That's how you interpreted it. What it actually said was if you'd got bacteria inside the body - where the immune system can get at them - some bacteria do less damage than others.
Any bacteria in the blood stream or in the lymph circulation system are - at the very least - consuming nutrients that should be going our own cells, and taking up space intended to allow for the circulation of our own cells.
They are never beneficial - though obviously some are less damaging than others - and if you've got foreign bacteria under the skin you've got a problem.
the immune system can get at them - some bacteria do less damage than others.
nutrients that should be going our own cells, and taking up space intended to allow for the circulation of our own cells.
bacteria under the skin you've got a problem.
Hi,
Well I guess you are not able to comprehend the simple point of the study due to your antibacterial standpoint, even though they are a natural and beneficial component of the body and surroundings. Anyway here is another one that shows the complexity of the immune system being used in unexpected ways, showing the danger in assuming an incorrect simplified reductionist model applies to any part of the body, due to unknown effects on these sensitive complex interactions:
The incomprehension is all yours. The simple point of the paper was that some bacteria excited muscle wasting in mice, and other bacteria didn't.
The paper did go into the mechanism - the inflammatosomes in human cells react different to different bacteria, and for some bacteria the response causes muscle-wasting and for others it doesn't.
The E. coli might have have provoked a less damaging response, but that falls a long way short of making them beneficial.
Unlike you, I can recognise editorial spin when I see it. Sadly for the tattered remnants of your reputation as critical reader, the article doesn't remotely live up to the heading.
Just breaking in with this heart wrenching story about how parents can be doubly punished for obeying to the ridiculous vaccination schedule in the US.
There's absolutely no fun to be had with "shaken baby syndrome" and "sudden infant cot death". Both happen, and if they happen to a baby shortly after they've had a vaccination, the anti-vaccination lunatics - people like you - get wildly excited about the dangers of vaccination (which are real, but dramatically smaller than the dangers of non-vaccination).
The whole area is a diagnostic nightmare. As far as I know, a regular autop sy doesn't tell you why the child died in either case. In "shaken baby synd rome" you get patterns of bruising that can be suggestive, but don't actual ly prove that the shaking caused death.
And the pro-vaccination medical community on the other hand doesn't move a finger in order to try to explain this 'coincidence' or to, immediately and without any further experiment, confirm the validity of their remarks, will attribute this to 'normalcy' as 'of course it is absolutely normal that also some just-vaccinated babies will suffer a SID'. Because if they would, the rest of the same 'scientific' medical community would jump right on him, confining him to a life in living hell--without any scientific argument of course.
Brain inflammation seems to give a hint sometimes...
Of course the bruising can be caused by the baby falling as a result of the attack, and the lack of internal injuries clearly argues against SBS.
This is the same kind of injustice that occurs when parents with babies suffering from broken bones, and associated pains of course, are convicted for physically abusing their baby whereas the problem was in fact rickets caused by vitamin D deficiency in the breastfeeding mother.
CPS takes away the baby, puts him/her on formula milk, and of course the problem 'magically' disappears giving CPS the false confirmation that they did 'the right thing', while any evidence of the parent's innocence also disappears.
An unsurprising reaction from one of the dimmer anti-vaccination zealots.
Joe Hey's imagination provides him with all the evidence he needs - or seems to be able to understand.
Perhaps.
Why?
CPS takes away the baby, puts him/her on formula milk, and of course the problem 'magically' disappears giving CPS the false confirmation that they did 'the right thing', while any evidence of the parent's innocence also disappears.
The mother's vitamin-D deficiency won't go away all that fast.
The situation is well-enough known to show up on the Wikipedia page.
formatting link
Rickets is a rare disease in developed countries - about 1 in 200,000, whereas child-bashing is unfortunately rather more frequent. Careful doctors take care exclude that sort of improbable - but possible - explanation for a fracture.
}snipped some more of the recurring bullshit from this poster{
}snipped the usual denigrating stuff{
A very classic and revealing example of what stupid and irresponsible behaviour the 'scientific medical community' is able to exhibit is Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss. If I recall correctly the foul-heartedness and hard-headedness of his 'colleagues' was too much for him to stomach, drove him mad and he died in a mental institution (suicide?).
Talking of stomach, Barry Marshall is a milder example of to what lengths one sometimes has to go to make ones medical so called 'scientific' colleagues start to just think.
Because if you shake a baby *that* hard that it dies, one would expect some spinal and or neck injuries. You're not shaking the head directly, you're shaking the body. All those acceleration forces have to be transferred to the head, which is relatively very heavy.
Nobody cares to measure her levels.
Good, finally. Only three years ago this would still result in a personal drama:
formatting link
and it still needs special attention in order to get undamaged out of this kind of situation.
formatting link
For a 'developed country', the USA's doctors are frantically trying to attain the level of totally underdeveloped countries.
formatting link
A very loose description of 'irresponsibly negligent'.
Joey Hey does have a problem accepting facts he doesn't like.
Ignaz Semmelweiss is an object lesson in "not invented here". Somebody with better diplomatic skills might have done better, but in 1847 the medical p rofession didn't see itself a branch of technology exploiting scientific di scoveries, but rather as a professional applying long-established technique s. As Robert Baer has pointed out today, they mostly still don't understand the tools they've got.
He short-circuited a whole bunch of ethical committees by using himself as a test subject. It makes a good story, which might have encouraged him to g o that way.
All that's required for death is spinal injury. You don't have to have enou gh neck injury to make it easy - or even possible - to see, and making a bi g enough mess of the nerves to stop them working doesn't seem to have to le ave easily found traces either. As I said, it's a diagnostic nightmare.
But they could.
USA doctors usually perform pretty well for patients with medical insurance . There are enough uninsured patients that it's public health statistics look more like a developing country.
That happens too. There are lots of doctors, and more of them than the gene ral population have drug and alcohol problems, and some are mentally unstab le - the right kind of personality defect can both help you survive medical school and leave you a total menace to patients.
critical reader, the article doesn't remotely live up to the heading.
Hi,
More like the article doesn't live up to your own incorrect interpretation, here is another article showing another benefit of a healthy microbiome to fight cancer:
Your grasp of what's being said can be seen in your citing a paper about th e effects of gut bacteria - confined within the gut - in a discussion of th e consequences of having bacteria inside the body (within the bloodstream a nd so forth).
You may like to think that my assessments are "incorrect" but since your ow n judgement of what might be relevant is so comically bad, this is more a c onfirmation of the fact that you couldn't reason your way out of paper bag than any kind of faintly plausible counter-argument.
You'd be a rather unfortunate joke if it wasn't that similarly lame-brained intellectual cripples - like Joey Hey - took you seriously.
confined within the gut - in a discussion of the consequences of having bacteria inside the body (within the bloodstream and so forth).
relevant is so comically bad, this is more a confirmation of the fact that you couldn't reason your way out of paper bag than any kind of faintly plausible counter-argument.
Joey Hey - took you seriously.
Hi Bill,
Here is another article that would appear to someone with a reductionist mindset such as yours to be unrelated to your current incorrect interpretations of the benefits of gut bacteria in the body, however as always there are a multitude of holistic links, unavailable to reductionist logic however most likely, but even if you can't see the links at least you can see how it defeats your reductionist argument that vaccines are beneficial I think:
As usual, you think wrong. We get vaccinated against flu because it's a mor e serious and damaging infection that the common cold.
Its whole lot better to get more frequent common cold infections that it is to get a single does of flu. The flu infection may put your non-specific i mmune system on a higher state of alert, and make it less likely that you'l l get a common cold infection in the aftermath, but flu infections can caus e permanent damage.
My cardiologist blames my - very mild - tendency to go into atrial fibrilla tion (which only seems to happen when some half-wit puts me on a diuretic a nd drops my blood potassiuum levels) on a flu infection getting at the nerv es around the heart.
Viral infections do differ in the damage they do. Try rabies sometime. Plea se.
may put your non-specific immune system on a higher state of alert, and make it less likely that you'll get a common cold infection in the aftermath, but flu infections can cause permanent damage.
puts me on a diuretic and drops my blood potassiuum levels) on a flu infection getting at the nerves around the heart.
Hi,
Sure if you agree that getting the flu shot will make you more likely to get an upper respiratory infection and you are ok with that I guess its up to you.
Another thing you might want to consider given how your reductionist logic has labelled raw milk as unhealthy/dangerous etc:
formatting link
"Queen Elizabeth drinks her milk raw. She reportedly thinks so highly of unpasteurized milk that, when her grandsons Princes William and Harry were students at Eton, she instructed herdsman Adrian Tomlinson to bottle up raw milk from her Windsor herd and deliver it to them at school."
In that case, take the opportunity to try out the healing effects of high dose I.V. vitamin c, or, in case your criminally negligent 'scientific' medical community doesn't allow that, try > 4 g liposomal vit C per day.
Or if the infection is mild (non-dangerous flu), ramp up your oral intake of sodium ascorbate to 1/2 g every 6 minutes or so, or more if that doesn't give you a diarrea. :)
And you _should_ have gotten some more vitamin D in your diet or from the sun. Say 5,000 IU/day at least. And f*ck the--in various cases proven to be criminally negligent-- 'scientific' medical community that says 400 IU/day is enough. Or that 500 mg vit C is enough, where this is *only* just enough to prevent scurvy.
IF you're on a high dose of sodium ascorbate without diarrea, that means your body *really* needs that high doses of vitamin c.
Disclaimer: I didn't say 'cure', I said 'try out'.
I don't see how placing the milk in bottles clearly marked "Not for Human Consumption" would contravene a court order prohibiting the "packaging and/or distributing raw milk and/or raw milk products for human consumption." I think I would sell it as animal feeds.
more serious and damaging infection that the common cold.
t is to get a single does of flu. The flu infection
illation (which only seems to happen when some half-wit
Please.
The flu you have to get to make you less likely to get a common cold happen s to be an upper respiratory infection, so the correct formulation of your statement is that the flu shot will make you marginally more likely to get a minor upper respiratory infection by making you less likely to get a more serious upper respirator infection.
If you want a mores serious infection, skip the anti-flu shot by all means. It's the kind of misjudgement that can kill you if you are old or otherwis e vulnerable, but if you want to win a Darwin award, go right ahead.
aw-deal/article1213881/
."
Perhaps she has her Windsor herd tested for TB even more frequently than re gular dairies. It's still stupid, but perhaps marginally less stupid if you own the herd and can insist that herdsman pays careful attention to the da y-to-day health of every cow.
As upper-class twits go, Queen Elizabeth isn't too bad, but she didn't go t o university and while Charles did, he didn't exactly earn a degree there.
Her father famously smoked more than was good for him - the royal family is n't a reliable source of health advice, any more than you are.
If you get bitten by a rabid dog, bat or anti-vaccine campaigner, get a cou rse of anti-rabies vaccinations as fast as possible. It won't be pleasant, but you will survive. Taking loads of vitamin C probably won't do you any h arm, but there's not a lot of reliable clinical evidence that it will do yo u much good either.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.