People Using 10% of Their Brain - and other complaints

[hibbs]

Where did I say the article attributed most cancers to environment? I merely said that it indicated that some environmental factor (foods) are banned in other countries because they are believed to cause health issues, some of those issues being cancer. It was one piece of the puzzle which coincidentally happened to come to my inbox while this discussion was ongoing.

OK, I apologize. I assumed the link was a reply to my request for a reliable source backing your statement: "Most cancers are environmental".
I would like then to repeat then my question: Do you have any reliable source that backs your claim most cancers are environmental?
I don't deny that environmental factors have an influence in cancer. They have. So does lifestyle, so does genetics, so do bacteria and viruses (as proven in gastric cancer and cervical cancer). So does age. So does chance.
These are all known factors that contribute to cancer. It might even be true that most cancers are environmental. But where is the proof?

But, if you wish to be an ostrich it is of no consequence to me. Although I would hate to lose a go player, even one I don't know personally.

I could write a lot here, but I son't want to sidetrack the discussion. I would never deny that your food or what is in your food can have a negative impact on your health or even cause cancer. That goes for some synthetic chemicals as well for some natural ingredients. For example Clostridium botulinum and Aspergillus flavus cause serious harm or even cancer.

[Bill Spight]

Two things. First, the increase in life expectancy in advanced societies since the mid 19th century is mostly the result of keeping children alive. Only a few years have been added to life expectancy at age 20 since 1800, even though decades have been added to life expectancy at birth.

From the numbers for Germany, there was an increase in life expectancy for 60 year olds of 2 1/2 to 3 years between 1990 and 2004 alone. The life expectancy for 80 year olds has increased by 1 1/2 years in the same period. That was only during 14 years. I took this data from this information from the Robert Koch Institut:
http://edoc.rki.de/documents/rki_fv/re2 ... 0GKUhU.pdf

OC, you can't just extrapolate from those figures.

[Uberdude]

Do not take allopathic drugs for chronic illnesses, they have no value.

Also, don't support any organization which claims to be doing medical research to find a cure for various diseases such as cancer, diabetes, etc. They are nothing more than self-perpetuating businesses. They never try to encourage prevention, because there is no money in that, but only look for expensive new drugs to treat (not cure) existing conditions.

How do you reconcile this viewpoint with the case of Sovaldi? This is a "allopathic" drug that cures chronic Hepatitis C in about 95% of cases in just a few months. Afaik it was developed primarily by private "evil big pharma" rather than through public donations to charities. It has generated quite some controversy over the price: a course of treatment in the US is ~$80,000 which is far greater than the marginal cost of production of the drug, but also as the maker argues, far less than the cost of existing treatments (which last for years, are less effective and can lead to liver cancer and transplants) and rewards their investment in developing the drug and encourages further developments. In India the price is less than a thousand dollars.

[DrStraw]

Do not take allopathic drugs for chronic illnesses, they have no value.

Also, don't support any organization which claims to be doing medical research to find a cure for various diseases such as cancer, diabetes, etc. They are nothing more than self-perpetuating businesses. They never try to encourage prevention, because there is no money in that, but only look for expensive new drugs to treat (not cure) existing conditions.

How do you reconcile this viewpoint with the case of Sovaldi? This is a "allopathic" drug that cures chronic Hepatitis C in about 95% of cases in just a few months. Afaik it was developed primarily by private "evil big pharma" rather than through public donations to charities. It has generated quite some controversy over the price: a course of treatment in the US is ~$80,000 which is far greater than the marginal cost of production of the drug, but also as the maker argues, far less than the cost of existing treatments (which last for years, are less effective and can lead to liver cancer and transplants) and rewards their investment in developing the drug and encourages further developments. In India the price is less than a thousand dollars.

Obviously there are exceptions, as there are with most things in life, and I was being hyperbolic for effect. But I maintain that the statement of mine which you quoted is a good rule-of-thumb. The very fact that there is an 80-1 ratio in the price of that drug in different countries shows that money is the bottom line.

Having seen the info sheet on the drug, which I had not previously heard of, on Drug.com it is not a drug I would want to take willingly. Given that hepatitis C is generally contracted through certainly behaviors rather than accidentally, I would prefer to see money spent on education and prevention.

But I am curious. Why did you put the word allopathic in quotes? Are you say that it is not really an allopathic drug?

[Bill Spight]

I don't deny that environmental factors have an influence in cancer. They have. So does lifestyle, so does genetics, so do bacteria and viruses (as proven in gastric cancer and cervical cancer). So does age. So does chance.
These are all known factors that contribute to cancer. It might even be true that most cancers are environmental. But where is the proof?

So this is basically an argument over nothing. As for proof at a scientific level, you cannot have ethical or practical controlled experiments testing the environmental hypothesis. You can have controlled laboratory experiments to identify carcinogens. And we do know that we are releasing carcinogens on a regular basis into the environment. The environmental hypothesis does not claim that carcinogens in the environment are the only relevant factor. Unless someone here claims to be an expert on the question, I doubt if we are going to come to an understanding of the subtleties.

[Phoenix]

Indeed. Neuroplasticity is the key to our survival, as the brain adapts to new circumstances and knowledge. I believe this is because it's all we have as far as evolutionary advantages go.

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I was struck by this assertion. Is this really true? It's possibly our greatest advantage, but I don't think it's our only advantage. Off the top of my head I can think of at least the following advantages

Very dextrous hands, combined with tool usage
Walking upright, allowing access to many more environments
Incredible running endurance, allowing for successful hunting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_ ... hypothesis
An extended middle age http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/evolution-has-given-humans-a-huge-advantage-over-most-other-animals-middle-age/2012/03/12/gIQAtVnccS_story.html

These are not all unique to humans, but they make for a hell of a package.

I admit my quote was based in opinion rather than proven fact, but I strongly believe that while all the advantages you've talked about have been and still are incredibly useful in shaping who we are and how well we have and do survive, along with others (neoteny and complex language come to mind), I also think that neuroplasticity, in its totality, is the single most important advantage we possess in our day and age.

It's the physical process by which we learn and understand complex ideas, patterns and behaviors. The brain is constantly rewiring itself to better suit our environment, thoughts and practiced skills. It's a major factor in excellence in any and all fields that we as a species have learned to master. And I find there are two beautiful aspects to it.

One is that it never stops. You can rewire your brain at 10 or you can do it at 100. Brains of different ages are not equal in that respect, but it is absolutely feasible to 'teach an old dog new tricks'. The other aspect I love about it is that you can direct this activity. I mean this in a different way than when I talked about directing one's neurology and facilitating states and beliefs earlier. I mean that we can make a conscious decision to pick an activity and practice it, rewiring our own brains in the process.

To me, this is one of the big reasons why I'm glad to have been born a human being, above all other forms of life. It's the fact that we can do this most exquisite of activities that other species cannot: we can think about thinking. And we can make decisions about our own development.

There's tremendous freedom in that.

[Bill Spight]

Indeed. Neuroplasticity is the key to our survival, as the brain adapts to new circumstances and knowledge. I believe this is because it's all we have as far as evolutionary advantages go.

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I was struck by this assertion. Is this really true? It's possibly our greatest advantage, but I don't think it's our only advantage. Off the top of my head I can think of at least the following advantages

Very dextrous hands, combined with tool usage
Walking upright, allowing access to many more environments
Incredible running endurance, allowing for successful hunting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_ ... hypothesis
An extended middle age http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/evolution-has-given-humans-a-huge-advantage-over-most-other-animals-middle-age/2012/03/12/gIQAtVnccS_story.html

These are not all unique to humans, but they make for a hell of a package.

I admit my quote was based in opinion rather than proven fact, but I strongly believe that while all the advantages you've talked about have been and still are incredibly useful in shaping who we are and how well we have and do survive, along with others (neoteny and complex language come to mind), I also think that neuroplasticity, in its totality, is the single most important advantage we possess in our day and age.

It's the physical process by which we learn and understand complex ideas, patterns and behaviors. The brain is constantly rewiring itself to better suit our environment, thoughts and practiced skills. It's a major factor in excellence in any and all fields that we as a species have learned to master. And I find there are two beautiful aspects to it.

One is that it never stops. You can rewire your brain at 10 or you can do it at 100. Brains of different ages are not equal in that respect, but it is absolutely feasible to 'teach an old dog new tricks'. The other aspect I love about it is that you can direct this activity. I mean this in a different way than when I talked about directing one's neurology and facilitating states and beliefs earlier. I mean that we can make a conscious decision to pick an activity and practice it, rewiring our own brains in the process.

To me, this is one of the big reasons why I'm glad to have been born a human being, above all other forms of life. It's the fact that we can do this most exquisite of activities that other species cannot: we can think about thinking. And we can make decisions about our own development.

There's tremendous freedom in that.

OC, neuroplasticity is hardly unique to humans.

[DrStraw]

Here is a link which came into my e-mail today. It seems to be somewhat related to original idea of this thread.

http://www.naturalnews.com/046728_human ... n_Era.html

Idiocracy supreme!

[hibbs]

Two things. First, the increase in life expectancy in advanced societies since the mid 19th century is mostly the result of keeping children alive. Only a few years have been added to life expectancy at age 20 since 1800, even though decades have been added to life expectancy at birth.

From the numbers for Germany, there was an increase in life expectancy for 60 year olds of 2 1/2 to 3 years between 1990 and 2004 alone. The life expectancy for 80 year olds has increased by 1 1/2 years in the same period. That was only during 14 years. I took this data from this information from the Robert Koch Institut:
http://edoc.rki.de/documents/rki_fv/re2 ... 0GKUhU.pdf

OC, you can't just extrapolate from those figures.

Actually I did not intend to extrapolate from these figures, but they seem to extrapolate reasonably well. In Germany, a 65 year old woman in 1875 would expect to live for 10 more years, in 2010 for 21 years, which makes about 0.85 years per decade. This seems to be pretty linear, too ( see the last figure on http://www.lebenserwartung.info/index-Dateien/ledeu.htm ). For males, the increasse was in a simmilar order of magnitude, but not as linear. Your statement that decades have been added to life exectancy at birth because more children survive is true, the one that only a few years have been added for other reasons not so much.