who finances your studies, where does your materials to study come from, big business has its hands into everything, so that is another factor of my mistrust in studies that favor big business..
anti bacterial soaps have created super bugs like mersa, flesh eating disease and others that common antibiotics have a hard time fighting..there are too many issues now that werent around earlier before our environment had so many man made chemicals floating around..coincidence I do not believe..I like to play devils advocate on these issues , it has done well for me in the past and I will continue to do so, I look at many of the conspiracies as holding some truth, the people that know the truth and wish to hide it label anyone that challenges the info conspiracy nut to get people not to listen to them, and this runs the gambit from these topics to politics to world events and many happenings right here in the good old USA...
many people just bury their head in the sand and hope for the best and thats what the powers to be hope for, a silent obedient population, just smart enough to work and pay taxes but not smart enough to question whats going on around them.
its amazing what one can learn while debating many subjects, yes I have changed thoughts on some subjects when I feel enough evidence has been weighed and compared and researched, I try to keep an open mind but im not naive on how the world works and who is on top of the heap pulling the strings, and for what reasons...:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
on the autism, the cause of the genetic mutation in second trimester could not be due to ingestion of mercury whether from eating excessive amounts of seafood during pregnancy or mercury in environmental pollution whether airborne (burning of coal) or water borne?
None of the above (mercury is non-mutagenic). Its also not mutation, per se.

In humans, most genes have more than one form (these forms are called 'alleles'). For example, different alleles in the ABO gene determine whether your blood type is 'A', 'B', 'O', or 'AB'. The genes in the network that leads to autism are the same - each gene in the network has multiple different alleles. Some of these alleles don't work as well as other alleles, but in 99% of cases they work well enough to produce a normally functioning brain. In other words, the network is flexible enough that it can function normally in the presence of one or two parts that aren't functioning optimally.

What happens in autistics is, for lack of a better term, "bad luck" - they inherit enough of the "less-functional" alleles, across multiple genes, to "break" the gene network. As a result their brain does not develop normally, resulting in autism. The severity of the disease appears to be largely a product of just how "broken" that network is. The exact numbers are not nailed down, but it is expected that all but 0.1%-1% of autistics inherit these alleles from their parents; the remainder get autism due to a combination of inheriting "bad" alleles + new mutations resulting in a defective pathway.

That's not to say that environment doesn't play a role in autism - the data is very clear that it does. But rather than determine whether you get autism, environment instead appears to modulate disease severity and the rate of neurological development. Again, nothing in vaccines is linked to this aspect of autism; rather, major factors appear to be our microbiota, whether the mother experienced a fever during the second trimester of pregnancy, and maternal/paternal age (which relates to the number of new mutations in the child.

B
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
can we agree that no one ( human) body is made up the same, more or less, example..a medication that works for one person may not for another and that happens all the time, so to be able to do a study on whats bad for the human race also breaks down to groups or individuals that are different so to do true studies it has to span a wide variety of people and there is no guarantee to get a true slice per se that covers everyone...how can one drink milk but another die from reaction, the same with nuts, bee stings, latex and almost any other element..then to say certain chemicals are safe?? to me it come down to the best guess but nothing in concrete terms..
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,522 Posts
We are all different, that is for certain. I never bought into the vaccines causing autism btw. Do excessive shots in one location cause cancer in dogs in that location, yes. Do I know why, no, but they quit piling all the shots into the loose skin at the back of the neck so I think they figured that out.

It is my understanding that radiation exposure can cause mutations in genes, including those passed on to children?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Good afternoon, SG, again I respect you time and effort and knowledge on the subjects..BUT..I would really like to see some links of where your info comes from to read up on what you are saying
There were 4 or 5 in my previous post; I'm not hiding anything.

have you studied the combined collection of all the so called safe chemicals and amounts in the human body? when you go to the Dr or pharmacy they ask all the time about what else you are taking and now they also ask what herbal or vitamin supplements you are taking as mixing them have bad results, the same would be making a cocktail of compounds in the human body...
As I do not research toxicity, no I have not studied it. Many others, however, have. There are massive on-going studies (Framingham study, as one example) which track disease incidence and risk factors over huge populations, which is exactly where we would see such combinatorial toxicity. And, as I mentioned in my first post, toxicity is very rarely additive; unless two compounds hit the same metabolic pathway, there is not an addative effect.

I do agree we live longer and die from what we use to die with, but im not convinced that is just natures way..growth hormones in our food
In my country there are no growth hormones in our foods (its illegal) and our life expectancy and patterns of major causes of mortality are identical to similar nations who allow them. 36 million people is a pretty large test group...

that are designed to make everything grow fast I feel does the same with all the bad cells in our body, so in simple forms the bad cells out perform the good cells and immune system, when I was in grade school most of the girls had flat chests, now..well I wish I was back in school along with enlarged organs and other issues that werent here before all the additives to food.
The mean age of puberty hasn't changed much...the more rapid increase in the breast size of women going through puberty has accelerated. That is related to obesity though, not chemicals, with BMI being a strong predictor of rates of breast growth in pubescent women.

again you keep telling us that whatever we hear on the internet is false
I never said everything is false, just a lot of it. There are powerful and wealthy sources pushing a lot of the anti-science agenda; organic food is controlled by a few small companies (WhiteWave, as one example), several of whom who have larger market shares than monsanto. And they spend huge money on negative, fact-free add campaigns to convince you that safe food is unsafe - all so that you'll buy their more expensive, but equally nutritious and safe (and arguably, less environmentally friendly) products. Anti-AGM is (or was) funded by big oil & big coal - again, because adapting to climate change costs them money. Anti-vax is driven by a number of charlatans who make big money off of book deals and alternative therapies. Etc, etc, etc. Accepting their claims unilaterally while ignoring the work of independent scientists, serves nothing more than to reinforce your own biases. It is as accurate as relying on monsanto for all you info on GMO food safety. If one company is suspect, then all shoudl be treated as suspect. You're not applying that standard.

I believe there is plenty of false info out there, but big business and big money run the world, so when you say big industry doesnt impact your studies then who finances your studies, where does your materials to study come from, big business has its hands into everything, so that is another factor of my mistrust in studies that favor big business..
I've told you who finances my studies - a mix of governments (tax dollars) and NGOs. And scientific grants are handed out by independent panels - I sit on many myself - where grants are funded on the basis of their scientific merit and feasibility alone. No "company men" sit on these panels, and the level of direction provided by the gov/NGO is minimal. For example, the heart foundation dictates that we only fund grants directly pertaining to cardiovascular disease; specific topics and research lines are not pre-determined. The gov panels require only that the grant fit the research mandate of the agency; basic science for NSERC, health for CIHR.

anti bacterial soaps have created super bugs like mersa, flesh eating disease and others that common antibiotics have a hard time fighting..
Again, your understanding of basic scientific facts has been mislead by your beliefs or sources. MERSA (which we study in my lab, btw) is not a result of triclosan, and most strains are triclosan sensitive at this time (thankfully). Flesh eating disease is not caused by a singular organism, and has been around for at least 7500 years (which is the oldest bones we've found to date with damage typical of the disease). Triclosan resistance does not impart resistance to antibiotics (and triclosan is not an antibiotic itself).

I look at many of the conspiracies as holding some truth
Name one.

I'm serious - name just one.

If you have to invent conspiracies to "confirm" your beliefs, you've given up on objectivity completely. Scientific conspiracy in the modern world is a near impossibility. Last week there was a perfect example of this - a group published a paper with falsified data claiming a link between autism and aluminium. It took 22 hours - yes, hours - for the fraud to be uncovered by independent scientists reviewing the paper.

On a larger scale, Merck engaged in a conspiracy to hide the effect of vioxx, and spent billions to do so. They created fake scientific journals to publish supportive studies in, paid people to ghost-write for them, and used the threat of litigation to silence people raising the alarm. All that money hid the truth for a whopping 4 months...

Reality is that there is simply too many independent scientists, and sufficient funding, for scientific conspiracies to survive for any length of time.

B
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
how can one drink milk but another die from reaction, the same with nuts, bee stings, latex and almost any other element..then to say certain chemicals are safe?? to me it come down to the best guess but nothing in concrete terms..
Actually, we can say with confidence that chemicals are safe. And it all comes down to what is going on in someone with a food (milk, nuts, bees, latex, etc) allergy versus how chemicals cause toxicity.

Allergic responses are caused by the immune system mis-reacting to a substance, and if severe enough, that reaction can kill (though that is very rare compared to what the no-peanuts at school brigade would suggest). But to have this form of response (which is not a toxicity, btw) requires something specific - a molecule large enough for the immune system to recognise. Our immune system evolved to identify pathogens, and as such is only capable of recognising the large biomolecules that pathogens (and us) are comprised of - proteins, lipids, carbohydrate-polymers, etc.

The sorts of chemicals used for things such as antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, etc, are all far too small to be recognised by the immune system. So those sorts of person-specific "toxic" responses simply are not possible towards these chemicals. This is actually a major limitation in our abilities to develop treatments for some conditions where immune targeting of small molecules would be potentially therapeutic. This means that small molecule toxicity is limited to biochemical types of toxicity - and those pathways are generally invariant in people - i.e. we are all susceptible to the same toxicities at roughly the same doses.

B
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
We are all different, that is for certain. I never bought into the vaccines causing autism btw. Do excessive shots in one location cause cancer in dogs in that location, yes. Do I know why, no, but they quit piling all the shots into the loose skin at the back of the neck so I think they figured that out.
Its more complex than that - only some breeds are affected, and they are all cancer-prone breeds to start with. The resulting cancer (which is a sarcoma - cancer of the connective tissue) likely occurs due to repeat inflammation in the site driven not by "toxicity" of the vaccine components, but rather by the desired immune response that results.

While inflammation is usually considered bad, its an important part of how our immune systems work, and is the predominant way in which our immune system kills bacteria & fungi. The downside to inflammation is that it is highly damaging to our own tissues and can be tumorogenic. In the case of dogs, a combination of inherited defects in DNA repair combined with multiple injections at the same site likely cause the cancer.

We don't generally see this in humans as most of us have normal DNA repair and its nearly impossible in a person to get that many shots into such a small site (plus, normal vaccine scheduling limits the number of shots/visit to a small number).

Somewhat related, but it is estimated that between 25% and 80% of tumours results from DNA damage caused by an infection - with most cases the DNA damage caused by our own immune systems inflammatory response, not from the infection itself.

It is my understanding that radiation exposure can cause mutations in genes, including those passed on to children?
It can. That said, the increase in heritable mutation observed in people who have had very high radiation exposures (e.g. victims of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, people near the Chernobyl accident) are not much higher than the basal mutation rate. Reality is that our DNA replication machinery makes a lot of mistakes, leading to 70 (mothers side) to ~200 (father side) new mutations in each generation. Radiation can increase that, but the increase is a pittance compared to what nature creates normally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Ah, it was hard to see the links, they are only slightly lighter than the rest of the print...at least on my computer screen..ill take a looksy at them..
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,522 Posts
Thank you for the excellent information Bryan. Continuing to learn keeps me young. I don't watch much TV... too many interesting facts in the world, not enough hours in the day.

There is a good deal of misinformation spread "for a dollar" - false research funded by industries that would lose money if the truth were known. Somehow I found your post that referenced Vioxx, which truly was a scandal of misinformation, can't remember the death count on that one, only that it was in the thousands.

the united states pharmaceutical industry is who I distrust the most. They are making older safer drugs that are no longer patented either more expensive or unavailable, so that they can promote more expensive patented drugs that are often less safe. Quinine being one. It's a pet peeve of mine, I lost a few hundred dollars worth of fish due to quinine being made prescription only, and a shipment of fish with a resistant parasite coming in over the holidays a few years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
you can buy quinine sulfate over the counter to treat fish, ebay has it too. no script needed..my dad use to be a pharmacist so if I needed any antibiotics he would get them for me, I havent had tanked fish for 25+ years and the koi havent gotten sick, but once I treated one with potassium permaginate..
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,522 Posts
they may have it now, but when the new drug for restless legs came out, in december 2010, the only quinine available was in combination with a lot of other stuff in herbal preparations that were not safe for aquarium use. I eventually got a couple of prescription quinine pills from a client of mine whose husband had a prescription but by that time most of my fish were dead. I have a stash of quinine sulfate now, from a fish pharmacy that has since gone out of business.

when a new expensive drug comes out the competition must be eliminated, for 40 years quinine was available in the drug store otc, and in that time 2 people died possibly related to quinine. Compare that to vioxx.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
your preaching to the choir about how I hate big pharmaceutical companies...just greedy sobs...I keep stock of what I need for any animal emergencies that may come up..worse case is to buy overseas and they ship to your house, you can get anything, but sticking with antibiotics and that type of stuff doesnt raise any red flags..
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,522 Posts
quinine is pretty harmless, it was really hard, I had sensitive and expensive freshwater species that could not tolerate salt water dips and they died and they died for about 10 days. I called my doctor, he wanted $140 for an appointment to maybe write me a quinine prescription for the fish. I didn't have the money. It was a dark time.

This conversation was a good reminder. Just ordered in a couple more big jars of Quinine Sulfate. Anything that slips through a wholesaler these days is immune to copper and formalin
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,522 Posts
not really. Not for ich. and for Flukes, a strong salt solution in a 10 minute dip works pretty well. Besides which potassium Permanganate is a bit difficult to get ahold of in small quantities and I generally had children running around at the height of my hobby.

I think on gill flukes I used formaldehyde, in an aqueous solution. I keep a lot more aquariums in my house than I have ponds. But I have never had gill flukes in one of the ponds. Only in a couple of aquarium fish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Agent orange was/is dioxins; pretty nastily toxic stuff.
 
21 - 40 of 66 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top