I approve of X-wing’s last statement >.>. It fits in the topic of the thread to say Steve failed to evolve since he was 16 and couldn’t get girls.
and i said “damn”
i guess i better do this to avoid getting owned any further HEH
if you must know, I spend my spare time coding random shit i come up with, practicing guitar, and POSTING SCATHING FORUM REPLIES ON THE INTERNET
I left my band when i got my own apartment, i’m terrible at songwriting (never tried it). i never write lyrics just for that reason, it’s hard to make a song not shitty
i just started a new job working weekdays at time warner cable, i get $11 an hour to install cable for rich people, colleges, and apartments (EDIT OH YEAH THEY’LL PAY FOR MY COLLEGE TOO LIKE THE MILITARY BUT NOT GETTING SHOT LOL RIGHT)
my hot girlfriend who used to post here is in college, and we’re still together (3 years this june 10th thank you!)
you’re missing nothing, but i am taking up your time by making you type stuff at me.
i’m doing this because i’m bored between everything else i do, what’s your excuse?
It’s still there, and the last page comprises the whole of the argument you might have missed so you don’t really have to go through reams of pages if you still want to see how it started.
At first, I was all set to agree with you; since I heard that there was a very little chance of autisim being connected with vaccines, but I disagree with your example. I mean, vaccines aren’t just going to be a cure-all forever are they? Doesn’t the overuse of vaccines and anti-biotics just cause diseases to change over time and become more deadly as a result? In that case, aren’t we just begging for mumps or other diseases to come back in a way?
…Just imagine how much more money we could make if there were suddenly a lot more cases of mumps that needed to be treated…
“Oh yeah you shouldn’t give your kid that vaccine. Trust me. I’m a doctor.”
I’m glad, since I’d begun to feel bad.
i’m doing this because i’m bored between everything else i do, what’s your excuse?
Arguing’s in my nature. That’s why I came to law school, and it’s one big reason I’ve stuck around this forum for nearly 10 years.
That’s not what I meant. Isn’t overuse of a vaccine or antibiotics capable causing problems in the future? I’m not saying we should become Christian Scientists and just limit our response to prayer or herbs - shouldn’t we just be a bit more conservative on how we use our resources?
Regarding antibiotics, it is a problem, but it can sometimes be avoided. E.g., if you apply three antibiotics at once, there will be selective pressure in three different “directions.” Adapting so as to better resist one antibiotic often leaves the microorganism a) more susceptible to the others, b) more susceptible to bodily defenses, or c) generally less effective at reproducing. The microorganism basically has to “put on a new piece of armor” (by mutation and favorable selection) for each type of antibiotic assault. That excess baggage is often an impediment to other functions.
In short, it doesn’t evolve into a super-microorganism with special resistances because it’d be impossible to do so while retaining effective reproductive function.
We already put so much other shit in our food, at this point vaccines aren’t gonna make much of a difference. Not to mention the pollution and stuff.
I think Steve needs an e-hug 
The point is that, immediately prior to the generation in question, children with allergies and low potency were not dying en masse or having mass reproductive failure. The 1950’s and 1960’s were not the first period in which people with allergies and low potency would easily survive and reproduce. Therefore, a sudden, major change should not have occurred after the 50’s-60’s.
If they were, they would not certainly be well-documented, would they?
I guess I still don’t really believe that autism and allergies have increased by an amount that cannot be sufficiently explained by selection. Is there any evidence that a sudden jump has occurred in the last generation?
Also yes my POV where it regards selection is entirely relativistic.
Regarding antibiotics, it is a problem, but it can sometimes be avoided. E.g., if you apply three antibiotics at once, there will be selective pressure in three different “directions.” Adapting so as to better resist one antibiotic often leaves the microorganism a) more susceptible to the others, b) more susceptible to bodily defenses, or c) generally less effective at reproducing. The microorganism basically has to “put on a new piece of armor” (by mutation and favorable selection) for each type of antibiotic assault. That excess baggage is often an impediment to other functions.
In short, it doesn’t evolve into a super-microorganism with special resistances because it’d be impossible to do so while retaining effective reproductive function.
Sorry to nitpick again but this is definitely not how the reasoning behind multi-antibiotic application works… the reason several antibiotics are applied simultaneously is because the organism has a very statistically low chance of surviving the purging process and no survivors will be left from the purge to produce anything, not because we’re hoping to burden it with extra resistance so that it cannot reproduce effectively.
Selection that causes a strain of bacterium to become resistant to a form of antibiotic generally does not burden it so that it significantly interferes with its reproduction, resistance to host defenses, or susceptibility to other antibiotics. In the case of plasmids, a bacteria may maintain several dozen plasmids, each of which may contain one to several genes encoding resistance to a specific antibiotic. An example would be MRSA, which is resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics across many generations.
A single type of antibiotic may leave behind a very small population of resistant species, which may in turn confer later generations with even more resistance through mutation. There is virtually no chance that any bacteria will survive the purging process if three antibiotics are applied simultaneously because the chance of a bacterium possessing <i>three</i> different natural resistances is very unlikely.
So in short, we’re not being so nice. We’re not trying to mess with a virulent microorganism by making it put on enough armour until its microbial wife leaves it. We’re just trying to kill it by shooting it, flamethrowing it, and then locking it in a safe and drowning it <i>all at the same time</i>.
See Curtis’ post above with an article on autism. [Edit: Although, the article does propose the selective explanation that nerds finally began to hook up.] As for the allergy increase, Google “increase in allergies” to get an idea of where I’m coming from. Sinistral testified to there being such an increase in the previous thread.
Sorry to nitpick again but this is definitely not how the reasoning behind multi-antibiotic application works… the reason several antibiotics are applied simultaneously is because the organism has a very statistically low chance of surviving the purging process and no survivors will be left from the purge to produce anything, not because we’re hoping to burden it with extra resistance so that it cannot reproduce effectively.
I would give you a citation if I could, but it’s from a library book I didn’t take home, four years ago, 500 miles away. Obviously, the chances of eradicating the microorganism are better when more antibiotics are applied, so that it’s less likely to spread as a resistant strain. If you do more research on the effects of applying multiple antibiotics to treat a single microorganism, however, I’m confident you’ll find that the reasons I’ve provided are also part of the justification behind such treatments.
I remember specifically reading that one microorganism modified the “shape” of a chemical receptor in order to prevent a certain antibiotic from being effective, but thereby was hindered from obtaining ordinary nutrition. I remember reading that another microorganism began to produce a chemical (a protein?) that made it resistant to a certain antibiotic, which also a) drained its nutritional resources, and b) extended its developmental period. I specifically read that applying three antibiotics is effective because many adaptations that the microorganism would otherwise readily make, leave the organism, as I said,
a) more susceptible to the other [antibiotics], b) more susceptible to bodily defenses, or c) generally less effective at reproducing
I know my terminology’s less than impeccable, but I guarantee I’m describing the mechanisms accurately.
Sure, that might happen in a few cases, but it is definitely not the main reasoning behind multiple antibiotic application. Any mutations accumulating in the event of an adaptive response to the antibiotic applied is a sublethal one, so the extra burden is not likely to be too effective even if it is there, especially since in every case except that of a <i>very</i> targeted antibiotic, most of the competition microbes have been eliminated in the process.
Most antibiotics target a feature distinguishing prokaryotes from our own eukaryotic cells - most of the time, this is is related to ribosomal active site blockage, cell-surface receptor inhibition, peptidoglycan synthesis disruption, or inhibition of DNA/RNA synthesis complexes. We do <i>not</i> want a strain that accumulates resistance to one or more of these factors in the hopes that it will eventually become overstrained - otherwise, general application would not become less effective over time as more antibiotics are discovered.
Also mutations conferring resistance to one type of antibiotic does not make the organism more susceptible to other antibiotics. I don’t know where you got this from, but mutations conferring to one type of beta-lactam resistance often corresponds to resistance to a second type as well. At best, it does not make it any <i>less</i> susceptible to other antibiotics. For all practical purposes, resistance and resistance and there’s no pool of total resistance that the bacteria can take from without killing itself.
Anyway, a selection process that forces a severe decrease in population will get you a few survivors with negative side effects on some of the survivors, but that’s irrelevant to the main point. It’s like saying that shooting someone in the head will cause them annoyance because the gun made a loud noise.
And yeah, the article states that autism is on the rise in Silicon Valley, which is hardly a surprise, given how many tech people are there. <a href = “http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/algy/abstract.00000381-200402000-00004.htm;jsessionid=HJRNR0MHrR1GKvWTSJk3YVprq1NGybnXnnY2Rft1LTlpfgylPgGv!-830841920!181195629!8091!-1”>Here’s</a> an abstract of an article that outlines how the high prevalence of severe asthma in industrialized countries compared with the low prevalence of asthma in non-industrialized countries due to the high death risk associated with it is most likely caused by selection.
Actually to answer all those questions comparing antibiotics to vaccines: no. For example, smallpox was eradicated and polio is almost eradicated except in a couple countries that think vaccines are a Western plot to sterilize their kids. Imams for the loss. The point to vaccines is to create herd immunity. Once you have a certain threshold of people vaccinated, there aren’t enough susceptible people around for the disease to transmit it itself effciently. We’re starting to see breaks in herd immunity, which is what that mumps outbreak was all about. I actually know a guy who got the mumps. I made fun of him for weeks. I also know who gave it to him. They were both investigated by Health Canada.
On the topic of antibiotic resistance: it develops for a variety of reasons. Antibiotics can target bacterial ribosomes specifically or they can target the formation of bacterial membranes , making them pop like rice krispies when they divide. I want to make sure something is understood: bacteria DO NOT CHANGE THEMSELVES. Change occurs on its own. SELECTION eliminates anything in a population that does not have the change. As long as the CHANGE is not selected for, it will NOT become prevalent because it is unimportant for the survival and reproduction of the species. You must not assume that all the bacteria are the same. They are not. They have subgroups that are slightly different and they arise randomly.
Multiple antibiotic use is a GOOD idea. The reason we have so many resistant strains is because of IDIOT doctors who can’t prescribe and educate and IDIOT patients who don’t take their full dose. This leads to selection. When you have multiple selection events occuring at once, the statistical chance of getting a single bacterium that harbors ALL the traits decreases exponentially. Example: HIV and tri-therapy. It works. It doesn’t cure , but it works. Long story.
Somewhat connected to the virus issue, it’s evident that our beloved Zeppelin has been quite hard at work.
Yeah a few studies have been popping around the past few years, I named a couple in the last thread. On a fun note, STD infection rates are equivalent in individuals that associate themselves with religion as it is with those who don’t, which goes to show the failure of religiously based abstinence programs.