Is Breast Cancer a "Social Construct" ??

The difference is testosterone. Black women produce more
testosterone. "testosterone might be more strongly
associated with [breast cancer] risk than estradiol"
(Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2002; 94: 606-
616). If interested, see: "How 'Hormone Replacement Therapy'
(HRT) May Cause Breast Cancer" at
www.anthropogeny.com/research.html

Quoted message said:

Political correctness invades medical research --

DAFN DNA is Different: seattletimes.nwsource.comhtOpen ↗
ml/localnews/2001956358_cancer15m.html ********************
exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt ******************** June 15,
2004 - Racial differences seen in breast-cancer study

Black women with breast cancer are more likely than whites
to have aggressive tumors, a new study says, but
researchers aren't sure why. The findings, however, may
help explain why fewer blacks survive even when their
breast cancer is detected at the same stage as whites.

The study led by Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center found that cancer tumors in black women tended to
*DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those of their white
counterparts. The blacks were more likely to have tumors
that grew aggressively, had more dead cells and contained
abnormal amounts of proteins that regulate cell division.

But the study's lead author... [told white lie in desperate
spin maneuver to protect their funding] cautioned that the
results should not be taken as evidence of genetic
differences between the races. [...ROTFLMWAO...snip...]
**********************************************************-
***********

Race is genetic...

Quoted message said:

Political correctness invades medical research --

DAFN DNA is Different: seattletimes.nwsource.comhtOpen ↗
ml/localnews/2001956358_cancer15m.html ********************
exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt ******************** June 15,
2004 - Racial differences seen in breast-cancer study

Black women with breast cancer are more likely than whites
to have aggressive tumors, a new study says, but
researchers aren't sure why. The findings, however, may
help explain why fewer blacks survive even when their
breast cancer is detected at the same stage as whites.

The study led by Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center found that cancer tumors in black women tended to
*DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those of their white
counterparts. The blacks were more likely to have tumors
that grew aggressively, had more dead cells and contained
abnormal amounts of proteins that regulate cell division.

But the study's lead author... [told white lie in desperate
spin maneuver to protect their funding] cautioned that the
results should not be taken as evidence of genetic
differences between the races. [...ROTFLMWAO...snip...]
**********************************************************-
***********

Race is genetic...

So the article specifically has the author disagreeing with
your opinion, but you think it proves your case. Shows how
close-minded you are.

The key words "tended" and "more likely" show that the
differences were NOT definitive. There were whites that had
black cancers and blacks that had white cancers. Thus one
cannot tell from the kind of cancer what race one is.

What a subhuman racist scum.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

Bob LeChevalier said:

Quoted message said:

Political correctness invades medical research --

DAFN DNA is Different: seattletimes.nwsource.comseattletimes.nwsource.comOpen ↗
html/localnews/2001956358_cancer15m.html
******************** exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt
******************** June 15, 2004 - Racial differences
seen in breast-cancer study

Black women with breast cancer are more likely than
whites to have aggressive tumors, a new study says, but
researchers aren't sure why. The findings, however, may
help explain why fewer blacks survive even when their
breast cancer is detected at the same stage as whites.

The study led by Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center found that cancer tumors in black women
tended to *DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those of their white
counterparts. The blacks were more likely to have tumors
that grew aggressively, had more dead cells and contained
abnormal amounts of proteins that regulate cell division.

But the study's lead author... [told white lie in
desperate spin maneuver to protect their funding]
cautioned that the results should not be taken as
evidence of genetic differences between the races.
[...ROTFLMWAO...snip...]
********************************************************-
*************

Race is genetic...

So the article specifically has the author disagreeing
with your opinion, but you think it proves your case.
Shows how close-minded you are.

The article specifically has the author in conflict with
his/herself. You can't have biological differences that are
not genetic. So you have to consider which statement is true
or false, and *WHY*. Contemporary social trendz don't leave
much doubt about *THAT*.

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Political correctness invades medical research --

DAFN DNA is Different: seattletimes.nwsource.comseattletimes.nwsource.comOpen ↗
html/localnews/2001956358_cancer15m.html
******************** exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt
******************** June 15, 2004 - Racial differences
seen in breast-cancer study

Black women with breast cancer are more likely than
whites to have aggressive tumors, a new study says, but
researchers aren't sure why. The findings, however, may
help explain why fewer blacks survive even when their
breast cancer is detected at the same stage as whites.

The study led by Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center found that cancer tumors in black women
tended to *DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those of their white
counterparts. The blacks were more likely to have tumors
that grew aggressively, had more dead cells and contained
abnormal amounts of proteins that regulate cell division.

But the study's lead author... [told white lie in
desperate spin maneuver to protect their funding]
cautioned that the results should not be taken as
evidence of genetic differences between the races.
[...ROTFLMWAO...snip...]
********************************************************-
*************

Race is genetic...

So the article specifically has the author disagreeing
with your opinion, but you think it proves your case.
Shows how close-minded you are.

The key words "tended" and "more likely" show that the
differences were NOT definitive. There were whites that
had black cancers and blacks that had white cancers. Thus
one cannot tell from the kind of cancer what race one is.

What a subhuman racist scum.

Well, that's usually the way of it, as you well know.
Makemyday siezes on a couple of words (small ones; ones that
are not too hard to read) in the headline of an article,
entirely ignores the content, and attempts to cite the
entire article to support his infantile attempts to rise
above his inferiority complex by degrading others.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who
understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob LeChevalier said:

Quoted message said:

Political correctness invades medical research --

DAFN DNA is Different: seattletimes.nwsource.comseattletimes.nwsource.comOpen ↗
html/localnews/2001956358_cancer15m.html
******************** exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt
******************** June 15, 2004 - Racial differences
seen in breast-cancer study

Black women with breast cancer are more likely than
whites to have aggressive tumors, a new study says, but
researchers aren't sure why. The findings, however, may
help explain why fewer blacks survive even when their
breast cancer is detected at the same stage as whites.

The study led by Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center found that cancer tumors in black women
tended to *DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those of their white
counterparts. The blacks were more likely to have tumors
that grew aggressively, had more dead cells and contained
abnormal amounts of proteins that regulate cell division.

But the study's lead author... [told white lie in
desperate spin maneuver to protect their funding]
cautioned that the results should not be taken as
evidence of genetic differences between the races.
[...ROTFLMWAO...snip...]
********************************************************-
*************

Race is genetic...

So the article specifically has the author disagreeing
with your opinion, but you think it proves your case.
Shows how close-minded you are.

The key words "tended" and "more likely" show that the
differences were NOT definitive. There were whites that
had black cancers and blacks that had white cancers. Thus
one cannot tell from the kind of cancer what race one is.

What a subhuman racist scum.

Yeah, idiots like him infest the political newsgroups all
too frequently. I've dealt with their ilk far too often on
Usenet. Fortunately, they are relatively rare on sci.med.

Like many racists, "makemyday" tries to imply false analogy
(although he hasn't explicitly said it yet). By citing the
findings of a study to suggest that differences in disease
susceptibility between races are biological, he is hoping to
use that to add a sheen of respectability to racist views
that blacks are inherently inferior in various ways.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

Quoted message said:

The article specifically has the author in conflict with
his/herself. You can't have biological differences that are
not genetic.

Really?

Do identical twins get identical cancers at identical ages,
and die of identical causes at identical ages?

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob LeChevalier said:

Quoted message said:

Political correctness invades medical research --

DAFN DNA is Different:

seattletimes.nwsource.com2001956358Open ↗
_cancer15m.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

******************** exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt
******************** June 15, 2004 - Racial differences
seen in breast-cancer study

Black women with breast cancer are more likely than
whites to have aggressive tumors, a new study says, but
researchers aren't sure why. The findings, however, may
help explain why fewer blacks survive even when their
breast cancer is detected at the same stage as whites.

The study led by Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center found that cancer tumors in black women
tended to *DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those of their
white counterparts. The blacks were more likely to have
tumors that grew aggressively, had more dead cells and
contained abnormal amounts of proteins that regulate
cell division.

But the study's lead author... [told white lie in
desperate spin maneuver to protect their funding]
cautioned that the results should not be taken as
evidence of genetic differences between the races.
[...ROTFLMWAO...snip...]
******************************************************-
***************

Race is genetic...

So the article specifically has the author disagreeing
with your opinion, but you think it proves your case.
Shows how close-minded you are.

The key words "tended" and "more likely" show that the
differences were NOT definitive. There were whites that
had black cancers and blacks that had white cancers.
Thus one cannot tell from the kind of cancer what race
one is.

What a subhuman racist scum.

Yeah, idiots like him infest the political newsgroups all
too frequently.

Yes. However, the ignorance spreads both ways. People are so
fearful of being called "racist" that they ignore obvious
physical and genetic differences. Ignoring these differences
will have consequences in science and medicine.

The issue of race and genetics is so inflammatory that many
people fail to apply critical thinking skills when analyzing
the situation.

Quoted message said:

I've dealt with their ilk far too often on Usenet.
Fortunately, they are relatively rare on sci.med.

Like many racists, "makemyday" tries to imply false
analogy (although he hasn't explicitly said it yet). By
citing the findings of a study to suggest that differences
in disease susceptibility between races are biological, he
is hoping to use that to add a sheen of respectability to
racist views that blacks are inherently inferior in
various ways.

It is perhaps the negative connotation of the word "race",
i.e implying that one has to win, or be better than another,
that lead to the word being viewed disfavorably.

However, let me ask you: What is wrong with the idea that
certain genetic traits are superior to others? After all,
evolution favors genetic traits that lead to better
procreation and survival of the species.

For instance, I wish I had the genetics so that I would not
burn in the sun after 5 minutes of exposure. My genes do not
allow me to produce much melanin in the skin, thus I am more
susceptible to sunburn and certain skin cancers. I would
consider the ability to tan a superior trait when it comes
to sun exposure. Somewhere in the past, my ancestors
developed the ability to easily store fat for protection
from famine. At the time that was a superior genetic trait.

The thing is that some people want to restrict the rights
of people with certain genetic traits, which like it or not
can be identified visually, but that does not mean that the
idea of genetic race is not scientifically valid, just that
there are [censored] that use it as an excuse to enslave, or
harass, or kill.

Bob LeChevalier said:

Quoted message said:

The article specifically has the author in conflict with
his/herself. You can't have biological differences that
are not genetic.

Really?

Really...

Quoted message said:

Do identical twins get identical cancers at identical
ages, and die of identical causes at identical ages?

Lots of diseases run (genetically) in families....

The article said, "The study led by Seattle's Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that cancer tumors
in black women tended to *DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those of
their white counterparts."

That means the DAFN DNA is different from the white DNA and
there is zero element of "social construct" (contrary to
your often-spouted theoriy of race...).

"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah, idiots like him infest the political newsgroups
all too frequently.

Yes. However, the ignorance spreads both ways. People are
so fearful of being called "racist" that they ignore
obvious physical and genetic differences. Ignoring these
differences will have consequences in science and
medicine.

It is not that the differences should be or even that they
are are ignored. What is objectionable and just plain stupid
is the infantile attempt of those who try to establish
superiority based on those differences. It is THAT
infestation, that mental illness, that we could do without.

--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest
of principles." -- Ambrose Bierce

Michael Varney' varney@colorado_no_spam.edu said:

It is perhaps the negative connotation of the word "race",
i.e implying that one has to win, or be better than
another, that lead to the word being viewed disfavorably.

However, let me ask you: What is wrong with the idea that
certain genetic traits are superior to others?

It is just WRONG, when applied to entire groups.

Argument: if trait A were universally superior to trait
B then groups with trait B would have failed to thrive,
and in fact would only exist as a recessive or
spontaneous mutation.

Quoted message said:

After all, evolution favors genetic traits that lead to
better procreation and survival of the species.

If that were the case then those with the "inferior" trait
would procreate less or survive more poorly under identical
conditions.

Quoted message said:

For instance, I wish I had the genetics so that I would not
burn in the sun after 5 minutes of exposure. My genes do
not allow me to produce much melanin in the skin, thus I am
more susceptible to sunburn and certain skin cancers. I
would consider the ability to tan a superior trait when it
comes to sun exposure.

You may consider it a superior trait, but that is your
subjective opinion, since your opinion has nothing to do
with the survival and reproduction of those with that trait.
Superiority based on subjective personal opinion is
precisely why "race" categorization is considered a social
phenomenon. If one were merely looking at genetic traits
with no valuation, then all those of equally dark skin would
be considered a "race" for purposes of that one trait.
Melanesians, Tamils, and Africans all with the same skin
color/melanin level would be classed together, but those
with a lighter or darker shade would not.

In the meantime, if that were really a superior trait,
then why would the species have evolved lighter melanin
levels? The answer appears to be that there is a tradeoff
between melanin level, which may protect from the sun, but
which also interferes with Vitamin D metabolism. Whether
more sun tolerance is "superior" then depends on your
access to alternative sources of Vitamin D, which is not a
genetic trait.

Quoted message said:

Somewhere in the past, my ancestors developed the ability
to easily store fat for protection from famine. At the time
that was a superior genetic trait.

It still is, if there is a famine. Lots of people in other
societies would gladly trade sun tolerance for famine
protection.

Quoted message said:

The thing is that some people want to restrict the rights
of people with certain genetic traits, which like it or not
can be identified visually, but that does not mean that the
idea of genetic race is not scientifically valid, just that
there are [censored] that use it as an excuse to enslave, or
harass, or kill.

The concept of genetic lineages is scientifically valid,
though likely becoming increasingly irrelevant as the
various lineages mongrelize due to the increase
communications and transport between peoples. The concept
that individual traits or even groups of traits define a
race (or that a race correlates absolutely to a set of
defining traits that are unique to that race) is not.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Varney' varney@colorado_no_spam.edu said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What a subhuman racist scum.

Yeah, idiots like him infest the political newsgroups
all too frequently.

Yes. However, the ignorance spreads both ways. People are
so fearful of being called "racist" that they ignore
obvious physical and genetic differences. Ignoring these
differences will have consequences in science and
medicine.

Indeed. The problem is what is done with such differences.
The problem is also how "race" is defined. For instance,
just saying "white" or "black" or "Asian" is not enough, as
there are subgroups within such broad racial categories who
have genetic differences within their own races

Racists use them to try to convince themselves and others
that certain races are "inferior."

Quoted message said:

The issue of race and genetics is so inflammatory that
many people fail to apply critical thinking skills when
analyzing the situation.

Quoted message said:

I've dealt with their ilk far too often on Usenet.
Fortunately, they are relatively rare on sci.med.

Like many racists, "makemyday" tries to imply false
analogy (although he hasn't explicitly said it yet). By
citing the findings of a study to suggest that
differences in disease susceptibility between races are
biological, he is hoping to use that to add a sheen of
respectability to racist views that blacks are
inherently inferior in various ways.

It is perhaps the negative connotation of the word "race",
i.e implying that one has to win, or be better than
another, that lead to the word being viewed disfavorably.

Well, you can blame people like the twit who started this
thread for that.

Quoted message said:

However, let me ask you: What is wrong with the idea that
certain genetic traits are superior to others? After all,
evolution favors genetic traits that lead to better
procreation and survival of the species.

It depends a lot on what you mean by "superior."

Quoted message said:

For instance, I wish I had the genetics so that I would
not burn in the sun after 5 minutes of exposure. My genes
do not allow me to produce much melanin in the skin, thus
I am more susceptible to sunburn and certain skin cancers.
I would consider the ability to tan a superior trait when
it comes to sun exposure. Somewhere in the past, my
ancestors developed the ability to easily store fat for
protection from famine. At the time that was a superior
genetic trait.

See what I mean?

Quoted message said:

The thing is that some people want to restrict the rights
of people with certain genetic traits, which like it or
not can be identified visually, but that does not mean
that the idea of genetic race is not scientifically valid,
just that there are [censored] that use it as an excuse to
enslave, or harass, or kill.

The interesting thing is that genetic "races" do not
necessarily correspond to what we recognize as
different "races."

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Bob LeChevalier said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article specifically has the author in conflict
with his/herself. You can't have biological differences
that are not genetic.

Really?

Really...

Quoted message said:

Do identical twins get identical cancers at identical
ages, and die of identical causes at identical ages?

Lots of diseases run (genetically) in families....

And lots of diseases don't, including the vast majority of
breast cancers, which are sporadic, not familial.

Quoted message said:

The article said, "The study led by Seattle's Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that cancer tumors
in black women tended to *DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those
of their white counterparts."

That means the DAFN DNA is different from the white DNA
and there is zero element of "social construct" (contrary
to your often-spouted theoriy of race...).

Wrong. Such studies are fraught with confounding factors
that can be very difficult to control for adequately. Unless
the investigators adequately controlled for environmental,
dietary, and lifestyle factors, you can't even begin
conclude that. In fact, even if they did, one must keep in
mind that the vast majority of cancer is due to an
interaction between genes and environment, and that the
relative contribution of each factor can be quite variable
and quite difficult to figure out.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Bob LeChevalier said:

Quoted message said:

The article specifically has the author in conflict
with his/herself. You can't have biological differences
that are not genetic.

Really?

Really...

Quoted message said:

Do identical twins get identical cancers at identical
ages, and die of identical causes at identical ages?

Lots of diseases run (genetically) in families....

The article said, "The study led by Seattle's Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that cancer tumors
in black women tended to *DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those
of their white counterparts."

That means the DAFN DNA is different from the white DNA
and there is zero element of "social construct" (contrary
to your often-spouted theoriy of race...).

Let say such diseases and other human characteristics
ARE genetic for the sake of argument. Now,if the above
was true then it is certainly NOT the fault of Blacks
or other groups whose circumstances are not the result
of their own free will. So then why do you white
racists HATE the people so much who are different from
you?if it is genetic,you are blaming them for things
that are outside their control. Pretty damn silly if
you ask me! Riverman

Quoted message said:

Bob LeChevalier said:

Quoted message said:

The article specifically has the author in conflict with
his/herself. You can't have biological differences that
are not genetic.

Really?

Really...

Quoted message said:

Do identical twins get identical cancers at identical
ages, and die of identical causes at identical ages?

Lots of diseases run (genetically) in families....

The article said, "The study led by Seattle's Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that cancer tumors
in black women tended to

^^-
^^-
^^-
^^^

Quoted message said:

*DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those of their white
counterparts."

You keep ignoring that "tended to". A mere 5% difference
in frequency could justify a "tended to" statement if it
were statistically significant. That would mean that 95%
of blacks are just as likely to have the same cancer
tumors as whites.

Quoted message said:

That means the DAFN DNA is different from the white DNA and
there is zero element of "social construct" (contrary to
your often-spouted theoriy of race...).

Nope.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michael Varney' varney@colorado_no_spam.edu said:

It is perhaps the negative connotation of the word
"race", i.e implying

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one has to win, or be better than another, that lead to
the word being viewed disfavorably.

However, let me ask you: What is wrong with the idea that
certain

genetic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

traits are superior to others?

It is just WRONG, when applied to entire groups.

Not a valid argument. Genetics applies to entire groups,
weather you like it or not.

Quoted message said:

Argument: if trait A were universally superior to trait B
then groups with trait B would have failed to thrive, and
in fact would only exist as a recessive or spontaneous
mutation.

Not a valid argument. For example, a genetic trait might
have once been beneficial, then an environmental change
could have made it not beneficial. Or, a genetic trait at
one time was the best to be had, but now there is a superior
genetic trait recently emergent. It takes time for the
selection process to happen. Then we come to the idea of
"leveling the playing field". Sun tan lotion ameliorates the
genetic effect of being unable to produce enough melanin in
the skin to protect from sunburn.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After all, evolution favors genetic traits that lead to
better procreation and survival of the species.

If that were the case then those with the "inferior" trait
would procreate less or survive more poorly under
identical conditions.

That would be the case except for the fact that humans
have the intelligence to offset the effects of poor genes.
This is a good thing and a bad thing. But that does not
negate the principle of certain genetic traits being
superior to others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For instance, I wish I had the genetics so that I would
not burn in the

sun

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

after 5 minutes of exposure. My genes do not allow me to
produce much melanin in the skin, thus I am more
susceptible to sunburn and certain

skin

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cancers. I would consider the ability to tan a superior
trait when it

comes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to sun exposure.

You may consider it a superior trait, but that is your
subjective opinion

Not, it is scientific fact. Are you going to support your
counter arguments with science or not?

Quoted message said:

, since your opinion has nothing to do with the survival
and reproduction of those with that trait.

I see that you are a reactionary rather than a thinker.

It has been my experience with others of your type that
further discussion with you would be pointless since you let
emotion cloud your thinking process and cause you to deny
the obvious.

When you have shown yourself able to think critically I
would be happy to continue the discussion. Until then....

Bob LeChevalier said:

Michael Varney' varney@colorado_no_spam.edu said:

However, let me ask you: What is wrong with the idea that
certain genetic traits are superior to others?

It is just WRONG, when applied to entire groups.

Insurance companies have no trouble categorizing entire
groups as superior/inferior to others: the smokers, the
obese, drivers under age 25.

Relative statistical "worth of groups" works just fine
for insurance companies, and it can work for *you*.
Avoid DAFNz....

In article <wxQzc.29352$Hg2.1510@attbi_s04>,

Byron Canfield said:

"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes. However, the ignorance spreads both ways. People
are so fearful of being called "racist" that they ignore
obvious physical and genetic differences. Ignoring these
differences will have consequences in science and
medicine.

It is not that the differences should be or even that they
are are ignored. What is objectionable and just plain
stupid is the infantile attempt of those who try to
establish superiority based on those differences. It is
THAT infestation, that mental illness, that we could do
without.

Correct. Also, racists tend to greatly exaggerate the
genetic differences. The races are far more alike
genetically than they are different. Variability within
races is higher than between races, and there are HUGE
overlaps in allele frequency distributions among races.
Genetic differences between races are stochastic, with
alleles differing in frequency among races. This is
sometimes useful in assessing disease risk or response to
treatment, but never useful in assessing the personal worth
of an individual--although the racists would imply
otherwise.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"

Morons who cannot grasp the big picture always take solace
in the minutia of the obvious. Race IS genetic. Different
races have different propensities to various conditions.
Horses can jump. Cows don't very well. Bears eat fish.
Giraffes do not. So what?

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-
[email hidden]... <SNIP>

Quoted message said:

In fact, even if they did, one must keep in mind that the
vast majority of cancer is due to an interaction between
genes and environment, and that the relative contribution
of each factor can be quite variable and quite difficult
to figure out.

So you do acknowledge that there genes are a factor in how
diseases express themselves, and that given identical
conditions, each person will show an expression based on
their genetic makeup.