On 18 Jul 2003 10:20:23 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:

"James Curts" wrote in message news:vcFRa.83470$N7.11293@sccrnsc03...
The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the typical
consumer. Many people believe that the meat is somehow internally
infected with e.coli. But the bacterium exists in the steer's
digestive system and only contacts the meat through unhygenic
processes during slaughter. So when I buy a roast the only place
possibly contaminated would be the surface, and that can be washed off
or will be killed in the cooking. The problem arises when commercial
butchers pool and grind large quantities of beef into hamburger
several days before it is ever used, distributing the bacterium and
giving it a window to proliferate. A solution is to have one's beef
ground at the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did,
purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.

--Hua Kul



I'm sure you feel much better about yourself

How is it possible that you're "sure" of this? You don't know
anything about me, and you've made no effort to contact me.

now that you have typified the US consumer as ignorant.

Ignorance does not imply indifference, stupidity, or lack of
intelligence.

Your understanding of steer guts is commendable also.

The extremely simple concept of e. coli. not being present internally
in uncut meat is NOT common knowledge among many consumers with whom I
have discussed the issue. I draw my conclusions from my admittedly
small (compared to national population) sample.

I've not actually discussed this with anyone but I would be almost
certain that Australians would have the same ignorance.

The typical US consumer is probably as cognizant of food quality, purity and
nutritional value as any in modern nations today.

Then why do I get so many blank stares when I discuss the FFA content
of animal fats or vegatable oils?

I hope you used another term from FFA

The vast majority of folks simply
DON'T know how dangerous to their health a high omega6mega3 ratio
is.

You mean they eat too much fatty meat, dairy, and manufactured foods?
They are certainly told to avoid these.

They don't know that most farm raised fish are fed on a grain
based diet and therefore they are not getting the health benefit
claimed for fish oil intake.

Surely this depends on species and water temperature.

They don't understand the safety and
need for some saturated fats in their diets.

This need would be?

They don't understand
that dietary cholesterol intake doesn't much influence their serum
cholesterol levels.

I think that fact is being more widely understood. Most folks now
realise how good eggs are for them.

The don't understand the HUGE increase in
vitamins in meat from grass fed livestock versus grain fed.

Evidence? Grain has more micronutrients than grass. Grain is grass
seed -- a concentrated capsule of micronutrients.

They have
no clue how dangerous fructose is to our health,

In wholefoods (fruit) and as a sweetener in moderation, it is fine

especially to those
who have a genetic deficiency that inhibits their production of
Insulin Receptor Substrate-1.

Being what proportion of the population?

I could go on and on.

Well please do so, and we can ask questions and pose alternative
views.

With the properly written and implemented laws we have today regulating food
products there is little need for the person purchasing the family meal to
be knowledgeable about any particular health shortcomings of their choices.

This is one of the most elitest things you have yet said.

I read it as being pragmatic. You (and a few here) are interested in
nutrition science. The vast majority of folk are interested in many
other things. They need to learn the principles of maintaining optimal
health and then they can forget it and get on with their lives. That
is why the old advice to strive for a varied, wholefood, eucaloric
diet with regular moderate exercise is so valid.

First you
say that the typical consumer is not ignorant, then you say there is
no need for him to be educated.

I think it's just a matter of degree. Some are obsessed with their
diets, some just want to get on with other more worthwhile pursuits.

If you are putting your trust in "Big
Brother" your walking on a dangerous path.

It depends on how you come to get your "big brother" Apparently
America is not ideal in this regard. Many other places are much
better.

One of the most dangerous
foods on the market, man made trans fats, are not even required by the
government to be listed on food product labels.

So why are they doing it here? A little is no problem. Eating a
variety of wholefoods will cause you NO problems with trans fats.

My livelihood is food products which must satisfy the most exacting needs
and wants of consumers. This includes the demand for the best health
safeguards we have available today.

In my particular instance it concerns fresh produce and the vast majority of
the retail consumers are a very discerning and critical lot. The continual
barrage of information and disinformation displayed for public benefit has
the buying populace taking even more notice of what is in/on and part of a
given product. This is in large part due to the ambiguous claims of the
organic growers regarding pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

I don't believe that organic always means better, but I know that
environmental poisons can damage health, such as the increase in
breast cancer among women who work around pesticides.

Which ones? Many substances "disrupt" oestrogen. Some pesticides being
among them.

I don't believe
basic fertilizers are dangerous, but I also know that geographic
location has much more to do with nutritional quality of foods than
any fertilizers we might use. We apply three elements,

Who does? Farmers I know apply whatever is deficient, and much is
deficient where I live.

but many other
nutrients, such as selenium, are more deficient in some soils than
others.

And any passable farmer will remedy this, or be advised to by his Ag
dept.

If there were a fertilizer that would increase all the
beneficiel but lacking nutrients I would be in favor of applying that
to anything that grows.

You don't have to go that far. Analyse your plants and soils and
remedy any deficiency. Most micronutrients only need a top up about
once a decade (depending on soil and climate)

But only if the grower wants to use it.

Well, as the yield will decline with most deficiencies, he will
eventually go broke, but if he is selling less than healthy produce
the authorities should either bar his produce, or at least inform the
market of his deficiency.

If
people want to purchase "organic" produce it shouldn't be kept off the
market.

Of course not. Much organic produce is fine, if overpriced. Organic
farmers inevitably cheat (usually unwittingly) or go out of business
coz of an inexorable dive in output.

One of the outbreaks of e. coli. that got national attention
was in bottled apple juice. This could be eliminated if people would
press their own juices.

Well we could go back to subsistence agriculture, and give up much of
our cultural acticvities. I for one would not like that.

BTW, are you advocating apple juice with its 50% more fructose than
soda pop?

The organic faction has quite a following until tests show what is really in
the produce. One of our larger retail food chains in the area has ceased
selling organic labeled produce because of non-conformance to advertised
standards. The GM issue has even more folks taking notice and becoming more
aware of what they put into the shopping cart.

Starlink GM corn is now in about 70% of all corn products in the US,
but I'll bet you a couple of doughnuts that most people don't know
this.

What is the value in knowing? Most Americans were fine with GM foods
until the rabid greens from Europe introduced the scare term
Frankenfoods"
Afterall, you don't know when a random mutation has occurred in the
corn field -- bloody cosmic rays

The US consumer ignorant??

They certainly are not so ignorant as to buy/use products whose producers
deliberately circumvent the laws and regulations on which we rely to insure
the food we consume is wholesome.

Here's one small example of how the food industries in general
couldn't care less about consumer health if it affects their bottom
lines. It has been know for a long time that man made trans fats are
quite dangerous for our health, yet bakery producers keep using it
because it provides a good product texture that doesn't get soggy, and
it's cheap.

But as most forlks spread grease (butter, marg) on the bread, the
little bit of fat already in it matters little. You are claiming a
problem is much greater than it really is to make a point.
Manufacturers are there to make a profit for their shareholders, pure
and simple. The regulator that you elect is there to control the
manufacturers from doing harm

If they wanted to do the best for us they would switch to
coconut or palm oils, which also stay hard at room temperature.

For such a small constituent in wholegrain bread, it hardly matters,
IMHO Of course, cakes and pastries should be avoided, unless made from
wholefoods.

It
was only lies from the grain oil industry that convinced US consumers
that the tropical oils are bad for us.

All refined oils/fats should be avoided. The tiny amount in wholegrain
breads is not worth worrying about.

In reality they're much more
healthy than vegetable oil-based trans fats.

In quantity, but again, this should be avoided

On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:

"Moosh:]" wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:02:14 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


Lived on a farm, Jim? Would you drink unpasteurised from just
anywhere? Pooled milk? Thought not

have done in the UK when we could get it. Given the testing it has to go
through I haven't any worries.

That's fine, but the Amish, or their supporters seem to want to
dispense with all of that new fangled testing and stuff.

You just pulled that outta yer arse, dear.

No it's a logical assumption naturally deriving from their (and other
religious fundamentalists') irrational rejection of anything modern.

The Amish have no problem
with testing. They simply don't adopt certain technologies for
themselves, such as pasteurizing THEIR OWN milk, owning THEIR OWN
telephones, and DRIVING motorized vehicles.

As I said irrational to the end.

They will RIDE in
motorized vehicles if someone else is driving.

Yep. Irratiopnal

This is their
lifestyle and they're free to pursue it, just as I should be free to
purchase and drink their milk.

And if you sign a waiver that you won't expect the state to support
you and yours should you come to grief, then perhaps you can do any
Goddamn silly thing you want.

They understand technology but have
made certain decisions not to adopt some of it.

Irrational still.

For instance, they
use midwives for childbirth, but their midwives use drugs as necessary
during deliveries.

Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs and their blood
transfusion ban, ferinstance.

(One was recently jailed for contempt for not
disclosing her source of pitocin and methergine, two completely safe
drugs which she used to save the life of a hemorrhaging mother until
the mom could reach a hospital.) Their lifestyls has often cost them
dearly, as when they are killed or severely injured when one of their
buggies is hit by a car or truck.

Illogical to the end, as I said.

It is probable that urban people with their lower level of immunity to
many
things

Where do you get this from?

just read widely, you find that rural populations and farm populations tend
to have higher immunity to certain things

I've not heard this.

Dictionary of Moosh: "I've not heard this" = "This must be false."

You read more into my words than are there. I wonder why this is

Certainly in the midst of one of our food scares they were even talking
about banning unpasturised cheese, at which point it was pointed out that
they couldn't because the French make and sell vast quantities of
unpasturised cheese to us. We would have to prove it a health risk to ban
the import and no one can come up with enough evidence

Because the Amish can't sell their milk for drinking they make cheeses
out of it. Excellent stuff.

Why won't they pasteurise it? Do they reject other Pasteur
discoveries?

On the subject of immunity, here is a link indicating there are
delicate immune-boosting proteins in raw milk that may be destroyed
during the pasteurization process. It's a commercial site and I can't
vouch for it but the research they quote could indicate a reason why
those who drink raw milk seem to have greater immunity to common
pathogens.

You mean infants? Adullts don't need infant food. Though it is a good
source of nutrition.
You are not pretending that the Amish avoid pasteurisation because of
the immune fractions in raw infants food?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:02:23 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Moosh:] writes

Oz
There is even a mechanism proposed. There are two main mutually
inhibiting immune response pathways (whose names I always forget). One
basically designed to hit bacteria, the other viruses and toxins. In the
event of unnaturally low exposure to bacteria (ie modern sanitary
living) the virus-toxin one dominates. It becomes exquisitely sensitive
and liable to over-reaction. Hence (it is proposed) both allergies and
auto-immune diseases (both being very significantly higher in the first
world).

But isn't the reaction to ANY foreign protein the thing that is
exacerbated when the immune system is not given enough to do?

No, not if you are continually exposed to significant bacterial
challenge as fighting them off inhibits the viral pathway.

I didn't realise they were significantly different. Thanks. How do you
explain the marked increase in autoimmune diseases lately?
As well as food allergies and asthma like allergies?

Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.

Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.

I wonder why.

After all with two mutually inhibitory systems, like a swing one will
dominate (thus further inhibiting the other).

I didn't realise they were so. Thanks again

Probably in nature bacteria are a more common threat than viruses.

It probably depends a lot on the environment/lifestyle.

Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of antibiotics in
young farm animals (babies in effect) attacked by a serious virus. It is
usual for them to recover from the virus, only to succumb to a bacterial
disease (often scours). The switching over to viral attack, leaves their
immature immune system open to attack by bacteria. This is so common as
to be expected.

So what was the antibiotic given for?

Indeed. Prophylactically.

Not a good practice routinely, I would have thought. But at least one
with relevant sensitivities would be better, if the bacterial
infection is routinely expected.

On 17 Jul 2003 08:51:50 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

The biggest problem with 157 is in the beef industry. Here it means that
slaughter cattle have to be clean before slaughter and by clean I mean no
muck buttons and no visible traces of muck. This means that these cattle
have to be trimmed out while still alive and there have been quite a few
people injured trying to do this.

The biggest problem in the US is the ignorance of the typical
consumer. Many people believe that the meat is somehow internally
infected with e.coli. But the bacterium exists in the steer's
digestive system and only contacts the meat through unhygenic
processes during slaughter. So when I buy a roast the only place
possibly contaminated would be the surface, and that can be washed off
or will be killed in the cooking. The problem arises when commercial
butchers pool and grind large quantities of beef into hamburger
several days before it is ever used, distributing the bacterium and
giving it a window to proliferate. A solution is to have one's beef
ground at the point of sale and use it soon after. Or do as I did,
purchase a meat grinder and do it at home.

Or even cook it thoroughly. I boil it, and lift off the congealed fat
on cooling, then use the fat free meat in a stew or broth or even
shepherds' pie or spag bol.

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:
Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs and their blood
transfusion ban, ferinstance.


given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis and possibly nvCJD
from blood transfusions, this isn't all that silly.
The practice of giving some of your own blood a couple of weeks prior to the
operation sounds very sensible

Jim Webster

Moosh:] writes

I didn't realise they were significantly different. Thanks. How do you
explain the marked increase in autoimmune diseases lately?
As well as food allergies and asthma like allergies?

That was explained (although more info is required for proof) by the un-
naturally hygienic living conditions of the first world (and a lesser
extent the second).

Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.

Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.

I wonder why.

probably because the systems evolved in a situation where bacteria
dominate.

Probably in nature bacteria are a more common threat than viruses.

It probably depends a lot on the environment/lifestyle.

I'm not sure 'lifestyle' is appropriate a word for neanderthals.

Certainly in evolutionary terms it's very very recent that man lived in
large (say 2000+) closely packed groups with good communication between
groups. I would thus imagine that new viral attacks were very rare (and
probably pretty devastating). Typically the local endemic viruses would
have all been encountered in childhood. Bacterial challenge, though,
would continue throughout life.

Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of antibiotics in
young farm animals (babies in effect) attacked by a serious virus. It is
usual for them to recover from the virus, only to succumb to a bacterial
disease (often scours). The switching over to viral attack, leaves their
immature immune system open to attack by bacteria. This is so common as
to be expected.

So what was the antibiotic given for?

Indeed. Prophylactically.

Not a good practice routinely, I would have thought.

Indeed.

But at least one
with relevant sensitivities would be better, if the bacterial
infection is routinely expected.

This is typically the case in young animals with clinical viral disease.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:16:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:
Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs and their blood
transfusion ban, ferinstance.


given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis and possibly nvCJD
from blood transfusions, this isn't all that silly.

Yep, in some countries, today. But 30 years ago, these weren't a
problem but the JWs still objected. They quote some ambiguous
anti-canibalism passage from the Bible.

The practice of giving some of your own blood a couple of weeks prior to the
operation sounds very sensible

But I guess some would regard this as "auto-canibalism"

This autologous transfusion is OK for elective surgery. I doubt it is
cost effective to store folks blood for emergencies.
There are many more alternatives to wholeblood transfusions these
days. My view is to stay clear of the lot of the *******s

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:16:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:
Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs and their blood
transfusion ban, ferinstance.


given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis and possibly
nvCJD
from blood transfusions, this isn't all that silly.

Yep, in some countries, today. But 30 years ago, these weren't a
problem but the JWs still objected. They quote some ambiguous
anti-canibalism passage from the Bible.

being right for the wrong reasons is still being right :-)

Jim Webster

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:35:11 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Moosh:] writes

I didn't realise they were significantly different. Thanks. How do you
explain the marked increase in autoimmune diseases lately?
As well as food allergies and asthma like allergies?

That was explained (although more info is required for proof) by the un-
naturally hygienic living conditions of the first world (and a lesser
extent the second).

Yep, I understand this, but I was wondering how your contention about
the different bacteria/virus pathways fitted into this.
I'd just assumed that lack of any immune challenges led to an immune
system with "idle hands".

Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.

Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.

I wonder why.

probably because the systems evolved in a situation where bacteria
dominate.

So why would the viral one dominate? Sorry for being dense, I was
force-fed pasteurised milk as a child

Probably in nature bacteria are a more common threat than viruses.

It probably depends a lot on the environment/lifestyle.

I'm not sure 'lifestyle' is appropriate a word for neanderthals.

I've heard it said that neanderthals would make fine accountants
And the reason they died out was they were Goddam fugly

Certainly in evolutionary terms it's very very recent that man lived in
large (say 2000+) closely packed groups with good communication between
groups.

Within the groups, surely. Ten to 30 k anni?

I would thus imagine that new viral attacks were very rare (and
probably pretty devastating).

Well they still are in modern times. Flu and small pox to name just
two.

Typically the local endemic viruses would
have all been encountered in childhood. Bacterial challenge, though,
would continue throughout life.

Well I still get regular (but seldom) colds and flu, how about you?

Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of antibiotics in
young farm animals (babies in effect) attacked by a serious virus. It is
usual for them to recover from the virus, only to succumb to a bacterial
disease (often scours). The switching over to viral attack, leaves their
immature immune system open to attack by bacteria. This is so common as
to be expected.

So what was the antibiotic given for?

Indeed. Prophylactically.

Not a good practice routinely, I would have thought.

Indeed.

But at least one
with relevant sensitivities would be better, if the bacterial
infection is routinely expected.

This is typically the case in young animals with clinical viral disease.

Prophylactic antibiotics for likely bacterial secondary infections.
This is what some doctors do for susceptible patients with viral
URTIs. They used to do it routinely when I was younger. They have seen
the light. I have actually told an older quack that I didn't want his
script for antibiotics if all I had was a virus. All I wanted from him
was confirmation that I didn't have anything eminently treatable.
Oh, and a certificate for work

Moosh:] writes
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:35:11 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Moosh:] writes

I didn't realise they were significantly different. Thanks. How do you
explain the marked increase in autoimmune diseases lately?
As well as food allergies and asthma like allergies?

That was explained (although more info is required for proof) by the un-
naturally hygienic living conditions of the first world (and a lesser
extent the second).

Yep, I understand this, but I was wondering how your contention about
the different bacteria/virus pathways fitted into this.
I'd just assumed that lack of any immune challenges led to an immune
system with "idle hands".

That's certainly one way to put it.

Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.

Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.

I wonder why.

probably because the systems evolved in a situation where bacteria
dominate.

So why would the viral one dominate? Sorry for being dense, I was
force-fed pasteurised milk as a child

Because for a billion years of evolution bacterial challenge was forever
dominant. So when you have a see-saw, best to bias it away from the
direction it is pushed, I would guess.

Certainly in evolutionary terms it's very very recent that man lived in
large (say 2000+) closely packed groups with good communication between
groups.

Within the groups, surely. Ten to 30 k anni?

Eh?

I would thus imagine that new viral attacks were very rare (and
probably pretty devastating).

Well they still are in modern times. Flu and small pox to name just
two.

They are probably predominant in modern times. Bacterial attack being
squashed with antibiotics. Remember a lot of flu (eg 'common cold' and
gastroenteritis is viral today.

Typically the local endemic viruses would
have all been encountered in childhood. Bacterial challenge, though,
would continue throughout life.

Well I still get regular (but seldom) colds and flu, how about you?

Yes, but I probably get mild bacterial infections of the gut every
couple of weeks, and for sure when walking and working in cow slurry I
must be getting a substantial bacterial challenge. Remember that a
challenge that is 'dealt with' is still a challenge and the immune
response is triggered even if no serious (or even observable) illness
results.

But at least one
with relevant sensitivities would be better, if the bacterial
infection is routinely expected.

This is typically the case in young animals with clinical viral disease.

Prophylactic antibiotics for likely bacterial secondary infections.
This is what some doctors do for susceptible patients with viral
URTIs. They used to do it routinely when I was younger. They have seen
the light. I have actually told an older quack that I didn't want his
script for antibiotics if all I had was a virus. All I wanted from him
was confirmation that I didn't have anything eminently treatable.
Oh, and a certificate for work

I didn't have you down as a young animal.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:38:37 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:16:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:
Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs and their blood
transfusion ban, ferinstance.


given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis and possibly
nvCJD
from blood transfusions, this isn't all that silly.

Yep, in some countries, today. But 30 years ago, these weren't a
problem but the JWs still objected. They quote some ambiguous
anti-canibalism passage from the Bible.

being right for the wrong reasons is still being right :-)

Damages the mind, as the skeptics will tell you

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:47:54 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Moosh:] writes

Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.

Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.

I wonder why.

probably because the systems evolved in a situation where bacteria
dominate.

So why would the viral one dominate? Sorry for being dense, I was
force-fed pasteurised milk as a child

Because for a billion years of evolution bacterial challenge was forever
dominant. So when you have a see-saw, best to bias it away from the
direction it is pushed, I would guess.

Sorry, how do you know bacterial challenge was dominant over these
years? There is lots of vestigial organelle evidence for viral
invasions over the aeons.

Certainly in evolutionary terms it's very very recent that man lived in
large (say 2000+) closely packed groups with good communication between
groups.

Within the groups, surely. Ten to 30 k anni?

Eh?

Which bit? I'm sure the groups competed with little communication
between them.
Ten to 30 thousand years?

I would thus imagine that new viral attacks were very rare (and
probably pretty devastating).

Well they still are in modern times. Flu and small pox to name just
two.

They are probably predominant in modern times. Bacterial attack being
squashed with antibiotics. Remember a lot of flu (eg 'common cold' and
gastroenteritis is viral today.

And I'd assumed it was ever thus. I would guess that antibiotics have
had close to zero effect on bacteria. Do you know of any that have
gone extinct?

Typically the local endemic viruses would
have all been encountered in childhood. Bacterial challenge, though,
would continue throughout life.

Well I still get regular (but seldom) colds and flu, how about you?

Yes, but I probably get mild bacterial infections of the gut every
couple of weeks, and for sure when walking and working in cow slurry I
must be getting a substantial bacterial challenge. Remember that a
challenge that is 'dealt with' is still a challenge and the immune
response is triggered even if no serious (or even observable) illness
results.

Of course. Same with viri

But at least one
with relevant sensitivities would be better, if the bacterial
infection is routinely expected.

This is typically the case in young animals with clinical viral disease.

Prophylactic antibiotics for likely bacterial secondary infections.
This is what some doctors do for susceptible patients with viral
URTIs. They used to do it routinely when I was younger. They have seen
the light. I have actually told an older quack that I didn't want his
script for antibiotics if all I had was a virus. All I wanted from him
was confirmation that I didn't have anything eminently treatable.
Oh, and a certificate for work

I didn't have you down as a young animal.

I certainly was, a long trime ago. Now I'm an old animal.

Moosh:] writes
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:47:54 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Moosh:] writes

Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.

Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.

I wonder why.

probably because the systems evolved in a situation where bacteria
dominate.

So why would the viral one dominate? Sorry for being dense, I was
force-fed pasteurised milk as a child

Because for a billion years of evolution bacterial challenge was forever
dominant. So when you have a see-saw, best to bias it away from the
direction it is pushed, I would guess.

Because it's dominant in animals and third world countries.
Bacteria are a continual challenge.
Viruses are only successful when they find an immunologically naive
organism, which is quite hard without movement between distant
populations.

Sorry, how do you know bacterial challenge was dominant over these
years? There is lots of vestigial organelle evidence for viral
invasions over the aeons.

I never said viruses didn't exist. They did and do. I said for most wild
populations bacteria offer a continual challenge, not viruses which tend
to be rare and sporadic.

Certainly in evolutionary terms it's very very recent that man lived in
large (say 2000+) closely packed groups with good communication between
groups.

Within the groups, surely. Ten to 30 k anni?

Eh?

Which bit? I'm sure the groups competed with little communication
between them.
Ten to 30 thousand years?

Start of agriculture, really, so yes.
Pretty well irrelevant time for a major change in a deep seated and
complex genetic makeup.

I would thus imagine that new viral attacks were very rare (and
probably pretty devastating).

Well they still are in modern times. Flu and small pox to name just
two.

They are probably predominant in modern times. Bacterial attack being
squashed with antibiotics. Remember a lot of flu (eg 'common cold' and
gastroenteritis is viral today.

And I'd assumed it was ever thus. I would guess that antibiotics have
had close to zero effect on bacteria. Do you know of any that have
gone extinct?

The main human pathogens (ie they make people very ill) are very rare.
Remember that before antibiotics hospitals were predominantly filled
with bacterially infected people. The 'fever wards'.

Typically the local endemic viruses would
have all been encountered in childhood. Bacterial challenge, though,
would continue throughout life.

Well I still get regular (but seldom) colds and flu, how about you?

Yes, but I probably get mild bacterial infections of the gut every
couple of weeks, and for sure when walking and working in cow slurry I
must be getting a substantial bacterial challenge. Remember that a
challenge that is 'dealt with' is still a challenge and the immune
response is triggered even if no serious (or even observable) illness
results.

Of course. Same with viri

Indeed, however most viruses are highly species-specific, most bacteria
are not. ECO157 can happily move from cow to person whilst BVD cannot.
So typically bacteria get a bit of a permanent toehold moving between
species whilst viruses typically exist at very low level in an
immunologically resistant population and only get to attack each
individual once.


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:38:37 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:16:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Jul 2003 08:23:56 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:
Some religious fundamentalists are even sillier. JWs and their
blood
transfusion ban, ferinstance.


given the number of people who have got aids, hepititis and possibly
nvCJD
from blood transfusions, this isn't all that silly.

Yep, in some countries, today. But 30 years ago, these weren't a
problem but the JWs still objected. They quote some ambiguous
anti-canibalism passage from the Bible.

being right for the wrong reasons is still being right :-)

Damages the mind, as the skeptics will tell you

being right damages the humility

being right for the wrong reasons ensures that this will be less of a
problem :-)

Jim Webster

"James Curts" wrote in message news:yDXRa.78891$OZ2.13823@rwcrnsc54...

While watching a person or family make
selections there are some obvious criteria used in the selection of items
for the cart...Ignorance of
the consumer is not one of the criteria used for selection of a food
product.

Twenty short miles to the West of this area are the agricultural
communities which consist of a totally different culture. The Mexican
populace...purchase a quite different variety of food products
display the identical shopping criteria and again, ignorance is not one of
them.

The Mexican folks, in general, have probably read nothing of the topics we
are discussing. However, they do display the same common sense, if not
significantly influenced by financial shortcomings, shown by their educated
and relatively wealthy counterparts from other parts of he world.


In your observations have you been able to draw any conclusions
regarding obviously different average health conditions of people in
these disparate cultures, who's food choices you have characterized as
"quite different" but seem to be implying are essentially equivalent?

--Hua Kul