HPV is causing deformations of human cells. That is basically definition of what cancer does, only cancer is caused by wrong cell service programming itself - not by viruses. HPV itself can't cause cancer upon entering human body - there has to be development of mutated cell, that starts to spread cancer. If you think, that HPV causes behaviour, well... hard luck, you can end up by blaming your parents.
Give your kids a vaccine against herpes and HPV and stap worrying about something you can't affect and reading those articles is not going to help, knowing that (constant)stress also causes cancer. Not intended to be rude, but women are more affected by hormones and no sex also can cause cancer. You don't have to be smoker and can eat healthy to get cancer nowadays, but to prevent degradation of cell programming is responsibility of genes.
No, you are getting off the rails here - to prove that cancer causes smoking you have to provide real life example of a non smoker, where after getting cancer, a patient starts to smoke. That patient might be some kind of exception, but this does not work for cancer patients at all. So, cancer akkktually does not cause smoking and there is no way to prove that, unless you are thinking of developing mutation of cancer that carries some mutagen, that as a side effect also causes patients to start smoking, but let's be real...
And it is not smoking that causes cancer, but exposure to chemicals, that causes cancer. And only if that exposure is critical. For the same reason you are able to take x-rays, but not often. So if you are smoking peace pipe ceremonially once per occassion - this is not going to cause you a cancer.
to prove that cancer causes smoking you have to provide real life example of a non smoker, where after getting cancer, a patient starts to smoke.
No, I wouldn't. I would have to prove, for example, that someone started smoking after getting human papillomavirus and that there was a mechanism plausibly linking the infection with the craving for cigarettes.
I don't readily know how to make the linguistic distinctions I want to make here. Sure, if you want to say "They first have to have a diagnosis of cancer..." okay, I'm dead in the water.
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we don't fully understand what causes cancer so it's possible that whatever living thing is a factor in causing cancer may also alter behavior such that it makes a diagnosis of cancer more likely.
This is probably not worth discussing further. "You cannot solve a problem using the same mental models that created it" but those "proven" mental models are a handy means to dismiss someone in conversation as getting off the rails.
Hey, English is not my native language and "getting off the rails" here was meant, that you are leading yourself astray and falling off the cliff. I mean you are losing track of this debate that smoke is causing a cancer.
But to be fair, I can't see sense of following other logic of yours, because I recently lost a relative to a cancer and there was absolutelly nothing to blame for, except that she got into toxic environment, which killed her.
Also, if we come to that - did you know, that in UK there were cases, that spouse was poisoned by chemicals, that causes cancer - are you aware that there are thousands of medical drugs, that has side effect that might cause cancer? How are you going to explain those with your logic? So, apparently person is developing a disease, and in process of treating that disease, person develops a cancer... good luck in explaining that with behavioral impact, like you are trying to do on fixating on HPV, which is only one of thousands viruses that can potentially damage cells and eventually damage cell programming and cause a cancer.
> No, I wouldn't. I would have to prove, for example, that someone started smoking after getting human papillomavirus and that there was a mechanism plausibly linking the infection with the craving for cigarettes
Thar wouldn't prove cancer causes smoking (or prove anything), but it would suggest the potential of a common cause between cancer and smoking.
The problem with the consciousness is that by default it is limited to ability perceive senses and bacteria clearly is beyound our limits of consciousness, but that does not make them less real. Our brains collect and process information subconsciously - the layer of our consciousness is not responsible for all the background work, that our brains are doing. There can't exist hypothesis in regards of gut processes affecting very thin layer of consciousness.
So, but can you disprove that gut bacteria can't impact brain processes? They can deliver signals to the brain, so what is exatly the obstacle that it makes it impossible task?
Well, if I remember, then there was an article about that some bacteria that was present in brains was also present in gut.
The very quick stupid idea was that bacteria from guts was invading brains, but there might be other explanations to that - bacterias are also living outside gut and if some of them somehow are finding a way into the brains, that does not mean that they came directly from guts. Might be - might be not and brains might have other canals that allows bacteria to enter and once they are in brains, they might be able to get control over things and condition brains in favouring specific gut bacteria, by requesting - craving specific food. So, I don't see that this research has nullified those ideas about bacterias affecting brains and helping their species of bacterias without knowing about them. But what this article is proposing is not illogical - not getting into demands of zombified controlled brains hold hostage of bacterias, or actually - developing healthy dietary habbits, by favouring diversity of gut bacterias in first place.
Maybe. Humans developed their brains mainly because primate ancestors ~3 million years ago started to hunt other animals(including other primates) for meat and eat cooked protein rich meat, which allowed to develop and maintain bigger brains. That affected more diverse gut bacteria of primates - they lost ability to process raw meat more efficiently, because there was no more need for that.
My take is that in overall ASD is next evolutionary change in brain development, where things that were coming from natural animal world are given away - that includes easy and intiutive social interaction that monkeys have, filtering of visual and sensory information that is bombarding our brains, where normally humans ignore 80-90% of information that brain receives and that includes gut behaviour as well. Apparently this brain development change can come together only with prolonged life.
I would wager that autistic people are less likely to have children, which means that humans are evolving away from autism (assuming a large enough hereditary factor).
The evolutionary benefits of a dominant allele can vastly outweigh the negative consequences of a recessive one, keeping it alive even though it reduces fitness of some individuals. With a spectrum disorder like autism that's likely caused by many factors, we can't even hazard a wild guess.
My autistic cousin that can’t function on his own would differ, if he had the mental capacity to do so. The spectrum is wide and people on the light side (or that know people that are) have a skewed view of things.
Yes, but let's be reasonable - not everything that is available as a food can be classified as food(in the sense of healthy food). I, for one, as an omnivore, that shuns extreme food preferences, have a very diverse diet(which includes meat, fish, vegetables) and prepare and cook food myself and my strange habbit is not getting the same food every day, because it gets too boring. Even because of this diverse diet, I still can easily develop some problems, that other people seems to not have eating the same food.
Also, if you think about that - not only smell, but taste and texture can cause sensory overload and if you have eaten something that feels funny, that means that your gut also is sending signals. I have vomited food, that others did not had problems eating, even if that food was probably slighly spoiled - apparently this is something that my gut tolerates less than others.
Let's also think on whom this paper is aimed at - in general people are stupid, like the parent that succumbed to childs demands of food(though, pear is fruit, smoked chicken is meat, waffle is providing hydrocarbonates). So, there are people out there, that has to be taught, that varied diet has to be taught in chhildhood - that knowledge will stay for the rest of your life. If my parents were allowing me to eat only candies, that I was happy to consume in large quantities and not introduced to fish and other foods, that I found repulsive as a kid, then I would be similar to other people, who were not exposed to some foods and still find them repulsive, like in childhood. Some things have to be taught in childhood - like immunity - if children are not exposed to countryside, or exposure to danger - of open flame, etc.
Koalas that are feeding upon specific Eucaliptic trees are not born with those gut bacterias, that are allowing to eat those leaves - they have to receive that gut bacteria via consuming fecal matter of their koala mother - if they are not receiving that bacteria, they are for sure having problems with their diet.
If it exists, it doesn't follow, that it is used for a tea, or in this case, that it has any military value over military satellites on the Earths orbit... even if it can disable sattelite, that doesn't follow that it is the best satellite disabler and that teapots function is exlusivelly to disable a satellite.
Sometimes stairs are just used as a stairs and there are no other functions for them, than just walk those steps up and down, up and down - every day.
That theory doesn't have any ground, but I am more interested what makes people believe that there is such theory. Nobody today claims, that everything that is written in a Bible is true, why would there such belief without any doubt to something that someone claimed just 100 years ago?
Do not know about staircases, but the toilets on top of the walls is great way to use butts. The only issue is getting to toilet fast enough, but we can come up with theory that people in medival ages were quick runners to toilet...
The best rebuttal would be if someone would actually just carry a sword(not to mention about getting in proper medieval outfit of a fighter) on those circular stairs and then when resting and catching breath thought about advantages of sword fights on STEEP staircases, regardless of their direction...
Give your kids a vaccine against herpes and HPV and stap worrying about something you can't affect and reading those articles is not going to help, knowing that (constant)stress also causes cancer. Not intended to be rude, but women are more affected by hormones and no sex also can cause cancer. You don't have to be smoker and can eat healthy to get cancer nowadays, but to prevent degradation of cell programming is responsibility of genes.