Slate: Why women get more autoimmune diseases than men do
 

Hi,

Venus Williams dropped out of the US open due to Sjögren's syndrome.


Slate tried to come up with an answer for why women are more likely than men to get autoimmune diseases than men do:

That's a lousy explanation. 'Sounds like bs or double speak. They should have asked a geneticist so we could get an actual explanation and one that we can understand.

M.

EDITED to add the link: http://www.slate.com/id/2302917/

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/o...l/Venus_EX.jpg

Mari,

i understand the explanation, incl the part you bolded. obviously i don't know to what degree it is accurate or how it might have been demonstrated. the explanation is very general, yes, but something more specific would practically have to be an article in a medical journal or the abstract to it, which would likely be "all greek" to the vast majority of the general public, male and female.

Did the article give any references (that would have been nice) as to where this "more recent explanation" came from so we can look into it further?

Do you still have a link to the article (assuming it was online)? i'm just going to do a keyword search for the moment.... EDIT --> SCRATCH THAT i found the article....

~ waves ~

at the bottom of the Slate article, credit for the explanations is given to

Norbert Gleicher of the Center for Human Reproduction

while not a "pure" geneticist, he is specialized in overlapping disciplines. this is no idiot on genetics. seems like a bona fide source to me.

I would be unhappy about a sloppy article about bipolar
 

Hi,
The writer posits three explanations and then shows that two of them are no good.
Here is the link: http://www.slate.com/id/2302917/
The X Y stuff is the best he has. Why even bother with the other two explanations? That's all the general reader has to work with now. I am the general reader.

I took three science classes in college, but I would understand the enough of the X Y stuff for now if the writer gave me three or four more sentences to work with. Who does the journalist think is reading his piece --- especially with a title like that? Lots of woman have autoimmune disease.
We want to know what is going on. :mfr_wha: :lookaround: :Scratch-Head:

I suffered for about 10 years until time and my acupuncturist helped me. I had gotten lots of really bad explanations for what was going on.:Bang-Head: I'd still like to know.


Venus Williams is one of the top athletes in the world. The writer had an opportunity to help woman and their loved ones.

M

i am sorry about the personal impact this has had on you in the past. :(

i hear that you are angry at the writer, and think that "average readers" would understand more. :(

i took all sciences throughout highschool plus work on genetics in college. so i am definitely not the average reader. that given:

i personally think you too are above the average reader even if you only took 3 science classes, because
-- you're brighter than the average person if you'll permit me to say so.
-- based on your assertion about getting the X Y stuff, you remember genetics basics well - others do not.
-- still others have never taken ANY genetics! :eek:

SO... as i see it, you could probably wrap your brain around a good bit more info than most.

however, i personally did not find the article to be an insult to women or carelessly written insofar as the information presented. :o had it been written about something affecting men, i don't expect that the detail level would have been any different.

the researchers may not have a lot more information at this point since this is still just a theory and, as stated, a more recent one. also, as i read it, the other 2 theories have not been discarded. simply, none of this stuff has been proven. all three are theories.

in support of your criticism, his worst sin as a writer as i see it, was failure to offer "equal words for equal weight" - the genetic theory is BY FAR the shortest of the three explanations. that said, i am willing to excuse him on benefit of the doubt that further information/details would be WELL above the average reader's head (as in, waaaay past the X Y bit.)

See now i am wondering... do you have questions on what he said... as in, do you think he did not explain just the tidbit he did well enough? was it not clear? i assumed you understood it and wanted more but maybe i assumed wrong. i just looked back at your first post where you say "he should have asked a geneticist" (which is primarily what my previous post was addressing) ... then you say so we could have got an explanation "we could understand."

maybe i can help? maybe not.

i will shut up now and go hide in my corner.. :(

~ waves ~