Stupid mutants.

What you think about how you think.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:40 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

Maybe I should have worded it differently. No, individual antibodies do not adapt. The process changes numerous antibodies.

Ha,ha....you did the same thing with ageing and being old.

To be clear: are you saying that when numerous antibodies change that individual anti-bodies do not change?

...........or..........just what the frick are you saying?....... Simply agreeing with what I posted would move the discussion along.

Its amusingly obfuscated by saying: " When a new antigen is detected by the immune system it modifies a whole bunch of antibodies to lock onto the antigen."//// "It" does??? Like a separate thinking being within the body...... or more like what I posted that requires no awareness at all and is pure Darwin at action?

You need to work on how you clarify things.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Nikki

You misinterpreted the reference. For example, the reference talked of antigen sensitization. I talked of modifying antibodies. But both phrases meant the same thing. You and EM both overlooked that, and that omission made a very big difference..
Lance, you cannot blame either EM or me for you being wrong. I did not misinterpret the reference. For the overwhelming majority of this thread, you have not talked about "modifying antibodies." You have repeatedly said that the body "makes new antibodies," which is an entirely different process. I just went through the thread, and you claimed the body "makes new antibodies" a total of 12 times. You backpedaled and said "modifies existing antibodies" only twice. Keep dancing, but I suggest you learn some new moves.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On E12.
I did NOT accuse you of saying that E 12 was the genome. I simply said that the genome was the wrong number.
Allow me to quote you...The number was not the number of the genome, Nikki. It was the number of possible proteins, which is E200. That is, the number 1 followed by 200 zeroes.

Lance Kennedy wrote:That is because my earlier reference had nothing to do with the genome, and the genome became a total red herring.
Then it was your red herring, since you brought it up. Again, I quote you...When there are E200 possible antigens (meaning the digit 1 followed by 200 zeroes, a number large enough to allow for all the atoms in a decillion times a decillion times a decillion times a decillion times a decillion universes), the human genome CANNOT contain enough antibodies to cope with them all. Duh. Duh... and duh again.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The number I was referring to was the potential number of proteins, which also means the potential number of antigens that the immune system might have to deal with. The number I was referring to was E200. If there are E12 antibodies, but the possible number of antigens those antibodies have to be able to lock onto is E 200, it is rather obvious that E 12 different antibodies is totally inadequate. Only active adaptation can handle that situation.
However, "active adaptation" was not your argument. Your argument was, to quote you a third time, the human immune system creates antibodies 'on order ' to deal with novel pathogens. Or, if you'd like to see your argument worded another way, I'll quote you again: The human body DOES NOT contain all the antibodies it needs to deal with all diseases. Our bodies make the specific antibody at need.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On antigen binding sites. Of course they pre exist. I did not say they did not. But they are inadequate, and they have to be modified. And that is what affinity maturation is. This whole argument came from EM's ridiculous assertion that the immune system and antibodies did not change. They do.
So, you're not only backpedaling from your own original argument, you're also trying to rephrase EM's argument? Well, allow me to quote EM too: What the vaccine does is trigger a signal to the immune system that lets it know that this particular foreign agent is present and dangerous, and that it has to be prepared to fight it in the future: it ramps up the production of the specific detector molecules to amplify a future response. Because this is temporary, we need to refresh some vaccinations. And also: The reference very clearly states that the correct b-lymphocytes are formed long before they ever get in contact with their corresponding antigen. Once they do, the undergo some degree of optimization (maturation) to improve recognition and to prime them for mass-production in case of future encounter with the antigen. But the principle is that the body has the antibody BEFORE it sees the antigen.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I am sorry, Nikki, but you have been led way up the garden path by semantics. The reference used different words to mine and you thought what they were saying was different. But it was not so.
Perhaps you could be a touch more patronizing, Lance. Would you like to tell me what I'm feeling as well as what I'm thinking? It's clear that my reading comprehension is far better than yours. The reference clearly did not support your argument. Period.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On the age argument.
Please go back and read where that discussion started. You are again charging up the wrong garden path due to not understanding what the discussion was about.
Well, I guess you can be more patronizing. I'm not even surprised. Have you got any more opinions about me in which you feel you know more about me than I do? Tread carefully.

Oh, and here are all the time you were wrong in this thread.
When a new pathogen invades, it develops a new antibody which is specific to that pathogen and which provides future immunity to that pathogen. 

The body DOES create new antibodies

If we did not make new antibodies, then vaccines would not work.

Our bodies make the specific antibody at need.

Beta lymphocytes respond to the presence of novel pathogens by analysing the protein antigen, on the surface of the pathogen, and creating from new, an antibody which works on that antigen by a lock and key mechanism.

The point is that a new antibody is manufactured for a new pathogen. There are potentially E200 different potential proteins, and thus an enormous number of possible antigens for the immune system to deal with. It is physically impossible for the immune system to have antibodies for each and every possible antigen, since the possible number of different antigens is greater than the number of atoms in our universe. Thus it is essential for the immune system to be able to analyse antigens and manufacture novel antibodies at need.

When there are E200 possible antigens (meaning the digit 1 followed by 200 zeroes, a number large enough to allow for all the atoms in a decillion times a decillion times a decillion times a decillion times a decillion universes), the human genome CANNOT contain enough antibodies to cope with them all. Duh. Duh... and duh again. 

In spite of your inability to grasp the bleeding obvious, the human immune system creates antibodies 'on order ' to deal with novel pathogens.

EM has shown himself to be utterly ignorant, but has got a bee in his bonnet about antibodies, believing that all possible needed antibodies already exist. This is physically impossible, since the number of such anti bodies would exceed the number of atoms in the universe.

The human body DOES NOT contain all the antibodies it needs to deal with all diseases.

My body had created the new antibodies to meet a perceived threat.

The antigen comes first before the antibody that is specific to that antigen.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:01 am

Everything I said is correct.

The body DOES make new antibodies at need. Do you really think that the human body sits idle with a set number of antibodies when a pathogen attacks? Come on. Pull my other leg. It plays jingle bells !

Of course the human body makes new antibodies. And they are modified for a specific antigen.

If I am patronising, it is because you deserve it. You have stated a load of rubbish.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:12 am

Oh, and one thing more, for those people who think E12 is an enormous number.

The average antibody molecule weighs about 150 kilodaltons. Translated, and calculated, that means that E12 such molecules will weigh
0.00000025 grams. Even if there are a million molecules of each type, that is only one quarter of a gram.

It is not actually a big step to realising (for those people who can think) that to face an onslaught of pathogens, the body is going to have to manufacture a whole lot of antibodies specific to an antigen on those pathogens.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:24 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Everything I said is correct.
No, Lance, it's not. You've changed your argument several times, mainly because you still fail to understand how a large and diverse library of antibodies is made during development. If you read the damn article, you would understand how and why you are wrong. Instead, you repeat and compound your error, blathering on about the number of antigens exceeding the number of atoms in the universe (scientifically impossible).

Lance Kennedy wrote:The body DOES make new antibodies at need. Do you really think that the human body sits idle with a set number of antibodies when a pathogen attacks? Come on. Pull my other leg. It plays jingle bells !
It doesn't make them out of whole cloth, which was your argument for most of this thread. Lest you've forgotten:
Lance Kennedy wrote:It is physically impossible for the immune system to have antibodies for each and every possible antigen, since the possible number of different antigens is greater than the number of atoms in our universe.
Your statement isn't merely a load of rubbish; it's an entire garbage dump. Let's review the textbook again:
The preimmune repertoire is apparently large enough to ensure that there will be an antigen-binding site to fit almost any potential antigenic determinant, albeit with low affinity.


Lance Kennedy wrote:If I am patronising, it is because you deserve it. You have stated a load of rubbish.
Lance, no one who is arguing a scientific point and providing evidence to support her argument ever deserves to be patronized. I should add that you have provided none for your argument, only your own supercilious comments and braggadocio. Therefore, it is I who should be patronizing you, dear boy. It's perfectly all right; I understand how confused you are by all these multisyllabic words and difficult concepts. Take your time. I'm sure you'll be able to get through it with a bit of help.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:32 am

Nikki

First, about protein numbers.
You need to read more carefully. I said the number of POTENTIAL proteins was E200, which is substantially more than the number of atoms in the universe (estimated at about E70, though no one knows for sure). Do you know the difference between potential and actual ?

Now let me tell you what happens when a pathogen invades. The beta lymphocyte cells are altered by contact with the alien antigen (with some assistance from 'helper cells ' ). They then begin to secrete antibodies. I checked this, and it turns out that each cell makes 2000 antibody molecules per second. That adds up to a humongous lot of novel antibodies entering the system. In fact, a simple calculation shows that adds 2 grams of antibodies per hour to the human body. Your pre immune repertoire may be ALMOST enough, but extra antigen sensitization is needed to get the proper lock and key mechanism working.

Your image of the immune system would be acceptable in the 19th century. Today we realise that this system is dynamic and adaptive.

And let me go back to that E200 number. That is how many potential proteins may exist. Obviously actual numbers are way less. But any novel bacterium or virus entering the body may have antigens which are proteins of unpredictable structure. That means the antigen could be any one of E 200 different types. Having E12 basic antibody types is only a start towards getting something that can deal with a novel antigen . Further modification of the basic types is required.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12404
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:38 am

Az I understand it, our max lifespan haznt chanjed, its the averaj life expectansy thats gon up.

Our maximum lifespan iz determined by the number uv telomerez on the end uv our cromosomez, 1 getting nokt off at every division sycle. Wen the last wun 1 iz gon, the cell bekumz sensent - no longer able to divide - and will eventually wear out, get cluttered up with garbaj and die.

So your total lifespan will be the length uv time between divisionz x the number uv divisionz + the senesent period uv the last sellz able to keep you functional. The total iz estimated at 120 yirz.

But its like the differens between speciez, not everybody iz the same.

I'v red that there are sharkz over 400 yirz old, so I'm hoping SharkJO gainz that advantaj.
soRK JO 500.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19795
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:57 pm

:shark:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10528
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:22 pm

JO 753 wrote:Our maximum lifespan iz determined by the number uv telomerez on the end uv our cromosomez,


Maybe not.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that telomere length predicts mortality and that telomeres shorten with age. Although rarely acknowledged these associations do not dictate causality. I review telomerase knockout and overexpression studies and find little support that telomeres cause aging. In addition, the causality hypothesis assumes that there is a critical telomere length at which senescence is induced. This generates the prediction that variance in telomere length decreases with age. In contrast, using meta-analysis of human data, I find no such decline. Inferring the causal involvement of telomeres in aging from current knowledge is therefore speculative and could hinder scientific progress.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12404
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:53 pm

There iz a misconseption in the quote. (I didnt read the link)

Less telomerez remaining woud hav no effect on the helth uv a sell. Even if therez only 1 left, the cromosome can divide to create 2 'new' sellz, thus repairing wutever damaj had occured.

Ajing iz the loss uv sellz that can still divide and the accumulation uv junk in the sellz that cant be removed, wether they are senesent or not. Its an averaj and not all sellz are equally important. If youv uzed up all the telomerez in your hart sellz, for exampl, you are toast on a plate waiting to be eaten even if you are only 18.

In a nut shell, the appearens and fizikl dejeneration associated with ajing iz an increasing % uv senesent sellz vs activ sellz.

Wut I am wondering iz if sell division iz on a clock. Do sellz divide every 3 months wether they need to or not or iz the prosess triggered only by damaj? (obviously, this Q appliez only to mature organizmz that arent growing)

This iz how I understand it, anyway. Wut do I no? I'm just a lowly machinist.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:16 pm

You're making it worse.
Lance Kennedy wrote:You need to read more carefully. I said the number of POTENTIAL proteins was E200, which is substantially more than the number of atoms in the universe (estimated at about E70, though no one knows for sure).
You need to type more carefully, because you said ANTIGEN several times, not PROTEIN, including in your latest response:
Lance Kennedy wrote:When there are E200 possible antigens...

the possible number of different antigens is greater than the number of atoms in our universe

That means the antigen could be any one of E 200 different types.
Further, there are other issues with your comparison:
1. The number is actually between 1078 and 1082, not 1070.
2. The number encompasses only the known, observable universe, not the entire universe.
3. The number refers to only the total number of hydrogen atoms, not the total number of all atoms. Since hydrogen makes up 74% of all atoms in our galaxy by mass, you can clearly see that 1078 - 1082 is a low estimate for the observable universe, never mind the entire universe.
4. You keep throwing around E200 without reference. Please provide one. Because the Worldwide Protein Data Bank only lists 127,352 protein structures, and the rate of accumulation of new structures has plateaued for the past ten years. 127,352 is a far cry from your claim of E200. Potential is irrelevant. If I had wings, I'd potentially be able to fly.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Now let me tell you what happens when a pathogen invades.
No. You've already backpedaled on your original argument a number of times.

1. Your initial argument was that the human genome could not contain sufficient antibodies to cope with E200 antigens, that it made them from scratch without reference to an existing preimmune repertoire.
Lance Kennedy wrote:When there are E200 possible antigens (meaning the digit 1 followed by 200 zeroes, a number large enough to allow for all the atoms in a decillion times a decillion times a decillion times a decillion times a decillion universes), the human genome CANNOT contain enough antibodies to cope with them all.

Beta lymphocytes respond to the presence of novel pathogens by analysing the protein antigen, on the surface of the pathogen, and creating from new, an antibody which works on that antigen by a lock and key mechanism.

2. You then backed off that and said we begin with a limited number of antibodies, then modify them to make a better library. You claimed that was your initial argument when it clearly wasn't.
Lance Kennedy wrote:In other words, the immune system begins with a limited range of antibodies, but modifies what it has got to make a wider range to deal with novel Infections. Basically what I told you at the start.

3. Then you tried to retroactively rephrase EM's argument to make yours look more reasonable.
Lance Kennedy wrote:What happens instead, is that the antibodies are MODIFIED to form a lock and key attachment to the antigen. EM's reference clearly states that the E12 initial repertoire does not allow for complete binding, and further antigen stimulation (modifying the antibodies) is needed.

Lastly, it's not "my" image of the immune system; it's a textbook entitled Molecular Biology of the Cell, which you'd know if you just read the damn thing. Hell, just read the first paragraph!
Even in the absence of antigen stimulation, a human can probably make more than 1012 different antibody molecules—its preimmune antibody repertoire. Moreover, the antigen-binding sites of many antibodies can cross-react with a variety of related but different antigenic determinants, making the antibody defense force even more formidable. The preimmune repertoire is apparently large enough to ensure that there will be an antigen-binding site to fit almost any potential antigenic determinant, albeit with low affinity. After repeated stimulation by antigen, B cells can make antibodies that bind their antigen with much higher affinity—a process called affinity maturation. Thus, antigen stimulation greatly increases the antibody arsenal.
It was not, BTW, written in the 19th Century, but the 21st. And I have yet to see any references from you.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:17 pm

JO 753 wrote:I'v red that there are sharkz over 400 yirz old, so I'm hoping SharkJO gainz that advantaj.soRK JO 500.jpg

Where's your dorsal fin?!
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12404
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:23 pm

Dont hav wun, dont need wun! I dont swim.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12404
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:36 pm

JO 753 wrote:In a nut shell, the appearens and fizikl dejeneration associated with ajing iz an increasing % uv senesent sellz vs activ sellz.


Thats actually an oversimplification uv wut I believ.*

Its damajd senesent sellz.

I think that sellz can possibly be 100% helthy, but unable to divide. So theoreticly, sumwun who wuz born with only enuf telomerez to reach maturity, but haz lived a charmed life coud be perfectly helthy indefinitely.

Az long az the sellz can repair all the damaj they incur (damaj being the most jeneral term for any deviation from the orijinal dezine), the organizm will not 'aje'.


*My beliefs are sertainly oversimplificationz, even if jenerally correct according to current siens and the current siens iz at least incomplete, if not an oversimplification, otherwize they woud know enuf to make us immortal alredy.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:43 am

To Nikki

I am sad to see how much understanding you lack.

Certainly I said potentially E200 antigens. That is because most antigens are proteins, which means the potential number of antigens is the same as the potential number of proteins. The number, 157,000 which you quote for number of proteins is those that have been discovered. Again I ask you, do you know the difference between potential and actual ? Because, frankly, it sounds as if you do not. I got the number E200 from my old biochemistry professor during a lecture on protein structure. It is a calculated number. Because, oh ignorant one, it is kinda obvious that there are not E200 proteins available to study. But there are E200 possible protein structures. That is why the number is POTENTIAL. I do hope I don 't have to explain this again. DUH!

On the the immune antibody repertoire.
The reference goes on to explain how these are modified to cope with the wider range of possible antigens, though not quite in those words. Guess what " low affinity" means. Adjusting antibody affinity is exactly what I was talking about, in modifying antibodies. Really, Nikki, it is quite shameful how you seem incapable of understanding exactly the same message when conveyed using different words.

Why don 't you go another step to educate yourself. Since you clearly cannot understand EM's reference, do a little google research into antibodies. Some of the other articles are written in plain English for those who need it.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10528
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:46 pm

Nikki wrote:Where's your dorsal fin?!

JO 753 wrote:Dont hav wun, dont need wun! I dont swim.

JO wades - see the dorsal fin on top of his head?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:03 pm

JO 753 wrote:Dont hav wun, dont need wun! I dont swim.

Then how can you be a shark?! Oh...wait.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:27 pm

Now, Nikki.

It is me who is the shark. Look at the avatar.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:18 pm

Lance,
1. You seem incapable of holding a debate without regressing to childish insults. Grow up.

2. You have repeatedly mischaracterized my argument. I have not ever said that antibodies are not modified in response to antigen stimulation. Not once. From my initial post:
Nikki Nyx wrote:A bit about the timing of the antigen-driven antibody response:
As mentioned earlier, with the passage of time after immunization, there is usually a progressive increase in the affinity of the antibodies produced against the immunizing antigen. This phenomenon, known as affinity maturation, is due to the accumulation of point mutations specifically in both heavy-chain and light-chain V-region coding sequences. The mutations occur long after the coding regions have been assembled, when B cells are stimulated by antigen and helper T cells to generate memory cells in a lymphoid follicle in a peripheral lymphoid organ.


3. My entire argument has been that the antigen-binding sites of B cells is fixed during their development, which the article clearly states. From my initial post:
Nikki Nyx wrote:The very first sentence of the article seems to support EM's argument:
Even in the absence of antigen stimulation, a human can probably make more than 1012 different antibody molecules—its preimmune antibody repertoire.

In that same paragraph, the concept that we're pre-programmed with all our antibodies is expanded:
The preimmune repertoire is apparently large enough to ensure that there will be an antigen-binding site to fit almost any potential antigenic determinant, albeit with low affinity. After repeated stimulation by antigen, B cells can make antibodies that bind their antigen with much higher affinity—a process called affinity maturation.

...and about how antibodies are pre-programmed during the development of B-cells:
B cells are monospecific. That is, all the antibodies that any one B cell produces have identical antigen-binding sites. This property enables antibodies to cross-link antigens into large aggregates, thereby promoting antigen elimination. It also means that an activated B cell secretes antibodies with the same specificity as that of the membrane-bound antibody on the B cell that was originally stimulated.
That middle quote also speaks to the fact that I never said that antibodies are not modified in response to antigen stimulation.

4. Your initial argument was that antibodies are made "from new" only after antigen stimulation, that it was impossible for the immune system to contain antibodies with antigen-binding sites for every possible antigen. From your posts:
Lance Kennedy wrote:It is physically impossible for the immune system to have antibodies for each and every possible antigen, since the possible number of different antigens is greater than the number of atoms in our universe.

When there are E200 possible antigens (meaning the digit 1 followed by 200 zeroes, a number large enough to allow for all the atoms in a decillion times a decillion times a decillion times a decillion times a decillion universes), the human genome CANNOT contain enough antibodies to cope with them all.

EM has shown himself to be utterly ignorant, but has got a bee in his bonnet about antibodies, believing that all possible needed antibodies already exist. This is physically impossible, since the number of such anti bodies would exceed the number of atoms in the universe.

The human body DOES NOT contain all the antibodies it needs to deal with all diseases.
Your argument is directly contradicted by the textbook:
The preimmune repertoire is apparently large enough to ensure that there will be an antigen-binding site to fit almost any potential antigenic determinant


5. You have since made pathetic attempts to modify your initial argument to be more in line with the textbook. However, this:
Lance Kennedy wrote:The point is that a new antibody is manufactured for a new pathogen. There are potentially E200 different potential proteins, and thus an enormous number of possible antigens for the immune system to deal with. It is physically impossible for the immune system to have antibodies for each and every possible antigen, since the possible number of different antigens is greater than the number of atoms in our universe. Thus it is essential for the immune system to be able to analyse antigens and manufacture novel antibodies at need.
...and this:
Lance Kennedy wrote:In other words, the immune system begins with a limited range of antibodies, but modifies what it has got to make a wider range to deal with novel Infections. Basically what I told you at the start.
...are not remotely the same thing, semantically or otherwise. Neither are this:
Lance Kennedy wrote:The human body DOES NOT contain all the antibodies it needs to deal with all diseases. The antigen comes first before the antibody that is specific to that antigen.
...and this:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Antibodies are adaptive to need, and modified to suit the antigen. That is what I have been saying.


6. This bull-shit:
Lance Kennedy wrote:I am sad to see how much understanding you lack.

Again I ask you, do you know the difference between potential and actual ? Because, frankly, it sounds as if you do not.

That is why the number is POTENTIAL. I do hope I don 't have to explain this again. DUH!

Really, Nikki, it is quite shameful how you seem incapable of understanding exactly the same message when conveyed using different words.

Why don 't you go another step to educate yourself. Since you clearly cannot understand EM's reference, do a little google research into antibodies. Some of the other articles are written in plain English for those who need it.
...reveals your insecurity, Lance. In the end, putting me down does not achieve your intended goal of making yourself appear superior. It merely makes you look pathetically desperate.

I note that you still have not provided evidence for your initial argument that the immune system cannot possibly contain sufficient antigen-binding sites for every possible antigen, and that it makes them "from new," despite the fact I've requested you do so several times. I also note that you have, once again, attempted to misrepresent my argument, which has not changed since my initial post. There's only so long you can tread water, Lance. Do be sure to yell when you're ready to come aboard ship.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:19 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Now, Nikki.

It is me who is the shark. Look at the avatar.

It's nice to have dreams, isn't it?
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:12 am

Nikki

I give up.
You can lead a person to knowledge but you cannot make them learn.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:44 am

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody

One last point, and I quote.

"The large and diverse population of antibody paratopes (antigen binding sites) is generated by random recombination events of a set of gene segments that encode different parties followed by random mutations in this area of the antibody gene which create further diversity."

I do hope, Nikki, that you understand the words "random mutations..........create further diversity."

This is the source of the flexible and adaptable antibody system. Not the 19th century system of stasis that you seem to have accepted.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:55 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I give up.

Absolutely {!#%@} not, Lance. You do not get to be a supercilious, immature ass then walk away without once offering evidence for your argument. Skeptics' Forum, remember? Arguing from your own authority, which is all you've done here, doesn't cut it.

I would like to know, once and for all, exactly which argument you are sticking with, among the several you have described in this thread. And I would like to know exactly where you disagree with my argument. Because so far, all you've done is express your opinion. Please ensure that you're quite careful with your word selection. It would be best if you quoted this post and responded to each bullet point, and I'd like to see some direct quotes and links from you that support your argument, please.

My argument remains the same as it did in my first post:
• That the immune system has a preimmune antibody repertoire of 1012 antibodies, large enough to ensure there will be an antigen-binding site for nearly any potential antigen with low affinity.

• That after stimulation by an antigen, there is a progressive increase in the affinity of the antibodies produced against the antigen, a process known as affinity maturation.

• That only a small minority of antibodies experience affinity maturation, but their B cells are preferentially stimulated to survive and proliferate. Thus, antibodies of increasingly higher affinity are generated during the immune response.

• That B cells are monospecific; every antibody that one B cell produces has the exact same antigen-binding site. An activated B cell secretes antibodies that are "clones" of the membrane-bound antibody on the B cell that was originally stimulated.

• That class switching increases the diversity of the antibody response. During the immune response, cytokines that helper T cells secrete induce many B cells to switch to making IgG, IgE, or IgA antibodies. Regardless of class switching, B cells do not change their antigen-binding sites, which are constant for the life of the B cell.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:59 am

Lance will now ignore you...or repeat what he posted earlier as if it is now more persuasive having been shown to be irrelevant.

Lance: prove us wrong.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:29 am

I suspect that Nikki posted that bit straight after I posted my piece, and she missed it.

I do not argue against all her points. Only those that imply a static response to pathogens and not the dynamic and adaptive response that is reality

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:31 am

I give that a "push"... to eventually wind up in the same corner.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3289
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:28 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:An antibody is essentially two protein molecules joined, so they are a bit like molecular tweezers. At the 'open ' end of the tweezers, they are structured to fit against the antigen , which is usually a protein molecule on the surface of the pathogen. It is often called a lock and key fit. If an antibody does not have this modification to make it lock, against the antigen, it is useless. When a new antigen is detected by the immune system it modifies a whole bunch of antibodies to lock onto the antigen. These new antibodies are different at the action end of the molecule.


that's a very bad way to look at things.
There is no directed modification, there is only mutation from an already working templates. And the differences will be minute.
lance, the idea of lock-and-key is considered Kindergarten-anatomy book level by now: the actual process is much more dynamic, both on the side of the "key" and the "lock". The body can't "design" antibodies to fit an antigen, all it can do if throw a bunch or very similar ones at it and see which one binds the strongest. This one is then given higher rates of replication than the less successful versions.

The fact remains, Lance, that you didn't read the textbook quote, and the only possible reason is that you couldn't understand it. You accused me of "misinterpretation", but there is nothing to interpret there, as you would have known.

I strongly suggest that you drop the topic because you have nothing to gain by lying about the meanings of your previous posts.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:47 am

No lies.

"Lock and key " is undoubtedly a crude way of stating it, but is nevertheless a very widely used method of description by, no less, than professional immunologists.

I agree that the process is dynamic, which is what I have been saying all along. Nor have I ever implied some kind of design. Just a method of modifying antibodies to attach to antigens.

My position is simple, and always has been. I oppose the ridiculous statement that the immune system works on some kind of preprogrammed set up, where a static production works against any and all pathogens. Instead we have a wide range of antigens, which are proteins mostly. Since proteins have a massive range of structures, up to E200 possibles, having a large number (possibly a trillion) antibody designs, aint gonna cut it. The antibodies being produced have to be modified to attach to the antigens. I have said very little about how this is done, just emphasized that it is flexible, not static as you began by implying.

Yes, I read your reference, which supported my position . The only problem is that the language they used was not simple. So phrases like "antigenic sensitization " were misinterpreted by both you and Nikki. I already knew you were scientifically challenged but I was disappointed by Nikki, who I thought was better.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3289
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:11 am

Lance, I already debunked your crazy E200 number . it literally means nothing.
If you understood molecular biology, this would be obvious to you. But you have a cartoon-version idea protein design as if they were LEGO pieces.

As usual, you hang on a number you think is meaningful for your argument like a terrier, long past the point where the entire basis of your argument has disappeared.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:26 am

The E200 is the number of possible protein structures. Obviously there are not E200 proteins in existence. But the fact that you say it means nothing shows you do not understand. What it means is that any antigen might have any of E200 different structures. That in turn means that the immune system MUST be adaptive. If you fail to understand that very simple point, it is your own intellectual deficiency.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3289
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:35 am

no, Lance, it's you who lacks understanding. For starters, you have no clue about protein folding.

Not even in theory can that number of structures exist because a vast number of them would fall apart or cross-react to make them dysfunctional.


Your constant ad hominem against me are an obvious and desperate attempt to save your fragile ego.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:00 pm

EM

The number E200 came from my biochemistry professor, and I certainly do not have the skills and knowledge to calculate it for myself. I accept it because I know the source. It does not matter, though, because even if that number is incorrect, it is still a stupendously big number, way beyond any astronomical number. If the number was E180 instead, which is one hundred million trillions times smaller, it would still be (from our limited human perspective) indistinguishable from infinity.

http://blogs.nature.com/thescepticalchy ... ins_c.html
This reference is a PARTIAL calculation of the number of proteins. The writer stops when he has come up with more proteins than the weight of the Earth, and his process of calculating had barely begun. You can quibble all you like about how many potential proteins there are, but the number is beyond astronomical, which is sufficient for my argument.

This calculation in the reference above stopped at 41 amino acids long chains. But some proteins have been found that are more than 20,000 amino acids long. The total number of possible protein structures is indeed vast.

It is understandable that you are offended at some of my comments. But if you do not want me to suggest that you might be an idiot, stop making idiotic statements, like your latest post.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3289
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:49 am

As usual, Lance, you post something that you think supports your claims, but in fact contradicts them.

From a pure theoretical point, yes, an astronomically high number of combinations can be synthesized in the laboratory, which is what the article you link is about.
It has nothing to do with the number of combinations sampled by pathogens at any given time.

If you had a better grasp of genetic mutation mechanisms and rates, it would have been obvious that viruses etc. don't change their aminoacid chains the way a random algorithm does: it would no longer function. Mutation, even of very fast evolving systems life viruses, still follows branchings from a initial tree, each of which still resembles the root at least partially: that is why we can track pathogens through mutations. A virus doesn't re-invent itself every time it is replicated.

As I've suggested plenty of times in the past, why don't you ask your former teachers about this?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:18 am

OK, EM

What fraction of potential proteins do you think are unable to be manufactured by pathogens?

All but 1 in a TRILLION? That leaves 'only ' E188 potential proteins.

How about 1 in a quintillion ? That leaves 'only ' E182 potential proteins.

Come on EM. You can do better than that !
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:19 am

Sorry. Accidental double.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3289
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:56 am

Lance, what are you trying to prove? Or are you just desperate to convince yourself?

Use your knowledge of evolution to see that it is, in principle, irrelevant how many combinations are possible. The only question is how fast organisms are capable of exploring different combinations of creating antigens and antibodies.

It is, as most things in evolution, an arms race, but a lopsided one: if the mammalian immune system gets too far ahead, it might wipe out the virus strain and become highly resistant to similar types. If the virus gets too far ahead, it will kill its host, which also leads to the destruction of the virus. Sometimes, (like Herpes), we might even become a permanent host to the virus, as the massive amount of virus DNA we carry in our nuclei shows.
The only stable progress for the host/parasite, as always, is if there is a balance between attack and response that both sides can survive on.

So instead of clinging to your number like a drowning man to a life-raft, think about what it actual means in terms of living, replicating organisms.

The medical facts are clear: immune systems might be lucky to have the right antibodies to a completely new pathogen, but more likely they have been selected in the past to be ready for common pathogens in their environment. They can't adapt to something completely new and strange. This is textbook, and has been for ages, and is unaffected by your scary big numbers.

Where do you think do all the stories about alien viruses no one is immune against come from?
If your theory was right, we wouldn't have to worry.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:35 am

There are many reasons why a pathogen may be resistant to our immune system, and I have never claimed it is perfect. Everything derived from the process of evolution is likely to be flawed. An example of immune failure is the HIV pathogen which 'hides ' inside lymph nodes, thus avoiding attack. Varicella spends time in nerve nodes, thus avoiding attack. However the immune system is nevertheless adaptive. It is not as you put it : "The human immune system cannot learn anything new. " The human immune system constantly 'learns ' new stuff in order to perform its function .

If you were correct any new pathogen would kill 100% of its victims, and that does not happen. The humaan species is hit with new and lethal pathogens frequently. Just think of the various new flu infections, which kill a percentage of their victims. But always a larger percentage survives. This survival is because the immune system adapts, despite the pathogen being novel.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3289
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:25 am

Wrong on two counts, Lance:
there can't be truly "new" pathogens, because they must have evolved from something
- and -
we might by chance mutation be immune to something even if in our ancestry we've never encountered this particular antigen.


Lance, I love talking and teaching about biology, but that requires someone on the other side open to learn, if confronted with obvious gaps of knowledge.
I simply get no sense from you that you are interested in the subject at all except in order to prove your superior knowledge: for you, it's not about increasing what we, collectively, know; it's only about getting a kick out of having smacked down some other participant of the conversation.
This is so alien to me, and I don't know how to deal with it.

So for now, I think I have (multiple times, and with links) explained what the current medical knowledge on the subject is.
I'm not going to provide more detail unless someone shows a genuine interest.

You can learn from what we talked about so far, or not.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:15 pm

Who is refusing to learn now ?

I have a degree in biology, which includes courses in both microbiology and immunology.

It is you, EM who is refusing to learn anything new.

Electro432
New Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:09 pm

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Electro432 » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:17 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Electro432 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Q, if I may: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=28347&p=588845#p588711 and "Children are immune to diseases their mothers never encountered during pregnancy." - do vaccinations contribute, i.e., a fully vaccinated mother might possibly transmit a greater range?

All i can add is that mothers milk is the best in terms of supporting the immune system. I've done experiments with breast milk and formula, in that I left two samples in a jar and watched. The breast milk separated into cream and oil. The formula into pink powdery dust. They dont put that on the TV as a counterpoint to manmade suppliments. Need I add any more.

Just look at colostrum. (Also great for cheese!)

But the question revolved around antibodies passed on to the fetus through the placenta. What is contained in the mother's milk is in addition to that. :-D


What is in the mother's milk is a result of a process ie what the antibodies come up with?
"One's eyes are what one is; one's mouth, what one becomes."
Galsworthy

"The idealist walks on tiptoe, the materialist on his heels."
Chazal


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest