Re: disease

[Guest guest]

wrote in part:

" These things tell me theres no point being shocked by the sudden

advent of a certain disease. Every disease was new once. "

This seems exactly right, on one level. One wants to say, 'Get over

it, it's happening', as a remedy for denial.

But I also feel an inner agreement with what Penny said, about a

broader trend toward neurodebility striking in the very young and

persisting over decades..., I don't believe that is 'old news'.

It may be that some of our cliches have unsuspected meanings. One

such cliche is that in periods of catastrophic social change, those

with 'sensitive' dispositions will suffer illness.

Perhaps this is true in a more specific way, that well-being has a

social dimension, depends on certain boundaries being respected,

that our modern societies fail to even acknowledge.

I know a lot of people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who are suffering

in a way we associate with old age. I do find that surprising, and

so do others, and that is not just a function of unrealistic

expectations, IMO.

Round and round, because your point is a good one, it is quite true

that every catastrophic departure from prior experience has to begin

somewhere, and denial can be a problem, even for those of us whose

minds and bodies make up " ground zero " in this latest blight on

humanity.

>

> > Yeah, this is true too, but this chronic, low level of

> > misery which becomes more and more debilitating wasn't

> > nearly so common.

>

> Its an interesting and depressing question. Heres some fun facts:

>

> Syphilis is agreed to have arrived in Europe circa 1500, probably

from

> Africa or the Americas, having evolved there from the more ancient

and

> less severe endemic treponemoses. It spread around Europe rapidly.

>

> MS seems to have probably been altogether absent before circa 1830.

> But, aside from the general doubt one must have about trying to

prove

> a negative from the limited set of preserved historical sources,

> theres the additional worry over the medical naivete of the people

who

> were around. Symptoms are mere phenomena, but views about their

> etiology could influece what was recorded and arrived for our eyes.

> Further there is a specific uncertainty here: whether MS could be

> adequately distinguished from syphilis by symptoms alone.

>

> The hx of " neurasthenia " and vague sickness syndromes is very hard

to

> investigate. I have some interesting refs tho if anyone is

interested.

> It does appear likely that CFS has waxed remarkably since the 60s,

but

> I havent worked on that question it detail, and definitional

> uncertainty vexes the question.

>

> Marie Kroun has a hx of borreliosis, I havent worked thru that in

a while.

>

> Crohns went from zero to sixty as it were (or rather, 2 to 60) in

the

> northern US between 1940 and 1970. Just as it leveled off here it

was

> sykrocketing from the ground in Japan, and elsewhere.

>

> Autism, in my hastily-formed opinion, appears to be blasting off

into

> space at this very moment... could be borrelia.

>

> These things tell me theres no point being shocked by the sudden

> advent of a certain disease. Every disease was new once. I dont see

> any reason to necessarily say, oh, all this borreliosis all of a

> sudden must have an unnatural origin. Even if you assume

borreliosis

> to be a zoonosis (which I dont), it could evolve due to pressures

> found in its productive hosts, eg white-footed mouse, in such a way

> that coincidentally renders it a much greater hazard than it was

before.

>

> But its not that simple. The new-ish idiopathic diseases are many

and

> it appears very unlikely that they are all caused by one organism -

> there is endless evidence suggesting the importance of a variety of

> bacteria. Currently I consider the hygeine hypothesis the most

> interesting paradigm for fitting this all together, but I dont know

> tons about it. Its also possible that half the illness out there is

> secondary to some unnatural decline in health allowing increased

> victimization by weaker pathogens, while another half is the

result of

> a new freak-nasty organism whose arrival is comparable to that of

> Treponema pallidum pallidum.

[Guest guest]

Yeah, them's some fun facts. :-)

It's really only been in recent decades that so many people travel

from place to place easily. And even if we don't travel, we're

exposed to foreign diseases through our food supply (I've read some

scary articles about that). It used to be a major undertaking to

travel to new, distant locations. Perhaps people of the past had

more time to adapt to new bugs and build some immunity. Has anyone

ever studied whether immunity can be transmitted from human to human

(other than through breast feeding)? Seems there must be some

transference, otherwise we wouldn't have thousands of natives

dropping like flies when explorers first show up, then gradually

build the same immunity the newcomers have (without vaccinations).

I think there must be a combination of factors contributing to the

increase in certain illnesses. I find it hard to believe that one

organism alone is responsible for the widespread havoc. It's either

because we've somehow become more susceptible to being infected, or

the bugs have become stronger making us more susceptible, or both,

because these bugs have been around for eons, and suddenly people

all over the world have the same mystery illnesses (with different

names).

There are numerous environmental and life style changes that have

occured over the past century, but personally, I think modern

medical practices, as remarkable as many of them are, have also

contributed to our increased susceptibility to bugs. Improper

antibiotic usage for one (not to mention abx used in agriculture to

keep animals healthy).

Another huge one, in my book, is dental work. Personally, I feel

that all dentists should be sent back to school before ever being

allowed to look in a patient's mouth. It's probably one of the most

susceptible places in the body, harboring more bacteria, and more

opportunity for infection than any other area, and dentists (even

oral surgeons) don't know the first thing about the organisms or the

first thing about antibiotics. And definitley not the first thing

about the immune system or a patients susceptibility to illness

(other than heart disease). Definitely not about coagulation issues

(a common problem for dentists is dry sockets after extractions, due

to improper clotting, but they don't know the first thing about

coagulation, generally making the wrong assumptions). It's really

scary. I have renounced dentists as a general principle. They need a

different kind of medical education. Even seemingly benign

procedures like cleanings and root planing are dangerous,

introducing bacteria to very vulnerable areas. And then there's the

epinephrine. A very destructive agent. And yet these procedures are

done all the time. :-( grrr. We're just so happy to be told it's not

going to hurt that we have no idea what's really being done to us.

Also interesting how dentists seem to have shorter life expectancy

than most (which people have claimed is due to mercury exposure. Who

needs mercury when you're dealing with billions of bacteria on a

daily basis?)

Oh, and the ENTs. That's another amazing area of medical

incompetence. I can't tell you how many ENTs I've seen about my

sinuses being infected. Not a single one was interested in the

actual organisms. All they want to do is surgery. Considering the

reports of poor outcomes by people who have had sinus surgery, I

don't know how they continue to get away with it, but I guess the

money is too much of a plus. Treating with abx or alternative

treatments doesn't get you rich, that's for sure.

penny

> Its an interesting and depressing question. Heres some fun facts:

>