Results 1 to 25 of 25
Like Tree22Likes
  • 2 Post By habahabanero
  • 1 Post By Journeyman
  • 1 Post By Journeyman
  • 2 Post By habahabanero
  • 1 Post By smokey
  • 1 Post By Journeyman
  • 1 Post By astr0b0y
  • 1 Post By Journeyman
  • 1 Post By astr0b0y
  • 4 Post By Yelta
  • 1 Post By Journeyman
  • 1 Post By MrJack
  • 1 Post By Journeyman
  • 1 Post By astr0b0y
  • 1 Post By Journeyman
  • 1 Post By Vinitasse
  • 1 Post By MrJack

Thread: Is inflammation the cause of ALL disease?

  1. #1
    Senior Member smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    311

    Is inflammation the cause of ALL disease?

    Gene Cafe Coffee Roaster $850 - Free Beans Free Freight
    I found this fascinating article on the American CDC web site (Centre for Disease Control) written by an Australian, Prof Garry Egger, his profile is below. Prof Egger wrote an interesting article proposing that inflammation may be considered as the cause of disease, an interesting proposal indeed given our solid dogmatic belief in the germ theory.

    If you would like to contribute to this thread please read the linked article first.

    In Search of a Germ Theory Equivalent for Chronic Disease - Garry Egger, PhD, MPH

    Prev Chronic Dis 2012;9:110301. DOI: Preventing Chronic Disease | In Search of a Germ Theory Equivalent for Chronic Disease - CDC.

    Abstract

    The fight against infectious disease advanced dramatically with the consolidation of the germ theory in the 19th century. This focus on a predominant cause of infections (ie, microbial pathogens) ultimately led to medical and public health advances (eg, immunization, pasteurization, antibiotics). However, the resulting declines in infections in the 20th century were matched by a rise in chronic, noncommunicable diseases, for which there is no single underlying etiology. The discovery of a form of low-grade systemic and chronic inflammation (“metaflammation”), linked to inducers (broadly termed “anthropogens”) associated with modern man-made environments and lifestyles, suggests an underlying basis for chronic disease that could provide a 21st-century equivalent of the germ theory.

    The Conversation
    Professor Garry Egger is considered one of Australia’s leading authority on lifestyle and chronic disease. He provides counsel to the Australian medical community, Federal Government and the World Health Organisation. Prof Egger has written 30 books, and over 160 peer-reviewed scientific publications despite working as a consultant and running his own company for 20 of the last 30 years.
    Professor Egger was a member of the National Health and Medical Research Council Committee on the Prevention of Obesity in Australia, is the principal author of the initial NH&MRC ‘Clinical Guidelines for Weight Control and Obesity Management’ and has developed the National Physical Activity Guidelines for the Australian Federal Government and in the South Pacific for the World Health Organisation.
    He developed the world’s first men’s ‘waist loss’ program (GutBusters) in 1991. Prof Egger has run training programs in li8festyle medicine and chronic disease management for over 7,000 Australian clinicians and allied Healthcare professionals.
    In recent years he has moved back into clinical and community research and is currently the CI on a major project on Norfolk Island looking at personal carbon trading He is currently the Director; Centre for Health Promotion and Research Pty Ltd, Sydney, Professor (Lifestyle Medicine); School of Health and Human Sciences; Southern Cross University, Founder and Scientific Director; “Professor Trim’s Weight Loss for Men” Pty Ltd., Sydney and Clinical and Public Health Consultant in Weight Control, Metabolic Disorders and Lifestyle Medicine.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Journeyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    1,028
    That's an interesting take on things. I wonder if he knows the 'Wellness' field (aka Alternative Medicine) has been diagnosing and treating metainflammation for years? Even Hulda Clark made a big thing of how inflammation is the response to the infestation of the various body invaders she identified. (I think they were Virus, bacteria, protozoa and flukes - she openly admitted she didn't know which caused which - did the invaders cause the pollutants (what Eggers calls anthropogens) or did the pollutants open the gates for the invaders.

    There was another guy as well, I can't recall his name, in the US and he got kicked out of Medicine for promoting the idea that inflammatory treatment would cure chronic illness.

    I'm betting, now that someone of Dr Egger's standing (along with a swag of other professionals) has followed the chain of evidence, there will be no apologies forthcoming to those treated so harshly for their views.

    Some examples:
    Jessica Black, Naturopath, The Anti-Inflammation recipe book, 2006
    Jack Challem, The Inflammation Syndrome: The Complete Nutritional Program to Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease, Arthritis, Diabetes, Allergies, and Asthma, 2003

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by smokey View Post
    Prof Egger wrote an interesting article proposing that inflammation may be considered as the cause of disease, an interesting proposal indeed given our solid dogmatic belief in the germ theory.
    This is 2013, this a coffee forum, we now know that the earth isn't flat, and the germ theory hasn't been a theory for the past 130years - in fact ever since Robert Koch discovered Bacillus anthracis as the cause of anthrax in 1876. Solid dogmatic belief is reserved for religion and requires no proof, science requires solid proof, but no belief.

    The majority of the world's population still live in third world conditions and overwhelmingly die from infectious causes, as do a substantial number of Australians, especially indigenous individuals.

    None of the ideas in this paper are new to medicine, but the focus is very much first world and in no way excludes infections as cause for disease. Infection, immunity and inflammation are as complexly interwoven as a tapestry in any individual, there is no room for simplification, and no way of altering one without upsetting the other. Clearly the answer to the question the paper asks is a resounding "no".

    I in no way mean this post to serve as encouragement for further discussion on the topic, but some statements just take things too far. This is a great forum exactly because most of the contributions are from people who really know what they're talking about, it would be nice if it could stay that way. I'm sure there are plenty of forums for people with your (plural) beliefs. For me, and no doubt several other members, medicine is deadly serious business and not a topic I personally like to run into on my favourite forum - posts on the subject are about as appealing as a cat turd on a kitchen table.
    MrJack and KiteStyle3 like this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Journeyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    1,028
    Fortunately, habahabanero, control of people's speech is not in your hands.

    It always amazes me when people on forums tell others not to talk about certain things - they do not HAVE to read them and if they accidentally click on such things, it is the work of half a second to click away. But time and again, some people will waste their (presumably valuable) time to harangue and forbid others from discussing things the forbidder has no interest in.

    And the title was quite clear so subterfuge cannot be claimed. It is also in the Off Topic forum, where one might expect things non-coffee to be discussed.

    Try thinking of it as the kind of things real world people talk about while having their coffee; in any café you can hear any subject at all. There is no requirement that, because they are in a café they can only talk about cafés.
    smokey likes this.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    6,718
    Hudla Clark was another quack Journeyman
    Requiem for a quack, part II: Hulda Clark, author of The Cure for All Cancers, died of cancer – Respectful Insolence
    You seem to have quite a fondness for the wisdom of these proven charlatans and deceivers.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Journeyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    1,028
    Not really Yelta. I do have a fairly severe disrespect for some of the people doing the debunking in some of these cases. They appear to unnecessarily use underhanded and sometimes despicable tactics to remove the practitioners, whereas, if they really DID have the Science behind them, the debunking could be civilised and proven.

    When I see people using such tactics I wonder why.

    Clark I mention simply because inflammation was so much a part of what I read of hers a number of years back - when I read the above by Eggers she came to mind. I've wondered on and off about trying to build a zapper to see how it might work. I know a couple of people who actually have a synchrotron and both of them swear it changed their lives. One of them was how I first heard of her, the other was telling a guy at the local how his rheumatism had been dealt with and mentioned her and we got talking.

    The wiki version of her expulsion from practice is a bit different to what I read back then when I looked.
    smokey likes this.

  7. #7
    Senior Member smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    311
    Has medical dogma become religious fervor? I think this is another question that comes to mind while reading the article.

    As Journeyman has ably stated, this is the Off Topic forum, suggesting that we not use it to discuss off-topic issues defeats the purpose of having it.

    Like others on this forum I take my health very personally, thus this thread, I welcome contributions that add to the topic, criticism without backup adds nothing.

    habahabanero, you stated, "Clearly the answer to the question the paper asks is a resounding "no"." but you fail to uphold your statement with argument or evidence. This is just an opinion, if you wish to contribute in any constructive way then please argue with appropriate evidence so that we can move the discussion forward.

  8. #8
    Senior Member smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post
    Not really Yelta. I do have a fairly severe disrespect for some of the people doing the debunking in some of these cases. They appear to unnecessarily use underhanded and sometimes despicable tactics to remove the practitioners, whereas, if they really DID have the Science behind them, the debunking could be civilised and proven.

    When I see people using such tactics I wonder why.
    "When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift

    Some scientific ideas that were ridiculed before they were proven fact:


    • Ball lightning (lacking a theory, it was long dismissed as retinal afterimages)
    • Catastrophism (ridicule of rapid Earth changes, asteroid mass extinctions)
    • Child abuse (before 1950, doctors were mystified by "spontaneous" childhood bruising)
    • Cooperation or altruism between animals (versus Evolution's required competition)
    • Instantaneous meteor noises (evidence rejected because sound should be delayed by distance)
    • Mind-body connection (psychoneuroimmunology, doctors ridiculed any emotional basis for disease)
    • Perceptrons (later vindicated as Neural Networks)
    • Permanent magnet levitation ("Levitron" shouldn't have worked)


    The road to truth is littered by the crucified bodies of those who stood up for their beliefs.

    Good site, Ridiculed Discovers Vindicated Mavericks: Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    158
    It should be obvious to anyone with normal reasoning skills that the fact that the majority of deaths worldwide are from infectious causes that all disease is not caused by inflammation. It should be clear from my post that I consider this adequate proof to back up my opinion. However the flatulent, self-congratulatory tone of your posts does not reveal someone with scientific reasoning skills. I have no doubt that you and the rest of the nut squad will continue to use coffee snobs as your personal soap box to disseminate your beliefs, and I should have realised that attempting to reason with you was futile.
    MrJack and Yelta like this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by habahabanero View Post
    It should be obvious to anyone with normal reasoning skills that the fact that the majority of deaths worldwide are from infectious causes that all disease is not caused by inflammation. It should be clear from my post that I consider this adequate proof to back up my opinion. However the flatulent, self-congratulatory tone of your posts does not reveal someone with scientific reasoning skills. I have no doubt that you and the rest of the nut squad will continue to use coffee snobs as your personal soap box to disseminate your beliefs, and I should have realised that attempting to reason with you was futile.
    My goodness, did you leave your manners at the door? Saying that you should be believed because you say so is not evidence or proof.

    I believe that to insult and put someone down because they don't agree with you is not constructive in the least. If you can't behave like an adult then you please don't post on this thread.
    ernieg777 likes this.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Journeyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    1,028
    Another example of a person vilified for his theory is Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Derided for his ideas that what happens in the life of an individual creature is able to be passed on to progeny, the early followers of genetics now have egg on their faces as epigenetics takes the stage. After the grandmother research it is clear that not only animals but humans can be affected genetically by the experiences of their lives. Bit too late for poor old Lamarck, or one who tried to follow him and bore the brunt of scorn for it, Lysenko.

    I started very clearly aligned to the precepts and dogma of Science; over the decades it has become clear there are many areas of Science in which dogma and consensus are seen as the only possible avenues and anyone challenging them is dealt with, not by using Science to disprove their theses bu with social and/or legal means.

    In the case of Hulda Clark, how hard would it have been, if she had no actual evidence, to run experiments to prove her zapper and synchrotron failed to kill the parasites?

    Royal Rife is another who presented evidence of his work but was ultimately shunned because his ideas failed to match orthodoxy. An example of how he was treated is the lcaim that his machines have caused people to go off normal medical treatment and then die of cancer - unfortunately for this, they weren't Rife's machines but bandwagon jumpers' versions, and Rife himself never claimed to be able to cure cancer.

    Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer is another such - with several thousand case histories to demonstrate his ideas that cancers are directly linked to traumatic experiences, and a working theory as to which traumas cause which cancers, one might think Science would mount a serious project to find out just how this might be. Instead they kicked him out of Medicine.

    One wonders how he might have felt about the new research showing evidence of just HOW the Mind can alter the expression of genes or the almost unbelievable plasticity of cells, particularly in the brain. (cell structure in the brain can change radically in as little as an hour or so)

    Dr. Richard Doll, the guy who showed most conclusively a link between smoking and lung cancer was not at all concerned about passive smoking, and said so, publicly. Dr Richard Smith, then Editor of the BMJ, published a huge study of 120,000 Californians from 1959 into the 90's that showed no effect from passive smoking. Worse, he defended the BMJ's right to publish actual Science and stood by the findings of the study, even though he was a declared anti-smoker himself.

    After several years of rabid pressure from anti-smoking groups, both men apparently decided maybe passive smoking is dangerous - based on no Science at all. They just figured their careers were more important than trying to stem the ravening horde of 'consensus' types.

    The lists are long, so when I see someone being attacked in such a manner, I look closer. If they can't use Science to show these people are so wrong, then maybe there is something else happening behind the scenes?
    smokey likes this.

  12. #12
    Member astr0b0y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post
    If they can't use Science to show these people are so wrong, then maybe there is something else happening behind the scenes?
    Bit of a big ask isn't it, asking Science (sic) to prove a negative and when it can't then there must be a conspiracy?
    Sometimes it feels like I've been transported the Australian Vaccination Network forum when I'm here.
    habahabanero likes this.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Journeyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    1,028
    It's not hard to do. Clark said her machines kills specific anthropogens - line some up, follow her instructions and test to see if they are still viable. Not rocket science in the slightest.

    Royal Rife lined up experts and showed them the things his microscope could see so I guess they couldn't then turn around and deny that part so they used what the conmen did with his ideas to discredit him.

    Dr Hamer came complete with case histories - how hard would it be to go track them down and check them?

    The Richards' case doesn't need any kind of 'ask' at all, just stick with what is known to be so from the study. The data wasn't new, it was the Cancer Associations own data they used. But the bullying from the anti-smoking fanatics overwhelmed the Science and other so-called scientists stood back and watched it happen or joined in the stone throwing.

    Not seeing where the big ask is here...? Just do the Science as it is meant to be done. They weren't being asked to prove a negative at all, just to do straight Science - investigate a claimed effect and see if it works as claimed. If that's 'proving a negative' then all hypotheses are valid because none of them can ever be disproved because you can't prove a negative.

    In other words, nice try, but no banana.

    Instead they go legalities to discredit the people involved and the effects get shovelled deep so anybody daring to question things gets reactions that will convince most of them to stop thinking.

    Just take a look further up this thread and ask yourself - why such over-the-top and derogatory responses? And there are lots of areas of Science where such responses are commonplace - it's like people learn a little bit of Science and decide that must mean we have all the answers and so daring to question the establised dogma needs to be put down forcefully.

    There's a word for that kind of response - Religion. Such people seem to forget not one of our advances has come from a consensus or by following only the 'everybody knows' path - they all come when somebody asks the question differently, or dares to ignore the rabid responses and presses ahead with thnking in spite the sheep all baa'ing along with the crowd.

    Science has become a political tool, and the wielders are most often those who claim the title of Science doing the behest of the people with the chequebooks.
    smokey likes this.

  14. #14
    Member astr0b0y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    60
    My head is spinning with logical fallacies.
    None of our advances have come from a consensus? None?
    DrSmurto likes this.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    6,718
    My final comment.

    Just unsubscribed from this thread, it's starting to read like 100 Loony Toons kids shows.

    Don't have the time or inclination to wade knee deep in bull excrement.
    Last edited by Yelta; 6th December 2013 at 12:37 PM. Reason: Spelling

  16. #16
    Senior Member Journeyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    1,028
    @Astr0b0y - name one please? Or if you can't, perhaps explain how an advance, a change in how people see things, could possibly result from people getting together to agree on what is Truth? It's a logical and a practical impossibility. I'm happy to discuss any you might think you find but the closest you will come is when the group decides to agree with the maverick... who made the advance in the first place.

    It is passing strange how questioning the status quo, an activity supposedly the mainstay of Science, causes some people to indulge in abuse, name calling and derogatory comment. I am not sure if it is because a percentage of the population have replaced Religion with Science and, like True Believers, cannot abide having the foundations of their belief looked at, or whether it is the contamination of Science we see happening in many fields that is being passed along to the adherents.

    I don't see how pointing out that using Science to disprove the 'loony tunes' ideas of people castigated in public is so hard to accept. I'm not touting their theories nor claiming anyone who doesn't believe them must be nutso, I am saying why not use Science to deal with issues of Science? How hard is that to accept as a proposal?

    Because they chose the 'mob attack' process instead, we are still in the position where nobody knows whether or not such people had a point to make or not. This leaves it wide open for conmen and charlatans to rip off the average public (who have zero understanding of Science anyway and so cannot evaluate such claims) and for the world to wait possible 100 years or more to find out we've missed out on something which might offer cures.

    And it's not like the cure industry has much competition from the medical field - palliative care models by definition do not aim for cures. Given the lack of Science involved in attacking these people, it is quite easy to see it as the big stick being wielded by people more interested in their personal billions than in curing anyone.

    And the passive smoking issue is, (if you'll pardon the expression) the smoking gun of this process.
    smokey likes this.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,376
    Journeyman - do you actually know any scientists, or have any experience of science other than what you've read on the internet?

    I am sure there are issues of dogma, ethics and narrowmindedness within the various scientific communities, but I certainly can't recall ever having a lecture about how to find the secret meetings in order to conspire against humanity.

    Almost by definition, engaging in any activity which ignores relevant evidence in favour of opinion, is NOT science.

    That said, Science is not the search for 'truth'. Not really. It is the search for the most useful models with which to understand the universe. It will always be limited by us (or our creations).

    Concensus (between people) is a human condition, not a scientific one. Consensus is a protection against both error, and malicious intent, and it is a necessary compromise.

    Why would you believe the results of one person, unless they could demonstrate that they had not made an eror or fabricated a result? Far less likely (although not impossible) is the collusion or error of many.
    Last edited by MrJack; 6th December 2013 at 11:53 AM.
    smokey likes this.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Journeyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    1,028
    Ah, but that's the point Mr Jack. These people have not been brought down by application of Science nor has error been demonstrated. Currently the most that can be said for Clark is she overstated her case - finding a few people she DIDN'T cure is not any kind of rigorous disproof of her claims - there are many more who were helped and who stand by what she did.

    And given what she actually said in her book (the one I read) it is quite possible the failures failed themselves by not following her precepts of cleaning up their lives to remove the sources of infestation.

    Hamer made claims based on several thousand case histories in at least 2 countries - when such figures support the status quo they are trumpeted across the journals and media. When they aren't in agreement with such, (as we can see in this thread also) the attack gets personal rather than dealing with the Science and what the public hears is about what a quack said person is.

    As for fabricating results, when they support the 'establishment' they are hidden as much as can be done - did you know MIT fabricated their 'evidence' that castigated Pons and Fleischmann across the world? That little tidbit got almost no airtime at all, yet it was discovered soon after their 'disgrace.'

    And the straw man doesn't fly - I said nothing about secret scientists' meetings; control is easily enough established via corruption of the peer review process, (as Climategate makes abundantly clear was rampant in the Climate debate) manipulation of public opinion (as happened with the passive smoking issue) and funding controls. (again quite clear in the climate issues)

    Add in the derogation and personal attacks mounted by the believers of Science when anyone questions dogma (have you SEEN what happens if anyone questions Evolution?) and nobody really needs secret meetings.

    But we can also add in the influences for thesis subjects, the allowance of use of facilities (or denial as is probably more relevant) and the carrot of tenure in Universities - question the 'consensus' and these things get denied.

    Democratic law is based on the unproven idea that 12 people can be more right than 1. Millions of people can wholeheartedly have consensus on a thing and turn out to be utterly wrong. You have only to look at the major religions (mostly the Judaics) to see that.

    Have a read down the thread and ask yourself, who is being unreasonable here? Comments directed at posters, personally derogatory posts, being told we aren't allowed to talk about this subject...? And yet these are the people who SHOULD be able to trot out valid SCIENCE reasons why the subjects being mentioned are not valid.

    As I said earlier, when I see underhanded tactics being used in place of Science I wonder about what lies behind it.
    smokey likes this.

  19. #19
    Member astr0b0y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post
    @Astr0b0y - name one please? Or if you can't, perhaps explain how an advance, a change in how people see things, could possibly result from people getting together to agree on what is Truth? It's a logical and a practical impossibility. I'm happy to discuss any you might think you find but the closest you will come is when the group decides to agree with the maverick... who made the advance in the first place.
    So, I won't be able to find one? I'm confidant in saying that all advances are due to a consensus. I agree with you that any major advance was likely first thought of and pursued by one individual or a small team who then had their theory tested and replicated by the wider community in their field. This is hardly a eureka moment.
    It's imperative that we continually look for advances in our knowledge of science and maybe this inflammation thing is spot on. The only way we'll know is if the study is done correctly, repeated, reviewed and replicated by peers in the field.
    Believing something because the majority don't agree with it is pure madness.
    I'm out on this conversation too.
    ernieg777 likes this.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Journeyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    1,028
    And again, using something I didn't say to undermine a conversation. What is it about querying the status quo that turns off the reasoning function? Why is it so verboten to discuss the things considered a given by most?

    But actually, people agreeing to accept something as a group is nothing like an advance, it's merely the acceptance that the guy over there was right and they were all wrong. The process is so hard to move along that Max Planck stated "Science advances one funeral at a time." He also said...
    Quote Originally Posted by Max Planck
    New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.

    Address on the 25th anniversary of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Gesellschaft (January 1936), as quoted in Surviving the Swastika : Scientific Research in Nazi Germany (1993) ISBN 0-19-507010-0
    *grins* It would seem Scientists agree with me...
    smokey likes this.

  21. #21
    Senior Member smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    311
    Phew, and I thought this was a thread on a possible paradigm shift in the way we understand disease, yet this concept has challenged some to lose their temper and their manners.

    Journeyman, I thought that this topic was important, to expand from a previous comment - bacteria produce toxins and these toxins produce inflammation. Does this mean that the bacteria or the inflammation reaction cause disease? Its a pity that this angle was brought up but never expanded upon, oh well, I am back to work.

  22. #22
    Senior Member Vinitasse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Mornington Peninsula VIC
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post
    Democratic law is based on the unproven idea that 12 people can be more right than 1. Millions of people can wholeheartedly have consensus on a thing and turn out to be utterly wrong. You have only to look at the major religions (mostly the Judaics) to see that.

    Have a read down the thread and ask yourself, who is being unreasonable here? Comments directed at posters, personally derogatory posts, being told we aren't allowed to talk about this subject...? And yet these are the people who SHOULD be able to trot out valid SCIENCE reasons why the subjects being mentioned are not valid.
    Hmmm... you don't seem to shy away from tossing around a few grossly derogatory comments yourself.

    Remember.... A closed mouth gathers no feet... and... It is far better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt!

    Now please step down from your lofty pedestal and soap box and give it a rest.
    ernieg777 likes this.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    158
    I have lost neither my manners nor my temper, again, your fatuous, patronising, all-knowing tone reveals intolerable hubris deserving of sarcasm. I have a rule of not conversing with people who display tangential, magical thought processes, they won't be convinced of anything and are best left wallowing in the paranoia that science is one huge conspiracy, but let's see how it goes this time.

    I hate having to quote myself, but I hate having my statements misconstrued even more. In my first post I attempted to give some perspective to the immense complexity of the relationship between microbe and host - "Infection, immunity and inflammation are as complexly interwoven as a tapestry in any individual, there is no room for simplification, and no way of altering one without upsetting the other." The answer remains "no".

    Microbes and multicellular parasites can be both pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory, often both concomitantly, with effects seen on various branches of the immune system. It is true that some bacterial toxins directly stimulate an inflammatory cascade that can be immediately fatal, 50% of individuals will die without intensive care due to severe inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) if injected with only the cell wall lipo-polysaccharide from gram negative bacteria. But many bacterial toxins are directly cytotoxic - they kill tissue cells outright (e.g.. PVL) or just melt it away (e.g. Hyaluronidase, phosphlipase D). Many organisms are directly cytopathic, they disrupt cell function and integrity (e.g. the malarial parasite Plasmodium, HBV). Some are directly TH1 immunosuppressive (e.g. Mycobacterium tuberculosis mycolic acid, Cryptococcus capsule antigen). Some suppress TH1 response (the type of response that drives rheumatoid arthritis) by up-regulating TH2 response ( e.g. Hookworm). Many gut bacteria up-regulate substances produced by the epithelium (Reg111Gamma) that suppress the growth of other gut bacteria. And so on... this discussion only covers a fraction of the microbial-host interaction, no mention even of environmental factors. It is just too complex to suggest any one aspect of the interaction is the root cause of disease. The author is either oblivious of the facts, or trying to oversimplify the issue to generate a model that fits on one page. The answer is still "no".

    No doubt you're going to cast doubt on the credibility of my statements, I have no intention of referencing them but if you started reading the basics now you could possibly get on top of the subject in about 20yrs time, I'm still reminded that I'm not on top of anything after 23yrs on the subject - or you could choose to believe me and move on. I don't really care.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,376
    Quote Originally Posted by smokey View Post
    Phew, and I thought this was a thread on a possible paradigm shift in the way we understand disease, yet this concept has challenged some to lose their temper and their manners.

    Journeyman, I thought that this topic was important, to expand from a previous comment - bacteria produce toxins and these toxins produce inflammation. Does this mean that the bacteria or the inflammation reaction cause disease? Its a pity that this angle was brought up but never expanded upon, oh well, I am back to work.

    Trying to point at one factor and suggesting it is the only possible cause of 'failure' of the incredibly complex combination of processes which are involved in an organism, is like pointing to one raindrop and saying that it is what turned lake eyre from a desert to an inland sea.

    The very concept of "diseased vs normal" is a simplification based on the very time local view that a "normal" biology exists and is static (for practical reasons). Of course if you don't believe in evolution (Journeyman?) the consideration that biology could be transient, or could vary within a population, would be hard to reconcile.

    The problem I have always had arguing such things on the internet, (don't even get me started on HHO and 'free energy'), is that they are invariably so full of holes, that the minute you argue away one assertion, 'they' always seem to find another to make. I've also noticed it tends to be associated with a general mistrust of "the establishment", and the individual usually subscribes to "fringe ideas" across many subject areas.
    Dragunov21 likes this.

  25. #25
    Senior Member smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    311
    Thanks MrJack, its always helpful to know where someone is coming from, as you said, internet forums are so hard to communicate through.

    habahabanero, that was much more informative than just saying 'because I say so', you gave food for thought and some direction for personal research, you gave me a bit of chuckle with your introductory sentence though and I guess that was deliberate.

    Well, I am done for this topic, thanks all for your enlightening and entertaining posts.

    Managers, please close this thread, thank you.
    Last edited by smokey; 6th December 2013 at 05:38 PM. Reason: spelling



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •