I’ll keep it short. Under that definition being black is more of a disease. (disposition: black) - (adversely affecting: do I even have to say anything) - (person or group: low income black families, etc etc)
Lmao it’s not about who’s wrong and who’s right, I could care less about how many times I was right on a hairloss forum. Read the definition you posted. Under those restrictions anything is a disease and thats literally a fact, being short undoubtedly falls in that definition. Similar to being fat or having hormone irregularities or having a low IQ. Im here to give you honest logical answers, 1 plus 1 equals two. Not throw data and links at someone to prove that on the largest technicality their wrong.
Arguments here always go off track for no reason. Why does it even matter if hairloss falls under the definition of 'disease' or not? definition of disease can be vague. The whole point was to figure if there could be a 'cure' for hairloss, which depends only on the essence of the hairloss process, not on useless definitions. In this sense, it seems much easier to 'cure' hairloss, than to 'cure' black/white skin or to 'cure' short people.
Listen to yourself. You’re educating me on wording and classifications of disorders. “Look at the bell curve”. You know nothing about statistics and thats apparent in your language and analysis pf whats going on. Please answer me how is IQ is collected in those datasets... yea thats right it definately does not favor white, educated, catered kids and adults who have seen the general layout of those tests various times. In fact, if you were to even search the history of IQ tests you’ll realize it’s a false measurement of intelligence. You’ll see that it was designed to group kids in elementary school to their respective brain power all invented by a frenchmen (I believe). There’s more to data besides collecting it and filtering on some factor and reporting results. The statement that you quoted about black people filtered on IQ and money is what people will call statistically insignificant estimator.Yeah, IQ is totally irrelevant to income.Take a look at the bell curve for IQ, that explains racial income disparities. There are high IQ black people, and they do very well, but there aren't many. Maybe you think being black in Africa is easier than being black in America.
BDD is a psychological disorder, and psychological disorders are not diseases according to leftist dogma. You are going against the party, report to the reeducation camp for more programming.
But you cant cure it... lol. You can treat it to a degree in which it is not a problem or apparent and if thats what you mean by cure then yea sure Ill buy in. It is just very misleading to say cure and at the same time have babies that are born that are predisposed to baldness and have them start losing their hair... until they hop on TREATMENTS. If it were cured they would never lose it in the first place. Again, Im not here to knit pick definitions and tell you you’re wrong, just trying to have logical conversations with people that’ll like to stick to speaking on things in which they have some sort of knowledge about.
Um. Lol. All that sounds like to me is that you don’t specialize in anything. Being specialized in data, statistics, and modeling does indeed give you understanding of everything analytical. I have never said I understand something in which I do not, such as receptors, biology and terminology. I hope at the base level of everything you understand that all you are doing is playing a very dangerous game of fake chemist. In which you yourself are the test subject and your implementation of methods is via largely to anecdotal data. Yikes!
LMAO THATS YOU! Its so funny its not funny. You literally said “black people filtered on IQ and Money earn the most in the US”. When you had no idea of how that data was collected nor an understanding of your covariates. Having IQ as a predictor of Intelligence is piss poor when your response is earning income. Adhere here though: the only bad data is the one in which you don’t understand. Whatever... last message I write to you about this topic. Go stick ya head in bleach.
Wait so how do YOU define a cure? people are also genetically prone to cancer, but still researchers trying to 'cure' cancer. Whatever it means, it's still semantic again, if we talk practical for a minute - if there is a pill you take once in your life you call it a cure and if there is a pill you take everyday you call it a treatment? If so, then I dont see why this cure is impossible to achieve. of course the pill only prevent future hairloss, follicles that died wont grow back, but I think everybody will agree it is a real 'cure'. just transplant more hair wherever you need (and try to take that pill soon as possible..)
Great post. Actually constructive. So yea Im not an expert on definitions in relation to medicine but indeed if there was a pill you take once then this is a cure moreso than a pill you must take everyday which to me would be considered a treatment. I draw this distinction as if there was 1 pill you take once and thats it then technically you never have to worry about that issue and you’re indeed cured. Whereas if I continue to take the same pill everyday then I am treating my condition... I am not yet cured as if I stopped my treatment the condition will occur again.
