Cytomegalovirus was once part of what was considered an fringe theory of why some individuals came down with full blow AIDS while others did not. Curious that we had a recent piece on the new HPV vaccine providing "herd immunity" i.e. even if women in a community did not contract the disease, they did not get the virus. Well, we are in the midst of a worldwide diabetes epidemic. Could there be a correlation, in that the diabetic condition is considered to be an auto immune disease and the AIDS epidemic? Are people on a herd immunity based model, getting auto immune diseases like diabetes, due to the prevalence of the AIDS virus among the general population? ? Not that it is protective, per se, but it would be interesting to see if there is any negative relationship between having an auto immune disease and not getting full blown AIDS . If we remember that the AIDS virus is a retro virus and affects the one of the key elements of the immune response , white blood cells and becomes a part of the genetic material of an afflicted individual. Hence, attempt to defend , might be auto immune as a defense is not so implausible. Food for thought.
OK, let me get this straight- approximately (just splitting the difference) 70% of adults over 40 have this virus and you are trying to link it to diabetes? Do you see where I'm going with this? You could link it to absolutely any common disease and you'd have a high finding. How about this one??? Medical research is linked to corrupt pharmaceutical money...That's for sure.
I am truly tired of the politicos about 'corrupt pharmaceutical research'. Hey you college wannabeeees, since a large portion of the research is done in our universities by the people who teach you, with your logic, then you would be taught to be corrupt in college-further to cheat at everything. Bullhockey. I worked for years in several departments in 2 universities an no, I didn't experience those 'corrupt pharmaceutical researchers'. In fact, donations which every university loves to get to make your college classes cheaper for ya, well, some checks were simply not taken an were returned due to potential conflicts of interest. You people just don't get it. You don't know the people doing the research nor do you know all of the stuff that goes into research at which levels and where. So, unless you are in the industry, and unless you know for a fact that something is actually raising a scientific red flag, then shut the heck up and do some intense study, get to the research and see for yourself. Now if there is some and it isn't some isolated individual that can't be dismiss but the 'megolythic corporate empires' then by all means, blow the wistle with backed up facts. In other words, Andi are you really one of those just spouting off dribble or do you have concrete evidence that you-yourself have found and need to report?
I would say you must consider who funds studies, even at universities. It has been proven, repeatedly, that funding changes the outcome of any study. Simple example: if I get 200k in grants for proving that virus x causes problem Y, but if i find there is no correlation (and therefore no funding) ...really, what do you think my research will show? Even the slightest correlative data will take centerstage because every research dept needs money.
Also, most research in healthcare is not done independently. It is funded directly by interest groups (pharma, certain agri, chem and so forth) and the researchers know exactly where their money and possible next job comes from (even when we shouldn't know) I just completed an internship in a 'public' university's grad level physiology department. Trust me, we all knew that our research had only one acceptable outcome for our dept to get a grant next year. The idea that a double-blind study equates good research is a fallacy. We all know where our grants really come from - sometimes its blatant, sometimes its subtle. S
I thought it was the food that cause type 2 DIABETES. Now since it's a virus, I will go back to eating anything I want too, especially sweats. Then they will developed a type 2 vaccine for else. Then start to blame the one's that refuse to take it, that it's their fault the disease is spreading. Boy!!! this sure does sounds familiar.
Cytomegalovirus was once part of what was considered an fringe theory of why some individuals came down with full blow AIDS while others did not. Curious that we had a recent piece on the new HPV vaccine providing "herd immunity" i.e. even if women in a community did not contract the disease, they did not get the virus. Well, we are in the midst of a worldwide diabetes epidemic. Could there be a correlation, in that the diabetic condition is considered to be an auto immune disease and the AIDS epidemic? Are people on a herd immunity based model, getting auto immune diseases like diabetes, due to the prevalence of the AIDS virus among the general population? ? Not that it is protective, per se, but it would be interesting to see if there is any negative relationship between having an auto immune disease and not getting full blown AIDS . If we remember that the AIDS virus is a retro virus and affects the one of the key elements of the immune response , white blood cells and becomes a part of the genetic material of an afflicted individual. Hence, attempt to defend , might be auto immune as a defense is not so implausible. Food for thought.
OK, let me get this straight- approximately (just splitting the difference) 70% of adults over 40 have this virus and you are trying to link it to diabetes? Do you see where I'm going with this? You could link it to absolutely any common disease and you'd have a high finding. How about this one??? Medical research is linked to corrupt pharmaceutical money...That's for sure.
Taken a step further for potential study or three. Does cytomegalovirus contribute to obesity, or hypertension or other ills?
I am truly tired of the politicos about 'corrupt pharmaceutical research'. Hey you college wannabeeees, since a large portion of the research is done in our universities by the people who teach you, with your logic, then you would be taught to be corrupt in college-further to cheat at everything. Bullhockey. I worked for years in several departments in 2 universities an no, I didn't experience those 'corrupt pharmaceutical researchers'. In fact, donations which every university loves to get to make your college classes cheaper for ya, well, some checks were simply not taken an were returned due to potential conflicts of interest. You people just don't get it. You don't know the people doing the research nor do you know all of the stuff that goes into research at which levels and where. So, unless you are in the industry, and unless you know for a fact that something is actually raising a scientific red flag, then shut the heck up and do some intense study, get to the research and see for yourself. Now if there is some and it isn't some isolated individual that can't be dismiss but the 'megolythic corporate empires' then by all means, blow the wistle with backed up facts. In other words, Andi are you really one of those just spouting off dribble or do you have concrete evidence that you-yourself have found and need to report?
I would say you must consider who funds studies, even at universities. It has been proven, repeatedly, that funding changes the outcome of any study. Simple example: if I get 200k in grants for proving that virus x causes problem Y, but if i find there is no correlation (and therefore no funding) ...really, what do you think my research will show? Even the slightest correlative data will take centerstage because every research dept needs money.
Also, most research in healthcare is not done independently. It is funded directly by interest groups (pharma, certain agri, chem and so forth) and the researchers know exactly where their money and possible next job comes from (even when we shouldn't know) I just completed an internship in a 'public' university's grad level physiology department. Trust me, we all knew that our research had only one acceptable outcome for our dept to get a grant next year. The idea that a double-blind study equates good research is a fallacy. We all know where our grants really come from - sometimes its blatant, sometimes its subtle. S
I thought it was the food that cause type 2 DIABETES. Now since it's a virus, I will go back to eating anything I want too, especially sweats. Then they will developed a type 2 vaccine for else. Then start to blame the one's that refuse to take it, that it's their fault the disease is spreading. Boy!!! this sure does sounds familiar.