>>16712629
>arbitrarily high goalpost
Why can't that be the modern standard? Our World in Data for example is getting up there.

>>16712629
>https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(23)04776-5/fulltext
That's useful and demonstrates a lot that I don't know how to interpret yet. For example: if dysregulation of the immune system is to be viewed as entropic then how come incidence declines with age? The hypothesis that genes are not evolved for longevity and therefore incidence typically occurs between 20 and 30 years old is not entirely consistent with such data as well.

>Your hypotheses were discussed in the first link I posted.
No it doesn't. The article only superficially mentioned a few risk factors without any nuance that authors of such studies have demonstrated. For example: it's popular to mention anti-biotics as a risk factor for auto-immune disease, but anti-biotics are a chicken-and-egg story: rather than disturbing the immune system and specifically the intestines, the necessity of anti-biotics in early childhood may indicate an already compromised immune system. There's almost no discussion to be found between the overreaction hypothesis and the deficiency hypothesis.

Did you not notice by the way how popular talking about leaky gut is nowadays? It's like just about everyone has increased gut permeability. Studies show that even a few weeks of drinking a little alcohol compromises the mucosal barrier. Yet out of all the people with increased gut permeability only a few people develop chronic inflammation. To make myself clear: this is like pointing out anxiety around girls and pretending like that's a significant risk factor for being a forever alone sexless male.

>Your post is retarded specifically because you assume no "fundamental research" is being conducted.
Type "crohn" in the search bar of PubMed, filter most recent and see what happens. I'll demonstrate in a follow-up post.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

Is science mostly a scam?