Randomness thread, part two.

[OngBonga]

I thought there were many different strains of the common cold, and you don't get the same one twice. That could be an outdated view though.

[Savy]

Toxins are made up nonsense.

Also why would being around people who are "purging their toxins" make your body do the same?

[OngBonga]

I reckon savy is made up nonsense. I want imsavy back.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The cold virus mutates at a rapid rate, and as such, there are over 200 strains of the same thing, just slightly mutated from it's many siblings.
You can never catch the same viral infection twice. Once your body learns the appropriate configuration of a white blood cell to counter that virus, that "blueprint" will stay in your bloodstream forever. If that particular virus infects you again, your body will throw all the white cells at it until something works, then it will replicate the cells that work and kill the infection before you exhibit symptoms.

AFAIK, ong is correct that you can never catch the same cold twice. Or any other viral infection.

Back to the rapid mutation rate of the virus.
Since you can never catch the same cold twice, you tend to remain immune to all colds* for a while after you recover from a cold. Whatever that strain is, you're immune, but that strain will be mutating constantly, and eventually, it's different enough that your existing white cells cannot attack it. Then it repeats.


It's interesting to note that viral infections like the cold did not exist for pre-historic humans. Without a population large enough to keep bouncing the virus around while it mutates, the population will become immune en-masse and the virus will have no susceptible victims to use as host while it mutates. It dies.
At least, that's the running theory for why there are so few skeletons in the fossil record which seem to have died from a viral infection, prior to the rise of cities.

EDIT:
* Not "all colds" technically, but all the strains that are active in your environment. Nearly all of them are colds you are immune to, because you caught them in the past, and as more and more people catch them, they become eradicated from the populace, due to a lack of any suitable host. I'm guessing that there are on average 200 active strains in any given region, but most of the populace is immune to all but 1 or 2 of the strains, and as those strains bounce around, slowly changing, eventually, they are different enough to run rounds on the populace again.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So are you suggesting that if we had an infinitely big isosceles right triangle, that the hypotenuse would be the same length as the other two sides?

"Infinitely big" is not rigorously defined.

If you say, construct an isosceles right triangle with side length x.
What is the ratio of side lengths as x approaches infinity?
Always 1:1.
What is the ratio of the hypotenuse to a side length as x approaches infinity?
h/s = 1/sin(45) = 1/cos(45) = sqrt(2) ~= 1.414
always


However, if you ask, in the limit of x going to infinity, which is longer, the side length or the hypotenuse?
Well, x is "infinitely" long, and the hypotenuse is some constant - sqrt(2) - times "infinity", which is the same infinity.

A constant times a countable infinity is a countable infinity.

So there seems to be contradiction, there, but there's not. In one case, we're saying, given a finite, but arbitrarily large value, what are the ratios? In the other case, we're saying, ignore the non-existence of any defined "end" of a number line and let's assume we've reached the end, then what? Well, if one side is "unendingly vast" and the thing you're comparing it to is also, then the triangle is kinda broken. The rules of geometry which tell us the properties have been stretched beyond applicability.

[MadMojoMonkey]

An infinitely big triangle is a flat line. Everyone knows that.

lolwat!?

[OngBonga]

h/s = 1/sin(45) = 1/cos(45) = sqrt(2) ~= 1.414

I don't know what this is, but it's not a^2 + b^2 = c^2.

How are you getting root 2 from that?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Theory confirmed.

So now a single piece of anecdotal evidence counts as proof of your hypothesis?
And your hypotheses are theories by stipulation?
Man, psychology is easy.

An interesting question is why colds tend to come on relatively suddenly, over a couple of days.

Exponential growth of the population in a favorable environment with no natural predators.

One might expect there to be just varying levels of mucus/fever all the time, which are at some times worse than others.

The thing is that a high fever can be fatal to the human, or cause permanent brain damage. Excessive mucus causes swelling in the airway, due to irritation, which makes breathing difficult and in extreme cases can cause suffocation.
These are last lines of defense a body can employ to rid itself of a hostile invading pathogen, not the first options.
White blood cells kill off most infections that enter your body before you ever see any signs of symptoms.

My guess is there's a certain tolerance level the body has for toxins, but once the threshold is passed and it can't deal with them through normal means, it goes into sick mode, which is it's way of saying 'ok need a cleanout'. Or something.

If you drop the hippie-dippie talk about "toxins" and pivot to talking about specific biological agents and poisons, then you're not too far off the mark.
It's not like drinking so much alcohol that you get alcohol poisoning results in the same symptoms as a cold. It's not like cancer and the flu are the same things, just expressed in different ways.
Your body has different responses to different forms of pathogens.

Would explain why you never get another cold right after just finishing one. Afaik.

I've addressed this in another post.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't know what this is, but it's not a^2 + b^2 = c^2.

How are you getting root 2 from that?

I used the trigonometric relations, but here it is using Pythagorean relations.
Because a = b in an isosceles right triangle.

s^2 + s^2 = h^2
2s^2 = h^2
2 = (h/s)^2
h/s = sqrt(2)

[OngBonga]

I totally get it in pythagoras terms, but that sin and cos stuff didn't make sense to me. I can't see how 1/sin(45) and 1/cos(45) make root 2.

[Poopadoop]

blah medical dogma blah.

It's actually 200 different types of virus (with rhinovirus strains being claimed responsible for ~50% of colds). So, you should in theory be able to catch a rhinovirus, then a coronavirus, then influenza virus, and so on and have a cold for weeks or months. Or catch several different types of virus at the same time and have a cold three times as bad. Doesn't happen.

Also doesn't explain why some people never catch colds, or only very rarely. Presumably they're just as susceptible to new strains as everyone else, yet others get sick and they don't?

Also, there as yet to my knowledge, no proof that the virus precedes the cold rather than the other way around. Do they have a mouse model for the common cold for example, where they expose a mouse to a mouse-rhinovirus and it gets a mouse-cold? Well, apparently the only way they could do that was by genetifically modifying the mice. That's not normal imo. They could have easily have just modified the mouse's response to natural toxins, rather than it's response to viruses.

The prehistoric no-cold theory seems to be lacking in evidence too; I think you're extrapolating from population-spread diseases that are proven to be caused by a virus to colds here. Also, chimps get colds and their current population is definitely well below prehistoric human ones.

Finally, the fact that you can simulate a cold by simply consuming large amounts of dairy proteins suggests a common origin.

[Poopadoop]

So now a single piece of anecdotal evidence counts as proof of your hypothesis?
And your hypotheses are theories by stipulation?
Man, psychology is easy.

Confirmed unable to process humour.

[OngBonga]

It's actually 200 different types of virus (with rhinovirus strains being claimed responsible for ~50% of colds). So, you should in theory be able to catch a rhinovirus, then a coronavirus, then influenza virus, and so on and have a cold for weeks or months. Or catch several different types of virus at the same time and have a cold three times as bad. Doesn't happen.

Doesn't it? Is this a hard fact or are you onging here?

[OngBonga]

Confirmed unable to process humour.

He's got a dose of the common savy.

[Poopadoop]

Exponential growth of the population in a favorable environment with no natural predators.

Sorry, but you're doing a Kavanaugh here.

The question was why do you get slow-developing colds that take a couple of days to hit full stride whereas with 'flu it hits you all of a sudden?

The answer has nothing to do with predators.

[Poopadoop]

The thing is that a high fever can be fatal to the human, or cause permanent brain damage.

Fevers associated with colds are never fatal; or if they are I've never heard of it. You actually have to hit around 104F I think before you're in serious danger. Most colds the fever is less than 101F, so your body is hardly risking your life to cleanse itself.

Excessive mucus causes swelling in the airway, due to irritation, which makes breathing difficult and in extreme cases can cause suffocation.

Again, it's a question of degree. I've never heard of anyone suffocating from a cold. It's not like a real illness like pneumonia.

These are last lines of defense a body can employ to rid itself of a hostile invading pathogen, not the first options.

The same argument can be said for using these defenses against toxins. The first lines are the liver, the digestive tract, the skin, etc. Some toxins don't get excreted that way and need the help of micro-organisms that live in mucus and whose sole purpose for being there is get rid of toxins that have become too prevalent and can't be excreted through other means at a fast enough rate.

[Poopadoop]

If you drop the hippie-dippie talk about "toxins" and pivot to talking about specific biological agents and poisons, then you're not too far off the mark.

Try opening your mind to the idea that conventional medical wisdom doesn't have all the answers. It certainly has not found a way to cure the common cold or even provide a prophylactic medicine for it that works better than an apple a day.

The theory I'm explaining was also provided by medical science, so referring to it as 'hippie dippy' is a bit off the mark.

Once you do that, read on.

It's not like drinking so much alcohol that you get alcohol poisoning results in the same symptoms as a cold. It's not like cancer and the flu are the same things, just expressed in different ways.
Your body has different responses to different forms of pathogens.

I think you're reading 'toxins' a bit too broadly here. I'm referring to specific types of toxins which can best be rid of through being broken down by microorganisms that reside in mucus. Alcohol and a lot of other toxins are broken down in the liver. Many toxins are broken down by bacteria in the gut. Some are expelled through the skin. Actual infections caused by the proliferation of 'bad' bacteria and viruses are dealt with in ways that may or may not mimic certain symptoms of the so-called common cold, but usually include others as well and/or are more severe.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How about drop me some reading materials which have motivated your ideas?

I'm admittedly regurgitating HS health class information, and A) a HS gym teacher is not a health expert and B) the medical field has advanced leaps and bounds since 1993 when I had to take a health class in HS.

So sure... I could be completely wrong. Drop me a data bomb and help me be less wrong.

[Poopadoop]

Doesn't it? Is this a hard fact or are you onging here?

Have you ever heard of a young, otherwise healthy person being hospitalized for a case of the compound common cold?

[OngBonga]

Have you ever heard of a young, otherwise healthy person being hospitalized for a case of the compound common cold?

Hospitalised? No. Have I heard of someone having a cold for two weeks or more? Yes. Maybe that was two colds? And getting two colds at once, who's to say that makes it twice as bad? Maybe it's only root 2 times as bad.

[Poopadoop]

These make a similar argument to mine. Though tbf they give the viruses a larger active role than I argued for, so maybe I got a little carried away. But I'm still keen to explore the idea that the viruses are really just incidental based on the novelty of the concept alone.

https://branchbasics.com/blog/are-ge...lu-prevention/

http://drbenkim.com/cold-flu-difference-health.html

[Poopadoop]

Hospitalised? No. Have I heard of someone having a cold for two weeks or more? Yes. Maybe that was two colds? And getting two colds at once, who's to say that makes it twice as bad? Maybe it's only root 2 times as bad.

I've never known anyone in decent health who claimed to have a cold longer than 10 days. Maybe it happens, but I suspect it's very rare and those people were in shit health to begin with.

And I can't see why two simultaneous colds wouldn't be twice as bad as one. There's twice as many virus cells attacking you, in theory. So three, four colds at once and you should be six feet under.

[Poopadoop]

I'm perfectly open to the posiibility that this theory is wrong btw. I just find the idea that the common cold is so common yet mysterious when so many other germ-based diseases are so well understood suggestive that maybe it's not a germ-based illness, but that the germs are a side effect of a natural body process, kind of like in digestion.

[OngBonga]

Twice as many virus cells attacking you? Maybe one virus is unable to reproduce and attack as much as it otherwise would because the other virus is dominant.

[Poopadoop]

There's an anti-flu vaccination but no anti-cold one?

[Poopadoop]

Twice as many virus cells attacking you? Maybe one virus is unable to reproduce and attack as much as it otherwise would because the other virus is dominant.

Maybe. Though there should be plenty of cells to go around. I guess if they're only attacking 'sick' cells that would add up. But that is sorta making my point too. The cells are 'sick' cause they've got too much toxic shit in them, like kebab meat.

[Poopadoop]

Toxins are made up nonsense.

Go lick the bottom of one of Ong's test tubes and tell me how your body responds to made up nonsense.

Also why would being around people who are "purging their toxins" make your body do the same?

Maybe because you're being exposed to the same toxins that they are.

[MadMojoMonkey]

These make a similar argument to mine. Though tbf they give the viruses a larger active role than I argued for, so maybe I got a little carried away. But I'm still keen to explore the idea that the viruses are really just incidental based on the novelty of the concept alone.

https://branchbasics.com/blog/are-ge...lu-prevention/

http://drbenkim.com/cold-flu-difference-health.html

The first one says the cold isn't necessarily caused by germs, but their top 3 pieces of advice to avoid catching/spreading the illness are to wash your hands and oft-touched surfaces, cover your mouth and nose when you are coughing and sneezing, and to back away from anyone while they're coughing and sneezing.
That doesn't make sense to me unless germs are a central cause.

It's talking about unnamed toxins as the cuplrit, without giving any references to those claims. There's a link at the end of that paragraph, here's what it has to say on the specific toxins:

"bisphenol-A (BPA), used in hard plastics, food-can linings, and paper receipts; two phthalates used as plasticizers in vinyl products; DDE, the breakdown product of the banned insecticide DDT; organophosphate pesticides, including one called chlorpyrifos used on grain, fruit, and other crops; and brominated flame retardants known as PBDEs that were extensively used in furniture foams until they were banned in Europe and the United States."
Note: none of those are viruses or bacteria, none of them are directly linked to any health problems, but there are studies that show a correlation between these things.
I think we can say, "The cause is germs, but if your immune system is healthy, then the germs have less of a chance." and almost noone is going to argue with that.

My real problem is at the bottom where they recommend a homeopathic something.
Homeopathy is total BS, based on the notion that water molecules have selective memory. Tons of science has been done to debunk homeopathic methods, so let's just thrown this out as a credible source.


The second link has no references listed, and the Dr. making these claims is selling his supplements on the same page.
Conflict of interest.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Go lick the bottom of one of Ong's test tubes and tell me how your body responds to made up nonsense.

He'd come back with a medical report stating specific, named toxins which affected him, not some single buzz-word that plays off of people's emotions.

Saying "The toxins in your body" as though that holds any well-defined meaning is not leading anyone to any evidence-based conclusions.

[Poopadoop]

Saying "The toxins in your body" as though that holds any well-defined meaning is not leading anyone to any evidence-based conclusions.

Sure it could. One could have cells in dishes with different toxins in them that might be found in human tissue and see which get targeted by cold viruses. That would not be conclusive, but it would be a start.

[Poopadoop]

The first one says the cold isn't necessarily caused by germs, but their top 3 pieces of advice to avoid catching/spreading the illness are to wash your hands and oft-touched surfaces, cover your mouth and nose when you are coughing and sneezing, and to back away from anyone while they're coughing and sneezing.
That doesn't make sense to me unless germs are a central cause.

That's generic good advice for anyone to protect you from contagions. You also shouldn't eat dirt, or stick poo up your nose. You should just assume anyone sneezing on you is a bad thing a priori whether they have a cold or not.

I think the idea is that the viruses go after weak cells and these are often weakened by toxins. This is the 'terrain' theory they refer to. The germs are always there but they only multiply in the proper environment.

It's talking about unnamed toxins as the cuplrit, without giving any references to those claims. There's a link at the end of that paragraph, here's what it has to say on the specific toxins:

"bisphenol-A (BPA), used in hard plastics, food-can linings, and paper receipts; two phthalates used as plasticizers in vinyl products; DDE, the breakdown product of the banned insecticide DDT; organophosphate pesticides, including one called chlorpyrifos used on grain, fruit, and other crops; and brominated flame retardants known as PBDEs that were extensively used in furniture foams until they were banned in Europe and the United States."
Note: none of those are viruses or bacteria, none of them are directly linked to any health problems, but there are studies that show a correlation between these things.

Naming 200+ types of virus as possible culprits is not much stronger than naming some random toxins imo. Also, there are plenty of microorganisms that are beneficial, and these could easily be some of them. Just because something makes you feel like shit doesn't mean it isn't good for you. Ever thrown up? That's a bad feeling but the process is definitely cleansing.

I think we can say, "The cause is germs, but if your immune system is healthy, then the germs have less of a chance." and almost noone is going to argue with that.

I believe something like that. It's possible though that these kinds of germs are indigenous and they are used if only incidentally by the body when it needs a detox. It's more of a symbiotic relationship than it is an 'attack' of a virus.

My real problem is at the bottom where they recommend a homeopathic something.
Homeopathy is total BS, based on the notion that water molecules have selective memory. Tons of science has been done to debunk homeopathic methods, so let's just thrown this out as a credible source.

Lots of people make both credible and incredible arguments, often in the same essay. The theory should be evaluated independently of what you think of the other ideas of the person making it.

The second link has no references listed, and the Dr. making these claims is selling his supplements on the same page.
Conflict of interest.

It's not like he's selling alligator scales mixed with sheep testicles though.

The guy is basically saying 'bad nutrition leads to illness. If you look after your body nutritionally you'll be less likely to get sick. Instead of a Big Mac, eat this ground up organic stuff I'm selling'. Assuming the ingredients are legit, that's hardly a scam job.

Also, see above about not judging an argument by its author.

[OngBonga]

I smoke all day. I fill myself with toxins on a regular basis. Maybe the cold virus doesn't like the fuck ton of toxins that are in tobacco?

Or maybe the weed heals me. Yeah, that.

[Poopadoop]

I smoke all day. I fill myself with toxins on a regular basis. Maybe the cold virus doesn't like the fuck ton of toxins that are in tobacco?

Or maybe the weed heals me. Yeah, that.

Yeah maybe all the cells lining your respiratory tract are coated in so much tar the virus can't break through.

I still wouldn't recommend smoking though.

[Poopadoop]

I fill myself with toxins on a regular basis.

Have you ever heard of 'smoker's face'? That's the shit in cigarettes getting expelled through the skin.

[OngBonga]

Ever heard of Ronald's Arsehole? It's what you get after eating too many Big Macs.

I wouldn't recommend eating Big Macs.

[Poopadoop]

It's no joke.

smokers-face-300x2671.jpg

[OngBonga]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that fucker is just ugly.

I've been smoking for 20 years and I don't have a face like a grinning potato.

[Poopadoop]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that fucker is just ugly.

I've been smoking for 20 years and I don't have a face like a grinning potato.

Give it time. She's only 50.

[Poopadoop]

Though tbf, smoking is supposed to be worse for women than for men.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ous-women.html

So you might not look like that until your 60.

[OngBonga]

Whatever, it's the future, I'll just have a head transplant.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It certainly "feels right" that inhaling radioactive materials will lead to cancer, but despite how obvious it seems, it has yet to be conclusively shown to be the case.
Unless you have some credible study to point to, then no amount of circumstantial evidence will ever amount to a fact.

That pic is just lol. What would she look like if not a smoker? Oh yeah, there's no control group, so they could have just as easily picked someone the same age, smoked for just as long, but whom is a model.

I have never seen any scientific paper which shows a causal link between smoking and ill-health.

I have never seen any credible, direct link between any known cause and any cancer.

[Poopadoop]

That pic is just lol. What would she look like if not a smoker? Oh yeah, there's no control group, so they could have just as easily picked someone the same age, smoked for just as long, but whom is a model.

tucker confused.jpg

[Poopadoop]

Unless you have some credible study to point to, then no amount of circumstantial evidence will ever amount to a fact.

Not sure what counts as credible in your eyes. Do you want evidence that as soon as you finish your first cigarette ever you have cancer?

I have never seen any scientific paper which shows a causal link between smoking and ill-health.

I have never seen any credible, direct link between any known cause and any cancer.

What's your experimental model to provide this evidence? You separate two groups of identical twins at birth, give one a twenty-a-day habit and keep the others away from cigarettes? Then see which group gets lung cancer more often?

The evidence that exists is certainly credible; sometimes direct evidence just isn't obtainable.

[Poopadoop]

On the balance of probabilities, just with the cirumstantial evidence, I'd guess it's about 99% probable that smoking is bad for you. The circumstantial evidence is pretty damn overwhelming when taken in sum.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Not sure what counts as credible in your eyes. Do you want evidence that as soon as you finish your first cigarette ever you have cancer?

I want the same standard that is applied to other illnesses' causes.
If it can be shown that finishing a cigarette causes cancer, then yes, absolutely, I want that conclusively shown.
Also, I want to know if it's something specific about the cigarette. Is it the nicotine? Is it the Carbon Dioxide? Is it the sharp corners of the ash suspended in the fluid abrading your innerds?
Whatever it is, I want to know the pathology of it.

What's your experimental model to provide this evidence?

IDK the medical standards and practices, but anything akin to what they do to draw conclusions about other pathological illnesses seems appropriate.

You separate two groups of identical twins at birth, give one a twenty-a-day habit and keep the others away from cigarettes? Then see which group gets lung cancer more often?

That wouldn't prove much of anything unless the rates were 0% and 100%.
You realize that, right?
If you're going to say that smoking causes cancer, then any example of a smoker without cancer is proof your hypothesis is incorrect.

All I've heard breaks down like, "Look! There's a correlation!.. but it's not a direct causal link, and there are countless other factors which we didn't / couldn't control, some of which are hypothesized to contribute to cancer."

The evidence that exists is certainly credible; sometimes direct evidence just isn't obtainable.

It's not even compelling indirect evidence, though.
There are other explanations, which are scientifically viable.

I'm not arguing from an emotional POV. Emotionally, it seems obvious that lighting something on fire and inhaling the fumes is surely bad for your health. I'm saying that scientifically, this has not been shown. Many brilliant scientists have been searching for the causes of cancer for many decades. If there was any direct link to cancer, not just via smoking, it would be one of the biggest deals in modern medicine.

[MadMojoMonkey]

On the balance of probabilities, just with the cirumstantial evidence, I'd guess it's about 99% probable that smoking is bad for you. The circumstantial evidence is pretty damn overwhelming when taken in sum.

Sure, so long as you ignore all the other hypothesized factors which cause cancer, you can point at every smoker with cancer and say, "See? I told you!"

[Poopadoop]

Sure, so long as you ignore all the other hypothesized factors which cause cancer, you can point at every smoker with cancer and say, "See? I told you!"

No, that's not what I do. I note the correlations between smoking and all kinds of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as cancer and life expectancy. Then I conclude it's highly probable smoking is bad for you. I don't say, "dozens of correlations with bad things and none with good things doesn't meet the scientific standard of the experimental paradigm, therefore I'm gonna pretend it isn't extremely suggestive."

[Poopadoop]

I want the same standard that is applied to other illnesses' causes.
If it can be shown that finishing a cigarette causes cancer, then yes, absolutely, I want that conclusively shown.
Also, I want to know if it's something specific about the cigarette. Is it the nicotine? Is it the Carbon Dioxide? Is it the sharp corners of the ash suspended in the fluid abrading your innerds?
Whatever it is, I want to know the pathology of it.

They don't even know what causes the common cold! Physiology is complicated; it's not like bouncing particles off each other where you can control every single extraneous variable.

IDK the medical standards and practices, but anything akin to what they do to draw conclusions about other pathological illnesses seems appropriate.

Well the standard is a double blind randomized trial. It's just rather unethical to do that with smoking because it's extremely likely that you're condemning your experimental group to poorer overall health than the control group. Not to mention it's a bit impractical to run a controlled study over decades.

That wouldn't prove much of anything unless the rates were 0% and 100%.
You realize that, right?
If you're going to say that smoking causes cancer, then any example of a smoker without cancer is proof your hypothesis is incorrect.

Of course it would, it would prove it's a contriibuting factor. If the rates were 2% and 5%, and the likelihood of such a difference occurring by chance were small enough, then that would suggest that yes it 'causes' cancer ; not the sole cause but a contributing cause. It's unlikely cancer is caused by a single variable, like smallpox or cholera.

All I've heard breaks down like, "Look! There's a correlation!.. but it's not a direct causal link, and there are countless other factors which we didn't / couldn't control, some of which are hypothesized to contribute to cancer."

If there were a single correlation only between smoking and (say) leukemia, then it could be dismissed. The fact that there's a broad range of strong correlations between smoking, cardiovascular and/or respiratory disease, various cancers, illness in general, and lowered life expectancy, strongly implies it is overall bad for you.

It's not even compelling indirect evidence, though.
There are other explanations, which are scientifically viable.

Such as?

I'm not arguing from an emotional POV. Emotionally, it seems obvious that lighting something on fire and inhaling the fumes is surely bad for your health.

I don't see how that's an emotional argument, it seems pretty rational to me.

I'm saying that scientifically, this has not been shown. Many brilliant scientists have been searching for the causes of cancer for many decades. If there was any direct link to cancer, not just via smoking, it would be one of the biggest deals in modern medicine.

I'll give you that the link is not 100% certain that smoking contributes to lung cancer (if we're talking about lung cancer) or cancer in general (if we're talking more broadly) or the whole range of other illnesses it correlates with; I would dispute that it would likely be much lower than that though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

They don't even know what causes the common cold! Physiology is complicated; it's not like bouncing particles off each other where you can control every single extraneous variable.

They're pretty certain about mesothelioma, though.
(TY spellcheck, damn)

I'm not suggesting human testing.

Such as?

any of the other clickable links here will suffice

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...revention/risk

They fuckin' hate tobacco, there, FYI.
Got nothing to say about smoking in general, or smoking weed, which is really where this all started.

I don't see how that's an emotional argument, it seems pretty rational to me.

SMH
There's nothing evidence-based in that statement at all.

No wonder the psychological fields have problems with repeatability studies.

[Savy]

Smoking doesn't cause cancer it increases your risk of cancer. They are different things.

Smoking has tonnes of shitty negative health implications and smoking is retarded but the it's also the incredibly villified and the negative effects are massively over estimated. For example second hand smoke is essentially a complete myth. If you worked in a pub full of smoke every day all your life the effects of second hand smoke are incredibly minor yet people think they are going to get cancer when they see someone smoking on the other side of the street.

[Poopadoop]

Smoking doesn't cause cancer it increases your risk of cancer. They are different things.

Smoking has tonnes of shitty negative health implications and smoking is retarded

Pretty much. I don't know why anyone would try to argue otherwise unless they're a shill for Big Tobacco like Mojo obviously is.

but the it's also the incredibly villified and the negative effects are massively over estimated. For example second hand smoke is essentially a complete myth. If you worked in a pub full of smoke every day all your life the effects of second hand smoke are incredibly minor yet people think they are going to get cancer when they see someone smoking on the other side of the street.

I agree the effects of 2ndhand smoked are totally exaggerated. It is a bit funny how people act like a single molecule of 2ndhand smoke is enough to kill them and their three nearest relatives.

[Poopadoop]

SMH
There's nothing evidence-based in that statement at all.

I also don't have direct evidence that if I call my girlfriend 'fatty fatty fat fat', she'll get pissed off. But common sense tells me she would, and if you want to call that an argument based on irrational emotions because it hasn't been tested empirically, then so be it.

No wonder the psychological fields have problems with repeatability studies.

Don't get all precious on me please.

If we used a 5-sigma rule like physics we'd have a lot less problems. We'd also have barely any studies published and would have missed out on a lot of findings.

The fact physicists generally don't face replicability problems says more about the phemonena you're testing being experimentally straightforward than anything else imho. Large, robust effects tend to replicate. Small, sensitive ones tend to be slippery.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Pretty much. I don't know why anyone would try to argue otherwise unless they're a shill for Big Tobacco like Mojo obviously is.

My entire point is that it seems obvious that smoking is bad, but there isn't solid evidence of smoking causing cancer.
How is that even different from what Savy said?

I dropped a link that perfectly vilifies Tobacco and I'm a shill?

How?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I also don't have direct evidence that if I call my girlfriend 'fatty fatty fat fat', she'll get pissed off. But common sense tells me she would, and if you want to call that an argument based on irrational emotions because it hasn't been tested empirically, then so be it.

This is perfectly easy to test, though.
You could just explain the context of this conversation, then ask her.

Don't get all precious on me please.

If we used a 5-sigma rule like physics we'd have a lot less problems. We'd also have barely any studies published and would have missed out on a lot of findings.

The fact physicists generally don't face replicability problems says more about the phemonena you're testing being experimentally straightforward than anything else imho. Large, robust effects tend to replicate. Small, sensitive ones tend to be slippery.

Stay on track.
I made an evidence-less statement and you called it rational.
This has nothing to do with statistically robust findings. This has to do with recognizing what is data, with differentiating what "seems" right between what "can be shown."

[Poopadoop]

My entire point is that it seems obvious that smoking is bad, but there isn't solid evidence of smoking causing cancer.
How is that even different from what Savy said?

How is it different from what I said originally? In fact, no-one said smoking was the SOLE cause of any illness, so why did you even start this argument?

I dropped a link that perfectly vilifies Tobacco and I'm a shill?

How?

It was a joke.

[Poopadoop]

I made an evidence-less statement and you called it rational.

I'm using rational as a synonym for 'common-sense' , not in whatever way you're trying to define it as necessarily involving empirical proof.

rational
ˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: rational

1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
synonyms: logical, reasoned, well reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, coherent, intelligent, wise, judicious, sagacious, astute, shrewd, perceptive, enlightened, clear-eyed, clear-sighted, commonsensical, common-sense, well advised, well grounded, sound, sober, prudent, circumspect, politic; More

This has nothing to do with statistically robust findings. This has to do with recognizing what is data, with differentiating what "seems" right between what "can be shown."

No wonder the psychological fields have problems with repeatability studies.

You took a shot at my field, and I explained why it was a cheap shot, that's all.

[Savy]

The past couple of years I've had a letter through saying I'm eligible for a free flu vaccine. I phoned the doctors the first time I got it through to ask why I'd got one and whether it was a mistake. They told me it was because I have asthma, no I don't, says on our records you do, ok but I really don't, well if you're like to book an appointment for us to do some tests, lol yeah I'll piss about at the doctors for no reason no thanks.

So as a result I still get them through every year. Can't decide whether I should take advantage of going to get it or not. Getting the flu is a pain, what are the side effects of the vaccines usually like?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Getting the flu is a pain, what are the side effects of the vaccines usually like?

Depends on the type of vaccine.
Most popular flu vaccines have no symptoms after inoculation.

If the vaccine involves swabbing something up your nose, you'll experience mild flu symptoms for a bit.
(So I'm told. I've never had one of these.)

Just ask the doctors and/or nurses administering the vaccines, they'll know which kind they are using.

[OngBonga]

The side effects will be along the lines of a weaker immune system. I'd rather have flu once a decade or whatever.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The side effects will be along the lines of a weaker immune system. I'd rather have flu once a decade or whatever.

What? No.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/misconceptions.htm

Flu vaccines are recommended specifically for people with weak immune systems.

[Poopadoop]

what are the side effects of the vaccines usually like?

Autism.

[Savy]

Autism.

ALREADY GOT THAT CLEARLYY LOLOLOL

[Savy]

The side effects will be along the lines of a weaker immune system. I'd rather have flu once a decade or whatever.

Why would that possibly be the case?

[OngBonga]

Same reason I can't run a mile for shit, but lots of people can do it without breaking a sweat. Training.

Flu vaccines are recommended specifically for people with weak immune systems.

If their immune system is already weak, well I guess their options are limited. Mine isn't weak, and it might have something to do with the fact that I never take medication for ailments like flu and colds. It's certainly not my healthy lifestyle, since I smoke a ton and eat like shit.

[OngBonga]

What a load of fucking tosh...

Is it better to get the flu than the flu vaccine?
No. Flu can be a serious disease, particularly among young children, older adults, and people with certain chronic health conditions, such as asthma, heart disease or diabetes. Any flu infection can carry a risk of serious complications, hospitalization or death, even among otherwise healthy children and adults. Therefore, getting vaccinated is a safer choice than risking illness to obtain immune protection.

Sure it's serious for old folk, or kids, or Freddie Mercury. And sure it's serious if it's a nasty strain, like Spanish flu or swine flu or Rhesus monkey flu, but your bog standard everyong-gets-it flu is not going to do you any harm, not unless you're super unlucky. I don't know anyone in good health who has had long-term problems thanks to flu. I'd be surprised if any of you guys do too.

If I got swine flu, I'd want to ride that out too. I might take my doctor's advice though if he insisted I take medication.

[Savy]

Getting vaccinated in no way weakens your immune system or makes it less likely to be able to fight other illnesses. I have no idea why you assume this would be the case. It just does it in a controlled way that makes you not get as ill as you would if you actually caught the illness in the first place.

Also the reason people get vaccinated isn't usually because they have a weak immune system it's that flu is serious enough that the complications can be fatal for people who can't deal with the complications that can arrise. It very rarely has anything to do with a weak immune system.

A vaccine literally is like training your body to be better at dealing with disease.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like any side effects are pretty tame.

https://www.menshealth.com/health/a1...-side-effects/

Still waiting for them to create a common cold vaccine btw. Oh yea, I forgot - it doesn't exist. Mwahahahaha.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It just does it in a controlled way that makes you not get as ill as you would if you actually caught the illness in the first place.

Modern vaccines don't even express any symptoms. They're not giving you a living, active virus injection. There are 2 forms of modern flu vaccines, different, but neither uses live viruses.

These are described in the first paragraph of the link I posted above.

Also the reason people get vaccinated isn't usually because they have a weak immune system [...]

This. I am in the pool of people recommended to get flu vaccines every year, not because of my own health, but because my job puts me in contact with thousands of people, some of whom have weak immune systems.

It's not about keeping me from getting sick, so much as it's to keep me from spreading the illness to someone whom might be at risk.

A vaccine literally is like training your body to be better at dealing with disease.

More like posting an APB with a mug shot, and training the SWAT team (white blood cells) to kill without hesitation.

It's not making you generally better at fighting off disease, so much as making you particularly suited to fight off one very specific disease.

[CoccoBill]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=herd+immunity

[oskar]

Can we talk about the washington haircut:



Reporter on the left. Ignore the content. Do I think of this as a haircut for 8 year olds just because it was the haircut I had when I was 8 years old, or is it at least a bit as infantile as it looks to me.
Even people I respect. I mean wtf is this even:





That has to be a ton of effort at this age. I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but half of congress has the hair of an infant, with otherwise less than impeccable genetics. Why?





Is this getting you l8, m8?

[Savy]

I'm really fucking bored recently.

To the point where I'm thinking I should get a job. fml.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Boredom is a transitional state of mind where you're just in need of breaking up your routine to stimulate new paths of thought.

I bet if you went out into public for a while you'd see all kinds of human behavior to hate, and that could easily occupy a few hours a day.
Have you tried that?

[OngBonga]

I'm really fucking bored recently.

I can't remember if you smoke weed or not. If you don't, do. If you do, smoke more.

[Savy]

I can't remember if you smoke weed or not. If you don't, do. If you do, smoke more.

Done that before it's boring. Weed isn't the drug for me. I'd rather get pissed more. I've been drinking less recently maybe that's why I'm bored? But I'm also drinking now and I'm bored.

[Savy]

Boredom is a transitional state of mind where you're just in need of breaking up your routine to stimulate new paths of thought.

I bet if you went out into public for a while you'd see all kinds of human behavior to hate, and that could easily occupy a few hours a day.
Have you tried that?

I'm surprisingly a really nice person in general and I don't really hate people or things. I should put more effort in socially, especially into keeping in contact with people. I tend to find that if I do an activity with the person I'm not too bad but if it's just a general friend I'm pretty bad.