Posted on 01/29/2003 11:29:48 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Cause
The disease can be caused by any of a large number of abnormal mutations in a single gene on chromosome number seven. The mutant gene is recessive - it must be inherited from both parents to have a harmful effect. Genetic testing can identify many (but not all) carriers of the gene.
A gene functions by causing the production of a specific protein. A defect in the gene is damaging when it causes a non-functioning protein or no protein at all. In cystic fibrosis the missing or defective protein forms a channel that transports chloride ions and water through cell membranes. The protein is called CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator). Without the channel CFTR provides the normal mucous cells that line the lungs (and nasal passages) cannot take in water and make thick and viscous mucus, clogging passageways. The viscous mucus not only interferes with breathing but provides a welcoming environment for infections, which eventually cause death. Animal experiments suggest that if as many as 10% of the cells in the lining of the pulmonary tract have an effective CFTR gene, the mucus buildup can be stopped.
Incidence
Cystic fibrosis is a relatively common genetic disease. In the United States, up to 2,000 babies are born with the disease each year. It is concentrated among people of northern European heritage, where it affects about 1 individual in every 2,500. About 1 in 25 white Americans is believed to be a carrier of the recessive gene that causes this disease.
Symptoms you are likely to notice
The disease usually shows up in infancy or childhood, but occasionally the symptoms are delayed until adolescence or even adulthood. Typical symptoms are breathlessness, wheezing, and persistent coughing. The affected person may also be constantly hungry, yet underweight. Eventually the ends of the fingers and toes may become broadened, or "clubbed," for lack of enough oxygen.
Probably. Most certainly in utero, and sometimes after -- though we don't usually know about it after until the changed DNA causes some life-ending disease.
Honestly, behavior is not reflected in genetics.
But of course. Neither is sexual orientation reflected in behavior. I mean, if your wife means nothing more than a place to park your penis on occasion, and sex nothing more than masturbation with someone else's body, then I suppose "sexual orientation" is all about behavior. But otherwise...
Possibly.
"My point was that I have found it associated with other behavioral problems in addition to, not because of, homosexuality. That those behavioral problems are also associated with heterosexuals isn't even relevant. You've a logical disconnect you didn't intend and perhaps read into the debate. "
So your position is that all homosexuals are sexually aggressive, and this is not BECAUSE of homosexuality, it just happens to be? I'm trying to understand your point.
"Homosexuals recruit heterosexuals. They have a number of common tactics used to accomplish this act. If they fail to recruit, the number of homosexuals *drops*. "
I disagree that there is an actual "recruitment" effort. There are a lot of jokes about it, but I think it stems more from the fact that many "heterosexual" people do have homosexual experiences that aren't forced. You make it sound like homosexuals get a user's manual and an agenda. This is pretty obviously not the case. Barring rape, people tend to only "recruit" people for one purpose... having sex with THEM. I'd say the vast majority of people (my opinion) are only interested in creating possible lovers for themselves.
My point was that just because something is tied to genetics, you don't get a "pass" because of it. We all still have a choice.
Now take a deep breath, wipe the spittle from your screen, and check your info before posting next time.
Well, I think homosexuality is a disorder or sorts, but I'll see what I can find.
My fault -- I thought you were referring to random, unplanned genetic changes.
Deviant sexual practices are only reflected in behavior.
Homosexuals are homosexuals regardless of their behavior.
I fully agree with you that there ARE some homosexuals who take advantage of young, insecure males. Still, I think this is a minority. A frightening and horrible minority, but a minority nonetheless.
May I ask what makes you an expert on homosexual recruitment? I don't mean to insinuate that you have any interest in homosexuality, beyond your anti-homosexual disgust. Just wondering why you feel that you (a heterosexual man) understand homosexual motives, lifestyle, causes, etc.
The history of CF does not date back far enough to claim that the numbers in the population are remaining constant (or so it appears to me). It would take many generations to see the effect. Starting with 2 carriers (1 to zero ratio) they would produce a 2 to one ratio (assuming the one with the disease is left out of the mix). They would then produce a 1 to one ratio, followed by a 2 to 3 ratio (carrier to non-carrier). I do not see how that math would be different depending on the size of the population. You can show me where I am wrong. I don't mind (lol).
History of the Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For centuries in northern Europe, the adage went: Woe to that child which when kissed on the forehead tastes salty. He is bewitched and soon must die. (Welsh, Smith). Cystic fibrosis developed in the northern European poplulation as a reaction to typhoid fever, in much the same way that the sickle-cell mutation developed in Africa (Cooke). However, we did not know of cystic fibrosis (CF) as a disease until the early part of the 20th century.
In 1938, Dorothy H. Andersen of Columbia University provided the first comprehensive description of the symptoms of cystic fibrosis and its effects in organs. She gave the disease its name, calling it "cystic fibrosis of the pancreas". By the late 1940s, doctors learned of the thick mucosal secretions that can clog ducts and passageways. And in 1946, doctors examining inheritance patterns in families deduced that cystic fibrosis was probably caused by the mutation of a single, recessive gene. Nearly seven years later, Paul di Sant'Agnese and colleagues at Columbia discovered that CF patients lose an inordinate amount of salt in sweat (Welsh, Smith).
Fast forward to the 1980s, when scientists learned that epithelial tissue malfunction occurred in every organ affected by cystic fibrosis. Of note are Paul Quinton of UC Riverside, who discovered chloride uptake problems in the sweat glands of the skin, and Michael Knowles and Richard Boucher of UNC Chapel Hill, who found similar problems in the epithelia and passageways of the lungs. In 1989, a genetic breakthrough occurred. Researchers led by Lap-Chee Tsui, John Riordan, and Francis Collins isolated the gene responsible for CF. They named it CFTR - cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (Welsh, Smith).
Researchers today continue to try to deduce exactly how CFTR influences cells, and come up with new and better treatments for cystic fibrosis.
It says things much more eloquently than I ever could, and since I have a physical diagnosis test in the morning to study for, I hope you do not mind me "linking" a response rather than giving one.
For fish crackers, you assume that in the total population, you have the following genotypes, FF, Ff, and ff. You also assume that mating is random so that ff could mate with ff, Ff, or FF; or Ff could mate with ff, Ff, or FF, etc. In addition, you assume that for the gold and brown traits there are only two alleles in the population - F and f. If you counted all the alleles for these traits, the fraction of 'f' alleles plus the fraction of 'F' alleles would add up to 1.
The Hardy-Weinberg equation states that: p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1
In the example of gays, ff cannot mate with either Ff or FF. The equation, therefore, is not the same. Perhaps the answer is elsewhere, but I need more time (not tonight probably). I do understand why 0 is the most common blood type even though it's recessive. That's different.
What were the reports from conservatives that you didn't believe? That when an attractive (giving you the benefit of the doubt ;-) )younger man starts hanging out with groups of homosexuals, that they might get the idea it isn't for fashion tips?
I'm VERY curious as to your methods.
I don't know anyone in AA, gay or straight, so I'll take your word for it that lesbians think it's a good place to pick up. Possibly that makes sense.. people may drink because they hate themselves. Sort of like the suicide/homosexuality link. Maybe it isn't that homosexuality in and of itself leads to suicide, it is fear of rejection.
Whether that is true or not, it's worth considering that there may be a reason besides "compulsives make better homosexuals" that lesbians pick up at AA.
Also... for your "behind the veil" comment...I grew up with three brothers (all of them straight). The way they speak about women with their friends is sometimes... well, you can probably imagine. There was a good deal of trash talking. It may have been similar with the men you talked to. I don't know, I really don't know many gay men at all. The lesbians I know sound NOTHING like the picture you paint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.