3 ms·
> the body as a whole is not something we can predict the longterm effects for I'm no doctor but I feel like modern medicine can make some pretty darn good pre
by deegles 6y ago
> the body as a whole is not something we can predict the longterm effects for
I'm no doctor but I feel like modern medicine can make some pretty darn good predictions.
Besides, your arguments are not sound. If your premise of "the body is too complex to predict" is true, then you can't immediately follow that with a prediction of a long term effect (e.g. eliminating a "harmless" disease will have ill effects.)
I can just as easily make something up like, "the immune system can only respond to a finite amount of disease, therefore getting vaccinated leaves more capacity for future infections." (which is not true)
- OneGuy123 6y agoNo you cannot make that up because the body can naturaly fight it as it's naturaly designed for that: but when you artificaly induce something in the body there is no guarantee that you won't just break the natural protection. And no modern medicine cannot predict anything on a global level of the body: if it could then we could've simulate billion of virtual humans using supercomputers and go for real human trials only after that. But such simulations would be innacurate just like how weather prediction is innacurate for more than a few days in the future: the problem is that the body (just like the weather) is a complex system where the butterfly effects becaomes a real thing. So it's not a question of "models" or "compute power": even the slightest devition in the model will break all predictions results in a cascading manner over time.