never has any substitute been found for good genes and belief.
Such a statement might appear to be true, but we need to define what a 'good' gene is.
The Darwinian cliche, 'survival of the fittest' relates to specific contexts of varying conditions. As conditions change, as climate changes, as social and cultural mores change, genes that were once considered good might no longer be good.
For example, some people in modern societies have a metabolism which efficiently gets rid of excess food which is consumed (it goes down the toilet). They tend not to put on weight when overeating.
This observation is used by overweight people to make the claim that they are not overeating, and that it's just their genes that cause them to be fat. Such people then search for magical cures, special diets or special foods that are claimed to 'burn up fat'.
The reality is, such people are fat because they simply eat too much. Putting on fat because one eats too much is a normal and healthy response. In the past, when periodic shortages of food were a common occurrence, those who had stores of fat resulting from overeating during periods of plenty, would more easily survive periods of famine. Their genes would be considered 'good'.
Those who were unable to put on weight during periods of plenty, would be at a serious disadvantage during periods of famine. They would have difficulty in surviving. In that context, we could say their genes were not 'good'.
However, in modern times, in developed societies, there is never any shortage of food to the degree of a famine. Those people with genes that efficiently convert excess food into fat, have no advantage, because there is never any need to fast.
They are kept alive often by the medical intervention of doctors like Tony Jay, who in part, need such people to provide full employment for himself, other doctors, the pharmaceutical industry, and to a certain extent, medical research into drugs that can compensate for overindulgence and an unhealthy lifestyle.
Just my opinion, but a sound and reasoned opinion, I believe.
On the subject of belief, that translates into the placebo effect, as well as the nocebo effect, which is the opposite, an adverse reaction.
It seems to be generally accepted that a placebo cannot directly affect or attack a tumour or disease, but studies indicate that it can indirectly affect outcomes. It's the outcome that is important for the patient, whether a result of direct or indirect influences.
I hope I have raised the standards of the Coffee Corner debates.
