Drugs harmful to immune system?

[Xunzian]

Seems to me like you are fearmongering. You are promoting fear of a thing you don't really understand.

That is bad. You are engaging in an activity which is bad and hurtful.

[Moreno]

Seems to me like you are fearmongering. You are promoting fear of a thing you don't really understand.

That is bad. You are engaging in an activity which is bad and hurtful.

His concerns match trends within medicine itself where they are questioning the overuse of various drugs including antiobiotics. Over the counter medications, even, are involved in a rather large number of deaths each year. Prescription drugs also. I don't think it is hurtful to raise the issues here in the way Abstract has.

If he pretended to be a doctor that would be a problem. There are many doctors who raise similar concerns to his, but they are, well, doctors. If he were to pretend to an authority he does not have, I could see what seems to me to be harshness in your post here to be justified.

Since that is not the case, you post does seem harsh.

Further there is tremendous fearmongering on the side of pharmaceutical companies. Concerned questioning of some of the results of this need not at all be seen as fear mongering. Do we really need to be so afraid everytime we have an unpleasant symptom?

Or should the dominant fear mongering go unquestioned?

[Xunzian]

Doctors aren't afraid of over prescribing antibioitics because they weaken the immune system. So, no, he isn't doing what doctors do. He is engaging in Jenny McCarthy level medical fearmongering.

[Abstract]

Seems to me like you are fearmongering. You are promoting fear of a thing you don't really understand.

That is bad. You are engaging in an activity which is bad and hurtful.

How is it fear mongering, if i am not asserting a possibility so much as asking a question and suggesting a possibility I see. Rather I think it is perhaps of the nature where the nature of the issue is such that one will fear it and thus seek to rationalize out of it. If it was true, which i do not know to what extent it is, but it is clear nonetheless that it could be problematic, and is worth studying.

[Abstract]

Doctors aren't afraid of over prescribing antibioitics because they weaken the immune system. So, no, he isn't doing what doctors do. He is engaging in Jenny McCarthy level medical fearmongering.

How do you know that doctors do not worry about such, I have seen plenty of things that suggest the worry? And again why are you focusing on "antibiotics" alone, i am discussing all medicines and not only the immune system but the nature of how it can all effect us entirely within our evolution.

[Moreno]

Doctors aren't afraid of over prescribing antibioitics because they weaken the immune system. So, no, he isn't doing what doctors do. He is engaging in Jenny McCarthy level medical fearmongering.

Actually at least some doctors are:

http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/antibiotics.htm

Note they specifically mention immune suppression.

5. Immune Suppression. This may sound odd, as the purpose of antibiotics is presumably to help the immune response. However, evidence indicates that people treated with antibiotics have more repeat infections than those who are not treated. This is especially true of children whose ear infections are treated with antibiotics. Vitamin A and C and the use of simple herbs such as echinacea and astragalus, for example, are much safer and often equally effective.
In fact, antibiotics do not aid the immune system. They replace one of its functions. Antibiotics act by inhibiting certain enzymatic processes of bacteria, and by changing mineral balances. Normal cells, however, are also affected. This may be one reason why antibiotics weaken the immune response. Other toxic effects of antibiotics, such as the effect upon the normal bowel flora, may also be a cause.
AIDS research indicates that a risk factor for AIDS is an impaired immune response. This can be due to a history of repeated antibiotic use. Perhaps it is no accident the same group with the highest incidence of AIDS, male homosexuals as of 2009, is also a group that uses more antibiotics than other groups in America.

Further, earlier you mentioned that some people's immune systems work too hard or well, with the example of auto-immune dieseases. But these are not hyperimmune diseases, they are diseases of confusion, otherwise the immune suppressive treatments would be vastly more effective. The immune system is confused and thinks parts of the body are the enemy. One form or lupus, ironically, is caused by overuse of some medications. People suffering from these diseases are not healthier than other people in other ways. IOW their immune systems are not also killing off colds and flues faster and do not protect them from other more serious diseases.

[Xunzian]

Did Glen Beck murder and rape a girl in 1990?

[Moreno]

Did Glen Beck murder and rape a girl in 1990?

As far as I can tell the only person being accused or immoral behavior in this thread is Abstract.
It's good you remind us of how the internet can be used to besmirch someone's rep on no basis.

[Moreno]

Abstract, we should wait until your concerns are the consensus concerns of the AMA. Until then we should remain silent. Minority positions can never be correct and should not be discussed. Especially in philosophy forums. And he's right, no doctors think that antibiotics weaken the immune system. Those doctors are confused.

I must go off and contemplate my hurtfulness.

[Xunzian]

It is an old internet meme. Check it out.

[Abstract]

It is an old internet meme. Check it out.

Just because something is a meme or an idea that spread from person to person does not mean it is a bad idea... Many ideas work out that way, or they are thought of for a while discarded by the "elite" and eventually if accurate become realized.

You are confusing the meme with what I have said anyways. I did not say that it is definite that all drugs or any particular drug absolutely does harm to our evolution. I said that it is possible that they do, and so I would conclude that it is worth being careful and not so smart dolling out stuff when we don't know what the long term consequences because i know for a fact that they have not tested drugs like lipotor for 500 years across multiple generations to see if there was an increase in need for medication...So I would think that given that we do not know so much it is not logical to over prescribe the drug and rather it should only be used in cases where it is evident that taking such a chance is worth it, and likewise people should be aware of the possibility of how it could effect us thus.

[Xunzian]

Right.

And it is possible that Glen Beck did rape and murder a girl in 1990. I'm not saying that Glen Beck did rape and murder a girl in 1990, I just want to start a discussion as to whether or not Glen Beck murdered and raped a girl in 1990. If Glen Beck didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990, then Glen Beck has nothing to worry about. The very fact that there is so little discussion about whether or not Glen Beck did, in fact, rape and murder a girl in 1990 says something, don't you agree? I'm just asking questions, you know?

[Abstract]

Right.

And it is possible that Glen Beck did rape and murder a girl in 1990. I'm not saying that Glen Beck did rape and murder a girl in 1990, I just want to start a discussion as to whether or not Glen Beck murdered and raped a girl in 1990. If Glen Beck didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990, then Glen Beck has nothing to worry about. The very fact that there is so little discussion about whether or not Glen Beck did, in fact, rape and murder a girl in 1990 says something, don't you agree? I'm just asking questions, you know?

But see your are minimally facetiously trying to relate that what i have stated is of a minimal likely hood that is not worth regarding. However that is not evident, in fact considering that it has been discussed by doctors and does follow from evidence concerning the nature of atrophy in relation to lack of use, it is reasonable. however this presented straw-man like argument you are proposing is not something that has any reason for us yet to think it is plausible, i do not see how it follows from past history that it is fairly likely that glen beck did such. and you did not produce a reasoning for that either. While i am sure you can come up with a reason why it is plausible the question is whether it is really something that is significantly likely. If it is then it is definitively off topic and amounts to a straw-man. it is empirically evidential that atrophy follows from lack of use, it is not empirically evidential that someone like glen beck is any more likely to do such then any one else. Yes it is likely but then it is just as likely for any other person to have done such, given what we know.

[Xunzian]

So . . .

I mean, I didn't think you were actually doing it. What with epigenetics, people are able to have all sorts of poorly considered opinions . . .

But . . .

Are you seriously arguing LaMarckianism? Did you seriously just do that?

[Abstract]

So . . .

I mean, I didn't think you were actually doing it. What with epigenetics, people are able to have all sorts of poorly considered opinions . . .

Just to be clear i am not only discussing epigenetics as that applies to things that are not also of alterations to the DNA, i would think both occur in my examples as changes to the environment and body over time alter the DNA and thus thus later it is the DNA that informs the difference...

But . . .

Are you seriously arguing LaMarckianism? Did you seriously just do that?

How can you be opposed to lamarkianism as it is exactly what genetics is, as by wiki it calls that lamarckianism: "is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring " In other words genetics... it is self evident that genetics are altered by the environment (as it is clear that life evolved out of the environment), thus what is done introduces one to altered environments and thus to some degree alter the genetics. So yes... there is no problem with lamarckianism, in that sense. Here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0006405

[Xunzian]

So . . .

You are a LaMarckian. I believe we are done here.

[Abstract]

So . . .

You are a LaMarckian. I believe we are done here.

So do you think what i say is wrong simply because you have found some label that has been misconstrued with negative connotations over time due to the particular people that made invalid deductions based on something accurate? Or is your concern just to establishing a label for some reason, other then to discredit?

Perhaps I should ask what significance is there to my idea having relation to the ideas that LaMarckian had? I might have a particular view likewise but I would hope that you are not doing that thing like when someone calls a person socialist for having similar idea...

In other words rather then just saying you don't believe because "place label here" why is it that you think i am wrong, if you do?

[Xunzian]

I'll give you a hint:

Your definition of genetics is wrong.

[Abstract]

I'll give you a hint:

Your definition of genetics is wrong.

How so?

[Abstract]

Further more I do not know it is fair for me to be considered a LaMarckian... as I do not think what i am presenting here is absolute, I would be glad to be shown to be wrong, I seek what is right, and for now this seems reasonable.

[Xunzian]

"is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring"

That was your definition.

But genotype doesn't change (significantly) within an organisms lifetime, more to the point, the genotype of an individual organism doesn't change in response to environmental pressures.

[Abstract]

"is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring"

That was your definition.

But genotype doesn't change (significantly) within an organisms lifetime, more to the point, the genotype of an individual organism doesn't change in response to environmental pressures.

Actually I did not say that was exactly what it was I asked how you could say it is different, but that is splitting hairs. But then, I think that is a matter of me not using appropriate understandings of the word. My ideas still hold if you replace genetics with inherited traits.
I would think that ignoring genotype specifically as it is really defined it is reasonable to think that "an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring" at the least epigenetically. in which case my propositions hold as plausible, don't they? If not how not?

[Abstract]

But then I would also like to discuss this thought: it seems to me that genetics had to come into existence somehow...it was produced from the environment... genetic issues develop, evolution occurs...something has to cause changes exterior to themselves the environment must cause them, people and the things they do, their behaviors, by way of influencing others as well lead others, being a part of the environment, to effect them why would that not have at least a slight effect, why would not all things have some effect on the genetics, and why should we not consider that change?

[Xunzian]

Epigenetics is pretty new and so invoking it is pretty suspect in this case. I will agree that medicine is removing selective pressures, I talked about that earlier. But I'd argue that the removal of selective pressures is a good thing. Most people dying before they can reproduce represents a fantastic mechanism for selection, we could breed people with super immune systems if we did that. But I'll take a removal of selective pressures and longer life.

Look at glasses. Have glasses been a boon or a bane to humans? They removed selective pressures but in so doing allowed more people to live longer and live more fulfilling lives. I'll take that.

[Abstract]

Epigenetics is pretty new and so invoking it is pretty suspect in this case. I will agree that medicine is removing selective pressures, I talked about that earlier. But I'd argue that the removal of selective pressures is a good thing. Most people dying before they can reproduce represents a fantastic mechanism for selection, we could breed people with super immune systems if we did that. But I'll take a removal of selective pressures and longer life.

Look at glasses. Have glasses been a boon or a bane to humans? They removed selective pressures but in so doing allowed more people to live longer and live more fulfilling lives. I'll take that.

To a degree it is reasonable and in varying cases it is not so bad... But then removal of selective pressures can lead in the long run to necessity of high maintenance... as there will be more issues that require fixing...it would seem; as issues become more bread in. In the long run it may, while increasing our personal individual lives, shorten humanities overall life: because the need for medication increase will eventually surpass our capacity to keep up or rather surpass our resources to do such, at which point our capacity to live without constant source of medication might be beyond our capacity to survive. Not to mention that as such need increase so too does the rate of energy consumption to produce those medications, thus increasing the amount we have to draw from the environment. I think there are more things that need consideration then many are giving to.