I just came across a report that is one you might hear about in the "mainstream media:"
QUOTE: People who have high cholesterol levels may be much more susceptible to a particular disease transmitted by the bites of ticks, a new study in mice suggests... UNQUOTE.
And what justifies such an extraordinary claim? They fed a group of genetically-modified mice a cholesterol-rich diet, and found that:
QUOTE: ...Scientists infected mice with Anaplasma phagocytophilum, the bacterium that causes human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA), a disease with flu-like symptoms. Bacteria levels were 10 times greater in mice that were genetically predisposed to high cholesterol levels and that were also fed a high-cholesterol diet. A. phagocytophilum depends on its host's cholesterol stores for its survival.
The implication is that the higher a person's cholesterol levels, the more susceptible that person may be to developing a severe case of HGA... UNQUOTE.
Obviously, they are making assumptions here and these are not mice in the wild, eating a "natural" diet, but the most likely explanation is that much of the cholesterol they were fed was oxidized. This makes the biochemistry of the mouse much more likely to make the bacteria "clingly," and then prompt an inflammatory response. It's not much of leap to speculate that the researchers here are simply unaware of the most recent evidence about how "infectious disease" actually occurs, and how one can make oneself much more resistant. It seems as though the author of the report felt no need to caution against avoiding cholesterol-rich foods, since few question the "cholesterol is bad" mantra that exists in nations like the USA today, despite the clear evidence that non-oxidized cholesterol is very important and not dangerous.
Source of the quoted passages: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070703172515.htm |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
