better immunity w/ disease? - Page 5

[EdnaMarie]

Some of the consequences of the way we live are psychophysiological; it may be hard to put a scientific finger on the benefits of fresh air and sunshine, as it is of the benefits of spending one's entire life within the bosom of a small, tightly-knit agrarian community -- but this is how most people lived until very recently, and even if we weren't strongly guided by intuition to see these as having health benefits, there is the logical inference that since human physiology is still better tuned for success on the African savannah than in the modern city, many of the recent changes are likely to be detrimental simply because they are changes. By turning away from traditional lifestyles, we have already "interfered with what was working". Living in artificial environments means relying on artificial support systems.

THANK YOU! Although, it's not like this hasn't been said here before and I suppose it will have to be said again.

To significantly lower the oxygen content of indoor air, you'd have to have a tightly sealed building, and leave it completely closed up for quite a while (depending on how many breathers were present). Even then, the depletion of oxygen isn't the first thing that would impact you health-wise; it would be the buildup of carbon dioxide.

Well, you don't have to significantly decrease oxygen before it has an effect. There is a reason we feel like such crap after long flights- lack of oxygen does have an effect long before we faint. And if we are spending huge amounts of time indoors, that would also have an effect over the long-term. And you are right about carbon dioxide- not to mention the fact that indoor air pollution is greater than outdoor air pollution in nearly every single environment, with the possible exception of downtown L.A. in July, Beijing, et al.

I just think that in terms of farm kids being healthier, there is so much going on there besides exposure to cow dung.

[mamakay]

I'm still not seeing country kids getting more oxygen than urban kids...
Not sure about a link between sunlight consumption and autoimmune stuff, either, although I guess it's plausible in that "anything is possible" kind of way...

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by Mahtob

Yes it is. I understood. I think you don't really see that you are begging the question. You say that you don't have any proposition to support, which I find odd, because in that case, what exactly are you posting about? I'll keep this short and simple: you say it is not a valid example because it doesn't support a particular premise that is at the very heart of the debate. It doesn't matter whether you believe the premise or not. This is circular reasoning, begging the question.

No, based on your reply, you don't understand. I'm not saying it's not valid because it doesn't support a premise that's at the heart of the debate. I said I didn't think it was valid because it doesn't seem to be true. That having the flu this year doesn't protect you from a different flu next year seems to be true. I didn't say it wasn't valid because it doesn't support the premise. I said it wasn't valid because it's not true. Huge difference. I probably could've phrased it differently, but I was not saying it wasn't valid just because it didn't prove that disease strengthens the immune system. Besides, as I already explained, I consider the issue of general immune "strengthening" completely separate from the issue of whether or not having a particular disease multiple times makes you more resistant to that particular disease and that particular disease only. Since they are completely separate issues to me, then I would not believe that one is related to the other. Therefore, my commenting on whether or not an example of one is valid has nothing to do with any proposition related to the other. I post because it's a message board. We converse here and I was explaining that having the flu multiple times doesn't protect you, since she mentioned it.

I have explained multiple times that I have no strong opinion on the issue. If you care to look back over my old posts, you'll find this is true.

Okay, Mahtob, to clarify this for you....I should have said simply that her example wasn't true, rather than that it wasn't "valid". Like I said, I could've chosen a better way to say it, but that doesn't change my basic intention, which I explained to dymanic in my first reply to him.

Or if you still aren't exactly sure what I am trying to say, if having the flu this year protected you from the flu next year, I would've said that this wasn't evidence that the immune system had been "strengthened" in any general sort of way. Just like being immune to rubella after infection (or vaccination) doesn't mean that the immune system has undergone some generalized "strengthening". If there is other evidence to suggest that rubella or influenza infection has an overall beneficial effect on the immune system, then so be it, but resistance to one particular pathogen does not suggest an overall strengthening effect to me. Therefore, had I been commenting on the validity of the comment's relationship to the proposition that disease strengthens the immune system (a rather difficult to define idea which I already explained I wasn't commenting on) then I still would've said it wasn't valid.

Can't really explain it any more than that.

[EdnaMarie]

if you still aren't exactly sure what I am trying to say, if having the flu this year protected you from the flu next year, I would've said that this wasn't evidence that the immune system had been "strengthened" in any general sort of way. Just like being immune to rubella after infection (or vaccination) doesn't mean that the immune system has undergone some generalized "strengthening".

But Dymanic said that having the flu this year did not protect you from the flu next year, so what was your objection, then?