 |
|
Reply
| |
I found these two very different explanations of why bubonic plague is so dangerous. The first view assumes commonly-held "germ theory" notions, and the desire is to find what is the mechanism for immune system failure: QUOTE: ...researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine have identified a novel molecular target for an effector protein called YpkA, one of several effectors of the bacteria Yersinia -- the pathogen responsible for the Middle Ages' "Black Death" and a virulent form of food poisoning today. YpkA targets a host protein called Gaq, the messenger that transmits extracellular signals ("we are under attack!") into the host cell, so that it can mount a defense. "The alarm signal sent by Gaq is intercepted by YpkA, which sets up a roadblock along several cellular pathways that Gaq uses to deliver the alarm," said lead author Lorena Navarro, Ph.D... UNQUOTE. Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524125924.htm The second idea is that the immune/inflammatory response is actually too strong, not too weak, and this view is in accord with the evidence when examined in totality: QUOTE: ...Once inside the body, the Y. pestis is capable of very rapidly disseminating throughout the bloodstream and has a particular affinity for the lymphatic system, with the lymph nodes being the primary target. Lymph nodes are important, because the organism homes in on them and begins to disrupt normal immune function. Essentially, the organism uses a battery of virulence mechanisms to set up a catastropic immune reaction that causes large amounts of uncontrolled inflammation.
This inflammation has two primary effects. The first is to cause the large swelling that forms buboes, which is where the disease gets the name 'bubonic plague', although at the moment it's unable to spread from person to person. Secondly, the inflammation causes blood vessels to become 'leaky', normally a response to let lymphocytes pass to a site of infection but in this case causes widespread internal bleeding. Coincidentally, this is also why plague is called the "black death", because the blood pools in the extremities of the body such as fingers and around the mouth. This accumulated blood then dries under the skin and turns black, giving a solid indication of the terminal stages of the disease. Once this internal bleeding begins, Y. pestis seizes the opportunity to rapidly disseminate through the bloodstream and spread everywhere... UNQUOTE. Source: http://immunoblogging.blogspot.com/2006/03/history-of-plague.html The latter passage was written by J.M. O'Donnell, a microbiologist and immunologist. Clearly, there is a direct contradiction between the two passahges. One must be incorrect. If the former were correct, however, the visible symptoms would be impossible, because the body would not generate inflammation, since their claim is that the "alarm bells" of the "immune system" have been disabled. Instead, the symptoms would be similar to what happens in cases of the "flesh-eating bacteria," that is, rapid necrosis. The fact that these researchers don't appear to know something as basic as this is a bit frightening, because their "research" could lead to the development of "medicine" that does harm but no good. |
|
 First
Previous
2 of 2
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
On another newsgroup, one person was claiming that there basically are no "germs," and that all "infectious disease" is due to "toxins." Here were my posts:
1.
You've obviously done a lot of reading on this subject, and what I know about this is it's hard for me to tell what people can understand and what they can't, because I don't remember how hard or how long it took to really obtain a good understanding.
I suggest that you try to "break things down" to a very simple level, explaining exactly what is occurring. The point I make to people is that the notion that "germs" can just invade and do tremendous damage to a person's body is bad science fiction. Other necessary factors have been overlooked or under-emphasized. It sounds like you are relying a great deal on what are essentially "snap shots" of cells that have been manipulated in ways that would not occur in the body (unless the person was dropped in a vat of certain kinds of toxic substances), and there is really no way to know what these pictures truly represent. It is now known that the cell contains "scaffolding" proteins, and that water molecules are bound to them. My guess is that some of the toxins destroy the scaffolding proteins, or at least render them unable to bind water molecules, and then they "curl up."
You may be right on any particular "virus" claim, of course, but your toxin notion does not account for things like the plagues that occurred before modern chemicals were produced. I recently saw a show on the "black plague" of the mid 14th century, and the point was made that it appeared that people passed it on to each other, and that the rats that were supposed to have carried the fleas around were simply not where they would have had to have been. This is consistent with my view, namely that people were giving each other massive doses of the germ in its most virulent form, and then a powerful inflammatory response did the actual damage.
Let's talk about the "great plagues" for a moment. You might want to brush up this topic. I suggest you read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_plague
Then let's take a look at a study that discusses what happens to mice infected with two strains of Yersinia pestis, which is said to cause bubonic plague:
"...Both strains caused acute inflammation in liver that evolved into structured lesions surrounded by progressively mononuclear inflammation suggestive of a granulomatous response..."
Infect Immun. 1989 April; 57(4): 1200�?210.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=313251
Now let's take a look at a "mainstream" view, which does not talk about the damage inflammation causes:
"...Within hours of the initial flea bite, the infection spills out into the bloodstream, leading to involvement of the liver, spleen, and lungs. The patient develops a severe bacterial pneumonia, exhaling large numbers of viable organisms into the air during coughing fits. 50 to 60 percent of untreated patients will die if untreated. As the epidemic of bubonic plague develops (especially under conditions of severe overcrowding, malnutrition, and heavy flea infestation), it eventually shifts into a predominately pneumonic form, which is far more difficult to control and which has 100 percent mortality..."
Here, you can see how a person can give a massive dose to someone else, especially if they don't know that that is what they may do when they sneeze. When they talk about the "involvement" of certain organs, there is no mention of inflammation - I don't know why, but my guess it has to do with "germ theories" notions. That is, because the "germ" is thought to be so "bad," they don't pay much attention to what is actually occurring. Here is another passage that brings up another point:
"...While growing in the flea, Y. pestis loses its capsular layer. Most of the organisms are phagocytosed and killed by the polymorphonuclear leukocytes in the human host. A few bacilli are taken up by tissue macrophages. The macrophages are unable to kill Y. pestis and provide a protected environment for the organisms to synthesize their virulence factors..."
My point here is the "few bacilli" are not going to cause major harm unless the person's body is not in optimal health. Of course, I don't know this for sure, but it fits all the evidence, such as how there were famine problems right before the horrendous mid 14th epidemic. Also, if a person works too hard, and does not have good nutrition, this may enhance the problem as well. If the "disease" leads to a few really unhealthy acting as incubators of highly virulent germs, which can then be passed on with people sneezing, etc., then you have a recipe for disaster, though emphasizing the "germ" to the extent it has been makes little sense.
Source of the last two passages: http://www.kcom.edu/faculty/chamberlain/website/lectures/lecture/plague.htm
2. The fact that there were nasty epidemics before modern chemicals some of the time but not the majority of the time, even in highly unhygienic conditions, supports the claim that the "germs" only cause problems when people are very weak, not that malnutrition causes "toxic disease." There have certainly been famines without epidemics. Moreover, if this were true, it would be very easy to cause malnutrition in lab animals, then study them for toxic substances. I had what appeared to be "protein energy malnutrition" and there was no "toxic" aspect to it, though you would need to explain what you mean by it, exactly. Perhaps you have such a broad definition that it basically encompasses everything pathological.
There may have been too little of the germ to cause deadly inflammation immediately, but in weak people it would have been more than enough to multiply as is stated in the passage I cited, and so there are no "holes" in the explanation I put forth. Now one can argue, I suppose, that inflammatory molecules, such as TNF-alpha, ILs, LTB-4, etc., act as endogenously generated toxins. However, a stimulus needs to be present to stress cells, which then leads to the production or release of these kinds of substances. This stress can be a germ, an irritant (such as asbestos fibers), or a physical insult (even paper cuts). "Germ theory" people generally don't think much about this, and focus on the germ to the exclusion of the process, and of other potential co-factors. They can't explain why such a huge percentage of the human population is "infected" with H. pylori, and yet only a small percentage get ulcers, for example. People dying of what was called "the black death" did not die from malnutrition-like problems; they died quickly in a very specific and gruesome way. The fact that this does not mean anything to you is a bit troubling, to be honest. |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
