Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 I have gotten allergy tests and actually am due for the next round of them. I had to postpone them due to being pregnant. I get two shots every two weeks for allergies. (for the past 8 years) Off the scale for Ragweed. You know you just get tired of having to watch everything you eat. It takes me hours in the grocery store because I am always reading the labels. The current book I am studying is called " School of Natural Healing " by Dr. R. . He states in his book to lay off the eggs altogether. Thanks I love the wealth of knowledge our group possesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 You might consider allergy tests? It was suprisingly easy when I got blood tests for food allergies. AFAIK, insurance covers this like any regular lab test. It's easy. I ate eggs all my life & could not believe it when IGG blood tests showed my reaction to eggs was off the scale. I cut out eggs... and oddly, I don't have the asthma issues I used to have. The asthma reaction was days after I ate eggs. With the delayed reaction, there just no way to know which food (if any) might be a cause. It seems to me the tests give you much more information. Also, get a copy of the tests for your own records. The safe foods should be foods with out any reaction at all. Then you can play with the mild, moderate reactions foods as you wish. >Thanks! This sounds interesting. I am type O, but I don't have the eczema problem, well except for once in my life when I was really stressed. (I guess more than ususal) It is my kids that have the eczema. My little girl has basically grown out of it (I hope), but the little boy has it all over. He is very young still and I hope he grows out of it also. Of course all three of us have ALLERGIES! No correlation there! I do use the EV Olive Oil. I am allergic to the soy, but I've been pushing it with the kids as a healthy alternative or so I thought. You know I think I have become allergic to strawberries also. I notice kiwi causing the same response as the strawberries. I have heard something before about eatting for your blood type. I'll have to look that book up. Thanks again! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 > Irene De Villiers wrote: > EV Olive oil at EVERY meal (can't get too much here), fish oil and > > blackcurrant oil supplements - plus walnuts, almonds, macadamias etc > are good fat sources - Yes you CAN get too much olive oil. It should be stressed that the statement above is not true, and olive oil is actually pro- inflammatory. Lest we leave people with the wrong impression that olive oil, walnut oil etc is always good, here's a summary from essential fatty acids expert Dr. Floyd Chilton's book Inflammation Nation, that explains the inflammatory properties of oils using as examples the oils Irene mentioned. Whether you're dealing with eczema or any of the couple of dozen or so other pro-inflammatory dieases and conditions caused by essential fatty acid imbalances, this information is hugely useful, and the devil is in the details. Linoleic is an omega-6 pro-inflammatory oil; linolenic is a " supposed " anti-inflammatory oil. Here's a chart that shows the fatty acid components of other common food oils: http://members.shaw.ca/duncancrow/OilAnalysis.gif Extra virgin olive oil contains a 13:1 ratio of linoleic to linolenic. Walnut oil is 5:1. Almond oil is 20:1. Macadamia nuts are 3:2. These foods are largely pro-inflammatory. The " supposed " anti-inflammatory component in these foods, linolenic acid ALA, can be converted only in tiny amounts to EPA and DHA anti-inflammatory oils. Aside from this tiny conversion, science has not established a function for the ALA; on the contrary, science tells us it is unnecessary. Case in point, if mother's milk contains undetectable ALA, but does have EPA/DHA the breast fed baby survives; obviously the ALA is undetectably important, arguably not essential at all despite the fast growth of the baby. The ALA component is " commonly thought to be " a beneficial precursor to EPA and DHA that can replace fish oil. But because conversion of the ALA to EPA and DHA occurs in very tiny amounts, ALA-containing foods are inadequate EPA/DHA providers, especially if one has an imbalance. To add to this low conversion problem, the diet most North Americans have, high in omega-6 LA oil but low in EPA/DHA, impairs the tiny amount of conversion of ALA to EPA/DHA that may otherwise occur by competing for the conversion enzyme. That's why we need to supplement EPA and DHA or fish oil containing them. Again, Floyd Chilton's book rules with regard to details. Duncan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 > Carol wrote: > I had eczema since the first week of life. In 55 yrs, classical > homeopathy did the most for it. GLA, evening primrose oil, borage oil > did nothing. GLA is actually pro-inflammatory UNLESS adequate EPA is given as well to prevent that. Then it's a pretty good anti-inflammatory. Only tiny amounts of the almost neutral ALA in primrose and borage oil are converted to beneficial anti-inflammatory EPA and DHA; these are the essential fatty acids that are actually required in pretty large amounts in cell walls etc., not ALA. Again, Dr. Chilton's book Inflammation Nation supplies these details and provides the means to get a personal inflammation index based on EFAs in your diet. Duncan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 > Catrine wrote: > It is my kids that have the > eczema. My little girl has basically grown out of it (I hope), but the > little boy has it all over. The kids won't grow out of an essential fatty acids imbalance. Give them cod-liver oil, wild salmon oil, molecularly distilled fish oil or some such to give them the missing EPA and DHA. Contrary to another popular belief, wild Pacific salmon oil contains exceedingly low levels of contamination. Duncan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Some people are allergic to practically every food, to some degree. It's practical for them to cut out the worst foods, and widely rotate the rest. Carol willis_protocols Article archive in Files, blog, Links, not a discussion group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 > Some people call rosecea/eczema " prelupus " > > Hans Interesting comment. I found this site that tried to debunk the idea http://www.rosacea.org/patients/faq.html Still, there may be some underlying predisposition in all, and I suspect this would be low cortisol, low testosterone levels. possibly low thyroid as well. Cortisol and testosterone are potent antiinflammatories. Carol willis_protocols Article archive in Files, blog, Links, not a discussion group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 cbwillis9 wrote: > Still, there may be some underlying predisposition in all, The skewed immune system condition called Th2-skewed immune system - predisposes any number of chronic diseases including Lupus, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, allergies, etc.... Which one/s a specific individual will get, is what depends on other factors. > and I suspect this would be low cortisol, low testosterone levels. > possibly low thyroid as well. Cortisol and testosterone are > potent antiinflammatories. Not true. Cortisol is a potent *inflammatory* chemical. It's catabolic (breaks down cells). The only way to fight it is to eat HUGS amount of anti-inflammatory things like anti-oxidants. Cortisol *suppresses* the immune system, and so doctors call it anti-inflammatory because it suppresses the immune system response. But that's really a misnomer as suppression sweeps the real problem under the rug and fixes nothing. The immune suppression is also completely separate from the activity at the individual cell level, and at that cellular level cortisol is VERY damaging and inflammatory. It is not for nothing cortisol is also dubbed the " death " hormone as it KILLS cells - all kinds of cells from skin to brain and everything in-between, bone too. So cortisol is no anti-inflammatory if you are looking at cellular health (which is the real place to look for health.) Testosterone is better, it is anabolic where cortisol is catabolic. Testosterone builds tissues rather than destroying them like cortisol... (in the right place, amount and time.) Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 What an overactive immune system WILL do is attack the body, including the organs & such. For example, antibodies often attack the thyroid, resulting in lowered t3 output. Often, more than one hormone is affected. Certainly, there is interactive activity among the hormones. Also, sometimes an overactive immune system is reactive. This means that the onset of overactivity can result from a reaction to something specific (e.g. gluten), and results in symptoms that mimic full blown autoimmune diseases (e.g. lupus, CFS). Irene de Villiers wrote: >cbwillis9 wrote: > > >>Still, there may be some underlying predisposition in all, >> >> > >The skewed immune system condition called Th2-skewed immune system - predisposes any number of chronic diseases including Lupus, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, allergies, etc.... >Which one/s a specific individual will get, is what depends on other factors. > > > >>and I suspect this would be low cortisol, low testosterone levels. possibly low thyroid as well. Cortisol and testosterone are potent antiinflammatories. >> >> > >Not true. >Cortisol is a potent *inflammatory* chemical. It's catabolic (breaks down cells). The only way to fight it is to eat HUGS amount of anti-inflammatory things like anti-oxidants. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Hmm. I grew out of all my childhood allergies. I took cod liver oil pills in winter for a while as a child, but stopped some time prior to menarche. The allergies have never returned, so I'm dubious about kids (or anyone for that matter) needing fish oil supplements. I've never found one that my digestive system could tolerate so I avoid them. Best regards, Celeste Duncan Crow wrote: > The kids won't grow out of an essential fatty acids imbalance. > Give them cod-liver oil, wild salmon oil, molecularly distilled > fish oil or some such to give them the missing EPA and DHA. > > Contrary to another popular belief, wild Pacific salmon oil > contains exceedingly low levels of contamination. > > > Catrine wrote: > > It is my kids that have the > > eczema. My little girl has basically grown out of it (I hope), but the > > little boy has it all over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 What is sad is that my children have inherited my allergies. I " grew " into them. I can remember being relatively normal until 14 or 15 and every year after having more allergic symptoms. For a very long time it was just in the fall (ragweed), but now it is all the time. Even though I get allergy shots every two weeks I can tell they are still getting worse. At least I don't have to live in a plastic bubble yet. Because of the allergies, I would have continuous sinus infections. Also I have had a cough for months now and tried everything I can think of to get rid of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Interesting stuff Irene, let's talk about this some more ... [cbwillis:] > > and I suspect this would be low cortisol, low testosterone > > levels. > > possibly low thyroid as well. Cortisol and testosterone are > > potent antiinflammatories. [irene;} > Not true. > Cortisol is a potent *inflammatory* chemical. It's catabolic > (breaks > down cells). The only way to fight it is to eat HUGS amount of > anti-inflammatory things like anti-oxidants. Let's parse this out. I know that cortisol is catabolic, especially when in excess. I talk a lot people who have low adrenal reserve to some degree, and often low thyroid and other low hormone levels as well (TCM deficient constitution, ref: my article on TCM Excess vs. Deficient Constitutions). Many of these people are following Jefferies' _Safe Uses of Cortisol_ idea of physiologic doses of hydrocortisone 20 mg daily (5mg 4x/day). I'm not, but there are a lot of people who are. I do feel there could be problems with long term use, even at physiologic doses of 20 mg/day. One is suppression on a homeopathic level, but possibly osteoporosis etc after a few years of this (3 yrs?). The deficient constitution is running on fumes, worse the older they get, and they're often willing to try a lot of stuff just to be functional at all. Hormones seem to help them the most in terms of feeling better fast, since it's hormones they lack, often due to basic low adrenal reserve, and the adrenals make some 15 hormones, or possibly some degree of hypopituitarism. The higher potency homeopathic remedies (200C up) that might be energizing to others may just short them out since they don't have the adrenal reserve to support them. So address to low adrenal reserve as primary, with a tendency to lower hormone levels generally, especially low thyroid, plus miasmatic influences underlying. OK, let's look at the child who has eczema. Yes they have food etc sensitivities, but there is low adrenal reserve underlying those. I see allergies and autoimmune responses as an overreaction, a freak-out reaction by a system with subnormal reserves, a desperate attempt to defend itself, and in its franticness gets confused at times as to who its real enemies are. If we look at a normal child without eczema, we see normal adrenal reserve. So already we see the inflammatory tendencies coupled with low adrenal reserve. There may also be lower testosterone levels even in childhood -- *this is an area I'd really like to see more research on, total and free T levels in children, teens, young adults, at every age, and see how T levels correlate to different health patterns. I feel testosterone testing and research in all age groups is a major missing piece in medicine today.* I don't know of any child or teen with eczema who has had total anf free testosterone checked. Diurnal cortisol is also rarely checked. > Cortisol *suppresses* the immune system, and so doctors call it > anti-inflammatory because it suppresses the immune system > response. But > that's really a misnomer as suppression sweeps the real problem > under the rug and fixes nothing. The immune suppression is also > completely > separate from the activity at the individual cell level, and at > that > cellular level cortisol is VERY damaging and inflammatory. It is > not for > nothing cortisol is also dubbed the " death " hormone as it KILLS> > cells - all kinds of cells from skin to brain and everything > in-between, bone too. So when you say cortisol is damaging and inflammatory at the cellular level, do you mean largely excess cortisol?, as this would be obvious. What is not obvious (or easily intelligible by me!) is that normal and desirable cortisol levels are undesirably damaging and inflammatory at the cellular level. Could you go into that more? > So cortisol is no anti-inflammatory if you are looking at cellular > health (which is the real place to look for health.) I agree that we need to look at both the systemic and cellular levels. > Testosterone is better, it is anabolic where cortisol is > catabolic. > Testosterone builds tissues rather than destroying them like > cortisol... (in the right place, amount and time.) I agree. Gotta love testosterone for its anabolic qualities, especially if one is deficient, a small amount can make a big difference in women and men. Can even make a difference in minimizing allergic response, in my experience. I feel it may play a role also in minimizing excess gut permeability, but this is early speculation on my part. Carol willis_protocols Article archive in Files, blog, Links, not a discussion group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 > I agree. Gotta love testosterone for its anabolic qualities, > That's not why most of us love testosterone... ; ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Hrtruk@... wrote: > > What is sad is that my children have inherited my allergies. I " grew " into > them. I can remember being relatively normal until 14 or 15 and every year > after having more allergic symptoms. For a very long time it was just in the fall > (ragweed), but now it is all the time. Even though I get allergy shots every > two weeks I can tell they are still getting worse. At least I don't have > to live in a plastic bubble yet. Because of the allergies, I would have > continuous sinus infections. Also I have had a cough for months now and tried > everything I can think of to get rid of it. What you're describing is typical of mildly hypothyroid states. Consider optimizing the thyroid to TSH under 2.0, and free T4 and free T3 into the upper half of reference range. Vitamin C and B complex, and classical homeopathy. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 cbwillis9 wrote: > Interesting stuff Irene, let's talk about this some more ... Hi, It's a subject close to my heart as I have cortisol producing tumours and know well what cortisol can do when you have more than the body requires for proper function in emergency. It is only needed for stress, nothing else. But it's needed even for slight stress - such as when you are at the movies and a scary scene gives you a fright - you need some cortisol for that - a tiny bit:-)) > [irene;} > >>Not true. >>Cortisol is a potent *inflammatory* chemical. It's catabolic >>(breaks >>down cells). The only way to fight it is to eat HUGS amount of >>anti-inflammatory things like anti-oxidants. > Let's parse this out. I know that cortisol is catabolic, > especially when in excess. It's all too easy to have an excess. We are not designed to be office people, we are designed to be physically active and hunting tigers. cortisol is there to ensure that if the tiger hunts us, we can run like hell to the cave. but modern stress is different - and does NOT require the physical activity which uses up the cortisol. So we stress out from road rage or we eat liquorice or we drink coffee or we yell at the kids, or we fail to yell when the boss yells at us - and all those cause cortisol production which is NOT used up by physical activity. Instead it hangs around to do damage. The organic acids in a 10am cup of coffee (regular or decaf makes no difference) can initiate enough cortisol to take till 10pm to dissipate - assuming you drink no more meantime:-)) > I talk a lot people who have low > adrenal reserve to some degree, Yes and so do I - it happens in anyone whose adrenals are burned out from excess stress. But low adrenal reserve does NOT mean low cortisol. The adrenals have a lot of functions and adrenaline is the first responder to other than cortisol stres-related issues. We tend to run out of the nutrients needed for adrenaline (pantothenic acid, B6 and ascorbic acid) - which THEN is stressful, and uses cortisol instead - but the adrenals are depleted of nutrients still. Using cortisol does not replace the shortage of pantothenic, B6 and C needed for HEALTHY adrenal response. the result is an over-response with a trigger to the immune system and a consequent allergic or other skewed system response. If the adrenals have the right nutrients - especially the pantothenic - you don't get the trigger-happy reaction. > and often low thyroid Low thyroid is caused by cortisol as well as other causes, but when someone has depleted adrenals due to malnutrition for the stresses perceived, and cortisol is used as a substitute adrenal response where it does not belong, then it forces the T4 hormone to be turned into rT3 instead of T3. rT3 - reverse T3 - is not active T3 but the tests will show " T3 is normal " as they can not differentiate between T3 and rT3. There is another test that picks up the problem, called T3-uptake. If T3 uptake is high it means active T3 is low (no matter what the regular T3 tests read) and you will see hypothyroid symptoms - as indeed I have. My T3 test looks normal but I have sky high T3 uptake (so all my T3 in INactive) > and other > low hormone levels as well (TCM deficient constitution, > ref: my article on TCM Sorry you got me there - I am the world's worst person at acronyms - dunno what TCM is. > Excess vs. Deficient Constitutions). > Many of these people are following Jefferies' _Safe Uses of > Cortisol_ idea of physiologic doses of hydrocortisone 20 mg > daily (5mg 4x/day). There is no such thing as a safe dose of a death hormone unless you have diagnosed 's disease. ('s means no cortisol is produced such as in people with the adrenal glands removed due to adrenal tumours.) Animal research shows that a SINGLE injection of cortisol will damage 90% of the thymus gland - predisposing every imaginable Th-2 skewed disease. ANY consistent use of cortisol - which is the wrong hormone - as I described above- not only destroys thymus function but also suppresses the internal production of cortisol, due to the feedback loop the body uses between the adrenal gland where cortisolis made and the pituitary gland inteh brain where ACTH is produced. ACTH is the hormone that stimulates cortisol production. So if the pituitary detects cortisol inthe blood, it will switch off adrenal production by stopping ACTH production - as the body knows cortisol is an emergency-only hormone that is SUPPOSED to be transient due to the death-hormone effect it has on ALL kinds of cells. (When we die, it is cortisol release that kills all the cells. It's a death hormone as it kills cells.) In addition consistent presence of this toxic cortisol in the body, from external source, can and does result in " Pseudo-Cushing's Syndrome " , which is a very real disease and which untreated will kill within 5 years. There are several cortisol-related diseases all under the catch-all of Cushing's syndrome, but some have separate names: * Cushings's disease: Pituitary tumour overproduces ACTH causing excess Cortisol excretion. * Cushing's Syndrome: Adrenal tumours or hyperplasia of adrenal cortex causing excess cortisol from adrenals. * Ectopic cushings: Oat cell or other " ectopic " (non adrenal and non pituitary) ACTH-producing tumours which induce excess cortisol. * MEN-1 syndrome where carcinoid tumours produce hormones including cortisol. (This is the one I have) Every cortisol-related disease - whether " pseudo " (drug induced) or tumour induced, is so severely life threatening that action must be takes asap even if that means removing both pituitary and adrenals - which is often done - as 's disease is less damaging to the body than any situation where there is regular cortisol. [i own an email list called Cushings-Research where you can find out more if you like.] As a homeopath, I can help treat ANY illness EXCEPT where cortisol is in use or present. Cortisol suppresses the immune system, and homeopathy works by restoring it. There is NO health without an immune system no matter what anyone tells you. A state of immune suppression is NOT a state of health. So taking cortisol or similar (cortisone, prednisone, dexamethosone etc) is the one worst possible thing anyone can do to themselves long-term bar none!!! > I'm not, but there are a lot of people who > are. I do feel there could be problems with long term use, even > at physiologic doses of 20 mg/day. It takes a lot less than that to initiate Pseudo-cushings based on actual cases on my list. Even the use of a cortisone nasal spray will do it. > One is suppression on a > homeopathic level, but possibly osteoporosis etc after a few > years of this (3 yrs?). How long varies - depends on the level of antioxidant in the diet, and other dietary factors such as how many inflammatory foods are eaten (artificial sweeteners, sugars, wheat, corn, soy, starches) how much protein and how many carbs, how little fatty acid, calcium factors like spinach and citric acid - and of course the level of cortisol. There are far worse results than just osteoporosis though the latter can be so bad in cushing cases that coughing can break a rib and a fall often breaks a back. It can occur in teenagers - not just mature folk. > The deficient constitution is running on > fumes, worse the older they get, and they're often willing to > try a lot of stuff just to be functional at all. Hormones > seem to help them the most in terms of feeling better fast, No the cortisol idea helps them backwards - the illness is getting worse below the suppressed symptoms - they will die soon from cortisol cell death however much they may experience temporary relief of immune system symptoms. Real heath is what's going on at the cell level, not whether the immune system is stopped from telling the truth or not. > since it's hormones they lack, It's not really hormones they lack - it's cell level health. Build that back and the hormones will take care of themselves. Suggest such folks look at Perricone's work on cell level inflammation and what helps and what hinders. > often due to basic low adrenal > reserve, and the adrenals make some 15 hormones, And all they need is a few basic nutrients from which to build them - but in all cases the cortisol use is the wrong idea - that's using emergency stuff continuously and it's a killer! Literally! > or possibly > some degree of hypopituitarism. The higher potency homeopathic > remedies (200C up) that might be energizing to others may > just short them out since they don't have the adrenal reserve > to support them. No there is zero interaction between homeopathic remedies and any physical or chemical level activity. The problem is that when cortisol is used it blocks the immune system so powerfully that the homeopathic remedies are like a canoe trying to paddle up a waterfall. In the cat cases I see (and I specialize in immune compromise diseases) I can not save a cat on prednisone if the disease duration is only a few weeks. It takes a year or more to rebuild a smashed thymus thanks to prednisone - and that's because the individual is so sick that you can't just use high potency remedies off the bat - you have to start low potency and build them up piecemeal. For some immune compromise diseases there is not time to do that in cats. > So address to low adrenal reserve as primary, No. You address low adrenal reserve with the nutrients to make hormones - not with the hormones! Otherwise you are just making it worse via the body's hormone feedback loops. If you add cortisol you STOP internal cortisol capability:-)) > with a tendency to lower hormone levels generally, especially low > thyroid, plus miasmatic influences underlying. Miasms are separate and not the first thing to handle in these cases. You need to address what's on top first - the problem you see. The body will hit a wall when it is time for miasm removal, and it can come at the right time to open the system for progress again. Homeopathy can NOT restore the missing nutrition - that has to come first. Homeopathy can direct its good utilization but it can't provide nutrients to make hormones. > OK, let's look at the child who has eczema. Yes they have > food etc sensitivities, but there is low adrenal reserve > underlying those. No. Adrenal depletion is the RESULT of allergies, not the cause. Helping it will enable the system to handle the allergies better but it will not make the child non-allergic. So you need to go back further to the REAL cause and understanding of allergies. Allergies ALL start with a skewed immune system which has an over-response on TH-2 cytokines - usually caused by vaccinations which are known to skew the system, especially if they are live vaccines or have adjuvants as they nearly all do. Prednisone ALSO skews the immune system to tH2 - even more strongly than vaccines. So now the child has a skewed immune system. Still there are no allergies but one day the child somehow gets undigested protein into the blood stream - it only takes one molecule. This can be ragweed which grows tentacles in the lungs and penetrates irritated lung tissue - or a food eaten which scratches the gut exposing blood to undigested protein, or an intestinal flu that compromises the gut surface somewhere allowing contact between protein and blood. Somehow - undigested protein gets into the blood. THAT initiates the allergy. The allergic response uses up the adrenal supplies - because whatever foreign protein gets into the system, will get an OVER-reponse in a Th-2 skewed individual and they will develop an allergy - with antibodies to that specific item. Thereafter any time they are exposed to that protein - even though it does not get into the blood - the antibodies are there in the system and the allergic reaction will occur, depleting the adrenals yet again. In a person without the " atopy " tendency, there is no allergy developed, and no over-response of adrenals. So to control an allergic response it DOES help to feed the nutrients the adrenals need as they get depleted not only for allergic responses but for other responses too. But no amount of nutrition will remove the atopy - the allergic type that has developed (or been inherited). For that you need homeopathy. I was atopic from childhood with life threatening anaphylactic reactions to things like bananas and pickles peppering my life between asthma attacks from ragweed, grass and whatever. I now have zero allergies, and can eat banana and pickles in a field of ragweed if I wish. > I see allergies and autoimmune responses > as an overreaction, a freak-out reaction YEs. > by a system with > subnormal reserves No. By a system that is Th-2 skewed. It's complicated but a simplistic overview attempt here: The immune system makes a couple dozen " cytokines " which determine what kind of immune system components need to go to war on the current issue. Some are categorized Th-2 and generally involve responses from the bone marrow to produce antibodies - but others are categorized Th-1 and involve thymus activity to produce other defences like macrophages. Th-1 is usually the first cellular level defence, and TH-2 steps in with a systemic response if needed. A health immune system has a proper balance between Th-1 and Th-2 activity. Allergic people are TH-2 skewed which means the Th-2 cytokines are overexpressed and TH-1 in underexpressed (usually due to thymus damage). The " correct " response to a foreign protein in a balanced immune system is a macrophage to engulf it - a Th-1 response. It's the intended first response of the body. Only if the TH-1 system is overwhelmed, such as by an infection multiplying up faster than macrophages can get rid of it, then one of the cytokines (interferon) will inform the Th-2 system that Th-1 guys are getting overwhelmed and some big guns like antibodies are needed fromteh Th-2 side. But in a Th-2 skewed person, the TH-1 response is good as missing, and the Th-2 side gets the message that the TH-1 side is overwhelmed and so it gets the antibodies in gear in a big way to fight a huge war where there is no war nut just a few little allergens needing a few little macrophages or some such. So yes there is an over-response of antibody - but due to a skewed immune system where the Th-1 cytokine system is practically non-functional. It's got nothing to do with adrenal reserves. AFTER much over-responding, THEN the adrenal reserves will start to get depleted - but it is a result of the allergic response not a cause, and taking cortisol will make it worse not better. Cortisol will indeed suppress the antibody response - so it will LOOK better - but it ALSO will destroy even more thymus for Th-1 response making the chances of an allergy cure less and less feasible. It will also make the person prone to other Th-2 skewed diseases due to lack of Th-1 response cytokines - like cancer for example. This is why 50% of Cushing's patients have cancer. Too much cortisol has wrecked the thymus and there are no cancer killer cells produced there any more (those being from Th-1 cytokines). > If we look at a normal child without eczema, > we see normal adrenal reserve. YEs. Because they do not ovver-respond as they are not TH-2 skewed. So the real cause and problem is the TH-2 skewing. Remove that and the allergies can not happen. > There may also be lower testosterone levels even in childhood -- Testosterone counters cortisol so the higher it is the less damage cortisol can do, but cortisol is still the enemy here. Cushings happens less in men than in women due to testosterone being somewhat protective - but on my Cushing's list, Cushing's syndrome seems to occur as often in male teenagers as female ones. > *this is an area I'd really like to see more research on, > total and free T levels in children, teens, young adults, > at every age, and see how T levels correlate to different > health patterns. T levels are a RESULT of different health situations not a cause. The cause starts with a skewed immune system - often that starts in childhood when vaccines are given. > So when you say cortisol is damaging and inflammatory at the > cellular level, do you mean largely excess cortisol?, No I mean any cortisol. Cortisol is only intended to be used in DIRE last-ditch emergency - and it is intended to be dissipated asap so as to do the least possible amount of damage. Cortisol's JOB is to break down tissues into raw materials to burn up to " run from the tiger " or whatever *physical* response is needed, and it does not care where it gets the material. It can be stomach lining, muscles, brain, lungs, anywhere - as long as it is instantly *Catabolised* to glucose energy to enable physical activity to get away from the emergency. The mechanism is that it grabs amino acids wherever it can get them and sends them to the liver where they are turned to glucose. MEantime it switches off ALL other activities of the body so that the body can concentrate on escape from the tiger. So it quits keeping warm, metabolizing stuff, making immune system components, or any other activity not DIRECTLY needed to run from a tiger in dire life-threatening emergency. This is why any cortisol is damaging. Under normal conditions you will eat plenty of protein to rebuild what cortisol needs - and you will also burn off the cortisol while you are running to get away from danger. But modern stress does not need running - and so we have the cortisol hanging around unless we hit the gym or avoid stress or otherwise destress or eat what counters cortisol. Phew, that was long - I hope it is useful:-)) Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Excellent dialogue Irene. A few clarifications, comments, and more questions... [cbwillis:] > > I talk a lot people who have low > > adrenal reserve to some degree, [irene de V:] > Yes and so do I - it happens in anyone whose adrenals are burned out > from excess stress. But low adrenal reserve does NOT mean low cortisol. > The adrenals have a lot of functions and adrenaline is the first > responder to other than cortisol stres-related issues. We tend to run > out of the nutrients needed for adrenaline (pantothenic acid, B6 and > ascorbic acid) - which THEN is stressful, and uses cortisol instead - > but the adrenals are depleted of nutrients still. Using cortisol does > not replace the shortage of pantothenic, B6 and C needed for HEALTHY > adrenal response. > the result is an over-response with a trigger to the immune system > and a consequent allergic or other skewed system response. > If the adrenals have the right nutrients - especially the > pantothenic - you don't get the trigger-happy reaction. Excellent educational points to make! To clarify, my own approach since 20 yrs now is the nutritional one you cite, so we are in agreement on that, though I know some homeopaths don't like nutritional supplements and see them as suppressive. My references to the physiologic-dose cortisone meds were mentioned as one approach that is out there at present, that a growing number of people are doing or curious about - and your comments make an interesting counterpoint to their position. I have not done the cortisone approach myself, but I have occasionally spoken against it in groups that tended to be pro-physiologic-doses of cortisol for adrenal fatigue (not yet s). Many who have some degree of adrenal fatigue, low adrenal reserve, yet not to the level of 's, have tried the nutritional route, the fairly high Vit C, B-Complex, with extra pantothenic acid, adequate protein spread through the day, and while they felt that was good on general principles and they continued to do it, didn't feel it made much difference for them in terms of energy etc. Early morning when most people would be waking up to begin their day, is an especially trying time as it seems there are no reserves to get going, and then they drag through the whole day. > > and often low thyroid > > Low thyroid is caused by cortisol as well as other causes, but when > someone has depleted adrenals due to malnutrition for the stresses > perceived, and cortisol is used as a substitute adrenal response where > it does not belong, then it forces the T4 hormone to be turned into rT3 > instead of T3. rT3 - reverse T3 - is not active T3 but the tests will > show " T3 is normal " as they can not differentiate between T3 and rT3. > There is another test that picks up the problem, called T3- uptake. > If T3 uptake is high it means active T3 is low (no matter what the > regular T3 tests read) and you will see hypothyroid symptoms - as indeed > I have. My T3 test looks normal but I have sky high T3 uptake (so all my > T3 in INactive) Fascinating on the unusual thyroid states and tests. I think I clarified my position on cortisone supplementation above. Even among the pro-physiologic-cortison advocates, cortisone is not used as a substitute for thyroid. It is a common practice, again one I don't advocate and have spoken against, to think that one can't utilize thyroid med well, that thyroid med isn't well driven into the cells, until one has some adrenal support in the form of cortisone (usually in addition to the nutritional base) or adrenal glandulars (which can make people anxious due to the adrenaline component in the whole gland). I find it mildly alarming in how fast this has become a popular idea accepted without question in certain thryoid and adrenal groups. First it was giving one's power away to Drs without question, now it's dissing the Drs as a whole, routinely calling them poopheads, and now swallowing alternative ideas without question. What's missing here is normal rationality and personal responsibility. OK, end of rant. > > Excess vs. Deficient Constitutions). > > Many of these people are following Jefferies' _Safe Uses of > > Cortisol_ idea of physiologic doses of hydrocortisone 20 mg > > daily (5mg 4x/day). > > There is no such thing as a safe dose of a death hormone unless you have > diagnosed 's disease. ('s means no cortisol is produced > such as in people with the adrenal glands removed due to adrenal tumours.) > Animal research shows that a SINGLE injection of cortisol will damage > 90% of the thymus gland - predisposing every imaginable Th-2 skewed disease. > ANY consistent use of cortisol - which is the wrong hormone - as I > described above- not only destroys thymus function but also suppresses > the internal production of cortisol, due to the feedback loop the body > uses between the adrenal gland where cortisolis made and the pituitary > gland inteh brain where ACTH is produced. ACTH is the hormone that > stimulates cortisol production. So if the pituitary detects cortisol > inthe blood, it will switch off adrenal production by stopping ACTH > production - as the body knows cortisol is an emergency-only hormone > that is SUPPOSED to be transient due to the death-hormone effect it has > on ALL kinds of cells. (When we die, it is cortisol release that kills > all the cells. It's a death hormone as it kills cells.) > In addition consistent presence of this toxic cortisol in the body, from > external source, can and does result in " Pseudo-Cushing's Syndrome " , > which is a very real disease and which untreated will kill within 5 years. > There are several cortisol-related diseases all under the catch-all > of Cushing's syndrome, but some have separate names: > * Cushings's disease: Pituitary tumour overproduces ACTH causing excess > Cortisol excretion. > * Cushing's Syndrome: Adrenal tumours or hyperplasia of adrenal cortex > causing excess cortisol from adrenals. > * Ectopic cushings: Oat cell or other " ectopic " (non adrenal and non > pituitary) ACTH-producing tumours which induce excess cortisol. > * MEN-1 syndrome where carcinoid tumours produce hormones including > cortisol. (This is the one I have) > > Every cortisol-related disease - whether " pseudo " (drug induced) or > tumour induced, is so severely life threatening that action must be > takes asap even if that means removing both pituitary and adrenals - > which is often done - as 's disease is less damaging to the body > than any situation where there is regular cortisol. > [i own an email list called Cushings-Research where you can find out > more if you like.] > As a homeopath, I can help treat ANY illness EXCEPT where cortisol is in > use or present. Cortisol suppresses the immune system, and homeopathy > works by restoring it. There is NO health without an immune system no > matter what anyone tells you. A state of immune suppression is NOT a > state of health. So taking cortisol or similar (cortisone, prednisone, > dexamethosone etc) is the one worst possible thing anyone can do to > themselves long-term bar none!!! Again, excellent educational points. I will need to do more study on the relationship between cortisol and thymus. (I welcome details on your elist to my email.) > > I'm not, but there are a lot of people who > > are. I do feel there could be problems with long term use, even > > at physiologic doses of 20 mg/day. > > It takes a lot less than that to initiate Pseudo-cushings based on > actual cases on my list. Even the use of a cortisone nasal spray > will do it. The physiologic-dose cortisone folks need to know about these sorts of things, at least have another viewpoint to consider. > > The deficient constitution is running on > > fumes, worse the older they get, and they're often willing to > > try a lot of stuff just to be functional at all. Hormones > > seem to help them the most in terms of feeling better fast, > > No the cortisol idea helps them backwards - the illness is getting worse > below the suppressed symptoms - they will die soon from cortisol cell > death however much they may experience temporary relief of immune system > symptoms. Real heath is what's going on at the cell level, not whether > the immune system is stopped from telling the truth or not. True. To clarify as we go, my comment above was a general one, not in reference to persons who have taken cortisone necessarily, though some people out there have done so. Thyroid, estrogen, progesterone, testosterone may also come into play at different points, after nutritional and other approaches have been tried. > > since it's hormones they lack, > > It's not really hormones they lack - it's cell level health. > Build that back and the hormones will take care of themselves. > Suggest such folks look at Perricone's work on cell level > inflammation and what helps and what hinders. I love this idea, and have loved it for 20 or more years. I haven't seen it work out as advertised in too many cases, referring to myself and others I talk to, since I don't consult or sell products. It's great when it works, but doesn't always seem to work. I'm familiar with Perricone, his books and PBS videos. His videos are upbeat viewing. > > often due to basic low adrenal > > reserve, and the adrenals make some 15 hormones, > > And all they need is a few basic nutrients from which to build them - > but in all cases the cortisol use is the wrong idea - that's using > emergency stuff continuously and it's a killer! Literally! Excellent point on the cortisol. I agree with the nutritional approach, but haven't always seen it to work sufficiently. > > or possibly > > some degree of hypopituitarism. The higher potency homeopathic > > remedies (200C up) that might be energizing to others may > > just short them out since they don't have the adrenal reserve > > to support them. > > No there is zero interaction between homeopathic remedies and any > physical or chemical level activity. The problem is that when cortisol > is used it blocks the immune system so powerfully that the homeopathic > remedies are like a canoe trying to paddle up a waterfall. > In the cat cases I see (and I specialize in immune compromise diseases) > I can not save a cat on prednisone if the disease duration is only a few > weeks. It takes a year or more to rebuild a smashed thymus thanks to > prednisone - and that's because the individual is so sick that you can't > just use high potency remedies off the bat - you have to start low > potency and build them up piecemeal. For some immune compromise diseases > there is not time to do that in cats. In those cases where cortisone has not been used, and nutrition has not been sufficient, there can still be adverse reaction to the higher potencies. (This was what I was referring to.) > > So address to low adrenal reserve as primary, > > No. You address low adrenal reserve with the nutrients to make hormones > - not with the hormones! Otherwise you are just making it worse via the > body's hormone feedback loops. If you add cortisol you STOP internal > cortisol capability:-)) Good points. I do agree on the nutrition. And I understand the feedback loops. > > with a tendency to lower hormone levels generally, especially low > > thyroid, plus miasmatic influences underlying. > Miasms are separate and not the first thing to handle in these > cases. Agree. > You need to address what's on top first - the problem you see. The body > will hit a wall when it is time for miasm removal, and it can come at > the right time to open the system for progress again. Agree. > Homeopathy can NOT restore the missing nutrition - that has to come > first. Homeopathy can direct its good utilization but it can't provide > nutrients to make hormones. Agree. And I've always been big on nutrition, even among homeopaths who considered supplements suppressive. > > OK, let's look at the child who has eczema. Yes they have > > food etc sensitivities, but there is low adrenal reserve > > underlying those. > > No. Adrenal depletion is the RESULT of allergies, not the cause. I agree that adrenal depletion does result from allergies (and other stresses), but I believe the converse is also true, that allergies result at least in part from adrenal depletion. I see it as a potential chicken-and-egg question, which came first- the adrenal depletion or the allergies - where we may never know the " first " cause, if there is such a thing. It may be roughly simultaneous causation, or multiple of causes close together in time. There is a body of thought that holds that adrenal depletion is *a* (perhaps not the only) cause of allergies. If I'm not mistaken, I think most of naturopathy holds to this view today. Which doesn't make it fully correct, or partially correct. As we know, a proposition is not correct just because a lot of people hold it to be true. > Helping it will enable the system to handle the allergies better but it > will not make the child non-allergic. So you need to go back further to > the REAL cause and understanding of allergies. Allergies ALL start with > a skewed immune system which has an over-response on TH-2 cytokines - > usually caused by vaccinations which are known to skew the system, > especially if they are live vaccines or have adjuvants as they nearly > all do. Prednisone ALSO skews the immune system to tH2 - even more > strongly than vaccines. > So now the child has a skewed immune system. Still there are no > allergies but one day the child somehow gets undigested protein into the > blood stream - it only takes one molecule. This can be ragweed which > grows tentacles in the lungs and penetrates irritated lung tissue - or a > food eaten which scratches the gut exposing blood to undigested protein, > or an intestinal flu that compromises the gut surface somewhere allowing > contact between protein and blood. Somehow - undigested protein gets > into the blood. THAT initiates the allergy. The allergic response uses > up the adrenal supplies - because whatever foreign protein gets into the > system, will get an OVER-reponse in a Th-2 skewed individual and they > will develop an allergy - with antibodies to that specific item. > Thereafter any time they are exposed to that protein - even though it > does not get into the blood - the antibodies are there in the system and > the allergic reaction will occur, depleting the adrenals yet again. > In a person without the " atopy " tendency, there is no allergy > developed, and no over-response of adrenals. Good stuff. > So to control an allergic response it DOES help to feed the nutrients > the adrenals need as they get depleted not only for allergic responses > but for other responses too. But no amount of nutrition will remove the > atopy - the allergic type that has developed (or been inherited). Agreed. > For that you need homeopathy. I was atopic from childhood with life > threatening anaphylactic reactions to things like bananas and pickles > peppering my life between asthma attacks from ragweed, grass and > whatever. I now have zero allergies, and can eat banana and pickles in a > field of ragweed if I wish. This is a great personal testimony. I'd like to hear more of how that came about if you were ever willing to tell it. > > I see allergies and autoimmune responses > > as an overreaction, a freak-out reaction > > YEs. > > > by a system with > > subnormal reserves > > No. > > By a system that is Th-2 skewed. > It's complicated but a simplistic overview attempt here: > The immune system makes a couple dozen " cytokines " which determine what > kind of immune system components need to go to war on the current issue. > Some are categorized Th-2 and generally involve responses from the bone > marrow to produce antibodies - but others are categorized Th-1 and > involve thymus activity to produce other defences like macrophages. > Th-1 is usually the first cellular level defence, and TH-2 steps in with > a systemic response if needed. A health immune system has a proper > balance between Th-1 and Th-2 activity. > > Allergic people are TH-2 skewed which means the Th-2 cytokines are > overexpressed and TH-1 in underexpressed (usually due to thymus damage). > > The " correct " response to a foreign protein in a balanced immune > system is a macrophage to engulf it - a Th-1 response. It's the intended > first response of the body. Only if the TH-1 system is overwhelmed, such > as by an infection multiplying up faster than macrophages can get rid of > it, then one of the cytokines (interferon) will inform the Th-2 system > that Th-1 guys are getting overwhelmed and some big guns like antibodies > are needed fromteh Th-2 side. > But in a Th-2 skewed person, the TH-1 response is good as missing, > and the Th-2 side gets the message that the TH-1 side is overwhelmed and > so it gets the antibodies in gear in a big way to fight a huge war where > there is no war nut just a few little allergens needing a few little > macrophages or some such. > > So yes there is an over-response of antibody - but due to a skewed > immune system where the Th-1 cytokine system is practically > non-functional. It's got nothing to do with adrenal reserves. > > AFTER much over-responding, THEN the adrenal reserves will start to get > depleted - but it is a result of the allergic response not a cause, Great stuff. And there is no doubt that allergies will wear down the adrenals. We agree on that. I am still exploring the other side of that coin, whether weak adrenals are part of the predisposition to allergies, or set up for allergies. We'll likely have to agree to disagree on that for now. But a good presentation of your position, and food for thought for the group. > and > taking cortisol will make it worse not better. > Cortisol will indeed suppress the antibody response - so it will LOOK > better - but it ALSO will destroy even more thymus for Th-1 response > making the chances of an allergy cure less and less feasible. It will > also make the person prone to other Th-2 skewed diseases due to lack of > Th-1 response cytokines - like cancer for example. Interesting. I gotta study more on cortisol and thymus. > This is why 50% of Cushing's patients have cancer. Too much cortisol has > wrecked the thymus and there are no cancer killer cells produced there > any more (those being from Th-1 cytokines). > > > If we look at a normal child without eczema, > > we see normal adrenal reserve. > > YEs. Because they do not ovver-respond as they are not TH-2 skewed. > So the real cause and problem is the TH-2 skewing. Remove that and the > allergies can not happen. > > > There may also be lower testosterone levels even in childhood -- > > Testosterone counters cortisol so the higher it is the less damage > cortisol can do, but cortisol is still the enemy here. > Cushings happens less in men than in women due to testosterone being > somewhat protective - but on my Cushing's list, Cushing's syndrome seems > to occur as often in male teenagers as female ones. > > > *this is an area I'd really like to see more research on, > > total and free T levels in children, teens, young adults, > > at every age, and see how T levels correlate to different > > health patterns. > > T levels are a RESULT of different health situations not a cause. > The cause starts with a skewed immune system - often that starts in > childhood when vaccines are given. Let me make sure I understand you here. Are you saying that low testosterone levels are a result of a skewed immune system from vaccines? I can see this would have some plausibility from homeopathy, but I've never heard to stated so starkly before, hence my question. Another part of me thinks this is too much stretch of imagination that might never be proved unless you were to clear vaccinations homeopathically and then measured testosterone levels which subsequently came up to normal. > > So when you say cortisol is damaging and inflammatory at the > > cellular level, do you mean largely excess cortisol?, > > No I mean any cortisol. > Cortisol is only intended to be used in DIRE last-ditch emergency - and > it is intended to be dissipated asap so as to do the least possible > amount of damage. > Cortisol's JOB is to break down tissues into raw materials to burn up to > " run from the tiger " or whatever *physical* response is needed, and it > does not care where it gets the material. It can be stomach lining, > muscles, brain, lungs, anywhere - as long as it is instantly > *Catabolised* to glucose energy to enable physical activity to get away > from the emergency. > The mechanism is that it grabs amino acids wherever it can get them and > sends them to the liver where they are turned to glucose. MEantime it > switches off ALL other activities of the body so that the body can > concentrate on escape from the tiger. So it quits keeping warm, > metabolizing stuff, making immune system components, or any other > activity not DIRECTLY needed to run from a tiger in dire > life-threatening emergency. > > This is why any cortisol is damaging. Under normal conditions you will > eat plenty of protein to rebuild what cortisol needs - and you will also > burn off the cortisol while you are running to get away from danger. > But modern stress does not need running - and so we have the cortisol > hanging around unless we hit the gym or avoid stress or otherwise > destress or eat what counters cortisol. > > Phew, that was long - I hope it is useful:-)) This is great Irene, many thanks! Inquiring minds want to know, and if they don't, they should. :-) Carol > Namaste, > Irene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 cbwillis9 wrote: > Excellent educational points to make! > > To clarify, my own approach since 20 yrs now is the nutritional > one you cite, so we are in agreement on that, though I know some > homeopaths don't like nutritional supplements and > see them as suppressive. Then they are not properly trained homeopaths! Hahnemann's Organon stresses the importance of the appropriate nutrition as essential to healing - and that in some cases a remedy is not needed, only the missing nutrients. There are an awful lot of badly trained homeopaths about:-( > I have not done the cortisone approach myself, > but I have occasionally spoken against it in groups that tended > to be pro-physiologic-doses of cortisol for adrenal fatigue > (not yet s). Good for you - it is unbelievably damaging. > Many who have some degree of adrenal fatigue, low adrenal reserve, > yet not to the level of 's, have tried the nutritional > route, the fairly high Vit C, B-Complex, with extra pantothenic > acid, adequate protein spread through the day, > and while they felt that was good on general principles and > they continued to do it, didn't feel it made much difference > for them in terms of energy etc. Energy is a separate issue from adrenal function - it involves mitochondrial activity, antioxidant levels, the RATIO of protein and EFAs, the total protein percent, the percentage of inflammatory foods in the diet (sugar, sweeteners, starch, soy, trans fat), and the ratio and amount of B vitamins. Kicking the adrenals into emergency gear is no way to handle a lack of energy nutrition! > Early morning when most people > would be waking up to begin their day, is an especially trying > time as it seems there are no reserves to get going, and > then they drag through the whole day. No the reason is high cortisol from stress. Cortisol is always highest on waking, the main supply of cortisol is produced then. This is more proof of an energy-poor or toxic (same thing) diet and the adrenals having to pick up the pieces as an emergency issue. > Fascinating on the unusual thyroid states and tests. I suspect that it is not as unusual as the doctors assume, the T3 uptake test is hardly ever offered when people complain of low thyroid symptoms but test " normal " as has been the case for me since I was a teenager (and I'm 57). the syndrome I have (MEN-1) is a slow developing one but only diagnosed very recently. The side effects were all diagnosed earlier (cushing's syndrome, diabetes, aldosteronism, etc etc) but the cause was never picked up because nobody would " hear " my thyroid-related complaints and test it fully. I know I'm not alone in this! > I think I clarified my position on cortisone supplementation above. > Even among the pro-physiologic-cortison advocates, cortisone > is not used as a substitute for thyroid. It is a common practice, > again one I don't advocate and have spoken against, to think > that one can't utilize thyroid med well, that thyroid med isn't > well driven into the cells, until one has some adrenal > support in the form of cortisone (usually in addition to the > nutritional base) or adrenal glandulars (which can make people > anxious due to the adrenaline component in the whole gland). Oh hell that IS backwards. Cortisol can only make a thyroid condition WORSE. It will make the regular tests look better as there is not rT3 than before - but rT3 is the opposite of what you want. It's flogging a dead horse:-) > I find it mildly alarming in how fast > this has become a popular idea accepted without > question in certain thryoid and adrenal groups. First it was > giving one's power away to Drs without question, now it's > dissing the Drs as a whole, routinely calling them poopheads, > and now swallowing alternative ideas without question. > What's missing here is normal rationality and personal > responsibility. OK, end of rant. I do agree. There has to be sense behind ANY health decision. > Again, excellent educational points. I will need > to do more study on the relationship between cortisol and > thymus. (I welcome details on your elist to my email.) Cushings-research at > The physiologic-dose cortisone folks need to know about these > sorts of things, at least have another viewpoint to consider. Yes, what they are doing is VERY dangerous to their health. Scary in fact. Just one fact of many is that regular cortisol use induces a 50% cancer rate in a body where the thymus (our defence against cancer) is destroyed (by the cortisol). They gotta be NUTS! [irene] >>It's not really hormones they lack - it's cell level health. >>Build that back and the hormones will take care of themselves. > I love this idea, and have loved it for 20 or more years. > I haven't seen it work out as advertised in too many cases, > referring to myself and others I talk to It's a new area of research and there is more to know than we know so far. I am seeing a lot of progress by combining Perricone's cell level research findings with other anti-inflammatory approaches such as blood type diet. There may be still other factors to consider - but it is all relevant and on the right track. Perricone's most recent book is a good one (weight loss diet title but basically it is an anti-inflammatory diet whether you want to lose wt or not.) I combine it with two other things to get progress: D'Adamo's blood type research findings. My personal ideal ratios of protein/fat/carbs. This last item I can not stress enough. In my case I need my calories to be 45% from protein, 45% from good fats and 10% from carbs - PLUS extra carbs for specific exercise sessions. Others will need a different ratio. If I change that ratio by more than 2%!!! I get negative effects! So an anti-inflammatory diet is a lot more than just eating plenty antioxidants. > In those cases where cortisone has not been used, and nutrition > has not been sufficient, there can still be adverse reaction > to the higher potencies. (This was what I was referring to.) Yes indeed but a decently trained homeopath never starts a chronic case on the high potency needed to cure. It is always appropriate to start on a low potency that suits the assessed life force (which takes everything into account including nutrition levels), then build up the life force and progress up the potency scale at the rate the patient responds. I hardly ever see an aggravation in my clients' animals, I work hard to avoid it as it further depletes an already weak life force and I do not need anyone going backwards before perhaps making progress! > Agree. And I've always been big on nutrition, even among homeopaths > who considered supplements suppressive. Those " homeopaths " are not homeopaths! Send them to read the Organon! > I agree that adrenal depletion does result from allergies (and > other stresses), but I believe the converse is also true, > that allergies result at least in part from adrenal depletion. No the allergy is there due to " atopic " state. Adrenal depletion will *worsen* the response to allergy and it will be more trigger happy the worse the depletion gets, but depletion is not a cause of allergies. The patient will experience many more of their allergies in a depleted state than in a good adrenal state. It's only because in a good state the adrenals quash the reaction and it is not perceived. So an allergic person who keeps the adrenals well supplied will *experience* fewer bad reactions, and fewer total reaction - because the adrenals are working tostop them - but it does not change what they are allergic to, or the fact they are atopic (allergic type), and it can not CAUSE a new allergy. A new allergy can only occur if a protein enters the bloodstream undigested. > There is a body of thought that holds that adrenal > depletion is *a* (perhaps not the only) cause of allergies. No, it doesn't work that way. The Complement cascade is triggered by the allergen which is only an allergen if it previously entered the blood and initiated antibodies to be made to that protein. Healthy adrenals overcome complement components to a lesser or greater degree depending on the severity of antibody response to a specific allergen - so that the allergic reaction is still happening - but the adrenals are handling it. If adrenals are depleted, the reactions are worse and even one that would be a small unnoticed one can become a major one due to lack of countering reserves. Remember that there HAVE to be antibodies to a protein FIRST before any allergic response can happen - and adrenals can not cause that. >>Irene: I now have zero allergies, and can eat banana and >> pickles in a field of ragweed if I wish. > > This is a great personal testimony. I'd like to hear more of > how that came about if you were ever willing to tell it. It just took the right homeopathy. I wasn't looking at treating the allergies at the time - I had worse issues to deal with - but a good homeopathic approach individually matched to a person, will heal whatever is wrong with the individual and pretty soon my allergies just evaporated. Works the same with my clients. It's standard chronic homeopathy approach - the principles are the same for any case of chronic illness. Oops just saw the time - gotta dash - the rest later:-)) Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 [cbwillis:] > > ...though I know some > > homeopaths don't like nutritional supplements and > > see them as suppressive. [irene:] > Then they are not properly trained homeopaths! > Hahnemann's Organon stresses the importance of the appropriate > nutrition > as essential to healing - and that in some cases a remedy is not > needed, only the missing nutrients. Part of the controversy may turn on the fact that there were no nutritional supplements in Hahnemann's day (early 1800's). When H. said nutrition, he meant food. That's all they knew, and most people grew their own food on their farms, which had a lot more nutrition than our food. So if Hahnemann were alive today, what would he say about supplements? especially supplements that give far more nutrition than one could possibly eat in 1830? 2000 mg Vitamin C is about the amount in 20 oranges, and I doubt anyone ate 20 oranges/day back then, or ever. 1000 mg calcium, 500 mg magnesium, a B-50 complex -- no one was eating enough farm food in those days to come up to those levels, except when figs were in season for the high magnesium. So I consider it speculative to try to interpret with certainty what Hahnemann might say about today's supplements, as plausible arguments can be made on both sides, but I know that I feel much better *with* the supplements than without. By itself, feeling good is not a criterion of goodness (Plato), but I'll take my chances on this one. :-) Backed up by muscle testing. :-) > > Many who have some degree of adrenal fatigue, low adrenal > > reserve, > > yet not to the level of 's, have tried the nutritional > > route, the fairly high Vit C, B-Complex, with extra pantothenic > > acid, adequate protein spread through the day, > > and while they felt that was good on general principles and > > they continued to do it, didn't feel it made much difference > > for them in terms of energy etc. > > Energy is a separate issue from adrenal function - it involves > mitochondrial activity, antioxidant levels, the RATIO of protein and > EFAs, the total protein percent, the percentage of inflammatory foods in > the diet (sugar, sweeteners, starch, soy, trans fat), and the ratio and > amount of B vitamins. > Kicking the adrenals into emergency gear is no way to handle a lack of > energy nutrition! I know that mitochondrial activity involves energy, but I'm not yet prepared to say that adrenal function doesn't have anything to do with energy. Else, why would we normally have a higher cortisol level first thing in the morning, but to have the energy to get up and get into action. And a normally low level at midnight when it's time for sleep and we don't want a lot of energy keeping us up and minds racing. > > Early morning when most people > > would be waking up to begin their day, is an especially trying > > time as it seems there are no reserves to get going, and > > then they drag through the whole day. > > No the reason is high cortisol from stress. Cortisol is always > highest on waking, the main supply of cortisol is produced then. > This is more proof of an energy-poor or toxic (same thing) diet > and the adrenals having to pick up the pieces as an emergency > issue. Cortisol is normally highest on waking, but it isn't for people with adrenal fatigue. They commonly test very low at this time, and they feel the lack. An interesting site charting 7 stages of adrenal fatigue, with circadian cortisol and DHEA relationships: http://www.chronicfatigue.org/ASI%20Normal.html (continue to click fwd at the bottom of each screen) > [irene] > >>It's not really hormones they lack - it's cell level health. > >>Build that back and the hormones will take care of themselves. > > I love this idea, and have loved it for 20 or more years. > > I haven't seen it work out as advertised in too many cases, > > referring to myself and others I talk to > It's a new area of research and there is more to know than we know so > far. I am seeing a lot of progress by combining Perricone's cell level > research findings with other anti-inflammatory approaches such as blood > type diet. There may be still other factors to consider - but it is all > relevant and on the right track. > Perricone's most recent book is a good one (weight loss diet title but > basically it is an anti-inflammatory diet whether you want to lose wt or > not.) I combine it with two other things to get progress: > D'Adamo's blood type research findings. > My personal ideal ratios of protein/fat/carbs. > This last item I can not stress enough. In my case I need my calories to > be 45% from protein, 45% from good fats and 10% from carbs - PLUS extra > carbs for specific exercise sessions. > Others will need a different ratio. If I change that ratio by more than 2%!!! I get negative effects! > > So an anti-inflammatory diet is a lot more than just eating plenty > antioxidants. I'm familiar with this territory, but will comb over it again for missing pieces or research clues, and do some muscle testing on proportions of protein/fat/carbs just to see what I come up with. > > In those cases where cortisone has not been used, and nutrition > > has been sufficient, there can still be adverse reaction > > to the higher potencies. (This was what I was referring to.) > > Yes indeed but a decently trained homeopath never starts a chronic case > on the high potency needed to cure. It is always appropriate to start on > a low potency that suits the assessed life force (which takes everything > into account including nutrition levels), then build up the life force > and progress up the potency scale at the rate the patient responds. I > hardly ever see an aggravation in my clients' animals, I work hard to > avoid it as it further depletes an already weak life force and I do not > need anyone going backwards before perhaps making progress! I totally agree, and feel aggravation by potency is uncessary. By the same token, I don't see many homeopaths working with interim potencies between the traditional or easily available 30C - 200C - 1M increments. So if a 200C or 1M is untenable, I don't see them having a 60C, 100C, or 400C made up specially. > > I agree that adrenal depletion does result from allergies (and > > other stresses), but I believe the converse is also true, > > that allergies result at least in part from adrenal depletion. > > No the allergy is there due to " atopic " state. Adrenal depletion > will *worsen* the response to allergy and it will be more > trigger happy the worse the depletion gets, but depletion > is not a cause of allergies. > The patient will experience many more of their allergies > in a depleted > state than in a good adrenal state. It's only because > in a good state the adrenals quash the reaction and > it is not perceived. OK, this is the closest statement so far to my intuitions, and essential to kept in view. This puts key elements in right proportion. > So an allergic person who keeps the adrenals well supplied will > *experience* fewer bad reactions, and fewer total reaction - > because the > adrenals are working to stop them - but it does not change what > they are > allergic to, or the fact they are atopic (allergic type), and it > can not > CAUSE a new allergy. A new allergy can only occur if a protein > enters the bloodstream undigested. > > > There is a body of thought that holds that adrenal > > depletion is *a* (perhaps not the only) cause of allergies. > > No, it doesn't work that way. The Complement cascade is triggered by the > allergen which is only an allergen if it previously entered the blood > and initiated antibodies to be made to that protein. > Healthy adrenals overcome complement components to a lesser or > greater degree depending on the severity of antibody response to a > specific allergen - so that the allergic reaction is still happening - > but the adrenals are handling it. If adrenals are depleted, the > reactions are worse and even one that would be a small unnoticed one can > become a major one due to lack of countering reserves. > Remember that there HAVE to be antibodies to a protein FIRST before > any allergic response can happen - and adrenals can not cause that. OK, good. Instead of using the word " cause " in re adrenals and allergy, then " predispose " in an atopy state might be better. All this gets me to thinking that " normals " may actually be atopic but don't manifest it since their normal adrenal levels quash expression, and they don't tend to get tested for either allergies or diurnal cortisol levels and rhythm so we have no data on what they may have antibodies to, and degree of severity. (An allergist told me once that some allergic substances that are high intensity on paper don't always manifest to the person's experience. Conversely, there are some that are low intensity on paper, but may give the person more trouble and they are aware of it.) There's a lot that may be going on that we don't know about because of the body's checks and balances, allow the person to keep working and running from tigers despite the errant undigested protein slipping thru the gut wall. > >>Irene: I now have zero allergies, and can eat banana and > >> pickles in a field of ragweed if I wish. > > > > This is a great personal testimony. I'd like to hear more of > > how that came about if you were ever willing to tell it. > > It just took the right homeopathy. I wasn't looking at > treating the > allergies at the time - I had worse issues to deal with > - but a good > homeopathic approach individually matched to a person, will heal > whatever is wrong with the individual and pretty soon my > allergies just evaporated. I love it. :-) Unfortunately there are so many other cases where the right remedy was never found. > Works the same with my clients. It's standard chronic homeopathy > approach - the principles are the same for any case of chronic illness. > > Namaste, > Irene Thanks Irene, Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 cbwillis9 wrote: > Excellent dialogue Irene. A few clarifications, comments, > and more questions... > Great stuff. And there is no doubt that allergies will wear > down the adrenals. We agree on that. Yes. It's important IMO to realize that the adrenals are part of a back-up system rather than a primary system. The primary system is one which is designed to prevent allergies from happening: * First by having a system that prevents foreign protein entry due to a healthy gut wall and healthy lung tissue. * Second if that fails, there are local ways to handle the foreign entry - which is why as many as 80% of the immune system cells function in the gut area to overcome compromise there. * Third if that fails, the thymus has Th-1 cytokines (thymus type 1 helper lymphocyte precursors to form macrophage etc) to ensure engulfing and destroying of the foreign item * Fourth if that fails then Th-1 cytokines " inform " (through a feedback loop) the TH-2 system which makes antibodies to handle the problem.IT's ONLY at stage four here that an allergy can potentially occur. Without antibodies to the specific allergen, there is no allergic reaction. The adrenals are not involved in *producing* the allergy or in initiating the allergic reaction. But allergic reactions are not simple - they involve a whole " Complement cascade " of chemical messengers which create various different kinds of responses in different kinds of cells - and the multitude of different responses possible in infinite ratios is why no people have the same identical allergic response. Some get asthma, some hay fever, some Arthus reactions, some eczema, some anaphylaxis etc etc - and no two responses - for example no two eczema's - are alike or in the same place in two different people. AFTER this over-response causes havoc in the body - THEN only the adrenals get involved to try to overcome the damage. So if the adrenals can't keep up with the mopping up job, there will be more symptoms, more damage visible, than if the adrenals CAN cope. But at no point can depleted adrenals make a new allergy. The mechanism for an allergy is fixed and has to do with antibody production in a TH-2 skewed system. The only thing adrenals can do to make it worse, is to get out the cortisol guns and skew the immune system even more to TH-2, thus making it easier for new allergies to develop - but it can't initiate a new allergy. > I am still exploring the other side of that coin, whether > weak adrenals are part of the predisposition to allergies, > or set up for allergies. Predisposition yes in terms of being able to further skew to TH-2, IF cortisol is involved - but not by directly introducing a new allergy. > Interesting. I gotta study more on cortisol and thymus. Modern medicine treats the thymus as irrelevant. It's anything but! What modern medicine is not seeing - is the connection between drugs and vaccines for acute disease and the damage these do to the thymus which is our chronic disease defence. This is why we see the HUGE increase in chronic diseases that used to be rare - but which became common as soon as vaccines and antibiotics were introduced as " standard " . These " fight " acute disease at the expense of the thymus defence against chronic disease - it's hard to find anyone left with a balanced immune system - most folk are TH-2 skewed - predisposed to a LONG list of TH-2 diseases. Allopathy is not designed to pick up this connection - and drug companies love to suppress any suggestion of it. (Where would their billions of profits go per drug/vaccine). [irene} >>T levels are a RESULT of different health situations not a cause. >>The cause starts with a skewed immune system - often that starts > in >>childhood when vaccines are given. > Let me make sure I understand you here. Are you saying that > low testosterone levels are a result of a skewed immune system > from vaccines? I was thinking thyroid where you meant testosterone - but that too is the result of skewed immune system IMO. As soon as you skew the immune system, it puts everything else out of kilter as well. > Another part of me thinks this is too much > stretch of imagination that might never be proved It's not imagination - the effect of vaccines and drugs on immune system skewing has been shown in research since 1965. The more specific effects on individual cytokines are harder to evaluate as we are still learning about all the cytokines involved and which do what where and how during each illness. Every disease has a cytokine profile at each stage of its activity - some too high, some too low etc. Getting them levelled out causes a return of health but we have very little progress in medicine on cytokines. Interferon is one used in USA but it is an awkward one not usually helpful in TH-2 skewed disease because it is a feedback cytokine - give the patient too little and it does one thing and too much and it does the opposite - so adding it artificially can have unpredictable results. The Russians are way ahead on this research, but USA will not import the products. Example: Ronkoleukin in Russia is a Th-1 cytokine made from human interleukin-II cytokine, to help rebalance some kinds of TH-2 skewed patients. USA is hampered by drug company profit motives, and there is no decent cytokine progress by comparison - nor will the FDA allow import of items like Ronkoleukin into USA. But there's no lack of research information to show that balancing ALL the different cytokines results in health. It's a whole new field of immunopharmacology - the study of cytokines and which do what where during illness. So far the easiest way to rebalance them is homeopathy - modern medicine is hardly out of the starting gate on that. > unless you > were to clear vaccinations homeopathically and then measured > testosterone levels which subsequently came up to normal. It depends when you clear the vaccines. In cats etc, I clear the vaccine damage immediately after (or even during) the vaccines and then there is no imbalance of testosterone or anything else. But if you leave the vaccines unattended in the body from childhood to adulthood, you can not then just clear them with a nosode - the vaccines so endured for many decades, do further body damage - in other words there is not just direct vaccine damage but consequential damage due to the long-term Th-2 skewed condition. For example in myself: My mother believed that " the more vaccines the merrier " and sent me to get them every week or two - she had access as a school teacher. So I got terrible numbers of unnecessary vaccines added to the usual onslaught as a young child (as we do to our pets these days with " annual " vaccines when the originals last a lifetime as in people). I now have MEN-1 syndrome - a carcinoid tumour condition in which hormones are released by slow-growing cancerous tumours that can be anywhere, and the hormones they produce are worse than the carcinogenic nature (at least until/unless they metastasize). MEN-1 takes years if not a lifetime to develop - so it is WAY too late to just undo the vaccine damage - there is vast consequential damage so much later on in the game. It would be nice if vaccine damage could be cleared - but we'd have to start with our children - right after vaccination - or before and during as I prefer. > This is great Irene, many thanks! Inquiring minds want to know, > and if they don't, they should. :-) You're welcome Carol. My life has led more or less along the paths covered so if I can share what I learned en route, that's way better than going through all that only to help myself :-) Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 cbwillis9 wrote: > [cbwillis:] >>>...though I know some >>>homeopaths don't like nutritional supplements and >>>see them as suppressive. > [irene:] >>Then they are not properly trained homeopaths! >>Hahnemann's Organon stresses the importance of the appropriate >>nutrition as essential to healing > Part of the controversy may turn on the fact that there were > no nutritional supplements in Hahnemann's day (early 1800's). Doesn't matter. It's the principle that counts. Hahnemann wants the missing environmental factors to be supplied. Whether the missing nutrients are supplied or over-supplied or how they are supplied is not very relevant, in that basic nutrients are excreted if they are present in excess, and can not do harm. even the supposedly toxic ones like Vit A have to be there is huge over-supply daily for months to induce any symptoms, and the symptoms go away if the overdose is stopped. So we are not looking at something toxic - only something essential to life that needs to be there. Hahnemann was no fool - he knew nutrients were essential. But it is a crazy idea to suggest a nutrient can suppress anything! There is no basis at all for that weird suggestion. > When H. said nutrition, he meant food. Did you ask him? :-))) It's not what he *says*. He says that whatever is missing in the environment needs to be provided. He does not say how it should be provided - because as with the rest of his work - it is the principle that matters. Hahnemann was a man of principles - he wrote the Organon in such a way as to explain the principles. If different homeopaths prefer different ways of implementing the principles, that's fine, as long as it TRULY supplies what is missing in the environment - but it's not an excuse to call a nutrient suppressive. > 2000 mg Vitamin C is about the amount in 20 oranges, > and I doubt anyone ate 20 oranges/day back then, or ever. Nor did anyone back then have the toxins in the environment or the immune-skewed toxic bodies - that we have to live through today and which require enormous amounts of antioxidant (of which Vit C is one option) to counter the toxicity results from immune-skewed systems. Hahnemann wrote 6 editions of the Organon - and would have done a 7th if he lived longer. He was no fool, and did not advise a static approach to anything. It's why he spoke in principles. The one of supplying what was missing and needed is excellent - it tells us what to achieve without restricting us in determining amount needed and matching it to the situation at hand. He DOES also say to do what suits the individual case. So if a client comes to me in such a condition as to need 2000mg of Vit C, then I would be following Hahnemann's principles to give it - even if Hahnemann could not foresee such a toxic condition in his day. He abhorred the damage done by allopathy - but even he might not have predicted just how damaging vaccines and drugs would become after he died. There is NO principle in the Organon which can be invoked in any way shape or form to suggest that a nutrient could be suppressive. But the principle to supply whatever is missing in the environment - is clear. > So I consider it speculative to try to interpret with certainty > what Hahnemann might say about today's > supplements, We don't need to. What we need to do is implement the *principle* of supplying what's missing in the environment - to the best of our ability with what is available, to suit a specific case. Hahnemann used the best he could with what he had, all his life, and would expect no less of us. > I know that mitochondrial activity involves energy, but I'm > not yet prepared to say that adrenal function doesn't have > anything to do with energy. Adrenal function is to a large extent a backup system for emergency. So it can have an effect if it is brought into play - but it need not be brought into play in the ordinary course of events. > Else, why would we normally have > a higher cortisol level first thing in the morning, but to have > the energy to get up and get into action. And a normally low > level at midnight when it's time for sleep and we don't want a > lot of energy keeping us up and minds racing. It's not to do with energy but safety. We need the cortisol to be safe from predators when hunting while awake - and obviously after a long sleep one is hungry and ready to hunt - so there needs to be plenty of run-from-tiger hormone available. It does not mean that energy comes from cortisol - in fact the opposite is the case. The higher the cortisol the more glucose is dumped as fat and being catabolic, the LESS energy there is. The more cortisol in the system, the less energy one has. when I was at my worst as regards cortisol, it was all I could do to get across a small room between bed and bathroom without collapsing exhausted. And as for a racing mind - cortisol absolutely switches off the thinking processes. It is designed for running away and it blocks every other activity. Sitting about reading is not allowed - it won't get you away from the tiger. At my worst with cortisol, my concentration was possible in one direction (like an email) less than 4 minutes before I had a threatened stroke. Now I can do one activity an hour or two (not more). So no - adrenals turn off energy - they turn on emergency *raw materials* - cortisol turns muscle to sugar for example - but does NOT supply the energy to burn it! that has to come via mitochondria in the muscles. So adrenals may supply some reserve tank gasoline - but no car to burn it. > Cortisol is normally highest on waking, but it isn't for > people with adrenal fatigue. They commonly test very low > at this time, and they feel the lack. I am not convinced this is the case. I looked at PubMed and see no evidence for it. You can't " feel the lack " of cortisol. Cortisol *presence*, not absence, can be felt - it depletes energy and takes your oxygen away, weakens the muscles so you walk " drunk " style and makes you nauseous. My own case is one of very high cortisol and I am almost non-functional the first four hours after waking. I am too weak to stand. > An interesting site charting 7 stages of adrenal fatigue, with > circadian cortisol and DHEA relationships: > http://www.chronicfatigue.org/ASI%20Normal.html I don't think I buy this, it has left out important variables and made assumptions I can not find validity for so the ratios are not helpful. It assumes DHEA levels are static or inverse to cortisol and research in 2005 shows the levels of these two adrenal hormones are not related to each other as this guy assumed several decades ago. As one gets older the DHEA level goes down and the cortisol one goes up - but there's more to it than that and that is independent of adrenal depletion. Also illnesses affect it - in Syndrome X or insulin resistance for example, DHEA production is *suppressed*. Likewise in other chronic conditions. So the ratio between them is useful only to tell whether there is a net catabolic effect (more cortisol) or a net anabolic effect (more DHEA) at the time of measurement. I do not see it telling me about adrenal fatigue (nor did the original researcher - that's only a lab test place claiming a relationship). If there WAS a relationship you'd see it in the metabolism, but you do not: For exampe if you supplement DHEA for example where it is low or where cortisol is high - it has ZERO effect on metabolism even though you now get normal levels of the hormones. Ref here: Eur J Endocrinol. 2005 Jan;152(1):77-85. " Very short term dehydroepiandrosterone treatment in female adrenal failure: [no] impact on carbohydrate, lipid and protein metabolism. " Christiansen JJ et al. (Longterm treatment has unacceptable side effects so would be unethical to try.) ....re homeopathic aggravations: > I totally agree, and feel aggravation by potency is uncessary. > > By the same token, I don't see many homeopaths working with > interim potencies between the traditional or easily available > 30C - 200C - 1M increments. For most cases I do not see a need for potencies between these though I have once in a whole hand-succussed up to 100C. (It's a LOT of work!) But in a few cases I do see the need where for example 30c is out of steam to do anything but 200c aggravates: Here I use instead what I call " Rainbow potency " , using 30C and 200C in the same aqueous solution, well succussed. This seems to be very effective and my theory is that the 30C prevents the aggravation from 200C, allowing the 200c to do some work. Alternatively in a very weak life force IF I feel I have the longer time it takes, I'll change to LM potencies - (Hahnemann used C and LM ones aqueous in the same case very often too - per his Paris case books shortly before his death.). > OK, good. Instead of using the word " cause " in re adrenals and > allergy, then " predispose " in an atopy state might be better. Yes. > All this gets me to thinking that " normals " may actually > be atopic but don't manifest it since their normal adrenal > levels quash expression, Not really because the TH-2 skewed state will sooner or later be challenged by a rogue protein getting access. To avoid it they'd have to live in a sterile bubble - doesn't happen - but they may express milder FORMS of allergy like hay fever rather than severe ones like anaphylaxis. The mere presence of an allergen to which antibody has been made DOES induce an over-response and the adrenals will of necessity get depleted due to the over-response. So there will be allergies experienced but not necessarily severe enough to seek help. > (An allergist told me once that some > allergic substances that are high intensity on paper don't > always manifest to the person's experience. Not sure I am following you here about " high intensity on paper " . Do you mean allergens that tend to trigger severe responses - like ragweed which actually grows tentacles in the lungs? Are you saying for example ragweed affects some folks and not others? If so it has to do with protein crossing into the bloodstream - it did or it didn't. If it didn't there will be no response however intense the allergen. > Conversely, there > are some that are low intensity on paper, Again I lack your definition of " low intensity on paper " . Allergens don't come on paper:-) Irene: >>homeopathic approach individually matched to a person, will heal >>whatever is wrong with the individual and pretty soon my >>allergies just evaporated. > I love it. :-) > Unfortunately there are so many other cases where the right > remedy was never found. There's a huge shortage of properly trained homeopaths. :-( Where I live is a city of 200,000 or more and there is not even one to be had here for people. Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 It's also too easy to counter the stress of modern living. Exercise regularly and practice meditation regularly (once or twice daily). And that's the real secret to longevity . . . learning how to turn distress into eustress. Best regards, Celeste Irene de Villiers wrote: > It's all too easy to have an excess. We are not designed to be office > people, we are designed to be physically active and hunting tigers. > cortisol is there to ensure that if the tiger hunts us, we can run like > hell to the cave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 [irene:] > Hahnemann wants the missing environmental factors to be supplied. Could you cite the reference in the Organon, as I haven't been able to find it despite looking. Many people use vit/min/etc supplements as they would allopathic meds, to treat symptoms, not just to nourish, though these two can be related, are often related, but are not always related. > > Else, why would we normally have > > a higher cortisol level first thing in the morning, but to have > > the energy to get up and get into action. And a normally low > > level at midnight when it's time for sleep and we don't want a > > lot of energy keeping us up and minds racing. > > It's not to do with energy but safety. We need the cortisol to be safe > from predators when hunting while awake - and obviously after a long > sleep one is hungry and ready to hunt - so there needs to be plenty of > run-from-tiger hormone available. I see energy and safety as necessarily connected, as it takes energy to run from the tiger, or to fight traffic and own inertia get to work every morning. > It does not mean that energy comes from cortisol - in fact the > opposite is the case. The higher the cortisol the more glucose is > dumped as fat and being catabolic, the LESS energy there is. That's certainly true of excess cortisol, but what about too-low levels of cortisol, where there is usually correspondingly low energy? Like most hormones, we need enough but not too much, with a small window of what is considered normal, and an even smaller window of optimization. > > Cortisol is normally highest on waking, but it isn't for > > people with adrenal fatigue. They commonly test very low > > at this time, and they feel the lack. > > I am not convinced this is the case. I looked at PubMed and see no > evidence for it. You can't " feel the lack " of cortisol. Cortisol > *presence*, not absence, can be felt - it depletes energy and > takes your oxygen away, weakens the muscles so you walk " drunk " > style and makes you nauseous. The 7 stages of adrenal fatigue url that I posted earlier is an intelligible reference. Most of the low cortisol work that is not outright 's is being done by naturopaths not MDs so you won't see that in PubMed. However I may look for some conventional references for you. If a person low in cortisol is given some cortisol, say at a physiologic dose level (what a normal person would have), he can perceive the difference, he now has something to compare to, so can perceive the lack and will normally associate this with lack of needed energy. > > An interesting site charting 7 stages of adrenal fatigue, with > > circadian cortisol and DHEA relationships: > > http://www.chronicfatigue.org/ASI%20Normal.html > > I don't think I buy this, it has left out important variables and made > assumptions I can not find validity for so the ratios are not helpful. > It assumes DHEA levels are static or inverse to cortisol and research in > 2005 shows the levels of these two adrenal hormones are not related to > each other as this guy assumed several decades ago. The author doesn't assume that DHEA levels are static or inverse to cortisol, but the 7 stages show other combinations, and show DHEA level variations. Anyone interested in the subject needs to have a look for himself to check the alleged DHEA and cortisol relationships at each stage. At this point, I consider the 7 levels a working hypothesis. I'll have to look up the 2005 research you reference. > As one gets older the DHEA level goes down and the cortisol one goes > up - but there's more to it than that and that is independent of adrenal > depletion. Also illnesses affect it - in Syndrome X or insulin > resistance for example, DHEA production is *suppressed*. Likewise in > other chronic conditions. > > So the ratio between them is useful only to tell whether there is a > net catabolic effect (more cortisol) or a net anabolic effect (more > DHEA) at the time of measurement. I do not see it telling me about > adrenal fatigue (nor did the original researcher - that's only a lab > test place claiming a relationship). We could stand more research on this subject. At the same time, it's difficult for all of us to get out of our habitual preoccupations and habitual ways of looking at things (often conditioned by our own cases and past study), to explore possible new truths. > If there WAS a relationship you'd see it in the metabolism, but you > do not: > For exampe if you supplement DHEA for example where it is low or where > cortisol is high - it has ZERO effect on metabolism even though you now > get normal levels of the hormones. > Ref here: > Eur J Endocrinol. 2005 Jan;152(1):77-85. > " Very short term dehydroepiandrosterone treatment in female adrenal > failure: [no] impact on carbohydrate, lipid and protein metabolism. " > Christiansen JJ et al. I'll look up the article for perspective, how the research was designed. Women can have such undesirable effects from small amounts of DHEA even short term such as chin hair, water retention and acne, that carbs, lipids, and protein metabolism short term are the least of their worries. > ...re homeopathic aggravations: > > I totally agree, and feel aggravation by potency is uncessary. > > > > By the same token, I don't see many homeopaths working with > > interim potencies between the traditional or easily available > > 30C - 200C - 1M increments. > > But in a few cases I do see the need where for example 30c is out > of steam to do anything but 200c aggravates: I have seen this in my own case also. > Here I use instead what I call " Rainbow potency " , using 30C and > 200C in > the same aqueous solution, well succussed. This seems to be very > effective and my theory is that the 30C prevents the aggravation > from 200C, allowing the 200c to do some work. Interesting. I'll let you know what happens if I try this. > Alternatively in a very weak life force IF I feel I have the longer time > it takes, I'll change to LM potencies - (Hahnemann used C and LM ones > aqueous in the same case very often too - per his Paris case books > shortly before his death.). I've heard some homeopaths say recently that despite the reputation of the LM potencies for being gentler and deeper, they find them stronger than the regular potency increments of 30C, 200C at times. I've also heard of differences in how often to dose LMs, some do daily dosing, others do as needed as shown by symptom return. > > OK, good. Instead of using the word " cause " in re adrenals and > > allergy, then " predispose " in an atopy state might be better. > > Yes. > > > All this gets me to thinking that " normals " may actually > > be atopic but don't manifest it since their normal adrenal > > levels quash expression, > > Not really because the TH-2 skewed state will sooner or later be > challenged by a rogue protein getting access. To avoid it they'd have to > live in a sterile bubble - doesn't happen - but they may express milder > FORMS of allergy like hay fever rather than severe ones like anaphylaxis. > The mere presence of an allergen to which antibody has been made DOES > induce an over-response and the adrenals will of necessity get depleted > due to the over-response. So there will be allergies experienced but not > necessarily severe enough to seek help. The allergies may not even be experienced in many cases. > > (An allergist told me once that some > > allergic substances that are high intensity on paper don't > > always manifest to the person's experience. > > Not sure I am following you here about " high intensity on paper " . A common test done by allergists returns results in terms of 0-4, with 4 being the highest allergic response. Now 4 does not necessarily mean anaphylactic shock, or even a strongly perceptible response. Sometimes a substance will score high on the test, a 4 on paper so to speak, but yet the person has no awareness of a problem with the substance. I have several of those, most nuts for example, so try to eliminate them or rotate widely. Conversely, a substance that tests lower may cause the person considerable perceptible problem. > > Conversely, there > > are some that are low intensity on paper, > > Again I lack your definition of " low intensity on paper " . >Allergens don't come on paper:-) Aw come on, there must be someone allergic to sawdust and printer ink. :-) Carol willis_protocols Article archive in Files, blog, Links, not a discussion group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 cbwillis9 wrote: > [irene:] > >>Hahnemann wants the missing environmental factors to be supplied. > > > Could you cite the reference in the Organon, as I haven't been > able to find it despite looking. Hi, HEre are a few spots it is mentioned, there may be others (time is few today!) 252: says that if the remedy is right but the disease still persists, it is a " sure sign that there is some circumstances in the mode of life of the patient or in the situation in which he is placed, that must be removed in order that a permanent cure may ensue. " 260: " Hence the careful investigation into such obstacles to cure is so much the more necessary in the case of patients affected by chronic diseases, as their diseases are usually aggravated by such noxious influences and other disease-causing errors in the diet and regimen, which often pass unnoticed. " It goes on.... 261: " The most appropriate regimen during the employment of medicine in chronic diseases consists in the removal of such obstacles to recovery, and in supplying where necessary the reverse: innocent moral and intellectual recreation, active exercise in the open air in almost all kinds of weather (daily walks, slight manual labor), suitable, nutritious, unmedicinal food and drink, etc. " Hope that's a start...... Have a great weekend! Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 cbwillis9 wrote: > [irene:] > >>Hahnemann wants the missing environmental factors to be supplied. > > > Could you cite the reference in the Organon, as I haven't been > able to find it despite looking. PS Also see 266 relating to looking for " the most nutritious " source of nutrients: 266: " Substances belonging to the animal and vegetable kingdoms possess their medicinal qualities most perfectly in their raw state. " " All crude animal and vegetable substances have a greater or less amount of medicinal power, and are capable of altering man’s health, each in its own peculiar way. Those plants and animals used by the most enlightened nations as food have this advantage over all others, that they contain a larger amount of nutritious constituents....... " Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Not sure if it will help him but we use Caladryl for itchy skin, and Caladryl Clear (which does not make such a mess nut less effective)---another CVID mom turned us on to the product to help control site reactions with sub-q and it has been very effective for all their itches. Are you using regular Tide or Tide Free? If you are not using the Tide Free maybe that would be a good switch. Best of luck, those itches are so bothersome, Kris Kim <knmb2@...> wrote: Hi everyone...I have a question. My son is 10 with CVID. He has developed a bad rash patch on his leg and on both elbows. Ped said it was eczema, use cortisone cream sparingly to get the itch under control, then vasaline or aquaphor. Well, I can't get the itch under control. He is jumping out of his skin. He is scratching it into. I gave him benadryl last night, but during the day he has school and is on Ritalin for ADHD, so I don't want to give it to him then. I also had him take an Aveno bath to try to soothe the itch...he hated it. I don't want him get infected. Any suggestions? At first I thought it was just the cold air and forced hot air heat we have because we are all dry and itchy, but then I realized I started using Tide detergent about 2 months ago. I know a change in detergent can cause it, but I was never a strict user of any one brand...I usually bought what was on sale, so I would switch between 3 or 4 of them. But I have been using Tide exclusivley for the last 2 months. Anyone have any experience with this? If I stop using the Tide, I don't even know what to switch back to. Does anyone know if Tide is particularly irritating? Also, how long would it take to have a reaction? He has had this patch for several weeks, progressively getting worse. (Probably started within a couple of weeks of switching the detergent...) Also, could this have anything to do with his CVID or is it just a coinsidence? I have eczema and so has my daughter over the years, so I assume it is " in the family " . Any itch an/or detergent suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a bunch! Kim, Mom to 10 - CVID Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.