I've pointed out in other places on this site that inflammation is what usually does the damage in "infectious diseases," and that the wrong conditions stress "germs," make them "clingly," and this prompts the body to generate the inflammatory response. All this is now known, and I certainly will not claim to be the first to state this. In fact, scientists who did experiments have noted this phenomenon appeared to be surprised by their results. However, I have found evidence that one can modify this inflammatory response by simple dietary changes, and the only advice currently being given that is based on this general idea is for people to consume fish oil, though this substance is far too dangerous for people to consume in large enough amounts to counteract the arachidonic acid overload condition, which is what allows acute inflammation to be too strong or for chronic inflammation to occur.
However, it seems that most doctors and scientists do not see any connection between "infectious disease" and "chronic inflammatory disease," and so the idea that one can make oneself much less susceptible to "infectious disease" by avoiding the arachidonic acid overload condition (and also not consuming fish oil, which is also dangerous in this context) is not something you will likely hear from your local doctor any time soon.
On another newsgroup, there was a thread started by someone who appears to believe that "germs" are a myth, and that "infectious disease" is probably due to toxins. I tried to point out that toxins can make the "germs" clingy, leading to an inflammatory response, but this person seems to have convinced himself that he must be correct, despite his only evidence being what he thinks is the bad evidence of the "germ theory" proponents. I suggested to him that while he might be able to find example of scientists jumping to conclusions, as they did with "HIV/AIDS," it is highly unlikely that all the evidence of "germs" causing disease (directly or indirectly, co-factors necessary or not) is basically total fiction. In any case, I found some interesting material while writing up posts on this thread, and I'll present it all below:
First post: I agree with Lanka in that passage you quoted, so far as I know. That is, experiments should be done where animals that are ill are exposed to members of the same species in a natural way, and not injected with the "germ" and other substances. Since the "illness" that results is likely due to the inflammatory response, it could be the "germ," or the preservatives, etc., or the combination, or it could be the location (that is, if it is being injected into tissue that would normally never encounter the "germ" and/or other substances). I was just reading a new book called "How Doctors Think" and the author talks about a case of babesiosis. They tried to find the "germ" in the patient, but the test was negative. The doctor then did his own test, looked in the microscope, and found it. However, when you look on the Wikipedia.org site, you find the usual for "infectious diseases:"
QUOTE: Infection with Babesia parasites can be asymptomatic or cause a mild non-specific illness, and therefore many cases go unnoticed. Most diagnosed cases occur in the very young, very old, or persons with underlying medical conditions... Babesia parasites reproduce in red blood cells, where they can be seen as cross-shaped inclusions (4 merozoites asexually budding but attached together forming a structure looking like a "Maltese Cross") and cause hemolytic anemia, quite similar to malaria... UNQUOTE.
However, let us "dig" further:
QUOTE: The symptoms of babesiosis normally begin about a week after a tick bite with a gradual onset of malaise, anorexia and fatigue. This is followed several days later by high fever, chills, drenching sweats, muscle pain, joint pain and headaches. As with malaria, these symptoms can continue over a protracted period (several days to several months) or can abate, then recur. Sometimes, a person can be infected with the parasite but not show any symptoms. In some cases it may take from 1 to 12 months for first symptoms to appear after infection with the parasite. UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C353711.html
So what we see here coincides well with what is in "infectious disease" textbooks. That is, first there is the "germ" reproducing until it sets off the inflammatory response, which is where the fever, chills, etc. originate. However, as they state is also that one can be asymptomatic for a long time, and most likely many people never develop symptoms.
Anemia can result because the immune system destroys red blood cells, which "host" the "germ." My point here is that since not everyone gets ill, some other factor(s) is involved, most likely stressors and/or certain kinds of biochemical activity (which could be one and the same, for example, lipid peroxidation reactions). This generates the fatigue type of symptoms, but then there is:
QUOTE: Making matters worse is the fact that animals [dogs in this case] seem to get sicker than the degree of anemia would suggest so that there is more to this infection than the actual destruction of red blood cells. The severe inflammation that is associated with this parasitism can be overwhelming and completely separate from the anemia. UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.marvistavet.com/html/body_babesia_infection_in_dogs.html
Here I would suggest that it is diet that is largely responsible for such dangerous inflammatory responses, which is why I changed my diet. In any case, I am not claiming that the the textbook type descriptions of Babesiosis are incorrect, but that they emphasize the "germ" rather than the inflammatory response. The advice then becomes "lets kill all the germs," which may make the "germs" more dangerous (such as with antibiotic-resistant bacteria), whereas if the inflammatory response was reduced in such cases, the "germ" would be much less of a problem and there would be only very minor symptoms (at worst), except in a few rare cases.
Second post: On the vitamin A idea; I found the following, which again is connected to "inflammation:
QUOTE: ...researchers showed that by manipulating the amount of retinoic acid in mice, they could affect the number of pro-inflammatory T cells, a type of white blood cell responsible for several autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. The finding is an important first step that, if eventually found to be true in humans, points to the potential of a new avenue of therapies using retinoic acid to treat these diseases.
"What's exciting about this finding is they've found that retinoic acid plays a role in modulating the switch between these two distinct (T cell) lineages -- the induced regulatory T cells, which are anti-inflammatory, and the TH-17 lineage, which promotes inflammatory responses..." UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070614151809.htm
Third post: Also on sciencedaily today is the following:
QUOTE: Universitätsmedizin Berlin report that the molecule known as TRAIL can limit excessive immune responses in bacterial meningitis and as such may be of use to control inflammation of the spinal cord and brain, which causes brain cell death in this life-threatening disease.
Pneumococcal meningitis involves inflammation of the protective membranes covering the brain and spinal cord and is caused by infection with the bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae. The observed swelling of the brain is largely the result of the excessive immune response to infection... UNQUOTE.
So where do I take issue with this kind of report or study?
1. They say it's caused by infection, but many people live with "germs" without any problems, and it is now known why; conditions can make the "germs" clingly, which sets off the inflammatory response.
2. The inflammatory response can be controlled by simple means, whereas even if they design drugs to control something like TRAIL, it might lead to long-term damage to the body, if not short-term.
3. They act as if there is some sort of TRAIL (or other molecule) dysfunction, and that this is the root cause. In reality, there is the wrong kind of biochemical activity going on (often lipid peroxidation/"chronic inflammation"), and this activates or damages these molecules (or causes an "autoimmune response" against them).
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070617164102.htm
Fourth post: "From what I have looked at in regards to viruses it seems much more likely that they are involved in a cellular repair or fixing process than in causing a disease." [this was a quote from one of this person's previous posts]
This is consistent with the view that "inflammation" is doing the actual damage. Keep in mind that "infectious disease" is a process. When "germs" are reproducing, one may not feel any symptoms, or very mild ones, but it is only when the inflammatory response occurs that there are undeniable symptoms. Thus, what you see depends upon when you draw blood (if that is where you are looking for the "germs"). "Syphilis" seems to be a case where a "germ" may be blamed when it is not doing anything harmful at all, because of the symptoms and how long they can take to develop. In the typical "infectious disease," there is the reproduction, which can cause things like fatigue, and then there is the inflammatory response, which produces obvious symptoms. On the other hand, something like asbestositis/mesothelioma does not produce the fatigue, and the inflammation is chronic and the damage limited to a particular tissue/organ, at least at first. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
