PDA

View Full Version : Theory of chronic disease



HansSelyeWasCorrect
April 16th, 2011, 04:28 AM
To provide an idea of my hypothesis (which largely explains "chronic disease" in "advanced nations"), here is an excerpt of a report that just appeared at sciencedaily.com:

QUOTE: Chronic inhalation of polluted air appears to activate a protein that triggers the release of white blood cells, setting off events that lead to widespread inflammation...

The cellular activity resembles an immune response that has spiraled out of control...

The polluted air contained fine particulates that are so tiny -- 2.5 micrometers or smaller in diameter, or about 1/30th of the average width of a human hair -- that they can reach deep areas of the lungs and other organs in the body...

In mice breathing polluted air, the monocytes began to stick to blood vessel walls and fat cells.

"This is a sign that the monocytes are responding to inflammatory stimuli -- which in our case is particulate matter -- and then in turn they can cause more inflammation because they release inflammatory factors..."

Those factors include what are called proinflammatory cytokines, including TNFa (tumor necrosis factor alpha), MCP-1 (monocyte chemoattractant protein) and IL-12 (interleukin-12). These are chemical messengers that cause inflammation, most often to fight infection or repair injury. When they circulate without an infection to fight, the body experiences excess inflammation. UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414131834.htm

The point is that no "pathogen" is necessary! Thus, if you can't find it (or if it exists at levels too low to cause problems), then this kind of phenomenon is likely to be the cause of the problem.

ChickenAids
April 18th, 2011, 05:01 AM
Interesting article, thanks for the link. I was reading an article today on the anti-inflammatory effects of certain ARVs that ties in pretty nicely with this.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
April 18th, 2011, 10:47 PM
There are a couple of threads on my site that cite this kind of evidence. One is:

http://forum3.aimoo.com/TheScientificDebateForum/Non-infectious-disease/The-inflammation-causes-disease-X-thread-1-646162.html

I'd like to see a study that measures all kinds of markers taken from all kinds of people. Instead, they measure what they want from those they decide to study, and then try to cram that into their dogma, no matter if it "fits" or not.

cdm
April 21st, 2011, 10:09 PM
For anyone seeking to explore the depths of chronicity in diseases, I would suggest to read the Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahneman. Although it is a book of the 19th century, it still has a lot to offer in so called modern medicine
You may find it translated here
http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html

cdm
April 21st, 2011, 10:34 PM
In the first paragraphs Hahneman gives a clear distinction between the dsease and the symptoms. This differentiation is very distinct in homeopathic thinking, while in modern allopathic cartel driven medicine the disease still is the totality of the symptoms, which is a fundamental error, an elusion that creates the need to suppress the symptoms in order to "cure" the disease.

cdm
April 22nd, 2011, 12:21 PM
This is a good chance to continue a long ago left discussion we had Hans.. about Homeopathy, if you spare the time, and if you are not suspicious enough against this theory. Surely the empiricists and the rationalists of the forum may dislike these posts of mine, since it introduces a form of unproven conceptualism/idealism in medicine, but I would like to invite them in a very difficult task, to delineate where the inception of ideas of laws meets the experience.

Samuel Hahneman was a free thinker in medicine and its contribution may be added to the thought of the previous giants of medicine (Hippocrates, Galen, Paracelsus). Taking together the basic elements of their thought we make up the grounds of the entire medicine. It ought to be the subject of an off-topic thread, the history and the evolution of thought in medicine, where should be marked the highlights of the scientific and philosophic process.

After the first paragraphs where Hahneman makes the distinction of disease and symptoms, later on, he proceeds with the phenomenon of the interplay of diseases, how an acute disease intermingles with a chronic one, how an acute mingles with another acute, and how a chronic disease may abrogate another chronic disease. It is interesting to note that the medicinal action is thought as an artificial disease, that may be complexed with the natural disease. And all these go on untill the 59 paragraph.

After the paragraph 59 Hahneman proceeds with an idea that shocked me when I had been student, decades ago, and proved to me that the entire system of the cartel propelled medicine is without laws. It says that every medicine has two actions. One called the primary action is the immediate action of the medicine on the organism, and the secondary action comes after it, when the power of the organism reacts to the action of the medicine in an opposite way.

EDIT: I think these first paragraphs of the Organon of Medicine of Samuel Hahneman ought to be an obligatory course in every school of medicine.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
April 24th, 2011, 06:53 AM
Sure, and in fact, when I was in grad school a fellow student was a homeopathy proponent, and liked to talk about Hahneman a lot. I'll start with what I think are the differences between homeopathy and my general view, and you can correct what you think is inaccurate.

First, I don't think in terms of specific "diseases," but rather underlying mechanisms that can be traced to the cellular/molecular level. What are thought of as symptoms of specific diseases are often the effects of molecules the body releases under certain circumstances rather than anything a "germ" is doing. Often, in "infectious disease," it the "immune system" that does damage as well as generating annoying or debilitating symptoms.

Secondly, the "like against like"' approach, or whatever it is called, doesn't make sense to me because if the substance has a known property, such as antioxidant (in a particular context, of course), then there is no need for the doctrine in the first place. If there is too much oxidative stress, and you use antioxidants to alleviate it, and the symptoms go away, I don't see where the "like against like" idea plays a role.

Lastly, what could strong evidence for homeopathy possibly be? You treat a "disease"' that the establishment conceptualized with "like against like" and see symptoms alleviated, or a tumor shrink (in cancers involving tumors), for example. Is there such evidence? You can argue that it can't be done because of so-called ethical concerns, but where does that leave us? I've found all this evidence for the "chronic inflammation" notion, such as what was posted in the first post, as well as an explanation about why there are differences in disease rates since WW II (which involves a fatty acid derived from the "modern" diet that generates a stronger inflammatory response with a lower threshold for that generation).

I look forward to hearing your responses.

cdm
April 27th, 2011, 05:05 PM
I'll start with what I think are the differences between homeopathy and my general view, and you can correct what you think is inaccurate.

First, I don't think in terms of specific "diseases," but rather underlying mechanisms that can be traced to the cellular/molecular level. What are thought of as symptoms of specific diseases are often the effects of molecules the body releases under certain circumstances rather than anything a "germ" is doing. Often, in "infectious disease," it the "immune system" that does damage as well as generating annoying or debilitating symptoms.
All theories are equal, until they are proven. Then the proven theory gets the legitimate right to be called a true theory. Classic Homeopathy does not explain anything in terms of mechanisms, but in terms of laws. A law is a higher (ie more integrative) entity in epistemology than a mechanism. The reason why Homeopathy if far from mechanisms is the momentum Hahneman gave to it, to reach the fundamentals in medicine. As you may read in Organon, Hahneman attacks against the lack of biological/medical laws in conventional medicine, (substituted by an obeyance and a conformity to the physicochemical laws) in which lack is conventional medicine's weak point.


Secondly, the "like against like"' approach, or whatever it is called, doesn't make sense to me because if the substance has a known property, such as antioxidant (in a particular context, of course), then there is no need for the doctrine in the first place. If there is too much oxidative stress, and you use antioxidants to alleviate it, and the symptoms go away, I don't see where the "like against like" idea plays a role.

Lastly, what could strong evidence for homeopathy possibly be? You treat a "disease"' that the establishment conceptualized with "like against like" and see symptoms alleviated, or a tumor shrink (in cancers involving tumors), for example. Is there such evidence? You can argue that it can't be done because of so-called ethical concerns, but where does that leave us? I've found all this evidence for the "chronic inflammation" notion, such as what was posted in the first post, as well as an explanation about why there are differences in disease rates since WW II (which involves a fatty acid derived from the "modern" diet that generates a stronger inflammatory response with a lower threshold for that generation).

I look forward to hearing your responses.

I don't have much time at the moment, but I consider these questions/issues very important to be discussed. I hope you will lend me a little time. I am deeply honored for your anticipation of my responses...

HansSelyeWasCorrect
April 27th, 2011, 09:01 PM
No such thing as a "proven theory" in science. Please read the Karl Popper entry on wikipedia, at least. All you can do is to repeatedly test it, to try and falsify it. However, nobody can force scientists to do this, and in biology and medicine, especially over the last few decades, there seems to be a strong reluctance to ever attempt to falsify any dogma. Moreover, nobody can force scientists to explore an alternative hypothesis that seems to be at least as strong as any other, and with so much "specialization" these days, the situatoin will not likely improve any time soon. In the meantime, there is a huge amount of evidence just on pubmed.com right now. Some of it demonstrates what is occurring at the molecular level. If there are two hypotheses, and one is accurate to the molecular level, whereas the other is based upon what somebody said he "discovered" in the nineteenth century, there is a huge difference in evidential value, or is that something you would contest?

cdm
April 27th, 2011, 11:15 PM
I have read Popper, but I think he does not disprove the possibility a theory to be true. He says that science is based in opposition of different ideas and this opposition is a prerequisite of the proof of any theory.
Apart of Popper, we know that there are proven theories. For example, Aristarchos of Samos had said that the sun is not a planet but the centre of the local universe. This was finally proven by the evidence given by the renaissance scientists and of course by our astronauts who experience this truth.
In medicine we don't have enough proven theories

HansSelyeWasCorrect
April 28th, 2011, 01:21 AM
That is a fact, not a scientific hypothesis. Furthermore, terms like "planet" and "stars" are not subject to the scientific method, and a good example is Pluto, which was a "planet" until a group of people with the power to do so decided that it wasn't. Basically, the scientific method is used to establish cause and effect. Creating definitions for things that appear to exist as unique entities is mostly done for practical reasons. On the opposite end of the spectrum, so to speak, if I want to "prove" that the earth is spherical, for example, I can just get on a plane and see for myself; direct observation is all that's required in some cases.

cdm
April 28th, 2011, 06:10 AM
Allow me to disagree ... Aristarchos of Samos had not any spaceship to see directly the course of sun. He had only his mind, his phantasy and probably his calculations. He was proven correct thousands of years later.
The same happened with Pythagoras who imagined the earth a globe, with Democritos, who conceived the atom theory, with Eratosthenis, who calculated the diameter of earth and the distance of earth to moon with very simple means, like the length of the shadows during the day.
In medicine we try to cure, only through the laws of physics and chemistry, probably following Paracelsus and the medieval alchemists. There is not any proven law referring directly to biology. Homeopathy, Hippocratic medicine, Chinese medicine have laws, probably not proven yet, or not so eloquently expressed. Physics and chemistry concern elemental things and not integrated entities, like human beings. Medicine, especially the western one, is in urgent need of biological laws concerning therapy.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
April 28th, 2011, 06:57 AM
There is a distinction between a scientific hypothesis and a notion about what one is perceiving. In the example of planets, for example, there is an issue about being able to figure out what the other planets are composed of, which can be done with technology, not the scientific method. On the other hand, the question about why the planets move the way they do is one that is subject to the scientific method (because it's an issue of cause and effect). Claiming that ideas are really somehow an element of the scientific method because the technology is not yet available to observe, catalog, collect, analyze, etc. is simply wrong, and is what led to "HIV/AIDS," along with all kinds of other nonsense (which is presented to the public as "scientific").

At the most basic level, the scientific method is an attempt to determine cause and effect by doing experiments that are controlled properly. If the issue at hand cannot be subject to such experiments it is not something can become a scientific theory. If it is something based upon "models," such as "Global Warming," it should be called something else. The language, at least in English, does not yet exist to take into account the changes that have occurred in the scientific "establishment." As to how to use the scientific method to determine causes in "disease," my point is that this is a concept, like the concept of planet, that is a human construct. It can't be falsified, and is not scientific, if one adheres to the scientific method. Note that it may not be necessary to use the scientific method in medicine, at least not all the time, because direct observation may be all that's needed. I was commenting on Jonathan B's blood test recently, for example, and there are many know "pathological" processes that are suggested by the test, though because it's just one test (and I haven't seen many others), much more observation of this type, along with gathering information on "lifestyle," would likely be necessary before a strong educated guess could be put forth.

At that point, one could simply try to change that unhealthy biochemistry and see what happens. This is what I did to myself, and it worked. If the same thing had been done to others with a similar condition, and almost all were "cured," that might be the best we can expect from "medicine." The problem, as we see in "HIV/AIDS," is that predictions and promises are made, none materialize, and criticism is not tolerated (especially in terms of funding for research on alternative notions), and history is rewritten whenever it is deemed necessary by entrenched, powerful authority figures. One does not need the scientific method to realize this should not be considered "scientific" in any sense of the word.

cdm
April 28th, 2011, 09:40 PM
Secondly, the "like against like"' approach, or whatever it is called, doesn't make sense to me because if the substance has a known property, such as antioxidant (in a particular context, of course), then there is no need for the doctrine in the first place. If there is too much oxidative stress, and you use antioxidants to alleviate it, and the symptoms go away, I don't see where the "like against like" idea plays a role.



I can't answer directly to this, because, as Hippocrates said, the diseases are cured either by their opposites or by their similars. This is a fundamental law. It is not a mechanism. A first thought on your question brings to my mind the first case, ie the through the opposites cure. A lack is counterbalanced by excess administration of the lacking item, in this case of the antioxidants. An excess is counterbalanced by an action of voiding. I think any food lack comes under the law of opposites and not of similars.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
April 29th, 2011, 01:41 AM
It sounds like you should create a new discipline, "the philosophy of disease."

cdm
April 29th, 2011, 07:33 AM
I hope this is a compliment. But perhaps you don't know that in my country, especially after the medieval ages, the doctors were used to being called "ιατροφιλόσοφοι", that means doctor philosophers.
Apart of these, to summarize the previous, I think imagination, envision and the similars precede the scientific method, ie an hypothesis and experiments to prove or disprove it. Sometimes children's imagination is more wise than lots of hypotheses and testings. And we have the confession of Einstein who admitted that in his childhood and adolescence imagination he imagined to travel by the speed of light, an attitude that was the sperm of relativity theory.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
May 2nd, 2011, 01:28 AM
Well, as I've said in other threads, some doctors will tell you that they're "just practicing medicine" when you ask them questions and clearly seek precise answers. Those doctors may indeed think that they are sort of philosophers rather than scientists. Some may view themselves as "artists" as well. I was trained to determine the best argument, assuming there seemed to be one, but science has another element, the scientific method, which they don't choose to use much these days (especially in biological fields). Instead, they go in the opposite direction, so to speak, and seem be ignorant of basic scholarly standards. Such standards include addressing any reasonable criticism leveled against a claim that you have put forth or shown support for in the past. One should not simply dismiss ideas you don't like with the proverbial wave of the hand. One thing that seems to have aided this anti-scholarly posture is the "mainstream media,"' which often features an obviously poorly-informed "journalist" laughing at reasonable criticisms of various kinds of dogma (if it is ever even acknowledged) while "covering stories" about "controversies" such as the President's birth certificate.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
May 8th, 2011, 02:38 AM
Here's yet another piece of evidence that stress is the "root" cause of various "infectious" diseases, not "germs." Moreover, this is likely the kind of thing that happens in some "AIDS cases," only in those cases one may want the inflammatory response that is suppressed in the gut:

QUOTE: DNA from Helicobacter pylori, a common stomach bacteria, minimizes the effects of colitis in mice, according to a new study by University of Michigan Medical School scientists...

More than half of the people in the world are infected with H. pylori, although only about 20 percent of U.S. residents have it. In the U.S., H. pylori infection is treated in patients with stomach ulcers or cancers with antibiotics, but the majority of infected individuals don't notice they have it and may not develop ulcers or cancers. "This research shows further evidence that we should leave the bugs alone because there may be a benefit to hosting them in the stomach," says Kao. UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110505181539.htm

Hard Target
May 9th, 2011, 01:44 AM
I've been wondering for a while if ulcerations in the stomach are caused by foods and beverages that are too hot. Has anyone else ever been pushed to eat or drink something that was too hot? Or been in a hurry? I've had hot food sit there and burn after eating it.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
May 9th, 2011, 11:43 PM
Hard Target: It's highly likely to be caused by stress, such as liipid peroxidation. Some "hot" foods are rich in antioxidants so they might be protective, actually. Of course, if you have a reaction to them, it's not good, because the inflammation that occurs can cause ulceration type problems.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
May 10th, 2011, 03:24 AM
Here's evidence that supports the inflammation idea as well as the psychological one:

QUOTE: "We found that in the stressed animals, a certain type of immune cell (myeloid progenitor cell, or MPC), produced in the bone marrow, entered the circulatory system and migrated to the brain," explained Godbout.

These MPCs might normally relocate in this way to deal with an infection or an injury in the brain, but in this case, they moved solely because of the response to a social stressor, he said. The experiments showed that the number of these cells more than tripled in the brain following the stress.

Other immune cells called microglia, normally residing in the brain, also triggered an inflammatory response because of the stress. The researchers also noted that the stressor caused a particular activation pattern of neurons, or nerve cells, within the brain.

The response to social stress also caused an increase in the amounts of some inflammatory cytokines in the brain, including interleukin-1 (IL-1) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) which are linked to inflammation. These cytokine responses correlated with an insensitivity of MPCs to glucocorticoids, hormones that normally inhibit inflammation in the body. UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110503133058.htm

Hard Target
May 10th, 2011, 04:04 AM
Hard Target: It's highly likely to be caused by stress, such as liipid peroxidation. Some "hot" foods are rich in antioxidants so they might be protective, actually. Of course, if you have a reaction to them, it's not good, because the inflammation that occurs can cause ulceration type problems.

I'm talking about simple burns from high temperatures. It's easy to overlook. I realized a long time ago that internal tissues do not tolerate high temperatures all that well so I have been taking precautions. If your pyloric valve area is burned by a hot liquid or a hot food, if it did get a good chance to heal it could form an adhesion and then you would be even worse off.

moonchild493
May 10th, 2011, 01:18 PM
Hi Hard Target. I understood your question, and wonder if something is still hot enough to cause damage when it reaches the stomach. I do remember reading somewhere (I get a lot of the natural health newsletters) that drinking tea above a certain temperature (I think it was 70 C) was implicated in cancers of the mouth. I suppose that could extend to the esophagus and perhaps beyond. It's not unreasonable to think that repeated burns could be quite damaging.

Linda

UKSteve
May 10th, 2011, 05:29 PM
Food or beverages that are so hot (by temperature) they could damage the stomach lining have to get past your mouth/throat and oesophagus first - three areas that would kind of warn you about the danger. Would someone really continuously put themselves through that pain? And if so, isn't it possible they have some other kind of malfunctioning nervous system to do that?

HansSelyeWasCorrect
May 10th, 2011, 09:23 PM
I thought you meant spicy hot, not temperature hot. I happen to be very sensitive to temperature hot food, and I would not doubt it could cause problems in at least some people.

Hard Target
May 14th, 2011, 04:13 AM
Food or beverages that are so hot (by temperature) they could damage the stomach lining have to get past your mouth/throat and oesophagus first - three areas that would kind of warn you about the danger. Would someone really continuously put themselves through that pain? And if so, isn't it possible they have some other kind of malfunctioning nervous system to do that?

It's actually quite simple. One thing that happens is that saliva cools the part of the food that you are in contact with, then if you swallow it before all of it has cooled down, there may be enough heat left inside the bite to cause damage. Another thing is that the surface of your skin, even of your esophagus and stomach, is far more heat tolerant than the deeper layers of skin and the subcutaneous tissue. It's possible to swallow hot liquids too fast and end up with a burn that starts in the stomach when you didn't even feel it going down.

The nerve endings of the stomach and the esophagus aren't as sensitive as the mouth, either.

One thing that I'm sure that everyone does is swallow food that's just a little bit too hot for the mouth. That's a big no-no for me.

This article (http://www.exponent.com/scalds_burn_injuries/) says that necrosis due to thermal damage starts at 44 degrees C, which is 111.2 degrees Fahrenheit, and they call that the point of pain. This doesn't give you a lot of wiggle room above body temperature.

I have no way of knowing, if someone swallows tea at 70 degrees C, what temperature it is when it reaches the stomach. That's about 170 degrees Fahrenheit.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
May 14th, 2011, 09:11 PM
I used to just warm up my main meal of the day, but now I eat all my food cold or room temperature.

UKSteve
May 15th, 2011, 04:04 AM
It's actually quite simple. One thing that happens is that saliva cools the part of the food that you are in contact with, then if you swallow it before all of it has cooled down, there may be enough heat left inside the bite to cause damage. Another thing is that the surface of your skin, even of your esophagus and stomach, is far more heat tolerant than the deeper layers of skin and the subcutaneous tissue. It's possible to swallow hot liquids too fast and end up with a burn that starts in the stomach when you didn't even feel it going down.

The nerve endings of the stomach and the esophagus aren't as sensitive as the mouth, either.

One thing that I'm sure that everyone does is swallow food that's just a little bit too hot for the mouth. That's a big no-no for me.

This article (http://www.exponent.com/scalds_burn_injuries/) says that necrosis due to thermal damage starts at 44 degrees C, which is 111.2 degrees Fahrenheit, and they call that the point of pain. This doesn't give you a lot of wiggle room above body temperature.

I have no way of knowing, if someone swallows tea at 70 degrees C, what temperature it is when it reaches the stomach. That's about 170 degrees Fahrenheit.

I tend to agree with Hans - I think food is, in the main, best eaten uncooked and the bulk of food I eat is uncooked. Simply because it puts a lot less stress on the immune system. When it is cooked, it is because it is digestible that way. And I avoid food that is at temperatures that clearly are not conducive to good health. I can't see any reason to eat food, or drink liquids that are hotter than a child of 7-10 years of age would tolerate. It's common sense.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
May 15th, 2011, 08:54 PM
To follow up on what UKSteve said, there's no reason, scientifically, to not eat food that is easy to digest. Why put extra stress on your body?