Having a hard time...

J

jdubbs

New member
I think the CF gene actually is beneficial if you have only one copy. The theory is it helps you survive cholera. So, as true CFers, we must be super protected against cholera. Score 1 for us.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E00EFD6133DF934A35753C1A962958260">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F934A35753C1A962958260</a>
 
J

jdubbs

New member
I think the CF gene actually is beneficial if you have only one copy. The theory is it helps you survive cholera. So, as true CFers, we must be super protected against cholera. Score 1 for us.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E00EFD6133DF934A35753C1A962958260">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F934A35753C1A962958260</a>
 
J

jdubbs

New member
I think the CF gene actually is beneficial if you have only one copy. The theory is it helps you survive cholera. So, as true CFers, we must be super protected against cholera. Score 1 for us.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E00EFD6133DF934A35753C1A962958260">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F934A35753C1A962958260</a>
 
J

jdubbs

New member
I think the CF gene actually is beneficial if you have only one copy. The theory is it helps you survive cholera. So, as true CFers, we must be super protected against cholera. Score 1 for us.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E00EFD6133DF934A35753C1A962958260">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F934A35753C1A962958260</a>
 
J

jdubbs

New member
I think the CF gene actually is beneficial if you have only one copy. The theory is it helps you survive cholera. So, as true CFers, we must be super protected against cholera. Score 1 for us.
<br />
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E00EFD6133DF934A35753C1A962958260">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F934A35753C1A962958260</a>
 
G

GriffinsMama

New member
http://smccd.net/accounts/hirzel/260/supplements/resources/cases/cftr3b.htm<br><br>I got this information and link from Norma Kennedy Plourde's website. I'm sorry I posted 56,000 years. This article states at least 52,000 years. This is an interesting article and Norma's site is a really informative site as well. :0)
 
G

GriffinsMama

New member
http://smccd.net/accounts/hirzel/260/supplements/resources/cases/cftr3b.htm<br><br>I got this information and link from Norma Kennedy Plourde's website. I'm sorry I posted 56,000 years. This article states at least 52,000 years. This is an interesting article and Norma's site is a really informative site as well. :0)
 
G

GriffinsMama

New member
http://smccd.net/accounts/hirzel/260/supplements/resources/cases/cftr3b.htm<br><br>I got this information and link from Norma Kennedy Plourde's website. I'm sorry I posted 56,000 years. This article states at least 52,000 years. This is an interesting article and Norma's site is a really informative site as well. :0)
 
G

GriffinsMama

New member
http://smccd.net/accounts/hirzel/260/supplements/resources/cases/cftr3b.htm<br><br>I got this information and link from Norma Kennedy Plourde's website. I'm sorry I posted 56,000 years. This article states at least 52,000 years. This is an interesting article and Norma's site is a really informative site as well. :0)
 
G

GriffinsMama

New member
http://smccd.net/accounts/hirzel/260/supplements/resources/cases/cftr3b.htm<br><br>I got this information and link from Norma Kennedy Plourde's website. I'm sorry I posted 56,000 years. This article states at least 52,000 years. This is an interesting article and Norma's site is a really informative site as well. :0)
 
G

GriffinsMama

New member
Ooops. I forgot to add that although I understand what you're saying, Havoc, I can't understand where you're coming from. First it's just not true. The cf gene will survive and the cf'ers will also survive. At this point in time *humans* may be able to weed out the gene but that's not Mother Natures work...that's humans. <br><br>Plus your way of looking at is is just too pessimistic IMHO. I think that calling someone or something with two recessive genes "bad genetic material" is just too narrow minded, IMHO. They just as well could be called "interesting genetic material" or "unique, extremely intelligent and attractive genetic material with the unfortunate task of doing maintenance health care"<br><br>I know that sounds goofy but.... honestly I believe that you have to make the best of what you've got.
 
G

GriffinsMama

New member
Ooops. I forgot to add that although I understand what you're saying, Havoc, I can't understand where you're coming from. First it's just not true. The cf gene will survive and the cf'ers will also survive. At this point in time *humans* may be able to weed out the gene but that's not Mother Natures work...that's humans. <br><br>Plus your way of looking at is is just too pessimistic IMHO. I think that calling someone or something with two recessive genes "bad genetic material" is just too narrow minded, IMHO. They just as well could be called "interesting genetic material" or "unique, extremely intelligent and attractive genetic material with the unfortunate task of doing maintenance health care"<br><br>I know that sounds goofy but.... honestly I believe that you have to make the best of what you've got.
 
G

GriffinsMama

New member
Ooops. I forgot to add that although I understand what you're saying, Havoc, I can't understand where you're coming from. First it's just not true. The cf gene will survive and the cf'ers will also survive. At this point in time *humans* may be able to weed out the gene but that's not Mother Natures work...that's humans. <br><br>Plus your way of looking at is is just too pessimistic IMHO. I think that calling someone or something with two recessive genes "bad genetic material" is just too narrow minded, IMHO. They just as well could be called "interesting genetic material" or "unique, extremely intelligent and attractive genetic material with the unfortunate task of doing maintenance health care"<br><br>I know that sounds goofy but.... honestly I believe that you have to make the best of what you've got.
 
G

GriffinsMama

New member
Ooops. I forgot to add that although I understand what you're saying, Havoc, I can't understand where you're coming from. First it's just not true. The cf gene will survive and the cf'ers will also survive. At this point in time *humans* may be able to weed out the gene but that's not Mother Natures work...that's humans. <br><br>Plus your way of looking at is is just too pessimistic IMHO. I think that calling someone or something with two recessive genes "bad genetic material" is just too narrow minded, IMHO. They just as well could be called "interesting genetic material" or "unique, extremely intelligent and attractive genetic material with the unfortunate task of doing maintenance health care"<br><br>I know that sounds goofy but.... honestly I believe that you have to make the best of what you've got.
 
G

GriffinsMama

New member
Ooops. I forgot to add that although I understand what you're saying, Havoc, I can't understand where you're coming from. First it's just not true. The cf gene will survive and the cf'ers will also survive. At this point in time *humans* may be able to weed out the gene but that's not Mother Natures work...that's humans. <br><br>Plus your way of looking at is is just too pessimistic IMHO. I think that calling someone or something with two recessive genes "bad genetic material" is just too narrow minded, IMHO. They just as well could be called "interesting genetic material" or "unique, extremely intelligent and attractive genetic material with the unfortunate task of doing maintenance health care"<br><br>I know that sounds goofy but.... honestly I believe that you have to make the best of what you've got.
 
H

Havoc

New member
Yes, I read that study before somewhere. It certainly would have benefited carriers in the 1800's when there was a lot of problem with cholera pandemics. I've been doing some digging, the only real data I can find other than the article that you pointed out was an article published by the University of Massachusetts Medical School. They found that, compared to 1999-2002, there was a 50% drop in live births with CF in 2003-2006. The theory is that the decline is due to genetic screening for CF.
 
H

Havoc

New member
Yes, I read that study before somewhere. It certainly would have benefited carriers in the 1800's when there was a lot of problem with cholera pandemics. I've been doing some digging, the only real data I can find other than the article that you pointed out was an article published by the University of Massachusetts Medical School. They found that, compared to 1999-2002, there was a 50% drop in live births with CF in 2003-2006. The theory is that the decline is due to genetic screening for CF.
 
H

Havoc

New member
Yes, I read that study before somewhere. It certainly would have benefited carriers in the 1800's when there was a lot of problem with cholera pandemics. I've been doing some digging, the only real data I can find other than the article that you pointed out was an article published by the University of Massachusetts Medical School. They found that, compared to 1999-2002, there was a 50% drop in live births with CF in 2003-2006. The theory is that the decline is due to genetic screening for CF.
 
H

Havoc

New member
Yes, I read that study before somewhere. It certainly would have benefited carriers in the 1800's when there was a lot of problem with cholera pandemics. I've been doing some digging, the only real data I can find other than the article that you pointed out was an article published by the University of Massachusetts Medical School. They found that, compared to 1999-2002, there was a 50% drop in live births with CF in 2003-2006. The theory is that the decline is due to genetic screening for CF.
 
H

Havoc

New member
Yes, I read that study before somewhere. It certainly would have benefited carriers in the 1800's when there was a lot of problem with cholera pandemics. I've been doing some digging, the only real data I can find other than the article that you pointed out was an article published by the University of Massachusetts Medical School. They found that, compared to 1999-2002, there was a 50% drop in live births with CF in 2003-2006. The theory is that the decline is due to genetic screening for CF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top