The great hidden infection hypothesis. I love AIHW’s work, the charts are all from them. The common theory says that mortality shifted from predominantly infectious disease, towards chronic disease, in the 20th century. Due to advances in vaccination and antibiotics, mostly. /1
Here’s their chart showing the relative contribution of infectious and chronic disease to mortality rates, over that century. (I used the aged-standardised chart to shield myself from the actuarial glare of @KarenCutter4.) /2
There’s no doubt at all that deaths from acute infection with various pathogens plummeted in the 20th century, much of it in children, but also more broadly. But look at the explosion of chronic cardiovascular disease, at the *same time* infectious disease was falling. /3
Nearly always people will tell you that was due to smoking, and poor diet. But the timelines don’t really add up. Smoking peaked in many Western countries, including Australia, in the 1960s, and then went into steady decline. Like heart disease, so it’s suggestive. /4
But it would normally take many years for smoking to cause heart disease mortality. (This in no way is a defence of smoking, which is a public health catastrophe. I lost my own father to smoking.) It doesn’t seem causal that the smoking curve and heart disease curves align. /5
A big decline in smoking would, I assume, lead to a ‘pipeline’ effect of significant heart disease flowing through after that decline, for some time. Similarly the onset of mass smoking should lead to a gradual, lagged increase in coronary disease. /6
Neither of those are what the data seem to show. Similarly with diet, the saturated fat/cardiovascular disease hypothesis doesn’t match that it was a staple in human diets for centuries, but cardiovascular disease was (it appears) not an epidemic until the 20th century. /7
Which leads to the infectious origin of cardiovascular disease hypothesis, which is an area of research. Some even target the Spanish Flu pandemic as the major trigger of the cardiovascular disease epidemic in the 20th century. The chronic phase of that pandemic. /8
The timing matches better than the smoking hypothesis. A massive climb several years after that pandemic, rather than at the same time as the pandemic. And then a decline when the younger infected from that pandemic gradually died, from the 1960s onwards. /9
Interestingly, the AIHW report lists the usual explanations of that decline in cardiovascular mortality from the 1960s onwards: better treatments, declines in smoking, better diets. But those gains have plateaued, and as I’ve highlighted, “The reason for this is unclear”. /10
It’s clearer under the chronic infection hypothesis. Whether its Spanish Flu or other influenza, or some other infectious cause, the diminishing gains against infectious disease as the century went on would also translate into persistent (lower-level) cardiovascular disease. /11
Cardiovascular disease in the 20th century follows an epidemic pattern. An infectious disease pattern. Ewald’s chronic infection as the great sleeper in health hypothesis. There’s also another way to assess this, in general models of the body. /12
Traditional health models have tended to favour a physical-chemical model of how the body operates. Heart disease happens when fat ‘clogs’ arteries, like a blocked pipe. The heart is a ‘pump’. Too much cholesterol (chemical) causes the fat deposits. Etc. /13
More engineering than biology, in the assumptions. The rapid growth of research now though on the microbial origins of much life suggests that the ecology of microbes might be a more powerful way to understand disease. The overwhelming focus on acute infection misses this. /14
We know microbes often like to linger, for years. Through reservoirs, or whatever mechanism. But once we’ve cleared that acute infection, we rush to assume we’re back to normal health. It seems extremely naive, given even a basic knowledge of how microbes operate. /15
Adding to this hypothesis is the now semi-regular revelation of an infectious origin for known chronic diseases. Those revelations are growing. We’re much, much too casual about infection. All infections. /end
When ‘live with the virus’ became the guiding idiocy of this pandemic, conceptually we should probably have shifted from immunity as the guiding principle, towards symbiotic classification. Ecological relationships. How you live with another organism is much more important. /1
Covid-humans is not a commensal relationship. We as the hosts are clearly harmed. There’s also amensalism (not shown), where Covid would neither benefit nor be harmed, but we would be harmed. We are harmed, and SARS-Cov-2 seems to benefit, so that’s not it. /2
And it’s clearly not mutualism, because what possible benefit is SARS-Cov-2 infection bestowing on us as the hosts? So that just leaves parasitism. Politicians and Covid minimisers clearly think we’re creating a commensal relationship with SARS-Cov-2. /3
The true function of schooling is rarely if ever mentioned. It’s to decouple peoples’ beliefs from their close social groupings. To separate what you know from who you know, and what they believe. To interrupt social hierarchies. /1
Only this allows shifts in the status quo, an interruption of the traditional social hierarchies of status, based on conformity. It’s why movies show the persecution of the ‘nerds’ at school, who don’t fit in with the social hierarchies there. But something has changed. /2
The ultimate destination for the nerds at school (ridiculous term, but it captures the cultural aspect) was the institutions that ran our societies. Their induction into fields of knowledge stretching back millennia, at school, prepared them for this work. /3
Populism learned its craft in popular music. The Top 40 was one of the earliest populist inventions, where music was ranked entirely on popularity. To this day you can’t have a sensible discussion about the quality of music, without hearing ‘it’s all subjective’. /1
Music is no more subjective than anything else. There are all sorts of ways to understand what’s good and what’s bad music, or at least what’s better or worse. Just as you can for painting, or plumbing. Art deals with reality, not fantasy. /2
Artists generally have the most acute and powerful insights into what’s happening in a society. It’s not an accident that the value of that art was forced to be purely a matter of personal opinion. Just as personal opinion has replaced expertise everywhere else now too. /3
In the talk about cybercrime, it’s not often asked whether it was wise to make many of the social transactions that are now being criminalised online transactions in the first place. Societies operate on trust, generated by hierarchy, generated by conformity. /1
Apple sort of got that from the start, but much of the rest of the IT industry was in such a headlong rush to disintermediate existing social transactions that the function of society itself is now beholden to their flimsy and complex products. /2
Buying IT should be like buying a washing machine, you take it home, plug it in, and turn it on. No training needed. That’s obviously aspirational for IT, but the underlying principle of targeting the social transaction rather than trying to replace…/3
I so often see people say that to bring about change, you need to mobilise lots of people behind a cause. This is the mythology that lets the bad people win, over and over. It’s the same libertarian political spin that says ‘the people’ run democracy. Murdoch knows better. /1
He genuinely does, it’s one thing to hate everything he stands for. But the much more important thing is to understand how he did it. SKY News Australia is a good example. Nobody really watches it, in numbers terms. Most of ‘the people’ certainly don’t. But it survives in…/2
…a world where bad ratings usually mean game over. It survives because its purpose never was to be popular, despite it selling a constant stream of populism. Its purpose is to target the 5% of society who actually make the decisions. Politicians and other powerful figures. /3
If you can find a single reference to the public in the economic theory used in our politics, you’ve done very well. And that’s exactly the point of that theory. To get rid of the public, and replace it with a market. Markets also replace all politics, with those who dominate…/1
…the market. Again, that’s why these theories were invented. To give those people a disguised way to take control of entire societies, for their own benefit. Some of them actually seem to believe all the guff about setting people free of social and regulatory ties,…/2
…so that this glorious freedom will spontaneously build schools and airports, hospitals and broadband networks, etc. It never does, because how would it even happen? What would spontaneously make billions of isolated consumers in a global market get up on a weekend…/3