Got any evidence to back up those bold claims? People die from high fevers. People with compromised immune systems can get killed by the common cold. People die without food or protein. And what even is acid-forming food?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
I think the commenter was conflating the symptoms and the infection. They were saying that the symptoms are the beneficial signs of the body actively fighting infection.
There's this fad diet, known as the pH diet, that's based in the assumption that people's bodies have a certain pH level and most ills are caused by this pH level being out of whack. So, naturally, it follows that acid = bad and alkaline = good (don't ask.)
That so bizarre - our bodies literally regulate ourselves to within 0.1 pH, and have 3 different mechanisms of maintaining it - why would we need or want to have a diet to adjust that? I know, you're just the messenger, and don't believe in it.
It started with the (vaguely somewhat plausible) notion of the acid ash hypothesis. Foods when fully oxidized can have a more acidic or basic ash, depending on the constituent elements. Phosphor and sulfur oxidize to the phosphate and sulfate anions, which are acidic, while calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium cations form hydroxides/carbonates. The theory goes that to maintain buffered pH, the body has to cations from somewhere, leaching it from bones.
Nowadays we know that most pH regulation is done with carbonate/bicarbonate via respiration, with ion transport managing electrolytes.
The alkaline diet has devolved to just throwing "bad" foods in the acidic bucket and "good" foods in basic, irrespective of chemistry:
Please provide scientific proof in the form of peer reviewed research or delete your comment. There is no room for these kinds of wild and ridiculous statements without proof.
> Please provide scientific proof in the form of peer reviewed research or delete your comment.
I want to caution against this kind of gatekeeping on a forum like Hacker News.
We all adore the scientific method; nobody wants to dispute its worth and value to the species.
However,
1) As we've seen again and again in a wide array of fields, many of the systems of peer-review have failed to guarantee (or in some cases even provide reasonable assurance) that the results are robust and true. There is an ongoing replicability crisis in a number of fields, including health-related fields.
2) There is still value in logical assertions made without scientific proof; there is nothing wrong with taking personal observation and applying inductive reasoning as part of the toolchain of decision making.
> There is no room for these kinds of wild and ridiculous statements without proof.
I don't find anything wild or ridiculous inherent in the suggestion that the human body is capable of basic self-maintenance, nor that exposure to pathogens or other undesirables is a causal factor in the building of immunity and other defenses.
People can point to epistemology all they want, but from a practical perspective bunk is bunk and if you insist on rigorously refuting every crackpot you come across, your community will be overloaded by bunk.
Our bodies are, but you're going to have to tell us why it's a great thing. Cold medicines just suppress the symptoms your body would use to deal with it normally, so it can last even longer! Sounds like, if it's a good thing to have a cold, that cold medicine helps.
Our bodies are not perfect, you know? That's why cutting out a mostly useless part of it, the appendix, can actually save someone's life. Our bodies overreact and take bad decisions all the time.
