Kirt:
>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
>Healthy).

>BTW, I just heard of a guy (a friend's father) who is Proud because he has
>a cholesteral level of 70! Where is this going to end? Counting, even
>counting tiny stuff in our blood, isn't science, it's...counting.
>Correlation isn't really science either, it's a tricky way of counting.
>Blah blah blah...

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.

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

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."

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.

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. 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 as they are by diet, so a personal
 doesn't have complete control over all these vaunted biomarkers. Biomarkers
 mean more in the statistical 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.

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.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> Wichita, KS