Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Find Link Between Parkinson's Disease and the Appendix (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Scientists have found further evidence that the gut, or more specifically the appendix, might play a role in the development of Parkinson's disease. The international team of scientists reviewed two datasets, including a large registry from Sweden, and found that removal of the appendix was associated with a decreased risk of developing Parkinson's disease. They also found that the human appendix contains clumps of a protein called alpha-synuclein in a form associated with the disease. There's more work to be done, and the authors are not advocating that people preemptively remove their appendixes, but they hope that the research could provide a pathway towards treatment.

The study found that of the 1,144,745 Swedes who did not have appendectomies, 1,608 had Parkinson's, but of the 551,003 who had, only 644 had Parkinson's. This is amounts to a 16.9% decrease in the odds of acquiring the disease -- but in absolutes, that's the difference between an 0.14 percent chance of acquiring the disease for those who hadn't gotten their appendix removed versus an 0.11 percent chance for those who had. The effect was also stronger in those living in rural areas, according to the study published today in Science Translational Medicine. The researchers also found that for those who had appendectomies at least 30 years before developing Parkinson's, the procedure was associated with a 3.6-year delay in disease onset.
The appendix samples contained alpha-synuclein proteins and shortened and mis-folded alpha-synucleins like the ones found in people with Parkinson's disease. Professor Viviane Labrie from the Cancer of Neurodegenerative Science at the Van Andel Research Institute in Michigan suggests that the alpha-synucleins "can travel up the nerve that connects the G.I. tract to the brain." She added: "If it were to enter the brain, it can seed and spread from there and have neurotoxic effects that could eventually lead to Parkinson's disease."

135 comments

  1. So much for Intelligent Design by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm pretty sure this underlines the fact that humans were not designed by some intelligent superbeing in the sky.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look - it's alter boy PopeCrapso spewing again.
      No, you stupid twit, if anything it proves that the appendix which science had all but ruled proof that God didn't exist because it was a useless vestigial organ actually has a purpose.

    2. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So the purpose of the appendix is to increase your risk of Parkinson's Disease? I'm not convinced.

    3. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by kartaron · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It may not be intelligent but it is common enough that there is an official term for it. Manufactured obsolescence.

      "a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete after a certain period of time."

    4. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Goldenhawk · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps: The Creator designed perfectly, but allowed it to be broken by the effects of not following His plan. That is, after all, exactly what the Bible teaches. (WHY the Creator allowed imperfection to enter a perfect system is a different discussion.)

      --
      --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

    5. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly human beings were designed by Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny when they had a drunken night at the North Pole.

    6. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      All I got from it was proof we've poisoned our environment collaterally in ways we had previously not even considered, and thus natural protections are no longer sufficient.

    7. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Still possible. It would obviously have to be a malicious, detail-obsessed and sadistic superbeing. Of course, the quality of the result rather strongly indicates that the biological part of human existence is the result of a typical evolutionary optimization process. These universally deliver mediocre or worse results. Their main advantage is that the can be run unsupervised once the conditions have been set. Although it looks now very much like the human race does not have effective ways to restrict its own growth and hence will wipe itself out and that the actual use of available intelligence in individuals is not enough to stop that. Hence this would be an optimization result in the "failure" category. As it has taken over the process, the way to deal with it is a reset and restart.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by gweihir · · Score: 2

      What is not a different discussion is that your "Creator", if existent, bears full, unlimited responsibility for the result. With unlimited power comes unlimited responsibility. And do not give me this "works in mysterious ways" crap. There really is only a choice between "fuckup" and "asshole" here.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd argue that we are living outside what we were designed for.
      By designed, I mean our technology has advanced far in excess of evolution and natural selection. We have not had nearly enough time to adapt to the environment that we ourselves created. Natural selection is a joke in first world countries considering that we can keep the braindead alive, so that isn't helping either.
      We're rapidly outgrowing our fish tank, and I think the only (somewhat) lasting solution will be genetic modification or one seriously huge culling of the population, both of which are pretty disturbing.

    10. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the more classic version:

      Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
      Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
      Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
      Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

      - Epicurus (341-270 BC)

      The statement that there is an omnipotent good god requires no further input, it is self disproving.

    11. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that depends on the definition of "good" and "evil". I'd say that, as God, he gets to decide that "good" = "whatever he does".

    12. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Planned obsolescence" does not preclude "intelligent design", but it implies that the creator is evil.

    13. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said there was any intelligent design involved?
      You cannot actually believe that with a straight face while looking in a mirror!

    14. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by jittles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure this underlines the fact that humans were not designed by some intelligent superbeing in the sky.

      I'm honestly not sure how you draw that conclusion at all. Many religious people believe that there is a purpose behind these sorts of things. That they are opportunities to learn and grow. Children certainly do not grow as individuals when they have every problem in life solved for them.

    15. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Thanks for the reference. As so often, the classical references are far better what you can do by yourself.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    16. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by gweihir · · Score: 1

      So malevolent and dishonest? I like it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 2

      That's not a very useful definition of the word "good" for most of us. We want a definition for which "good" actions are actions we should take. For example, flooding the earth, wiping out almost every human and almost every land animal is not something we want to encourage people to do, so we don't want to label it "good". Even if you could find a way to argue that it was the lesser of two evils, we would still want to label it an evil. It sets a really bad example otherwise.

    18. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure this underlines the fact that humans were not designed by some intelligent superbeing in the sky.

      What an odd conclusion.

      Starting with the fact that we've had fallible bodies throughout history, and it didn't lead most people that conclusion. It's not like we just discovered that bodies are fallible or in some ways non-optimal.

      Usually you folks just think that you've discovered war or natural disasters, as though the ancients had never heard of such things and that's why they had such crazy theories. Now you think you've discovered aging or disease?

    19. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For anyone who's interested in this topic, the book "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis is one Christian's attempt to address precisely this issue: how can God be good if His world is full of pain?

      I'm not saying Lewis resolves the question, just that there are educated Christians out there who are aware of the issue and try to deal with it.

      Unfortunately, the "Christian" "thinkers" who, for example, try to explain why murder is ok if you spend enough on military equipment seem to get a lot more attention.

    20. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by kartaron · · Score: 1

      Or we are.

    21. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are murderers, rapists, child molesters, animal abusers in prevalence. That right there rules out an intelligent design or shows the designer is a total asshole.

    22. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is not a different discussion is that your "Creator", if existent, bears full, unlimited responsibility for the result.

      To use a car analogy, that's not entirely like saying that an automobile manufacturer bears the full responsibility when somebody drives drunk and ends up killing somebody. It's only fair to say that their involvement burdens them with some measure of responsibility to that end, but certainly not all of it or even most of it.

    23. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by mark-t · · Score: 1

      WHY the Creator allowed imperfection to enter a perfect system is a different discussion.

      One could say that the system was never perfect.... when he was apparently finished, he only said that it was "very good". On the scale of things, that basically meant that God graded his own work at about a B.

    24. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I'm honestly not sure how you draw that conclusion at all.

      Don't feel bad; neither does he.

    25. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait but it also contradicts unintelligent design?

      Evolution works counter to the notion that an organism would generate a way to negatively effect itself

      It would make infinitely more sense that this syndrome is caused by something else, rather than a natural self destruction

      This sounds more like an issue of unnatural nutrition, or some other confounding factor...that seems infinitely more plausible..

      Don't let your hatred for organized religion cloud your judgment

    26. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Oh I dunno, it might be kinda nice to have chloroplasts.

    27. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why pick one method when you can do both at once? -PCP

    28. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      It's a rebuttal to "Intelligent Design", which is a pseudoscientific model that is basically creationism disguised by attempts at appearing scientific. It cites things like the eye as being too perfect to have evolved, and so on. If appearance of design supports such an idea, appearance of non-design/suboptimal design is against it. It isn't good science or good theology, basically the biology equivalent of 'flood geology' or young earth creationism. ID is a fringe evangelical idea they tried to push into schools a while back, it stands apart from theistic evolution like most mainstream orthodox religions go along with.

    29. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Car manufacturers are not omnipotent. Stop lying.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    30. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you don't understand the concept of an "analogy".

      That said, to address your issue, Omnipotence does not discount any responsibility that comes with individual choice... and exercising the ability to overrule such choices would defeat the purpose of giving individual freedom in the first place, wouldn't it? You have to conclude free will to not exist at all before you can conclude that everything that went wrong is the creator's fault. While there is physical evidence that activities occur in our brain that can make our choices determinable before we even have any conscious awareness of them, that does not mean that those choices are not somehow freely made, since if free will exists, it may be something akin to consciousness itself, which does not actually associate with any particular part of the brain, but is itself an emergent property of consciousness. With the existence of free will, further, we can take just as much credit for the good choices that we make as we can take the blame for our bad ones.

    31. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Mmm. Except for the "detail obsessed part" that description fits pretty well with most theology. Particularly if you regard Jesus as deific propaganda.

    32. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you hate the idea of free will, and if you created your own race, would exclude the ability for them to think?

      So you'd just make slaves.

    33. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Starting with the fact that we've had fallible bodies throughout history, and it didn't lead most people that conclusion. It's not like we just discovered that bodies are fallible or in some ways non-optimal.

      So, the perfect being, the embodiment of Love, who created the universe made us "defective by design"? Is that your assertion?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by gweihir · · Score: 1

      An analogy is not an analogy when it grossly misrepresents what is going on. Then it is just a lie. But I can see you just want to promote your messed up view of the world.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    35. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting too far into the weeds here...but if you want to talk intelligent design...it wasn't God that made man desire to do evil.... according to the canon storyline

    36. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only real difference is that a car manufacturer doesn't have any ability to control your actions... while you can argue that an omnipotent creator would have such an ability, and having the ability to stop bad choices but not actually doing so should rightfully mean that some responsibility falls on that entity, that does not diminish the responsibility of the individuals who made those bad choices.

      Just because you might have the ability to stop someone from carrying out bad choices but choose not to does not mean that it's entirely or even mostly your fault when they actually do.

    37. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Win0ver · · Score: 1

      That they are opportunities to learn and grow. Children certainly do not grow as individuals when they have every problem in life solved for them.

      Ah yes, those infants with bone cancer surely are learning a lot about life before they die at the ripe age of 2. (But obviously they never grow.)

    38. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God is only "evil" if you determine that having the ability to prevent the negative consequences of somebody else's bad decision but choosing to permit them anyways is also evil.

      In fact, drawing such a a criteria as a measurement for what is good and what is not is wholly arbitrary... A fair argument can be made that what would evil would be to not give us the freedom to make our own choices, or to at least stop us from carrying out those choices to their consequence, however bad those consequences might be.

      One might not necessarily agree with this argument... but that would probably only be because one doesn't necessarily appreciate the merits of free, or especially if they believe that any such merits are far outweighed by the disadvantages.

      Of course, this is harmonious with human nature, which is to be disproportionately risk-averse anyways, so this isn't necessarrily one's fault to come to such a conclusion, but when one recognizes where it is actually coming from, they may be able to analyze the situation more objectively.

    39. Re: So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have no reason to suspect that any gods exist, but if they do happen to exist anyway, one thing is for sure: they are definitely evil from any human's point of view.

      Anyone who believes the popular meme that there is a benevolent God, is a person who does not pay attention to anything in life. 100% of your experiences show you that your hypothesis is totally impossible. God isn't disproven, but the specific, benevolent, human-minded God that Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship really is disproven, as objective fact. That God does not exist, and we can be sure of that.

      The Christians and Jews think the book of Job covers that, but [SPOILER] at the end of the story they admit that their God is totally evil, and so if you're a human then that God is very bad news and you don't want to have anything to do with It and the best you can hope for is to go unnoticed. You're His plaything and your suffering gives Him a hardon.

      Now, the god that hides inside a box in a galaxy two billion light years away, and who never, ever interacts with the Earth or humans, that god we can't prove doesn't exist. He might. And since he's not omnipotent and omniscient (i.e. he can't possibly know about our problems and be able to do something about it) he could even be benevolent, if he exists.

    40. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      You know what else wasn't in the original design? Gratuitous and categorical hostility against a perfect authority.

      All that changed when our ancestors ate the fruit. Death was part of the daily process after that.

    41. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The only real difference is that a car manufacturer doesn't have any ability to control your actions.

      Nonsense. There are many things that a car manufacturer could do to control your actions. A car manufacturer could require that everyone who drives the car pass a breathalyzer test. A car could analyze driving patterns, detect erratic driving, and begin slowing the car until such time as it can safely stop, then shut down. And so on.

      The difference is that a car manufacturer cannot force you to buy their car over one that lacks such nanny features. However, with the addition of government regulations to coerce the other car manufacturers into following suit, such approaches could easily become reality.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    42. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by jittles · · Score: 1

      That they are opportunities to learn and grow. Children certainly do not grow as individuals when they have every problem in life solved for them.

      Ah yes, those infants with bone cancer surely are learning a lot about life before they die at the ripe age of 2. (But obviously they never grow.)

      Often times religious people believe that those are learning opportunities for the parent and not the child. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god. Anyone who knows science knows that is not within the realm of science to begin with. So whether or not you believe in god, this research cannot possibly show that god doesn't exist. End of story.

    43. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natural selection is a joke in first world countries considering that we can keep the braindead alive

      The braindead don't reproduce.

    44. Re:So much for Intelligent Design by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And as soon as a car is in "full nanny" mode (and we will see that, too many humans are just unsafe drivers and that will give us self-driving cars as the only choice eventually), all responsibility for accidents is with the manufacturer.

      With power and control comes responsibility. A mythical "supreme being" is not exempt from that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  2. Nothin from nothing leaves by OYAHHH · · Score: 2

    Nothing!

    The numbers are so miniscule it is not even worth discussing. It's equivalent to my buying two lottery tickets instead of one.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re:Nothin from nothing leaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 in 3000 is not lottery-ticket levels. It's meaningful because even if you don't get the disease personally, your taxes and health insurance premiums are paying for the victims to be treated. The current study suggests a 0.14% vs 0.11% risk, which is an additional 1 per 3000 people. That adds up to 100,000 extra people out of the USA's population of 300 million receiving expensive medical care.

    2. Re:Nothin from nothing leaves by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The numbers are very interesting from a scientific point of view and may well eventually lead to better treatments. They are irrelevant only for direct risk management.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re: Nothin from nothing leaves by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      A 16% difference?? STFU.

    4. Re:Nothin from nothing leaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What lottery are you playing that you can increase your odds by 0.03 percent by buying another ticket?!

      Orders of magnitude matter. For the purposes of planning, "very unlikely" is different from "astronomically unlikely".

  3. Or maybe a chronically inflammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    appendix can cause myelitis.

  4. Sounds suspiciously like q hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aka data dredging: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

    It's like finding a correlation between the number of letters in a spelling bee's winning word and the number of people in the United States killed by venomous spiders, but with no connection actually exists, is only a coincidence.

    1. Re: Sounds suspiciously like q hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just what the arachnalopithicus matriarch wants you to believe! Wake up sheeple!

  5. remove it by zoid.com · · Score: 1

    So do I need to get my appendix removed?

    1. Re:remove it by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      So do I need to get my appendix removed?

      Let's take a look at the summary.

      "There's more work to be done, and the authors are not advocating that people preemptively remove their appendixes"

      To me that means "yes".

    2. Re:remove it by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      "Slashdot recommends unnecessary surgery to avoid Parkinson's Disease"

    3. Re:remove it by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Probably safest to just remove everything that doesn't seem super important! Appendix, coccyx, bunch of redundant lymph nodes... don't really need gonads, the dog seems happy enough without 'em. Clean house!

  6. Why so much butchering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    554k have had appendix removed in this study which included 1/5th the population of Sweden. That's a lot. Removing an organ should always be a last resort, and should be much more rare. All this proves is that modern medicine is much more "wandering around in the dark" than they would have you believe.

    Keep your appendix, keep your tonsils, and keep your foreskin...unless removing it is *the only way* to prevent imminent death.

    1. Re:Why so much butchering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and keep your foreskin"

      Here here! The sick perverted twisted sick cunts who think it's OK to mutilate the genitals of babies can go and get fucked.

      Mutilation of female genitals is NOT OK.

      Mutilation of male genitals is NOT OK.

      Why you Americunts allow this shit to happen in your society is anyone's guess. Cucks, the lot of you.

    2. Re:Why so much butchering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Male circumcision is not mutilation... it does not inhibit the ability for one to have or enjoy intercourse, as female circumcision may. There was only one significant independent study that suggested that it might, and when reviewed by other independent scientists, it was found to have used a biased sample population, didn't compare things before and after circumcision where they may have been available, and found such a tiny difference between the two groups as to fall into the category of clinically meaningless noise.

    3. Re:Why so much butchering? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "Modern medicine" has only existed since the late 80s when the idea that a randomized clinical trial, including blinding and (gasp) involving statisticians, was a good idea. Modern medicine has a big backlog of medieval superstition to get around to.

      There was a recent study that suggested even in the case of acute appendicitis, antibiotics were just as effective as removal.

    4. Re:Why so much butchering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death happens often enough due to complications afterwards. So how many do you need to abandon a practice that has no medical benefit but can kill or make life miserable due to complications? Once you answer that we may have no need to discuss the mutilation aspect of it either because we decide against the practice or we conclude that you are driven through ideology and no fact can convince you of anything.

    5. Re:Why so much butchering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless removing it is *the only way* to prevent imminent death.

      And even then....

      One year during puberty, I was sick almost constantly. I had bacterial pneumonia twice, and bacterial AND viral pneumonias simultaneously, and "flu-like" 3-4 times that year, with each sickness lasting 3-6 weeks. When I had both viral and bacterial pneumonia, the doctor said my tonsils were so inflamed from the constant sickness that I would have to have them removed or I would almost certainly die of infection. Luckily we were too poor for surgery. Spoiler alert I didn't die. And FWIW I haven't even had so much as sniffles for the last 30 years. I just had to get sick to get strong, no biggie.

    6. Re:Why so much butchering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Male circumcision is not mutilation"

      Yes it is you DUMB CUNT!

  7. Anything is possible by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Informative

    when you work backwards from your conclusion.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Anything is possible by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      when you work backwards from your conclusion.

      Seems to me both of them are guilty of that.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  8. outta here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get that mf out of me!!

  9. Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So adter decades and decades of work people figured out Ulcers were bacterial not a defect in proteins coating the stomach walls.. Very recently it came to light that Alzheimers may be a viral or bacterial infection and the amyloid plaques actually are a defense mechanism. WHich explains why all the anti-amaloid drugs failed.

    Amaloids come from a kind of protein misfolding.

    Now they are attributing parkinsons to misfolded protein.

    This study is interesting because we now suspect the appendix's purpose is to be a place where gut bacteria can go dormant and wait to re-seed the gut to maintain diversity. In the age of antibiotics and the rise of c. Difficile the appendix reseed may have become more important. THose infections are now treated with fecal transplants.

    So appexicies harbor "good" bacteria. Perhaps the misfolded proteins their are their to keep them alive and dormant or to knock down the infection by bad bacteria (appendicitis). Perhaps it is the bacteria migrating to the brain that is brining along the misfolded proteins.

    Just saying this sounds like "here we go again" when it comes to blaming the proteins for a bacterial problem. But maybe they are right. THe thing is, and the clue to the other two cases,was asking why didn't those bad proteins get evolved away. The appendix is not only in other species but it has been independently evolved in multiple species. It's there for some damn good reason and so are the proteins screted there.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

      why didn't those bad proteins get evolved away.

      Perhaps our lifespan was so short the effects of those bad proteins didn't have enough time to kill us before we died of other causes?

      The appendix is not only in other species but it has been independently evolved in multiple species.

      What do you mean by independently evolved? How are they different?
      This stuff is way outside my knowledge but I find it interesting, if you have anything I could read on it.

    2. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by ledow · · Score: 5, Informative

      "This study is interesting because we now suspect the appendix's purpose is to be a place where gut bacteria can go dormant and wait to re-seed the gut to maintain diversity."

      It's been that way for at least 10-20 years, to my knowledge. I'm in no way a medical person, but that's always been the assumption whenever I've asked someone.

      The problem here (and the entire problem of the appendix's bad reputation) appears to be that keeping a bunch of bacteria around isn't always the best thing either and things can go wrong. Evolutionarily speaking, sure, they are minor blips that'll be rode out over time. But when an appendix gets infected and bursts, you're gonna spew the nastiest possible bacteria store all over your sterile insides (not just your gut).

      And keeping that stuff around give some things / byproducts a chance to creep up to the brain and contribute to Parkinson's by the looks of it.

      It's interesting that all this stuff is hinted to be bacterial in origin... maybe people will start to revise their entire "anti-bacterial handwash every two seconds" policies.

      Honestly, I've never known people quite so weak in constitution as those people who spend their lives bleaching their environment, sterilising their hands and spraying every surface (large cause of asthma, cleaning chemicals!). And it's not "correlative", it's "causative"... those people aren't bleaching everything BECAUSE they get ill easily, they don't start getting ill a lot until they start doing that as adults and then it affects even unrelated people who live with them too.

      You're a being made up mostly of other living things. Those living things are always in combat with the same living things. Your white blood cells etc. are fighting with your own body (e.g. dead cells, cancerous cells, etc.) all day long every day. Your gut is literally attacking and consuming the food you eat and stopping it attacking your body (you only need to leave some food out in a sealed box for a few days to realise what's already in the food). And your appendix is basically bacteria central to call in reserves when your gut starts losing the battle (i.e. you're ill).

    3. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by kackle · · Score: 2

      So adter decades and decades of work people figured out Ulcers were bacterial not a defect in proteins coating the stomach walls..

      Just a minor correction so no reader is misinformed: So after decades and decades of work, people figured out ulcers can be caused by a certain bacterium.

    4. Re: Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      It's been that way for at least 10-20 years, to my knowledge.

      I recall it being newer than that.

    5. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      So adter decades and decades of work people figured out Ulcers were bacterial not a defect in proteins coating the stomach walls..

      Just a minor correction so no reader is misinformed: So after decades and decades of work, people figured out ulcers can be caused by a certain bacterium.

      And by "can be" you really mean is in more than 90% of cases.

      Just so no reader is misinformed.

    6. Re: Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by ledow · · Score: 1

      Literally: first hit on Google, 2007:

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

    7. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spotted the doctor trying to cover up your history of bullshit diagnostics and mistakes!

    8. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Evolution doesn't really care about Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. The protein's involved in both are misfolded versions that have important uses in their normally folded state. Having those proteins around at a small risk of late life dementia is most likely very beneficial.

      There's evidence that the misfolded version of the protein involved in Parkinson's can crawl up nerves, including crossing synapses. That would make it conceivable that it could make its way up from the gut to the brain. There's also speculation that inflammation in the gut might be responsible for increasing the chances of misfolding, and migration, so the idea that pathogens could be involved hasn't been ignored.

    9. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The proposal was made in 2007:
      https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jt...

    10. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Yes but it does care about bacterial infections hence the defense mechanisms that might have long term negative attributes.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    11. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes, evolution probably regards some misfolded proteins that have a chance of causing you to be demented forty years after you've passed on your genes to be worthwhile collateral damage for a robust inflammatory response that keeps you from dying of cholera as a child or young adult.

    12. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by kackle · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the added facts (I'm not trolling). Coincidentally, my body JUST cured itself of an ulcer. The ulcer was not caused by the Helicobacter pylori bacterium. I guess that makes me part of the 10%.

    13. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I'm slowly working my way through Aron Ra's youtube series the Systemic Classification of Life. He's an acquired taste, as he's a bit brash and very not professor-like, but being able to see subsets of the evolutionary tree of life in detail is really amazing. I always knew that we had a deep fossil record which explains evolution, but I had no idea it was that deep.

      What's impressive about the series is that it's showing the path from early animals to humans, and showing where different species branched off along the way.

      While you said, "anything I could read on it", and I'm 99% not a video person, this is one of the few times where I find it's really helpful to have dense graphics with someone explaining chunks of it rather than text. Seeing artists' renderings of extinct animals along the tree with a narrative about them I find really helpful, not being all that well versed in biology or phylogeny.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    14. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by kbahey · · Score: 1

      It has been decades, but I did study medical stuff (pharmacy degree).

      The brain is protected by the so called 'blood brain barrier', which prevents many things going through. These range from bacteria, to even many medications.

      Meningitis is caused by a bacteria, but they don't cross that barrier. Instead, they infect the membranes surrounding the brain. But in doing so, they make the BBB is more permeable, so toxins may pass through.

      Antibiotics to treat brain infections are also different, since normal ones do not pass through.

      You also have these misfolded proteins called prions. These are hypothesized to cause Alzheimer's disease, and also mad cow disease, which is transmitted by eating brains from cows that are afflicted, causing Variant Creutzfeldtâ"Jakob disease.

      So, direct bacterial cause is unlikely. The mechanism(s) are more complex, and not yet definitive, but it is almost surely not straight bacteria going in.

    15. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately your knowledge is out of date. The whole idea that the blood brain barrier isn't passable is now off the table.

    16. Re:Alzheimers, ulcers and appendix, oh my by Trogre · · Score: 1

      See, this is why we need more CPU and GPU cycles donated to projects like Folding@home that advance scientific knowledge, and not being flushed down the toilet of crypto mining.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  10. Correlation is not causation... by Arzaboa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The one thing that we can deduce from this study is that 100% of the people that had appendectomies don't have an appendix anymore.

    --
    Together we can change the world, just one random act of kindness at a time. -- Ron Hall

    1. Re:Correlation is not causation... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think so. That would need individual verification. Surgeries get botched.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Correlation is not causation... by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >Correlation is not causation...

      +1

      I am so tired of these "studies" being posted and people jumping to causation conclusions. Whatever causes Parkinson's MIGHT also be something that increases the chances of appendicitis. That doesn't mean that removal of the appendix affects the chances of getting Parkinson's.

      Such studies are very interesting, but prove nothing. They just help point the need for further research.

    3. Re:Correlation is not causation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decreases.

    4. Re:Correlation is not causation... by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Yep. Wish there were an "edit" button.

    5. Re:Correlation is not causation... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      That would, I assume, likely fall into the statistical noise category, being less than 1% and therefore not actually change the accuracy of the statement when rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

    6. Re:Correlation is not causation... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      This is true. Oddly however, science is not done in a vacuum. There's also evidence that the protein involved in Parkinson's can crawl along nerves, including from the gut to the brain. Several lines of evidence suggest a possible causal relationship. Of course, none of it is conclusive, and gut involvement in Parkinson's is still an emerging idea. As the *summary* says, don't get your appendix removed yet.

      "People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals." If you're tired of hearing people jump to conclusions perhaps you should avoid the Internet?

    7. Re:Correlation is not causation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one thing that we can deduce from this study is that 100% of the people that had appendectomies don't have an appendix anymore.

      The summary even gives a mechanism for the causation. Do you have one for it to work the other way? No. You're just another armchair scientist. Did you read the actual study before trash talking it? No, of course not.

    8. Re:Correlation is not causation... by epine · · Score: 1

      "People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals." If you're tired of hearing people jump to conclusions perhaps you should avoid the Internet?

      All through the work day, we're forced to occupy the cognitive zone where we're least dumb, panicky, and dangerous (if not in the first job, in the second, or third, or fourth).

      Then you come home, and you're tired, because that part of the brain was not meant to operate for eight solid hours. It was just meant to be wide enough awake to avoid lions while making a two hour hike through the Savanna, toward dinner (and again on the return trip).

      So you plunk yourself down in front of the Internet, and Opposite George wants his dues: a great release of all the rabid bullshit you've been holding back floods to the surface.

      It might only be 1% of your cognitive sphere, it's 50% of what you hang on your laundry line out there in anonymous public. An attentive xenobiologist might even conclude that half of Internet culture is a vent-hole Olympics.

      And he/she/it/they would be right.

  11. Correlation does not imply causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I could be that people who have some genetic profile are more likely to get Parkinsson and problem with their appendix. Or it could be that people who eat a certain food or exercise in a certain way are more (or less) likely to get Parkinsson and problem with their appendix.

  12. Also discovered recently... by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 0, Troll

    There appears to be a strong positive correlation between people who vote for Trump and people who have their heads up their ass.

    Just sayin'.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    1. Re:Also discovered recently... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There appears to be a strong positive correlation between people who vote for Trump and people who have their heads up their ass.

      Just sayin'.

      Have also noticed over the last decade or so that there's a strong correlation between parties adopting smug, condescending, holier-than-though opinions of the superiority of themselves and their party ... and losing nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, and the good will of millions of two-time Obama voters who turned their backs on their former default party exactly, specifically because of people like you. Ever noticed that?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re: Also discovered recently... by TimMD909 · · Score: 2

      It's as if a million mics were held out and suddenly all were dropped...

    3. Re:Also discovered recently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it possible someone was trolling both sides of this debate to stir up dissent, and that neither side, on its own is THAT toxic? Last I checked, we are all people and have most of the same basic needs.

    4. Re:Also discovered recently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly this. Well said.

    5. Re:Also discovered recently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah kinda how you also notice that the entire government is in a state of gridlock even though a single party owns all three arms but still can't pass legislation to save it's life, specifically because of people like you! It's almost like this entire nation is filled with useless crybabies!

      ever notice that?

      Government. Gridlock. Is good. Something with the power to destroy everyone's livelihoods, nay, lives, should move slowly and deliberately.

    6. Re:Also discovered recently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um,
      one side's wack jobs are Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and Isolationists while their regular folk are mostly Authoritarian Corporatists.
      The other side's wack jobs are Animal Rights, Environmental, and Humanitarian activists while their regular folk are mostly "Freedom includes not just leaving people alone in their bodies and relations, but also not attacking innocent people, the environment, and other countries".

      Both sides 'Establishment' were Corporate whores 50 years ago, but now the Authoritarian side's Establishment contains nothing but Church Lady Authoritarians.

      PS. Antifa and Anarchists are not Democrats. But the White Supremacist Terrorists are all Republicans.

    7. Re:Also discovered recently... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Can't wait to rip your shitgibbon out of office

      Let me guess. You couldn't wait to watch him lose to Hillary Clinton, either, right? You probably also couldn't wait to see a last minute fictional smear job prevent him from seating his second staunchly originalist SCOTUS nominee, right? To say nothing of how all of those new circuit and appellate judges were going to be slavish liberal activists, yeah? And you were probably just drooling at the prospect of the economy tanking and minorities furious with him for continuing the sort of job erosion they experienced under Obama, right? I'll bet you were especially anxious for a war to break out on the Korean peninsula - you'd have just had a little Hillarygasm over that one, I'm sure. Bet you couldn't WAIT for Trump's promise to ditch NAFTA and renegotiate a better Canada/Mexico/US trade deal to completely fall apart, right? And needless to say, you were probably one of those people absolutely convinced that Mueller would have long since had him locked up over his obvious RUSSIA! collusion. How's all of that working out for you? Never mind, I'm sure you're mostly just excited about the Blue Tsunami that's going to take over the senate so that Trump doesn't get to put yet another justice or two in place. That's looking like a sure thing for you right?

      Meh. I'm not going to trouble myself with the usual substance-free juvenile babbling of someone who thinks "Your's" is a thing. Have fun getting your legislative agenda, phony impeachments, and judicial preferences through the senate, Shillary, with Schumer still having to fetch McConnells's coffee.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Also discovered recently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever noticed that?

      That's always existed -- and yes, YES, "on both sides." I'm sure that we don't have to search very far to see smugness on the other side of the political spectrum.

      But you need to be careful. If you ask "have you noticed", you open yourself to people telling you what the actually have noticed. Like gerrymandering issues. For example, have you noticed that the district maps in certain regions of North Carolina were struck down as unconstitutional... but they're going ahead with elections using those district maps anyway?

      And also, have you noticed that the weakening of the Voting Rights Act has had a correlation to fewer votes from certain segments of the population? For some reason, a lot of people don't seem concerned about that.

      Have you noticed the number of presidential elections where the elected individual did not receive a majority of the popular vote? Oddly enough, people are claiming that the direction the country has been going is by popular mandate, but examples like that seem to weaken that idea. I guess I'll be proven right or wrong in a few days.

      I don't condone the GP's attitude, but don't pretend that is the reason for certain individuals being elected. The field is tilted and it seems that those in power right now are greatly benefiting from that tilt. There are a lot of people who are trying very hard not to notice that.

    9. Re:Also discovered recently... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      White Supremacist Terrorists are all Republicans.

      It is well documented historical fact that the Ku Klux Klan is the military branch of the Democratic Party.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:Also discovered recently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary wasn't my gal. I voted Libertarian. But you should really stop bringing her name up. She lost. She's irrelevant. It makes you Repugs look like a bunch of apologist crybabies.

      Don't think we can't rip your lying alcoholic SCOTUS out, too, once we get a REAL investigation going. And while we're at it, let's stop attributing President Obama's economic recovery and job creation to Donald.

      Mission accomplished in North Korea, eh? Why is your shitgibbon putting tariffs on the wrong countries? He really did the middle class a solid by cutting taxes for the rich, didn't he? Does he even have a fucking clue what he is doing? Broken promise on repealing the ACA. Broken promise on building a wall. Broken promise on bringing back wonderful, clean coal. Broken promise on releasing his tax returns. Shit, does he ever keep any of his promises? Oh, wait, now that the Dems have subpoena power, they'll gladly help him get those tax returns released.

      Vilifying Muslims and Mexicans, like Hitler did to the Jews? Wow, I'd never let him play me like a violin. You don't seem to mind it, though. A guy like that could never get my vote. I don't vote for crooked con-artists.

      Trump's economic collapse is coming. Unfortunately, it'll happen under a Democratic president, so obviously you'll try blaming it on the Dems - you know, like you do with Gramm/Leach/Bliley.

      Now we're going to harass the living shit out of your president with investigations. Russia, Emoluments, conflicts of interest - I fucking can't wait to lock him up.

      And yes, he is your's, because he sure ain't mine.

  13. So Parkinson's causes appendectomies! by recrudescence · · Score: 1

    Interesting! So, people who are predisposed to eventually developing Parkinson's disease, are at an increased risk of having that manifest as an inflamed appendix requiring operation. Not only that, but this seems to be an early warning sign before the main disease (Parkinson's) manifests as well.

    Brought to you by the "In medicine the exact reverse causal hypothesis always also sounds entirely reasonable too" department.

    Incidentally, every time somebody discovers yet another brain-gut-axis link, I feel more and more sorry for Andrew Wakefield.

    1. Re:So Parkinson's causes appendectomies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you have the correlation exactly backwards.

  14. Low correlation by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    This seems like a very low correlation for the cause to be the appendix. More than likely the appendix is merely capturing and concentrating these proteins, perhaps well before the symptoms of Parkinsons have manifested. That hardly means the appendix is the source of the proteins.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Low correlation by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is, there may be a Link Between Parkinson's Disease and the Appendix .

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:Low correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no he's saying that the appendix just happens to retain more of these proteins. They could be in other places too. You can't presume its a link just because of a single correlation.

    3. Re:Low correlation by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is, there may be a Link Between Parkinson's Disease and the Appendix

      Yeah, just like the bladder is the source of diabetes because uncontrolled diabetes manifests with glucose in the urine.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
  15. But where to put the information? by sabbede · · Score: 4, Funny

    If we start removing appendices, there won't be any place in the medical books to list the connection to Parkinson's!

  16. It's a complex picture, could .... by Martin+S. · · Score: 2

    Those prone to appendicitis be less susceptible to Parkinsons for the same reason they suffer appendicitis in the first place. There are know genetic factors in the predisposition to both diseases.

    Could there be some other environmental cause? Pesticides and herbicides exposure is a known risk factor in Parkinsons.

    Appendectomy is know to slow peoples recovery after bouts of food poisoning, because their gut flora recovers more slowly. The Appendix is known to be a reservoir of these.

    I like to see how this compared with non-surgical intervention for appendicitis, which was reported recently as as gaining favour for that latter reason.

  17. However ... by Martin+S. · · Score: 2

    It is grounds for further investigation.

    Furthermore the researchers do not claim it is.

    Strawman cliches are not +1 insightful.

  18. Useless parts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the last 20 years I have said and published my opinion that we have no useless parts.

    I've always believed that both the Tonsils and the Appendix are part of a backup immunity system. If the primary immunity system were to come under attack, they release a molecule of which the backup system interacts with and kills that which is attacking.

    If leveraged correctly, this could be utilized to create a cure for many diseases.

  19. Not a new theory by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Very recently it came to light that Alzheimers may be a viral or bacterial infection and the amyloid plaques actually are a defense mechanism.

    That possibility is NOT a recent revelation. We have no evidence of a specific pathogen but that's been on the list of possible causes for a long time. More than a few types of cancer are caused by viruses and many other diseases we don't normally associate with viruses or bacteria. My wife is a pathologist and she's spoken about this very topic to me 20 years ago. It wouldn't at all be shocking if some or even all Alzheimer's turned out to be caused by a pathogen. We just don't have strong evidence currently to support that hypothesis though perhaps there has been some recent data that I'm not aware of. (obviously i'm not an expert)

    THe thing is, and the clue to the other two cases,was asking why didn't those bad proteins get evolved away.

    For there to be an evolutionary pressure it needs to have an effect on reproduction. Lot's of diseases don't affect anyone until after they have passed the age where they would spawn offspring so there is no direct mechanism to remove the proteins from the gene pool.

  20. think even Diabetes-2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My father and his brothers died of diabetes. We are his 3 children and 2 have developed diabetes post 35 age. The one with appendix removed at age 25, does not have it even at his current age of 49.

  21. This doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your body isn't made to hurt itself

    I don't know what this is all about, but it either isn't correct or is based on some other information that has been effected in other ways.

    Or it's part of a satanic ritual in which everyone removes their appendix and they're taken and eaten by the elite and the politicians. It makes about this much sense.

  22. sniff, smell that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm smelling some statistical bullshit....and some bad correlations

  23. 5 sigma in multiple lg. sample double blind study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No?

    It didn't happen.

  24. Since you asked by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Here's an interesting popular press article from this year talking about the slow turn on this theory. Sure people have had that on the list of possibilities but no proof. Now the pendulum is swinging that direction, but only recently.

    https://www.statnews.com/2018/...

    It really is turning THIS YEAR, because it's only in the last year that the most advanced and well studied Anti-alzheimer's drugs targeting plaque forming pathways failed. Thus old speculations are being reconsidered and there's a body of proof to support them.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Since you asked by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Thanks so much. That's a fascinating article.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  25. Teriary benefit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a direct causation, I would have expected something closer to +50% difference. This sounds more like it has something to do with the procedure of the appendix removal, not the appendix removal itself. Like maybe the type of sutures or medicine used for healing, or anesthesia.

  26. Oh great! I still have mine! by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    In fact, at almost 60, I'm still 100% factory equipment! Appendix, wisdom teeth, no body parts have been removed. My mom said the reason I was the only one in the family that didn't have to have their wisdom teeth removed was because I had a big mouth. LOL, well, she was right in a way. ;)

  27. Can we drag this back around to politics, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, come on, at least make it something that validates my worldview generally. It doesn't specifically need to be about pesticides or GMOs, but if it could somehow be tied to over-consumption or hobbies I find distasteful, that would be great.

    Or, hear me out, could Parkinson's somehow be caused by how Facebook steals features from Instagram - or, no, wait, could it be because people keep overhyping AI?

    This appendix crap is a non-starter.

  28. Correlation != Causation by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    The numbers are very interesting from a scientific point of view

    Really? One of the first rules of scientific data analysis is that correlation does not imply causation. So far there is literally nothing to see here scientifically. It only becomes interesting if they actually manage to find that the appendix has a role in causing Parkinsons. Given the tiny effect on the actual rate of the disease it is unlikely to have any sort of major role since you are only ~16% less likely to get it without your appendix. Indeed the very weak correlation suggests that either there are many different causes or it is something very different that may, itself, weakly correlate with having an appendectomy.

  29. Go Science! by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    A related study also found that people with freckles live longer and happier lives. Go science! Go science! Go science! Whoop! Whoop!

  30. Oh YOU'RE tired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am so tired of these "opinions" being posted where you scream "Correlation is not causation" on every goddamned subject you don't agree with.

    Git fuckt.

    1. Re:Oh YOU'RE tired? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"I am so tired of these "opinions" being posted where you scream "Correlation is not causation""

      Good thing what you think doesn't matter because you are an anonymous coward.

  31. David Fucking Duke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a well documented historical fact that the KKK supports trump. There was a whole scandal about it and everything.

    It's also a weel documented historical fact that what you assert hasn't been true since before 1964, but I know you already know that cause I've had to tell you 3 or 4 fucking times. You are a disingenuous piece of shit partisan hack.