so, the disease that they attach to excess collagen production is called scelroderma and one of the symptoms is gum recession.
i'm a logician.
i don't like contradictions.
alas.
let's take a step back, here.
so, if i don't get enough collagen, my gums might recede. and, if i get too much collagen my gums might recede. where's goldilocks when you need her, right? but, how do i figure that out?
and am i barking up the wrong tree?
i don't want to shut off that specific growth factor, tgf-β, as it kills cancer cells.
hrmmn.
so, collagen excess may not be a serious concern, but shutting down the underlying mechanism might have unintended consequences in letting other things run out of control. and being specific about it isn't likely to work.
i'm probably better off with collagen bombardment, then.
oh no.
so, estrogen both creates and destroys collagen?
ack.
how do i get it to do one and not the other?
to be clear: i'm taking roughly the amount of vitamin c that a person my size can absorb.
if i wanted more vitamin c, i'd have to inject it.
i don't want to talk about dr. pauling spinning anywhere. he disproved that.
but, maybe his activation energy just fluctuated.
what about collagen supplements?
you'd expect me to tell you that's bullshit. but, it might not be, it depends on your diet.
collagen is a protein, so it's composed of amino acids, and your body will break it down into amino acids and reuse it. so, you won't necessarily get increased collagen production from eating collagen, but you're at least giving your body the building blocks to do it with.
if you really need more collagen production, i'd advise trying something other than eating it directly.
i'm wondering if a collagen injection in my gums might be worth it....in conjunction with a collagenase inhibition strategy. it seems to be the latter that's more important.
i'm mildly concerned that if i just take a general collagenase inhibitor it might lead to excess collagen somewhere else, but what does that mean? i mean, restricting collagenase could actually help with my hair, my skin...even my eyesight....it's not clear to me why i'd be concerned about shutting that off.
let's be sure, though. is collagen excess ever a problem?
so, if i want to hack myself to regrow gum tissue, i think i need to do the following:
- some kind of topical to act as a medium is likely useful. the collagen is used to help the body regrow the tissue, rather than to regrow the tissue directly.
- i need to inhibit collagenase production.
The Colored Alliance occasionally cooperated with the Southern Alliance. Both advocated the abolition of the Louisiana lottery, fearing it would lead farmers further into debt. To keep vegetable-oil prices low in comparison to the prices of animal fats, they opposed the Conger lard bill, a measure that attempted to impose taxes upon the production of vegetable oil. The two alliances sometimes joined forces in attempting to improve their business ventures. Despite their mutual support for some goals, however, the two organizations had sharp differences, as they revealed in a clash over the Lodge election bill, which promised federal protection to safeguard voting rights in the South. The Southern Alliance condemned that measure, while the Colored Alliance supported it.
so, apparently, what's happening with the overgrowth is that the collagen/collagenase balance undoes itself, and the overabundance of collagen leads to gum overgrowth.
i get tons of vitamin c, but is this a reason to cut down my folic acid intake?
or should i find ways to get more collagen in my mouth? and, what will my body do with it if i do? is it even topical?
actually, before i do that, let me look into this induced hyperplasia.
supposedly, the class of drugs that does this is "calcium channel blockers". these are rx drugs and i probably don't want to put the stress on my organs. but, can i isolate the mechanism?
maybe there's a sneaky way, after all.
ok, so i'm getting started on this and i'm going to rewind to the start because it's been a little while.
so, here i go.
let's hope i can get something new up before i crash.
the anti-semitism was embedded in the christianity, a point that scholars constantly forget - nazism was christian to it's bones.
this is the thing that bugs me about nietzsche, this idea that the death of god will lead to all kinds of depravity, and his supposed prophesy of nazism. the exact opposite is true. he lived through the high period of western civilization, and longed for a period of backwardsness - which returned with nazism, via bismarck perhaps, but nonetheless.
and, so, it's true that you see a kind of interregnum of barbarity in the 19th century, but it's precisely because the civilization had done away with christianity. then you see a return to barbarity with the return of christianity, in the form of nazism. and, now, post-1945, you see the death of anti-semitism in germany - because christianity was once again put aside. except that it is still there, and still threatens to return...
the problem is that history is written by christians, so they consistently misunderstand this accidentally on purpose.
this is better, but he's still purposefully forgetting to mention that jim crow was a consequence of the populist movement, and not something that happened in opposition to it. the major opposition on the ground to voting rights for blacks in the 1870s was in fact the southern farmers alliance, which is the major precursor party of the populists.
now, we can be sneaky about this - what was really going on, here? were these farmers being divided and conquered, as is the central thesis in much of zinn's work? maybe.
but, my singular point was that the contrast being presented between the populism of the 1800s as this egalitarian force and the populism of today as these racist inbreds is total revision - on the issue of race, there's broad continuity, not difference.
also, "history is written by the winners" is an ancient quote that i've seen attributed to everyone from orwell to caesar.
i might believe it was napoleon, but who knows.
Christlich
The incredibly rude way they treat the actual survivor, shows what they really want to achieve. It‘s not really about the victims.
deathtokoalas
yeah, i found the body language here disturbing, as well. it's easy to understand why people connected to the event would show an interest in the history, but it's interesting to ask the following question: what kind of (relatively) young white person enjoys researching and writing a book about the holocaust? what draws people to spending their time doing that? and the body language in this presentation answers a lot of questions.
debbie
God makes all kinds of interesting people. I
deathtokoalas
well, i might suggest instead that the stochastics in chaos theory provide for infinite variation in the face of natural selection. but, i take your point.
so, i tried to make some calls today and all the offices are closed early on fridays. ugh.
i only have a handful of choices, unless i want to take a bike ride out of town.
but, i've got a start on it and i'll need to follow up on monday.
i didn't get a chance to do the reading last night because i fell asleep, again. i've been sleeping far too much, recently, and i get depressed when i sleep too much. sleeping is such a fucking waste of time.
but, i've got the laundry done in here, so i'm going to make some pasta and get back to what i was doing.
honestly?
you should really shut the fuck up and listen to me.
i have an academic background that helps me devise tactics. that's my skillset, that's what i can do.
so, i contribute primarily by advising on tactics - because that's what i'm able to contribute.
you can listen to me or ignore me.
but, don't give me shit when you fail because you didn't listen to me, or tell me to contribute in a way i don't have the skillset to contribute with.
from each according to their ability...
and, i simply have no social skills. at all.
i'm just not good at that.
this is what i'm good at...
listen - it's very easy to criticize me for not organizing in real life, but you're ignoring the fact that i live on disability for an anxiety disorder.
i'm not a philosopher that sits inside and works out empty nonsense because i'm too lazy to do anything; i'm an activist that contributes in the only way i actually can, which is to ask people to think before they act - a request that is sorely lacking in the activist community. and, i get pushback from people that really, really don't want to think before they act!
the fact is that i'm not capable of organizing people.
this is what i can actually do. and, if you claim it's invaluable, i deny that - tactics are important.
your disinterest in tactics is why you fail.
i would actually be more likely to use facebook more frequently if it removed news content, as one of the reasons i got off of it was that i got fed up with the amount of garbage being shared on it. a depoliticized facebook that is focused on art and lifestyle would actually be more attractive to me - it would be a more appropriate use of the platform.
so, i'm with facebook on this issue; they own the servers, they have the right to regulate them. i'd rather see these servers nationalized, granted. but, to have an authoritarian state dictate terms like this is the worst possible outcome.
and, what kind of legislation are they bringing in? like, are they going to tell me to pay to post this link? because i'll tell you what that will do - it will prevent me from posting links to "official sources". i'll link to blogs, instead. or, i'll just talk around them.
i'm actually in favour of letting the newspaper industry die, and good riddance to it. so, they may want to be careful. is what they're doing going to hinder or help?
in the american discourse, i'm actually a "big government liberal". but, i won't use that language, because i reject the discourse.
just so you're not confused...
i frequently rail against "the state", but i don't mean "the government" when i do that. this is kind of a basic point that you deal with in anarchism 101 and that i sometimes forget that most americans are oblivious to.
but, like, fucking learn it.
so, what is the state, if it's not the government? and, what is the government if it's not the state?
the state refers to what donald trump might call the swamp, or what the populists of days past might have called the "elite". the state is always there - it is beyond the reach of electoral politics, and not removed or altered by the popular will. it inhabits the public and private institutions, it permeates the police and it governs without direction by popular will. the french called it the aristocracy; marx called it the bourgeoisie. but, it's there, behind the working of things, at all times. when leftists (and here, i mean not just anarchists and marxists but "real liberals" as well) talk about "abolishing the state", this is what they mean - abolishing the nexus of power that exists between banks, politicians, corporations and the upper class that runs the world.
and what do leftists want to replace the state with?
the answer is government.
government refers to the democratization of institutions, and not just traditional political institutions but also the democratization of work and the democratization of services, such as health care. you can talk about proudhonian mutualism, the kind of co-operatives pushed by kropotkin & bakunin, the syndicalism in spain or boring old marxist labour unions, but the basic point here is the democratization of every facet of existence - and that is government, in opposition to the tyranny and authority of the state.
the discourse in america is, as usual, deeply confused.
but, just remember this - you are not the state, unless you are at the very top of the elite. but, you are the government.
