Fear of science will kill us

[wushuguy]

about GMO,

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1346840020070313

anyway, no matter whether it is proponents or opponents of what ever scientific view, one thing that both sides have in common is that since people are inherently selfish, greedy, self-satisfying, etc. neither side will ever present a spotless scientific study... everyone will skew their findings at least ever so slightly as long as it can bring them a bit of a benefit.

Some do so to a ridiculous extent and are eventually caught: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...n-cloning-breakthrough-facing-years-jail.html

others are do so in areas that are still being studied so we won't know the right or wrong until their claims have been around for twenty or more years.

the scientist who discovers something, does so because it's what pays the bills or alternately so he is in the history books, later research may disprove his achievements, and the fight about this side or that will continue, until something is plainly obvious, perhaps a generation or two later will adapt that as a fact or reject it completely.

 

[CanuckMA]

now I know autistic children, and I've also done research on this because autism affects people I know, so we've also dug up some interesting facts. This is still science, but sometimes science proves itself wrong, in which case it is only people's close-minded arrogance and blind following that prevents them from turning back and changing direction. People do research about autism, it's scientific research, and if they find that there's a relation between vaccination and increase in autism, then that's science still.

But the one study that linked autism with vaccination has been proven fraudulent. The biggest correlation between the 2 is that visible signs of autism usually present themselves around the same age as the vaccine is introduced. It really is a coincidence.

 

[Andrew Green]

the scientist who discovers something, does so because it's what pays the bills or alternately so he is in the history books

Some do, some do it because they love what they do. Same for any other profession.

This is a martial arts board. I'm sure everyone has met martial arts instructors that do it for the money, and others that do it because they love what they do.

Some "skew" things, be it lineage or mysticism, in order to benefit themself, others are completely honest about what they do and why and encourage others to look outside and verify themself.

 

[Carol]

The author reveals his or her own bias by simply stating what is and what is not science. Dietary supplements? Not science. Therefore belief it in such things is not smart. Vaccines? Science. Therefore belief in such things is good.

My impressions as well.

The issue that I have with the dismissal of dietary supplements is not the supplements themselves, but the way they are used.

Western medicine is usually allopathic:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allopathic

A result is produced that is contrary to the problem. Many types of body pains are caused by inflammation. Advil reduces inflammation, therefore Advil successfully treats many types of body pains.

Many people ingest naturopathic supplements the same way. Take two tablets, get the desired result. That is not what naturopathy intends. If a patient has a headache and goes to see a naturopath, the naturopath may recommend a phosphoric compound. If the phosphorous relieves the headache...then many folks think the treatment stops here. It doesn't.

The naturopath then works with the patient to determine why the phosphorous compound relieved the headache. Usually, the answer is too much dietary phosphorous, with fluctuating levels triggering a headache. The patient gets a chance to see directly what they are doing to their body. Too much phosphorous = headache. When the patient reduces their intake of soda, processed foods, etc. they are then ingesting less phosphorous and getting less headaches.

That is a scientific process. However, it is one that is cumbersome, time consuming, and certainly not as profitable for the supplement manufacturers that would rather have you believe you can just take 2 pills as a cure for what ails ya.

 

[cdunn]

If it can be verified as working by blinded experiment, then it is science-based medicine. If it cannot, then it is not medicine.

And allopathic medicine was deliberately coined as an insult.

 

[wushuguy]

Some do, some do it because they love what they do. Same for any other profession.

This is a martial arts board. I'm sure everyone has met martial arts instructors that do it for the money, and others that do it because they love what they do.

Some "skew" things, be it lineage or mysticism, in order to benefit themself, others are completely honest about what they do and why and encourage others to look outside and verify themself.

that's true, unfortunately it's like in martial arts or anything else, those who are genuine are rare. ...btw, what's the mcdojo equivalent of the scientific community?

 

[Malleus]

My impressions as well.

The issue that I have with the dismissal of dietary supplements is not the supplements themselves, but the way they are used.

Western medicine is usually allopathic:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allopathic

A result is produced that is contrary to the problem. Many types of body pains are caused by inflammation. Advil reduces inflammation, therefore Advil successfully treats many types of body pains.

Many people ingest naturopathic supplements the same way. Take two tablets, get the desired result. That is not what naturopathy intends. If a patient has a headache and goes to see a naturopath, the naturopath may recommend a phosphoric compound. If the phosphorous relieves the headache...then many folks think the treatment stops here. It doesn't.

The naturopath then works with the patient to determine why the phosphorous compound relieved the headache. Usually, the answer is too much dietary phosphorous, with fluctuating levels triggering a headache. The patient gets a chance to see directly what they are doing to their body. Too much phosphorous = headache. When the patient reduces their intake of soda, processed foods, etc. they are then ingesting less phosphorous and getting less headaches.

That is a scientific process. However, it is one that is cumbersome, time consuming, and certainly not as profitable for the supplement manufacturers that would rather have you believe you can just take 2 pills as a cure for what ails ya.

I'd agree with this, to a degree.

It does somewhat irk me that people assume western medicine is simply palliative and ignorantly ignores the root cause of a disease. That may be the case in certain situations like a headache: pop paracetamol/acetaminophen and wait for it to clear.

When it comes to serious diseases, the underlying cause is addressed as much as possible rather than treating symptomatically. Otherwise we'd be treating MRSA with clammy towels rather than vancomycin. Some diseases we don't know the actual cause of yet (essential hypertension for instance), and the only course of action is one of symptomatic relief with vasodilators, ACE inhibitors, Beta blockers and the like.

Not to say complimentary medicines don't have a place, because they do. Helping someone understand that the headache could be caused by stress or diet is important and one a typical western doctor is hard pressed to explain given the time pressures we're subjected to. Meditation has fantastic benefits, and I should probably be practicing it myself. But my personal view of medicines is far more amenable than the majority of what I've seen so far here.

 

[Carol]

I'd agree with this, to a degree.

It does somewhat irk me that people assume western medicine is simply palliative and ignorantly ignores the root cause of a disease. That may be the case in certain situations like a headache: pop paracetamol/acetaminophen and wait for it to clear.

When it comes to serious diseases, the underlying cause is addressed as much as possible rather than treating symptomatically.

I agree completely. I hope no one takes my post as implying that I am against Western medicine, believe me, I'm absolutely not.

What I was trying to illustrate is that proper naturopathy involves a scientific process, and not just popping pills of dubious repute (which is not a scientific process).

EDIT: While proper naturopathy is a scientific process, there are also naturopathic products/treatments that are simply bunk.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/970217/archive_006221.htm

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of retroviruii contributing to our genome. However, retrovirii are only one means of transfecting cells with desirable genes. If they are utilized, their entire genetic component is gutted (apart from the elements that allow it to upload its payload into the target genome: reverse transcriptase etc) and replaced with the gene that we wish to express. Thus, it can incorporate this gene into the plant, but without the requisite genes to copy itself, there will be no other retrovirii produced, rendering the danger to us from accidental transfection null.

Fair enough.

I'm afraid I don't understand your concerns regarding exons, introns and prions. True, prions are implicated in certain diseases, not least CJD. However, they are a protein product. They are detectable. They will, by definition, be produced from the exon sequence of the genome, if produced at all: thus it is possible to monitor for them.

We can only monitor for the existence of prions that we know represent a danger and need to be searched for. We didn't know to search for the prions that cause Mad Cow (CJD) until people became diagnosed with it. Unfortunately, CJD takes 10 to 15 years to manifest itself; the damage had long since been done.

You say that GM foods are not regulated, and this appears to be untrue. From wikipedia:

With regard to FDA regulation, the FDA does not regulate GM crops, although they do regulate GM animals. I am searching the FDA website and finding nothing relating to GM or GE crops. The USDA has some information online, but not relating to testing or regulating GE crops that I can find. The standard for regulation for GM animals is 'substantially similar' as you stated. There is a great deal of controversy over what 'substantially similar' means.

Be this as it may, all of those attributes (though perhaps not improved taste) are vitally important in addressing those countries that suffer from food shortages. And that isn't to say that GM food won't be made healthier for us either.

You're brushing aside all secondary concerns, including pollution of ground water due to over-application of herbicides.

And I'll have to disagree with this. As shown by my Wikipedia quote above (not the most reputable source TBH, but their referencing seems to stand up to casual scrutiny), the bar is quite high for safety testing. I'd happily eat foodstuffs that have passed this testing, and in all honesty, probably do.

Yeah, it's a done deal, pretty much. But no, the testing you think is being done is not, at least to the extent that I can determine. Not in the US.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops/

If crops are sterile, then they're obviously not going to be able to adapt to environmental stressors such as disease, correct? It's a moot point.

Not a moot point. The crops are all nearly genetically identical; homogeneous and not heterogeneous as wild or domesticated 'natural' species are. Given an infestation or an infection of some new threat, some heterogeneous plants might have a natural resistance; those would tend to survive and reproduce. Homogeneous plants do not have that diversity and cannot respond in that manner, infection or infestation that kills one will kill all, limited only by geographical and time vectors.

Hopefully if such a situation arises the next generation will be adapted to survive it.

How? By genetically creating a cure between one growing season and the next? And how to grow the seeds necessary to provide the next generation?

And this is not a problem specific to GM foods: any major crop type could hypothetically fall victim to such a predator. True, wild-type corn may have an adaptation that allows resistance to a certain disease: but the vast majority of the crop will die out anyway.

Vast majority? That's speculation. Might be true, depending upon the infestation or infection. Might not. In any case, it beats 100% infestation when all the corn consists of essentially the same plant.

If we're talking about a single generation, the ability of a GM crop to survive vs a wild-type will be virtually identical. Evolution, of course, only acts over multiple generations at best. (Bacteria etc being the obvious exceptions.)

Imagine a corn-based disease that appears in the USA twenty years ago. It finds that some hybrids are susceptible and some are not as it spreads across the USA. And within hybrids, there may be some resistance from plant to plant, based on a heterogeneous genome diversity. Crops fail across the USA, but some small subset survives. Farmers have to hold back a certain percentage of their crop for next year's seed, as they always do, but because only the disease-resistant crops survived to maturity, their seed is already resistant to the blight. Assuming even that the blight allowed even damaged corn to survive to maturity, the seed planted that was not resistant would quickly succumb to the blight the next year, but the resistant variety would presumably be fine. In one generation, the best disease-resistant varieties of corn would become dominant. There would continue to be widespread shortages, but those would decline each year as more and more resistant corn reproduced and spread.

Now let's take the situation with one GM corn plant essentially reproduced nationwide as the only corn crop. Any disease that appears that does affect this plant will affect them all; they're the same. There is no heterogeneous diversity between them. The limits to the spread of the disease are based only on growing season, weather, geographical distribution, and time. Given the right conditions, an entire nation's crop might fail in a single growing season, and the rest would remain at risk for all subsequent growing seasons while the blight continued to exist.

Given the GM corn was not sterile, there might be storehouses of seed if the plants survived to maturity, even if all were at risk the next growing season. This would perhaps offset the devastation of the next season and buy time for a solution to be found. If the corn did not survive to maturity, no seed for the next growing season. If the seed were modified to render only sterile crops, then any subsequent seed would have to come from the manufacturer (as it already does in such cases). Their stockpiles would be based on the current genome or perhaps "next year's model," but with no guarantees that it would be resistant to the blight. Scientists could perform additional modifications to attempt to introduce resistance to the blight, and they might be successful, but those test plants would have to grow to maturity, reproduce, and then be bred again and again to build up a seed stock sufficient to supply the farmers with enough seed to replant. It would be years, assuming it could be done at all. In the meantime, corn (in this example) would be essentially extinct, except for any remaining heterogeneous domestic and wild varieties (which I presume would be prized).

Yes, this is stupid. However, it has little to do with the science of GM crops: rather the politics of a surplus.

Nonetheless, it goes hand-in-hand with the realities of GM foods.

This is conjecture, and quite a leap at that. Even if we accept that there will be only 1 supplier of seed in the US down the line, and even if we accept that wild-type grains will become completely extinct: if the end result is the proliferation of grains that are longer lasting, more land efficient, healthier and more robust then their wild-type cousins, I fail to see the problem.

One single genetic example of a plant is a single point of failure. I am an IT person, and this is my specialty. I am trained to spot the SPoF and avoid it at all costs. A GM crop is essentially one plant. And to make things worse, we are working rapidly towards plant cloning - GM and cloning to ensure that future GM plants aren't just nearly identical, but absolutely so.

 

[Andrew Green]

that's true, unfortunately it's like in martial arts or anything else, those who are genuine are rare. ...btw, what's the mcdojo equivalent of the scientific community?

Homeopathy?

 

[cdunn]

I agree completely. I hope no one takes my post as implying that I am against Western medicine, believe me, I'm absolutely not.

What I was trying to illustrate is that proper naturopathy involves a scientific process, and not just popping pills of dubious repute (which is not a scientific process).

EDIT: While proper naturopathy is a scientific process, there are also naturopathic products/treatments that are simply bunk.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/970217/archive_006221.htm

Homeopathy isn't 'natural', it's sympathetic magic. It is one of those things that is turned to not out of proven effectiveness, but because people have been told to fear and distrust the corporate involvement in evidence based medical research.

Herbals and other supplements are an... interesting case. Often, they are drugs of uncertain and unverified potency - Much of the point of more modern drugs is removing the guess work from this. How much asprin have you gotten when you swallow a hundred grams of ground willow bark? No one knows. Therein lies the problem, especially when you start working with more interesting and dangerous compounds, like say, digitalis / foxglove, where the minimum effective dose is awfully close to the lethal dose.

Where doctors often fail is in having enough time to spend with their patients - This is endemic to the system, however, having its roots in the terrible payment system, the scarcity of doctors, and our expectations of the doctors, and is not the fault of the science behind the medicine.

 

[Malleus]

Fair enough.
We can only monitor for the existence of prions that we know represent a danger and need to be searched for. We didn't know to search for the prions that cause Mad Cow (CJD) until people became diagnosed with it. Unfortunately, CJD takes 10 to 15 years to manifest itself; the damage had long since been done.

Yes, CJD is one of those diseases that are both fascinating and terrifying. I read on a humour website that BSE can cause aggression and impaired coordination in infected cows: they were using this fact as a potential possibility for the creation of real-life zombies. Tongue in cheek, but interesting nevertheless.

I've looked into it a little bit more due to our discussion, as I haven't covered it myself yet. Interestingly, inheritable prion diseases such as CJD, Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker syndrome and fatal familial insomnia are all caused by abnormal prion proteins derived from one gene: PRNP . Ordinarily PRNP has roles in the synapse of neurons, and the abberant form of the protein produced causes prion disease. Given that this gene is in animal brains, I'm skeptical as to whether or not it would even function in a plant. That and seeing as we've sequenced the gene, it would be next to impossible to accidentally place it into a genome. There's always the chance that exon disruption could lead to an as-yet unknown prion disease, but so far to my knowledge, there have never been such problems in wild-type plants in the history of humanity; and exon disruption happens all the time with natural mutation.

With regard to FDA regulation, the FDA does not regulate GM crops, although they do regulate GM animals. I am searching the FDA website and finding nothing relating to GM or GE crops. The USDA has some information online, but not relating to testing or regulating GE crops that I can find. The standard for regulation for GM animals is 'substantially similar' as you stated. There is a great deal of controversy over what 'substantially similar' means.

There are plans in the works for looking beyond 'substantially similar' paramaters for assessing safety of crops: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCW-49D2D69-2&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e8d64a54b80da38ca77dbde14b60de24

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=2c75c42e39d6e9af8943d52f193681e6



You're brushing aside all secondary concerns, including pollution of ground water due to over-application of herbicides.

I fail to see the relevance I'm afraid. Herbicide application will happen whether or not the crops are genetically modified or not. Resistance to herbicides engineered in would allow GM crops to survive higher quantities of herbicide, and farmers may be tempted to use higher quantities despite danger of runoff. I would assume that there are measures in place to regulate the amount of herbicide used however. Regardless, genetic modification would result in crops that are less vulnerable to antagonists, leading to decreased levels of herbicide needed in the first place, a factor that economic farmers would be expected to capitilize on.

Not a moot point. The crops are all nearly genetically identical; homogeneous and not heterogeneous as wild or domesticated 'natural' species are. Given an infestation or an infection of some new threat, some heterogeneous plants might have a natural resistance; those would tend to survive and reproduce. Homogeneous plants do not have that diversity and cannot respond in that manner, infection or infestation that kills one will kill all, limited only by geographical and time vectors.

How? By genetically creating a cure between one growing season and the next? And how to grow the seeds necessary to provide the next generation?

Vast majority? That's speculation. Might be true, depending upon the infestation or infection. Might not. In any case, it beats 100% infestation when all the corn consists of essentially the same plant.

I'm going to respond to all 3 points above at once.

The first thing to note is that the level of genetic difference between GM and wild-type crops is vanishingly small (for the most part, and within the limitations of my knowledge.) At its most basic, a GM crop is identical to a wild-type crop, just with a gene for vitamin A production built in(for example_. Anything that will kill the wild-type crop will kill the GM crop. There will be no window of vulnerability that a GM crop will have that a wild-type will not within a single generation.

If things get more complicated and we start splicing in tens or even hundreds of genes that drastically alter the phenotype of the GM plant from that of the wild-type, then the opportunity for problems grows significantly. The basic principle is sound however: the basic wild-type serves as a platform for additional genes granting additional benefits. If these genes don't increase the susceptibility of the crop to natural predators, it will be at least as resiliant as the wild type. Possibly more so, if we breed in genes for increased resiliance to disease.

I said it was a moot point for the following reason: evolution does not apply here. As they are sterile, the GM crops are limited to a single generation. They will share the vast, vast majority of their genome with their contemporary wild type cousins. If this catastrophic predator appears, it will kill all off the GM crops, and the vast vast vast majority of the wild-types. This is because the genotypes of crops is so inherently stable at this stage that the precentage individual crops with genetic mutations, let alone useful ones, must surely be tiny. These may survive the holocaust and repopulate the wild-type ranks, but it will be cold comfort to those depending on food in the short term. The next generation of GM crops would hopefully have resiliance built in to combat the threat. Science can now move far faster than nature ever could, and given the relatively slow spread of a potential aggressor, the resistant breed could be developed within mere months of the new threat being identified, even far before the scourge has made any appreciable impact on the current crop levels. The same can not be said for the wild types.

But most important is the fact that GM crops are, nearly by definition, more resiliant to disease then their wild-type cousins by virtue of the fact that they have beneficial genes built in specifically for this reason.

Finally, this is all assuming that wild-type crops have ceased being farmed in favour of the GM crops. I think it would probably be prudent to maintain both kinds of crops, and I'd hope that that is what would happen.


Given the GM corn was not sterile, there might be storehouses of seed if the plants survived to maturity, even if all were at risk the next growing season. This would perhaps offset the devastation of the next season and buy time for a solution to be found. If the corn did not survive to maturity, no seed for the next growing season. If the seed were modified to render only sterile crops, then any subsequent seed would have to come from the manufacturer (as it already does in such cases). Their stockpiles would be based on the current genome or perhaps "next year's model," but with no guarantees that it would be resistant to the blight. Scientists could perform additional modifications to attempt to introduce resistance to the blight, and they might be successful, but those test plants would have to grow to maturity, reproduce, and then be bred again and again to build up a seed stock sufficient to supply the farmers with enough seed to replant. It would be years, assuming it could be done at all. In the meantime, corn (in this example) would be essentially extinct, except for any remaining heterogeneous domestic and wild varieties (which I presume would be prized).

An interesting example. I still feel that a scourge would devastate both wild-type and GM crops, wild-types to the brink of extinction, with only a tiny amount free to survive. My reasoning being that wild-type and GM crops are virtually identical, apart from a few added genes. Thus, though some wild-types would survive, I doubt it would be enough to hold over the human population much better than the total extinction of the GM variety. In any case, repopulating the grains with the few remaining wild-types would likewise take years.

I think it's coming down to differing opinions. You correctly value heterogenecity in the gene pool of these crops, as even the most catastrophic plague must surely leave a handful of mutant wild-type plants untouched, perhaps far more.

I think that given the baseline genetic similarity of both wild-type and GM crops, anything that will wipe out the GM crops will devastate the wild-types. However, I feel that there are still appreciable benefits to GM crops: our ability to rapidly breed in resiliance to emerging threats, perhaps faster than the crops are being damaged, and their superior durability compared to their wild counterparts.

And all of this is predicated upon there being one single strain of GM crop: not multiple strains produced by different companies, or even multiple strains produced by a single company for the purpose of genetic diversity. Regardless, we can now breed in genetic diversity far faster than evolution could.

 

[CanuckMA]

Originally Posted by wushuguy
that's true, unfortunately it's like in martial arts or anything else, those who are genuine are rare. ...btw, what's the mcdojo equivalent of the scientific community?

Homeopathy?

:lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think it's coming down to differing opinions. You correctly value heterogenecity in the gene pool of these crops, as even the most catastrophic plague must surely leave a handful of mutant wild-type plants untouched, perhaps far more.

I think that given the baseline genetic similarity of both wild-type and GM crops, anything that will wipe out the GM crops will devastate the wild-types. However, I feel that there are still appreciable benefits to GM crops: our ability to rapidly breed in resiliance to emerging threats, perhaps faster than the crops are being damaged, and their superior durability compared to their wild counterparts.

Consider disease in people. Now consider disease in people if we were all genetically the same. Oh, we're 'the same' to a high degree, but the differences in our genomes seem to confer or deny advantages with regard to all kinds of maladies. I don't think corn or soybeans are any different with respect to disease.

One could consider the Irish Potato Blight or the American Chestnut Blight. By the way, with respect to science fixing the issue by genetic manipulation and reintroducing the species, they've been trying with the American Chestnut since the 1930's. Nothing so far...but the hybrids produced with traditional techniques do seem to work rather well...of course, the results are not pure American Chestnut.

And all of this is predicated upon there being one single strain of GM crop: not multiple strains produced by different companies, or even multiple strains produced by a single company for the purpose of genetic diversity. Regardless, we can now breed in genetic diversity far faster than evolution could.

A little regulation with regard to that would seem to make sense then. A bit of the old trust-busting might not be misplaced. So far, nothing.

 

[Makalakumu]

One of the major problems with the scientific institution is that a lot of what is being passed off as science is really propaganda, slick marketing, and/or to hide something. From government agencies that have been captured by corporate interests, to corporations who will say anything to make money, to multinational organizations who are trying to forward a broader global agenda, there are plenty of reasons to mistrust what is passed off as "science" now days. This blatant misuse of science is what will end up killing us, IMO. How can anyone discern the "good" from the "bad" in this kind of environment?

 

[Andrew Green]

One of the major problems with the scientific institution is that a lot of what is being passed off as science is really propaganda, slick marketing, and/or to hide something. From government agencies that have been captured by corporate interests, to corporations who will say anything to make money, to multinational organizations who are trying to forward a broader global agenda, there are plenty of reasons to mistrust what is passed off as "science" now days. This blatant misuse of science is what will end up killing us, IMO. How can anyone discern the "good" from the "bad" in this kind of environment?

The thing about proper science is it is verifiable, and repeatable. If someone publishes something that is invalid, someone else will disprove it fairly quickly.

That is things working as they should.

The problem is not the science, it is people latching onto results that where published, and ignoring the counter evidence.

Blame the media, politicians, special interest groups etc. But the scientific process is sound, even if some people use bad results to further an agenda.

 

[Blade96]

dietary supplements....you mean like vitamin pills?

 

[cdunn]

Since we touched on "natural" cures and dietary supplements:

A rather cute infographic displaying the approximate state of evidence in favor or against a wide range of supplements. Mouseover for the condition treated by the supplement. Conflicting evidence does not mean that the supplement is neccesarily worthless, but rather that there may be deeper causes that the supplement cannot always treat, or that the placebo effect confounds things.

 

[Blade96]

Aye yai yai, my mum always drove me nuts trying to get me to stuff myself with dietary supplements like she does. especially since i'm prone to chronic sore throats (i get about one a year on average)

so i tried them and they dont work. they dont cure them. They are viral so antibiotics wouldnt work either.

Now that I sparring kumite she's at me even more "if you dont take a vitamin pill or some other dietary supplement you might break an arm!" Uggg.

sheeeeeeesh. i hardly ever get sick. No really. I'm hardly ever sick. get off my case, please.....

Plus I eat well now. yeah my diet used to be crap. But I eat well now.

It also tells us that occasionally a drug will react in a way not yet seen in others. It never says that a drug will do x, only x, and do it 100% of the time

Ohya, like the **** drug clindamycin (antibiotic i was prescribed for severe strep throat one year ago) caused a severe allergic reaction in me last year that lasted the whole spring and summer therefore lost a summer off my life when most people can take that and they're fine.