You Can No Longer Trust ANY New Doctor
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-05-13 12:10 by Karl Denninger
in Stupidity , 201 references Ignore this thread
You Can No Longer Trust ANY New Doctor
[Comments enabled]

Let it burn to the ground.

If I see any of the people raising hell about this on fire and I have a glass of water -- I'll drink it.

If, on the other hand, it's a glass of gasoline....

A medical school lecture comparing the "parallels between fetuses and cancers" is coming under fire from the University of California as a dehumanizing lesson to students.

But the professor insists it wasn't the point of the slide.

The lecture, reportedly part of the UC San Diego School of Medicine course, Evolution of Human Disease, "explores the major epidemiological transitions from ape-like ancestors to foraging tribes, farmers and pastoralists, to the global metropolitan primate we now are. We focus on how diseases have shaped humans and how humans have shaped disease over time."

Remember context folks: This is a medical school lecture.

What the professor was referring to is that one of the differentiating factors with mammals is that they rely on implantation of an embryo into the mother which then causes the growth of a placenta that invades the uterine tissue -- and that makes possible the exchange of oxygen and waste between the mother and developing fetus.

Without this mechanism mammals could not exist.

This mechanism may well be part of why certain disease vectors exist too -- including cancer.

In fact it's a reasonable and well-understood scientific theory that is indeed one of the reasons mammals suffer from cancer at a higher rate than non-mammals.

Then there are a few animals that almost never develop cancer, despite being mammals.  Elephants are one of the few and it may be linked to a specific gene. But in general non-oviparous animals -- that is, those who do not have implantation of embryos into the mother's womb -- have lower cancer rates than oviparous animals.

The outrage directed at this professor is exactly the sort of nonsense that has infested virtually every aspect of so-called "higher education."  Educational pursuits are supposed to deal in facts and this is one of them -- mammals get cancer more often and it is a reasonable scientific deduction that one of the reasons why is that mammals have as an inherent part of their necessary cellular processes a provision for placental implantation to take place.  Therefore a tumor can abuse this mechanism to obtain for itself nutrition and waste disposal -- exactly as does a fetus.

That doesn't make a fetus a cancer, idiots!

Sweet meteor of death, may you smite the insanity in this land, found in abundance in the comments of the cited article.

I freely accept the potential of becoming collateral damage in offering this prayer to the heavens.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info You Can No Longer Trust ANY New Doctor in forum [Market-Ticker]
Posts: 38
Incept: 2018-12-04

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
My issue on this one is with the prof calling a fetus a parasite. Its no such thing for a number of reasons, one being they are the same species. A fetus may share a few similarities with how a parasite acts but it isnt a parasite.

As for the cancer part, its a possible explanation however the fact that some mammals rarely ever get cancer would lead me to question this theory quite critically. Also the fact that non mammals still get cancer would also lead me to question this hypothesis/theory as well.
Posts: 157221
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It's a susceptibility issue @Twainfan2.

A fetus is a genetically-distinct individual, yet mammals adapted to not reject the fetus (via the placenta) during development, and to allow the placenta to invade the tissue of the uterus -- again, without being rejected.

Cancer relies on the same vasculogenesis that placental attachment does; while the mechanism is not identical it's verrrry similar. And while non-mammals DO get cancer they get it at much lower rates. Most mammals get it at roughly-similar rates; dogs, for example, get cancer at roughly similar rates to humans.

We believe we know part of the reason elephants have a materially lower rate; it's a specific genetic difference. But they're not immune. So far that isolation hasn't led to anything worthwhile for humans, but you never know in the future. It's highly unlikely, however, that such can be turned into an "immunity".

Winding it down.
Posts: 986
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Twinfan2 -
My issue on this one is with the prof calling a fetus a parasite.

The fetus normally does not become a parasite until after it is indoctrinated in the public school system and becomes a full fledged socialist. See picture of The Bern!

In fact it's a reasonable and well-understood scientific theory that is indeed one of the reasons mammals suffer from cancer at a higher rate than non-mammals.

The theory that the mother accepts the impregnated egg into her body so that she can produce an offspring and why humans are more susceptible to cancer than non-mammals makes a lot of sense. Animals that produce eggs have the gestation (not sure if the embryo being developed in an egg is still gestation???)take place away from it's body, the egg shell acts as barrier the same way the womb does. With the difference being the mother's body can be scavenged to provide for the growing baby.

So it would also make sense that because the mother's body has accepted the embryo her body is primed for also accepting other "Growths" i.e. cancer cells to develop.

There are some natural remedies to this like breast feeding that has been theorized to reduce the risk of breast cancer. Of course American women are encouraged to feed their children formula. But now I am wondering if the woman's body is primed to receive an embryo and it is taken from her and in some cases repeatedly, is she also making her body a more likely candidate for cancers?

Karl is of course correct in saying "That doesn't make a fetus a cancer"

I would however argue that our current education system, and absences of critical thinking - doctors included- is the cancer.
Posts: 15
Incept: 2019-04-03

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There is a teaching on this. I think it comes from Native America. And I think this teaching got confused by Western thought.

In Native American spirituality there's this huge emphasis of living in harmony with the Earth Mother and her dependent creatures. Harmony exists in balance. Never take more than you need and try to give some back to her. Otherwise the balance goes whacko and basically **** starts going boink. Cut down all the trees and the animals suffer. Dam the river and the fish suffer. And it starts this cascading reaction thing. People starve, people suffer, people fall ill and die.

Also with this is the concept that the Earth is ALIVE. She is an ENTITY. Everything is ALIVE to us. Rocks are alive, clouds are alive, the wind talks and rain actually has gender. And all living things make up the Earth's biology kinda like the first amoeba that consumed rhibal DNA.

So the process of imbalance is met with something akin to an immuno-response from the planet. And in this sense, those who are out of balance might be seen as a disease. But this is an ANALOGY. All we have to do to get back to balance is just kinda do it. Just step back into the fold. All Al Gore has to do to get into balance is sell his multiple houses and private jet and live humbly. Practice what you preach!

The idea that humans are a malevolent parasite and thus alienated from nature is a FALLACY. This is 100% contradictory to the teaching. There is in fact nothing we can do to be seen as anything but children of our mother by our mother. This relationship is permanent. It's as inalienable as our concept of natural rights. You can't divorce it and it cannot be taken away from you. Just like your mom wouldn't reject you even if you are in the wrong, moms always defend their children. And "correction is not rejection". Mom might give you a spanking but it's for your own good.

To those who subscribe to the negative side, it is they who dwell in a place of rejection, anger, pain and suffering. And they perpetuate a cycle of illness in their own lives and then to those around them. This cycle basically ends up in nihilism. It makes people say absurd things like "humans are evil".

I can see two practical and simple ways around this. First is the old Boyscout rule of doing one good deed a day. Just by lifting up our eyes and seeing others and trying to help, we are uplifted. The second comes from my buddy Sammy who is a rabbinical student. He says that a man can live his whole life and do just one good deed, a mitzvah, then his whole life is justified under God.

OK enough preaching. Anybody wanna join me in a cocktail?
Posts: 5473
Incept: 2009-02-28

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Dr. Mengele must be running the show. It is clear abortion doesn't do any good, because these people weren't aborted. We have passed 1984 and gone straight to hell. The Democrat party has emerged as a blend of Hitlerism and Stalinism, colored by identity politics. Gasoline isn't a bad idea.

The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ