: Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>
>>I think I may have been out of line with my "prompt" about others
>>sharing their blood stats. I care little about mine or yours really.
>>I surely didn't post them to brag--indeed, they seem pretty ordinary
>>(not very

>Indeed. I could post some blood stats from a test I had 2-3 years ago
>after I had been eating animal foods in my diet a year that might
>look pretty damn good given the current climate of what numbers are
>supposed to be good. But the way research is always flip-flopping,
>who knows, the numbers may not look so good 5-10 years from now.

What flip-flopping are you referring to?  Science is always evolving -
that is the nature of the beast. If you are looking for eternal
absolutes you are looking the wrong place.

>Also, frankly, although it's probably a little paranoid of me,

You will not find me disagreeing here ;-)

>but given the way insurance companies and our friendly government are
>always encouraging us to do all these things just for our own good
>(yeah, right :-\ ) grabbing onto any little piece of data they can
>stash in their computer files about us, I decided some time ago never
>to release any health stats on myself where just anybody could scan
>them in their computer. Or, possible, not even to have them taken in
>the first place where they could go into some sort of database.

In the special file for coordinators of radical M2M's. :-,

>Especially with the specter of genetic testing raising its head these
>days for purposes other than just personal health knowledge, I am
>concerned  about test results used to discriminate against people not
>just where  insurance is concerned, but other areas too, such as in
>getting a job if  you had a certain genetic condition, and so forth.
>Or what if they start  correlating certain genes with criminal
>behavior (like they have been trying to do for some time now)? I
>don't think I'd want just anybody know my test results if it gets to
>that point. Stats like these indicate probabilities, not certainties,
>but often times it is certain you will be discriminated against if
>your numbers or genetic test is "wrong."

As your neighbor maybe I would like to know whether you have the gene
for the criminally insane and what the probabalities were for it
becoming activated.  These are not easy issues.  However, if I were to
take every issue to its extreme like you seem to on this topic I would
stop breathing in fear of that the goverment was deliberately poisoning
my air. I share many of your concerns, but misuse of science is a
political issue, which should not hold us back from benefitting from
what it has to offer. In the case of elevated triglycerides you will
not find many scientists or reseachers of any stature that will not
concur that this condition will put you in danger of getting a host of
ailments + being the cause of many that you might be suffering from
already. How much certainty are you looking for?

>There are people like Lee Hitchcox (wrote "Long Life Now," on the
>Hunza diet with 1-2% animals foods, which just came out this year)
>who while well-intentioned, I think, seem to have a chip on their
>shoulder that  anyone making any sort of claim in the health field
>ought to post their own  "personal biomarkers" for credibility or they
>are hiding something and ought not to be trusted. I think this is a
>bit vindictive attitude about other people just because someone
>personally happens to have good  biomarkers themselves.

Acquired characteristics by lifestyle have a much greater influence on
biomarkers than hereditary characteristics.  Looking at our genetic
makeup outlines our limitations and gives us a rough idea of how we
will end up if we allow our genes to be fully expressed by bad life
style choices. Again, everything can be misused, but I am more
concerned with all the false health prophets, who refuse to back up
back up their claims with much more than anecdotes & wishful thinking
and ruining many peoples lives in the process.

>Sure we ought to walk our talk, and we would hope that would result in
>good blood stats, but the real point is the supportability and
>believability of the research one does and publishes, which is where
>most of our attention ought to be directed if we are interested in
>continuing to learn.

What makes you think no critical or investigative thinking is taking
place in the field of blood testing?  If you have any information that
reveals unreliability regarding certain testing modalities please point
to it.

>Otherwise things start to degenerate into something almost like
>character attacks, only we are attacking each other's blood results.
>No thanks, think I'll stay out of that one. Sometimes this thing can
>get to be like a personal vendetta, and fails to take into account
>that some things are probably influenced as much or more by genetics
>s they are by diet, so a personal doesn't have complete control over
>all these vaunted biomarkers.

That is right. I can hardly wait to publically humiliate Kirt for his
inferior blood results. Poor guy, I am surprised that they let him in
the country in the first place.  When I publicize my own blood panels
he will be eating his heart out. :^) -  If somebody is showing
excellent biomarkers my conclusion would be that this person is well on
her way to expressing her genetic potential to the fullest. This should
be the least one should expect of any self-proclaimed expert on health
- lousy genes or not.

>Biomarkers mean more in the stastical aggregate as averages of an
>entire cohort of  people being studied, while any one person's as a
>part of that group, could still fluctuate considerably out of line
>from the average.

Yes, but only so much. The more indicators we look at and the more we
learn how they relate to each other and to our genetic make-up the less
space their will be for fluctuations.

>Anyway, important point you raise Kirt. I can see the handwriting on
>the wall with these personal biomarkers used as some "badge" of
>authority, and  I think it kinda stinks.

I do not understand this resistance to the technologies of modern
science that seems to be so prevalent among natural hygenists and raw
food eaters.  Who cares if Lee Hitchcox is a little self-righterous and
maybe has some ulterior motives for publishing his own biomarkers in
"Live Longer Now".  I frankly do not give a damn.  The question is
whether personal biomarkers like blood tests are of any use as
diagnostic, comparative or predictive tools.  And if they are I for one
intend to use & benefit from them as much as I can & my budget will
allow.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]