From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The article says: " scientific evidence that calcium deficiency effects the immune system...". The verb "to effect" means "to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen". I know no account of anybody claiming that calcium deficiency makes the immune system happen, or that calcium defficiency produces the immune system as an effect. Now if you change "effects" for "affects", which means "to act on; produce an effect or change in" then the article may actually have some link with reality.--Brasov (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You could've just fixed it. Instead of being a pedantic git. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 19:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Just pointing out the illiteracy of the author.--Brasov (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Says the guy who needs 12 edits to write a simple post. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 19:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I would advise you not to do that on this site. Instant bans are immediately evoked for such naughty boys. Dirk Steele (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The article says: "There is not only no scientific evidence that calcium deficiency affects the immune system, there is no rational reason it would, as it doesn't have any role in most of the body's systems. ". I did quick Google search using the words "calcium" and "immunity" to check the accuracy of this pedantically categorical dismissal. First result:

The CaV1.4 Calcium Channel Is a Critical Regulator of T Cell Receptor Signaling and Naive T Cell Homeostasis
Immunity, Volume 35, Issue 3, 349-360, 11 August 2011
"The transport of calcium ions (Ca2+) to the cytosol is essential for immunoreceptor signaling, regulating lymphocyte differentiation, activation, and effector function.".

So yes, Ca has been found to play an essential role in immunity, and the rational reason why calcium deficiency may affect the immune system is there. My suggestion to the author of this entry: a quick Google search can help you look less ignorant. A less categorical rethoric helps as well.--Brasov (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance is a virtue on a 'rational' wiki site such as this. Dirk Steele (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! (also, learn to spell rhetoric) SophieWilder 19:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This RationalWiki has been taken over by collective totalitarian nutters who ban 'heretics' on sight or those who do not agree with current groupthink. Popper explained this very well not only in his 'scientific method' but in the 'open society'. You are a primitive primate and you have more authority on this site than you merit. You hand out bans to people like me - for being a 'monomaniac' (i.e I know a little about one thing) because you think you know everything about everything. Pathetic you are. Just ban everyone who disagrees with you and your insults. But that is RationalWiki for ya. Junk. Dirk Steele (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you name one single person banned? Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I have beened blocked on numerous occasions. Sophie Wilder, Hamilton (Emriscm and logic) and ohers. Brasov is now blocked for three months. Dirk Steele (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Blocking != banning. Brasov has been unblocked. Due to the chaotic and anarchic nature of this wiki, it's very hard to block someone for a long period of time - doing it requires a really strong consensus, as almost everyone has blocking/unblocking rights.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)