Jump to content

Conflicts of interest in investigating the origins/causes of diseases.


ScienceNostalgia101

Recommended Posts

For years I'd been unsatisfied with the mainstream medical explanations of type 1 diabetes. Viruses cause it? Okay, which viruses, and why do they give people in some places type 1 diabetes at higher rates than others? I'd come across some theories that the ingestion of cow's milk and messing up the human immune system, and concern that both the dairy industry AND pharmaceutical industry have a mutual (between them, not for the rest of us) interest in keeping it covered up; the former to keep their cows, the latter to keep their cash cows. It's not accepted by the mainstream media, but I've been going for almond/soy/coconut based alternatives to dairy ever since.

 

So it was a little cathartic to see the hashtag #Wuhan trending lately, and people not letting up on holding the CCP; whose previous lies about this disease have been exposed; to the utmost of skepticism. A recurring theme with this hashtag is the notion that COVID-19 escaped from a Chinese lab and that the WHO; an institution partly funded by China; has a vested interest in not going too severely against its government propaganda to say so. We saw signs of this in the dodging of questions about Taiwan. We shouldn't put anything past them. Even Bill Maher has mentioned the idea on his show RealTime, despite being left-of-center, and this notion being associated with the right.

 

How do we investigate the origins/causes of diseases in ways less likely to be held back by conflicts of interest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Appeal to conspiracy is not an acceptable argument in a science discussion

2. "We don't know" is a valid answer (as in, we don't know what causes type 1 diabetes, but we have evidence that suggest certain factors being involved)

3. Bill Mahar may be left-of-center but he is also a loon when it comes to medical issues, and that particular affliction does not have any partisan leaning. (Not to say that specific manifestations have no such correlation, however)

DO you have any evidence to share?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also with type I diabetes, it is not like a disease specifically caused by a virus per se (e.g. a virus that infects and destroys pancreatic cells). Rather, type I diabetes is an autoimmune disorder in which your own bodies starts destroying these cells. The issue is that causes of autoimmune dysfunctions are complex (and the immune system is a highly complicated system) where it is difficult to find simple cause and effect relationships.

In addition to genetic factors, epidemiological studies have found a variety of environmental triggers that can cause autoimmune dysfunction, which e.g. includes pollutants (though not generally associated with type I diabetes) or diet.

Viruses are just another potential trigger and there are a number of hypotheses how they could trigger autoimmune dysfunction. In some cases, simply early-life exposure (e.g. rubella) seems to somehow overstimulate the immune system with increased risk of type I diabetes later in life. Another hypothesis is that certain body antigens might get confused with viral ones. One example is the Coxsackie B4 virus which has one protein which resembles in part a human enzyme. Once an infection occurs, the immune system may then get primed against the human antigen and then starts turning on itself.

In short, while the causes are not fully understood, there is a wealth of information and studies out there that look at various elements with varying levels of support. As most of the research in this area is independently funded, I have a hard time figuring out how those industries are covering things up. 

In fact, the hypothesis that infant consumption of cow milk might be a risk factor has been around for quite a while and believed to be related to insulin in milk and other proteins which might confuse the immune system. So if there was a cover-up it certainly is not on the research side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

It's not accepted by the mainstream media, but I've been going for almond/soy/coconut based alternatives to dairy ever since.

Does the "mainstream media" have a spokesperson, who made some kind of declaration? What exactly does it mean that it is "not accepted"? And while we are at it, who exactly is in this "mainstream media" group you speak of? Can you please provide specific names?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Does the "mainstream media" have a spokesperson, who made some kind of declaration? What exactly does it mean that it is "not accepted"? And while we are at it, who exactly is in this "mainstream media" group you speak of? Can you please provide specific names?

I mean, comparing, let's say, TV news, with its milk commercials, not giving this notion as much attention as it's been given online. On TV they always talk about milk subsidies, or complain about having to compete with foreign dairy, etc... it's always online comments that say we shouldn't be funding dairy in the first place, on the above (and other) grounds, and it's always those comments that don't get read on air.

 

The example that comes to mind is CBC's Power&Politics, but I would extrapolate that to other shows and/or other channels.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

1. Appeal to conspiracy is not an acceptable argument in a science discussion

2. "We don't know" is a valid answer (as in, we don't know what causes type 1 diabetes, but we have evidence that suggest certain factors being involved)

3. Bill Mahar may be left-of-center but he is also a loon when it comes to medical issues, and that particular affliction does not have any partisan leaning. (Not to say that specific manifestations have no such correlation, however)

DO you have any evidence to share?

Keeping it real, it's primarily circumstantial. The CCP has a pattern of lying to the rest of the world about pandemics they are responsible for (COVID-19, SARS, etc.) and the WHO has a pattern of making statements that, while not completely in line with CCP propaganda, still turn out to be at best a middle ground between reality and CCP propaganda, as if unduly influenced by the latter. I am merely extrapolating the pattern. Hence posting it here and not "medical sciences."

 

Likewise with type 1 diabetes, the virus theory seems rather nonchalantly dismissive about vast difference in incidence rates.

Edited by ScienceNostalgia101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

On TV they always talk about milk subsidies, or complain about having to compete with foreign dairy, etc... it's always online comments that say we shouldn't be funding dairy in the first place, on the above (and other) grounds, and it's always those comments that don't get read on air.

So you are saying that television news sources are "pro-milk", so to speak? They approve of milk subsidies and are against foreign dairy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So you are saying that television news sources are "pro-milk", so to speak? They approve of milk subsidies and are against foreign dairy? 

I'm not claiming to know it for a fact, but I think there is a reasonable suspicion. On lesser issues (eg. video game reviews) companies have been known to fire reviewers who are too blunt in criticizing video games made by their sponsors. The comments that get featured on TV shows that read them on-air seemed to be debating only the merits of subsidies and/or protectionism in a general sense, rather than the dairy angle that got ignored from many comments, including my own.

Edited by ScienceNostalgia101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The example that comes to mind is CBC's Power&Politics, but I would extrapolate that to other shows and/or other channels.

Keeping it real, it's primarily circumstantial. The CCP has a pattern of lying to the rest of the world about pandemics they are responsible for (COVID-19, SARS, etc.) and the WHO has a pattern of making statements that, while not completely in line with CCP propaganda, still turn out to be at best a middle ground between reality and CCP propaganda, as if unduly influenced by the latter. I am merely extrapolating the pattern. Hence posting it here and not "medical sciences.".

Posting in speculations does not absolve you of the responsibility to support claims with evidence and refrain from appeal to conspiracy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.