MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : Experts who don't understand "inflammation."
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 1 of 62 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  (Original Message)Sent: 8/30/2006 8:13 PM
A report in my local newspaper, Newsday (1/17/2006; page A26), titled "Immune system may also help brain" is an excellent example of how so many "experts" misinterpret phenomena involving "inflammation." The reporter, Jamie Talan, claims that these scientists think that "boosting the immnune system may be one way to protect against age-associated learning and memory problems..."

However, as Talan notes, "T-lymphocytes normally enter the brain to patrol for signs of infection. But scientists have discovered that these immune cells recognize a normal brain protein as foreign and mount an immue response by pumping out activated microglia, cells that produce inflammation."

Now if you've read my other essays here, you might consider the possibility that the reason why the body would "attack itself" is becaue the "normal brain protein" was modified by oxidative stress/lipid peroxidation (and that a diet low in PUFAs and high in SFAs may be a good way to prevent it). And my interpretation is that this situation is very bad - the cause of various "diseases" that are much more common in "advanced" nations.

However, these "experts" think that it will somehow lead to a "cure" for the problem that was caused by it in the first place, as ludicrous as that may sound. For example:

"These microglia support the birth of new neurons in these brain regions."

This is the kind of "birth" that leads to cancer, at least in some situations, but my point here is that they seem to assume that everyone will have certain cognitive problems as they "age" and so anything that provokes growth is likely to be "good." If they had a better command of the literature, however, they might realize that they are likely to be enhancing the process that led to the cognitive problems in the first place (by considering generating what is often called an "autoimmune attack").

The ignorance demonstrated here is frightening enough, but the possibility that they would actually provoke inflammation in someone's brain to "cure" what was caused by "inflammation" in the first place is in a realm of its own.


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: Experts who don't understand "inflammation."   MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  9/8/2006 1:51 PM
     re: Experts who don't understand "inflammation."   MSN NicknameAIDSMythRethinker  9/13/2007 4:56 PM
     re: Experts who don't understand "inflammation."   MSN NicknameAIDSMythRethinker  10/8/2007 4:41 PM
     re: Experts who don't understand "inflammation."   MSN Nicknametaka00381  5/14/2008 6:00 AM