Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related NaNo FFQ: What would be the societal repercussions...

What would be the repercussions if over a 25 year span all medical issues would have an 87% drop in frequency?

They also don't know the reason for the drop. It just started happening in a local area and then started to spread to major population areas then filtered back to rural areas from there.

People just started becoming healthier and healthier, except for about 13% of the population, which had no change at all.

And for the most part inherited genetic disorders started to disappear from newborns.

James

At first there would probably be few repercussions: fewer hospital admissions except for trauma admissions which would probably stay flat over time.

I would hazard a guess that big pharma would pick up the pattern first - healthy people are less likely to buy into pharma adverts and so their sales would be affected. Clinics would be seeing fewer patients and many might end up shutting down. Emergency rooms would see a shift over time to trauma rather than chronic ailments (other than self-inflicted chronic conditions such as drugs).

It might take a while for the medical schools to pick up on the shift and shunt more doctors into trauma practice and geriatrics (with a drop in chronic illness, people will live longer and insurance companies will see a change in payout patterns.

I would expect at about the 10 year point, the CDC, big pharma and the ERs would start recognizing the statistical changes in a serious way.

The general population probably won't notice it as quickly. Everyone in the family seems to stay a little healthier - This year aunt Maude didn't catch pneumonia even though she forgot her flu shot - that sort of thing.

The schools will notice (at about the 10-15 year mark) that they're having to deal with fewer children with birth defects.

BTW, there is some question as to whether Autistic Syndrome (Including ADD/ADHD) would qualify as a birth defect. It could be a natural (if extreme) variation of brain development that gets diagnosed as a defect because of the demands for uniformity of students in most educational systems. I mention this because genius is sometimes associated with AS. And if AS is 'cured' the Talented and Gifted programs may also be affected.

Thanks for your reply! Can I pick your brains some more?

And, on the side, chemical abuse would be more and more difficult achieve. The unknown agent of change has the ability to keep a person's bio-chemical state in optimum condition. Withdraw symptoms would be lessened or vanish but the 'high' from drugs wouldn't be possible either. This would affect alcohol and nicotine as well.

James

Since I threw up my hands in disgust at this years NaNoWriMo - next year I'll work on something where I actually like my characters - I have time.

With drugs out of the way as an ER admissions issue, all there is going to be left is trauma. There will be a spate of deaths however from the drugged out community as people try to get back the high they had before by using potentially lethal means.

And then there are still the reasons why some people self-medicate, one of the reasons being
AS/ADD/ADHD and another being PTSD. The 'agent' may be able to minimize the effects of PTSD, but if AS is not a 'defect' then many of those people will be 'outsiders' or 'weird' and may act out in anti-social ways if they are unable to self-medicate or find other outlets. (One of the reasons 'No Child Left Behind' failed so miserably - aside from being one of the most putative 'education improvement' programs around - was that it completely ignored an entire classification of high-risk student. The high-IQ, highly talented, easily bored and hard to educate. (Been there, done that, have the scars AND the t-shirt.)

And if AS is a 'defect', then humanity may lose many future advances because the 'genius' that would have discovered them has been 'normalized'.

And a thought - certain 'conditions' many people consider as 'defects' are not disease functions at all but Mother Nature's diversity that worked for survival of the group during less technological times. Male-pattern baldness, red/green color blindness, a few others (there is some reason to believe male homosexuality is one as well) fall into that category.

Obesity is a tougher one. I doubt the 'agent' would keep people from becoming overweight, although it might keep morbidity down by preventing some of the side-effects. Nor would it do much for other eating disorders unless you are postulating that those extreme behaviors have their root in brain chemical imbalance.

Just some thoughts.

I'm thinking that pharmaceutical use would take longer than 10-15 years to level off because some people would take their drugs regardless of whether or not they still need them. When they were diagnosed with needing blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, lithium, and a host of other drugs, they were told they would need them for the rest of their lives; therefore, they would take them whether they need them or not. Even after it becomes known that some people no longer need these medications there will be those who cling to their medications because they are afraid of change.

I agree with Dandello that many illnesses are related to lifestyles and are not your ordinary illnesses. The body is abundantly interconnected. Obesity is the root of many evils: high blood pressure, high cholesterol?, diabetes, circulation problems, sleep apnea, ahem... male performance issues, and I'm sure there's a ton more. That diabetes then is related to eye health, circulation problems, slow healing on the extremities, and that list goes on and on. That sleep apnea is tied to daytime sleepiness, foggy thinking, a lowered immune system, a greater propensity toward obesity, depression and anger, marital difficulties , and the list goes on from there.

My point is that you have to think on a grand scheme of things if you're going to introduce this to a story. You probably will also need a lot of technoblarney.


Elisabeth

I was thinking the new drugs (the advertised on TV ones) might get hit first. I mean, if I had severe allergies I might want to experiment with the newest and kewlest, but if I don't have symptoms (whether or not I attribute it my current medications) would I want to change?

And if new patients aren't being prescribed drugs, the demand would stay flat or go down. I would think it would also effect drug trials. If it's getting harder to find people who have the conditions this great new drug is supposed to treat, I would think someone might notice. Wouldn't they?

I guess I would look at it from the variety of causes. Are you saying:

Infectious - will that still be present? Classically, before the development of modern sanitation, antibiotics, vaccinations, and the germ theory of disease, infectious causes were what killed most people. Look at the mortality tables for 100 years ago - TB, measles (!), diarrhea - big killers, all.

Degenerative diseases (ex. Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, etc?) Are they gone?

Anatomical abnormalities - e.g. will a baby still be born with a hole in its heart?

Metabolic diseases - will diabetes still be present? How about hypothyroidism?

Neoplasia - cancer is huge. Will that be gone too?

Dandello has pointed out that Trauma will still be a big cause of hospital admissions.

Toxicities - might be down if people aren't drugging or drinking. The latter would probably decrease auto accidents too.

Immune-mediated disease? A girl at my work has lupus. Will that be gone?

Whatever. It sounds utopian. Of course, people will still manage to screw it up in some way.

Hope that helps

With a word on ADHD. A lot of ADHD is cause by chemical imbalances of the brain and a nasty yeast overgrowth Candidis ?spelling? so yes, those that have an imbalance of the brain would become balanced.

As for AS (I don't remember what that is) I don't know.
James

What about conditions like conjoined twins? Or genetic mis-pairing and alignment... specifically something like Down's syndrome (trisomy of chromosome 21)

And when you say genetic conditions would begin to disappear... do you mean that the symptoms of the conditions would be corrected before they could manifest or that the DNA of the individuals would actually be altered?

And I would be very careful about the Autism Spectrum... my brother has Autism and requires medication and a support system, though he is verbal and even has a job now. I am diagnosed with ADD on the higher end of the spectrum but I have never reacted to medications I've tried... I've never had the diagnosis put on my records (the evaluation was done in private, not through the school system) because I've never needed the help in school. There is also speculation that many gifted people throughout history may have had varying degrees of Autism.

I had brought up Autistic Spectrum because my DS was diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome when he was 7 (before that the diagnosis was 'Developmental Delays') Genius level IQ. But he was also healthy as a horse and never needed meds, just training to recognize what other people learn naturally - how to read body language, what normal interaction looks like.

If most cases of AHDH are the result of a disease process, I would bet (without contacting my DS's professors to verify) that the remaining have a genetic component. (And I would bet it happens in 1/12 of the population, like male pattern baldness.)

As far as I know current research on Autistic Spectrum indicates a pre-natal toxin component in many cases. Negating this would almost give you a win-win - the extremely debilitating forms of Autism might be cured, but the milder variations might sneak through, allowing for genius IQ's to exist, even if they are accompanied by other 'issues'.

My own explanation to teachers and others regarding my DS - the brain has a series (hundreds) of 'volume controls'. For most people all the controls are set pretty close to 50% but there are exceptional people who have some volumes set high and others set low - how high and how low determines their baseline for giftedness and deficits.

There's also a gender component - Autistic Syndrome seems to hit males the hardest.

I am a card caring ADHD. Was drugged on medication for a decade and half. I'm off those kinds of drugs now, and am reasonable functional.

Sure I get distracted easi...Oh, what a pretty web page...er, distracted. but I can still get things accomplished.

I'm thinking that Dandello is correct that the minor levels of AS/ADD/ADHD will sneak through.

The picites are connected to each other via a sub-space network. For the first five years they spread out to the entirety of...lets say a Kansas sized state...and gathered detailed biological data on that large of sample to set a biological-baseline. Then they went to the second stage of 'helping' those that they inhabited.

As they spread, the would incorporate the data from each new host and compare it to the baseline. Anything within 25% of 'normal' would be deemed acceptable. Anything else would be dealt with.

Conjoined twins, wouldn't happen as they would 'assist' in the full separation of the babies in the womb.

Down's Syndrome and related issues...I am suspecting that the picites would prevent that from happening as that would be beyond the norm.

Genetic conditions disappearing...If you are referring to the Anatomical abnormalities reversing...I think that would take time to happen. I'm imagining someone like Steven Hawkins being brought to physical norms within a couple of years.

Christopher Reeve would have been healed after several years.

Of course, after The Event, years would be reduced to minutes, for traumatic damage. Steven Hawkins would still take years, if he wasn't part of the 13%.

In myself, with ADHD, I would imagine that my brain chemistry would be regulated to normal levels, allowing me to better handle distractions. However, I have been alive for 40+ years and so have developed some really bad habits, like composing message board requests between work related emails and phone calls...

Those wouldn't go away over night. But since this would be a veeerrryyy gradual thing, I might not even notice the fact that my mind was working better and the behaviors/habits would have been modified over time as well.

See, this is the reason it is a great idea to bounce ideas like this off people. It allows me to see things from other POV and leads to discovery.

I never thought about the affects on the Tobacco industry, Alcohol, Caffeine, drugs, etc...

For the genetics... I mean... if someone has, say, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, or any other of the innumerable genetic disorders... would your picities alter the individuals physical DNA strands or just somehow compensate for the differences that gene generates?

In more detail... a gene gets transcribed into an mRNA strand... the mRNA is, in eukaryotes, usually spliced to some extent... then the mRNA is translated into peptide strand... this peptide is then folded into its active state, usually with the help of other chaperone proteins... this protein is then degraded after a certain average period of time. Each step is highly regulated... this gene is transcribed at x rate in y conditions and so on. A malfunction in any step can cause a deficiency or overabundance of any protein. So I'm wondering where your picities would step in. Its also interesting to consider that many people have their own unique baselines for things such as neurotransmitters and protein population... and sometimes the 'cure' for an imbalance can create its own problems...

Case studies as food for thought:

Sickle-cell anemia is caused by the alteration of a single amino acid in one of the two subunit types that make hemoglobin... this one difference allows the hemoglobin to form chains which deform red blood cells into the 'sickle' shape... and provide both enhanced immunity to Malaria and decreased oxygen intake...

Dopamine:
One treatment for Parkinson's disease is to administer a dopamine precursor. This elevates the dopamine levels in the brain. Which can cause psychosis and schizophrenic tendencies.

Back to twins... there is speculation that there is a much high incidence of twins that is ever recorded... but that often only one embryo survives to detection. Within that theory do you think there would then be a higher incidence of twins? Also... might the very division that creates identical twins be something 'not the norm' and thus suppressed?

You have awakened the science nerd... beware!

Actually, I'm not sure the sugar buzz would disappear as it's a natural result of the body's rise in insulin levels (and other things) in response to sugar. If the sugar rush is gone, what else might the little buggers decide is 'abnormal' - sex buzz?

NO!

Er..no, I think we can keep the sugar buzz...


I actually talked with my boss about this (Very deviant personality ) and we came to the conclusion that Alcohol would become like Star Trek's Synthehol where, if you wanted to, you could allow yourself to get all happy, but if you needed to, you could shake off the effects.

If you are setting this up to alter DNA... that could have some very interesting side effects....

Say:
ATAGCGCGAATAGCGCGA is a code that has a disease in it
ATAGCGCGTATAGCGCGA is the non-disease version

And your picies correct the actual DNA... what if they were to do something like decide that brown eyes were 'correct' and anything else was 'not correct'...

If I'm not mistaken twinning is caused by the idiotic parents saying, "Or worse yet, we could have twins. Wouldn't that be funny," without knocking on wood.

No science nerd awakened around here.


Elisabeth

Well, if it's true that most deleterious mutations are due to single transpositions, the picies might look at that, or, more likely look at the overall effects of how a gene manifests and if it does no harm, then leave it alone. Albinism and extreme fair skin might go away but otherwise skin, eye and hair variations might be unchanged - one other thought thought. Humans consider (on an extremely primitive level) that people with very even and bilaterally symmetrical features to be better looking than those with uneven features. A perfectly healthy population would be a very good looking one - that 13% that's left out is going to be considered less attractive and may even have a hard time getting mates.

I'm with Elisabeth on the twinning thing...

Though I think we lost a [fraternal] twin with one of ours. Sometimes I think about what we lost but usually I breathe a sigh of relief because one of her is way more than enough... [is that bad of me? I love her dearly and if I'd had twins at that point I'd love the twin dearly too, but - man - she's a handful. Superman would have a hard time...]

Anyway - isn't a big reason for the increase in multiples infertility drugs/treatments [see Jon and Kate Gosselin for instance]? Wouldn't your little doodads that are fixing everything fix the infertility problems for all but 13% or whatever? Or would there still be an increase in non-identical multiples because more would survive [like the one we think we lost] but without the drugs? For instance, one woman I know only ovulates every other cycle, but when she does ovulate, she double ovulates, so she's much more likely to have fraternal twins - or would the doodads 'fix' her too?

And aren't dimples a birth defect? Wouldn't want to get rid of them now would we ?

Carol [who may have completely misunderstood everything except Elisabeth's twinning theory...]

Then everybody's favorite dating song would automatically be "Brown-Eyed Girl" by Van Morrison, right? The pixies (my spelling suggestion) have pretty good taste.

I prefer "Behind Blue Eyes" myself so I'd be sad, =P

I thought I'd chime in here with something although it's been mentioned before - the impact on big pharma. Not that I'm an expert or anything, but I work for big pharma and my job is largely to speculate on the future, so I feel like I have more than your average understanding of what might happen.

The big effect I see is what Dandello mentioned - clinical trial enrollment. Honestly the forecasting we do is based on current sufferers, so it would take years to see it from that, but with clinical trials, your much more specific about who you'll talk to and so it would be apparent almost immediately. You've probably seen the articles on how many years it takes drugs to get to market - clinical trials on people tend to start 10-15 years prior to expected launch (years before that testing in the lab and then on animals). When enrollment is slow, we know immediately as of course, our estimate of launch is based on assuming we finish the trial at a specific time.

So, what I see happening is that for example all the drugs in my area are having enrollment problems. We're not sure what they are, though. But the same thing is happening to someone else and someone else, etc. Basically, it doesn't take too long to realize that all of our drugs are having enrollment problems.

I see this having sort of disasterous consequences. Those new drugs that Dandello mentioned no one responds to the ads for - well, it doesn't matter as we can no longer afford to air the ads since our pipeline is drying up and we need to tighten up spending. Even if we don't understand why at first, it sort of doesn't matter if we can't find people to test the new drugs on. None of the new drugs get to market and eventually big pharma dries up.

This has a short term impact on being good for health insurance - much cheaper to cover people if there are no drugs to give them. But of course, the problem is that when big pharma starts to go south, there are articles in places like the Wall Street Journal about why and people start realizing that they are healthier and so why bother with health insurance? Just pay for Accidental Death and Dismemberment (not sure if that's just a US thing).

Of course, on the "upside", this means there's no treatment for the 13% of the population that isn't immune to disease, and how can they afford health insurance anyway now that only sick people are opting for it - and I would think this is ex-US, too, since why would the government offer health insurance when so few people want it? With no treatments and no insurance, any illness that effects morbidity means that that percentage of the 13% dies out. Assuming your picites are genetically spread as well, this means that within a few years, the 13% has reduced substantially and all that are left are diseases that you can live with without treating. So, perhaps some people still have acid reflux, but cancer is gone.

While if this was happening, I'd definitely need to look for a new job, it sounds ideal. Although I do feel badly for the 13% of the population that is still able to get sick.

My earlier post made me look a little bit shallow, so I offer a secondary look at how twins are conceived. It all starts with two innocent people who pray, "Lord, help me to be more patient and humble."

On a more serious note, one thing you're talking about is taking consequences away from actions. This can be bad for everybody, regardless of which side of 87/13 percent line you fall on. Whether or not you sleep well enough, you feel fine. Whether or not you exercise, you feel fine. Whether or not you choose well or poorly, you feel fine. That's all fine and dandy for the short term but habits have a way of creeping into other parts of life.


Elisabeth

Anonpip, thanks for your input. I am sure that I can use that information.