genes: yep

[Guest guest]

> I understand the impulse, Penny, but I think it can do just as much

> damage to your cause to come off all buy-eyed (pun intended) for one

> facet of chronic illness, and one solution to it. I don't see a

> conflict between flogging the virulence and tenacity of pathogens and

> the need for aggressive treatment, while also acknowledging that

> tenacity could be caused or exacerbated by disregulated immune systems,

> deranged protein synthesis, environmental toxins, impaired detox

> pathways and yes, even genetic vulnerability in some form.

That's accurate. Classical infectious disease is more genetic than I

ever reckoned, as I found out by reading " Suceptibility to infectious

diseases " or whatever it's called.

One of the authors even suggested that the classical infectious

diseases were significantly more inheritable than the " autoimmune "

diseases. It's certainly possible to make such a case by looking at

(genetically-)identical twins.

One of the papers found that the difference between disease and benign

infection with schistosomes was largely explained (~50% or something)

by a SINGLE GENETIC LOCUS (possibly comprising a few related genes,

but inherited as a unit)! I was surprised it could be so simple and bold.