Re:Bladder cancer 'attacked and killed by common cold virus'
by SketchySeaBeast on Friday July 05, 2019 @04:04PM
(#20365409)
While that does address the fever, the original commenter makes a lot of other claims which are absolutely without merit.
Re:Bladder cancer 'attacked and killed by common cold virus'
by kingkawn on Friday July 05, 2019 @05:53PM
(#20366184)
I haven’t investigated those claims so have no opinion of their merit. Even science begins with the urge to look where we have not yet thought to do so. To dismiss another with vitriol is anti scientific, even if their intent is not scientific.
Re:Bladder cancer 'attacked and killed by common cold virus'
by SketchySeaBeast on Friday July 05, 2019 @06:12PM
(#20366305)
I'm not about to just be neutral on everything until they are proven false - if there is a claim for which I have no personal evidence and no evidence is provided, and my understanding of the world, based upon previous evidence, suggests that those items are wrong, I'm rejecting that assumption with extreme prejudice until sufficient evidence is provided. And as always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Re:Bladder cancer 'attacked and killed by common cold virus'
by kingkawn on Monday July 08, 2019 @09:43AM
(#20382618)
Your cultural expression of truth is not justification to socially lash out at others. Whether in the name of science, god, or some other ideal, the act is violent.
Re:Bladder cancer 'attacked and killed by common cold virus'
by SketchySeaBeast on Monday July 08, 2019 @09:54AM
(#20382704)
That's stretching the definition of violence to uselessness - by utilizing the term as such you're basically watering it mean very little, and to hold no weight in the accusation.
Re:Bladder cancer 'attacked and killed by common cold virus'
by tempestn on Friday July 05, 2019 @04:25PM
(#20365575)
Yes, fevers can be beneficial as long as they don't get too high. I'm not aware of any evidence that "getting a cold is a great thing" though, unless maybe you have bladder cancer...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4869589/#!po=0....
I could go on...
The original commenter is encountering a lot of negative reaction because of his reliance on new age language to make his points in this community that hews strenuously to a concept of scientific methodology, but nonetheless he is correct that fever is mostly a protective adaptation that decreases infection mortality rates. Obviously there are temps above which fever can be damaging, so a complete abdication of intervention is not the way, but allowing fever for the most part to do its thing is helpful according to decades of mainstream medical research since the 80s.