4 ms·

No the article doesn't show that. It just shows there is a correlation of increased weight gain for both chickens and humans that come in contact with Ad-36 vir

by agentgt 10y ago

No the article doesn't show that. It just shows there is a correlation of increased weight gain for both chickens and humans that come in contact with Ad-36 virus. The mechanism to how the virus works is unclear as stated by the article (3 possible ways were alleged) as well as how so many do what you just did: assume that a virus has little role and that it is the patients fault: Atkinson says, “I remember giving a talk at a conference where I presented 15 different studies in which Ad-36 either caused or was correlated to fatness. At the end of it, a good friend said to me, ‘I just don’t believe it.’ He didn’t give a reason; he just didn’t believe it. People are really stuck on eating and exercise as the only contributors to fatness. But there is more to it.” Did you actually read the article?

moron4hire 10y ago
It's because we as a society treat obesity as immoral. You see this across any disorder where there is a sizable proportion of the population who think it's a "choice" rather than a disease that needs to be treated: depression, alcoholism, ADHD. People refuse to believe evidence in contradiction to their moral upbringing, rather than refine their morals.
- waqf 10y ago
  Your cause and effect are backwards. People think that obesity, depression, alcoholism, ADHD are moral failings because they think that they're under your conscious control and therefore not susceptible to biochemical intervention. (In particular, to break the cycle we'd have to start by teaching people better biology — it's no good arguing with people's morals if you don't start from the same basis of facts as them.)
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    I think you're just misreading what I wrote. "People think it's a choice because they think it's immoral" is clearly an absurd parsing.
- VLM 10y ago
  Not disagreeing entirely, but better examples would have been gay and trans, where the gay and trans people haven't changed very much but the medical and cultural response toward them has changed quite a bit over the last couple decades. Also (original) OP seems to assume starvation mode is as healthy as normal mode, which is ... questionable at best. Yes if a tapeworm is sucking glucose out of your blood, as long as it doesn't suck too much and kill you, you'll either have to go into starvation fat burning mode essentially permanently as long as you're infected which might have some negative long term side effects, or you can try to live normally which will result in obesity. Aside from the medical problems from living in permanent starvation mode, I imagine the psychological experience is incredibly unpleasant. From memory starvation is contraindicated for recovery from surgery, pregnancy, and athletic training. I wonder how many infected people die after a relatively boring surgery because either they're fat or they're starving so they can't recover correctly. Or miscarriages where the body thinks its in deep starvation mode so better the mother survive than take them both down, despite normal food intake. Aside from the obvious pregnancy complications from obesity, of course. Any way you look at it, that virus needs eradicating.

by agentgt 10y ago

moron4hire 10y ago

It's because we as a society treat obesity as immoral. You see this across any disorder where there is a sizable proportion of the population who think it's a "choice" rather than a disease that needs to be treated: depression, alcoholism, ADHD. People refuse to believe evidence in contradiction to their moral upbringing, rather than refine their morals.

waqf 10y ago
Your cause and effect are backwards. People think that obesity, depression, alcoholism, ADHD are moral failings because they think that they're under your conscious control and therefore not susceptible to biochemical intervention. (In particular, to break the cycle we'd have to start by teaching people better biology — it's no good arguing with people's morals if you don't start from the same basis of facts as them.)
- moron4hire 10y ago
  I think you're just misreading what I wrote. "People think it's a choice because they think it's immoral" is clearly an absurd parsing.
VLM 10y ago
Not disagreeing entirely, but better examples would have been gay and trans, where the gay and trans people haven't changed very much but the medical and cultural response toward them has changed quite a bit over the last couple decades. Also (original) OP seems to assume starvation mode is as healthy as normal mode, which is ... questionable at best. Yes if a tapeworm is sucking glucose out of your blood, as long as it doesn't suck too much and kill you, you'll either have to go into starvation fat burning mode essentially permanently as long as you're infected which might have some negative long term side effects, or you can try to live normally which will result in obesity. Aside from the medical problems from living in permanent starvation mode, I imagine the psychological experience is incredibly unpleasant. From memory starvation is contraindicated for recovery from surgery, pregnancy, and athletic training. I wonder how many infected people die after a relatively boring surgery because either they're fat or they're starving so they can't recover correctly. Or miscarriages where the body thinks its in deep starvation mode so better the mother survive than take them both down, despite normal food intake. Aside from the obvious pregnancy complications from obesity, of course. Any way you look at it, that virus needs eradicating.