[LMB] We've been discussing gene engineering on people...

Joel Polowin jpolowin at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 15 20:01:29 BST 2019

Matthew George <matt.msg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> YES, it's a real condition.
> You don't understand what etiology is, and you're defending what isn't
> under attack.

"Etiology" is a ten-dollar medical synonym for "cause".  VERY few
conditions have "no etiology".  (My own spinal-cord thing is one of
them.  The neurologist described it as "a one-in-a-million shit-happens
thing".)  Doctors almost never use that phrase.  "Unknown etiology"
or "no known etiology" are the phrases used.

> Your anecdotal (ha!) argument misses the point.  Doctors
> used to argue that differential response to treatment made it possible to
> determine which children definitely had ADD/ADHD and which did not.  Then
> studies showed that perfectly normal children had identical responses to
> the various drugs as ones with the diagnoses - increased focus and
> perservation mixed with greater tolerance for lack of input primarily - but
> those changes were not perceived are beneficial in the normal group, and as
> a godsend with the problem children.  So the claims that the effects of the
> drugs made a distinction possible were dropped.  Claims of medical efficacy
> tend to metaphorically be headlines, while acknowledgements of error tend
> to be buried on the back pages.

My sweetie says that that's simply not the case.  She has seen many ADHD
people in her practise.  The diagnosis is generally easy to confirm: you give
the jittery, constantly-moving person a stimulant.  Caffeine will do.  If they
become less jittery, they have ADHD.  If they don't calm down, they don't.

>> It can't be hard-and-fast measured with a diagnostic instrument.  That
>> doesn't mean it can't be diagnosed.

>Anything can be diagnosed.  It requires only agreement as to names and
> categories.  Whether those categories correspond to reality is the
> question, Mr. Polowin.

Yes, Mr. George.  And your "reality" doesn't seem to match that of people
who've been involved with the condition.

>> This is, in fact, not the case.
> You don't understand what a 'genetic condition' is, either.
>> T1D may not be *solely* genetic, but genetics plays a strong role.
>There are no diseases - of any kind - where genetics do not play a strong
> role.

Scurvy.  Measles.

> Duh.

As you say, Duh.


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list