Why we get inflamed - was: Re: Researcher Receives Marie Curie Prize for Work on Hormesis

[Guest guest]

Summary:

1) Why we get inflamed - Excellent primer to a part of your immune system,

3 paragraphs - I kept it short. NEEDED INFO - please read it.

Second half

2) Normesis two edge sword

a) Ionization radiation is likely bad, at any dose level, low or high

How the immune system reacts to ionizing radiation

Why ionizing radiation has the immune system attacking the body

Policy changes for FDA and EPA can be bad for 'everyone'

c) Except for those " in the know " - who live on the right side of

the tracks.

d) How to defend yourself against policy changes with long term

implications that are bad

I consider this REQUIRED READING to protect yourself - now.

e) Opinionated me makes " act locally " call for action.

--

At 06:11 AM 5/9/2009, you wrote:

> " Hormesis is a term used by toxicologists to refer to a biphasic dose

>response to an environmental agent characterized by a low dose stimulation or

>beneficial effect and a high dose inhibitory or toxic effect.

Like psychiatry, this concept is a two edge sword. Why?

It's an excellent concept with plenty of scientific validation.

It also validates homeopathy basic principles, and is likely

why it has not been followed through with by the mainstream.

How the Immune System " Memory " works

It makes sense that Darwin's Survival of Fitness would create

such a mechanism in humans, as the immune system

functions in just this way, when the immune system is

exposed to a small or large external chemical, it's reaction

is near identical, varying in just one aspect, as it learns how

to make a specialized cell to defend against the chemical,

the thyroid memorizes how to make the successful defense

cell, storing that knowledge for more than a decade (typical

time period the body remains " immune " to childhood ailments

like chicken pox, and why many booster shots have a period

of every 10 years). The one varying aspect is how many of

the successful specialized defense cell the thyroid makes,

as determined by cell mediation communications between

the remote parts of the body to the thyroid.

The more foreign molecules in the body communicates to the

thyroid to create and release more of this one type defense cell.

This process is continual, resulting in the decrease of

the invading molecules, in turn resulting in a decrease of

the thyroid making and releasing the specialized cell.

This process is called cell mediated communication.

In involves molecules from remote parts of the body controlling a gland.

The thyroid then keeps many copies of this specialized

cell inside itself, at first the count is very high, in the millions

for days, weeks, so if a ***second exposure*** occurs, the response

is even ***faster*** than the first exposure, a survival trait, for sure.

And why many of us ***tolerate a first exposure***, or a LOW LEVEL,

to a new allergen with little reaction, as the thyroid is building up

defenses, but by the time the manufactured specialize cell count goes

into the tens of millions, the first exposure is " over " , meaning the

internal count of the invading molecule is going down, and the

thyroid release of the defense cell is reduced.

Over the next few days the thyroid continues to make more of

this one type of successful defense cell, storing them. A ***second

exposure*** to the same invading chemical results in ***near instant***

release of the stored defense cell, a much faster response that

is noticed within hours, if not minutes. Fast inflammation can be

the result. This inflammation can be general, all over the body,

or " localized " , a medical technical term, for these defense molecules

entering certain types of the body's cells, organs, glands, etc,

and collecting there, resulting in swelling.

[This information is available from medical text books on the

subject of Immunology, particularly " cell mediated " immunology,

and other sources, written for the lay person, from SciAm.com,

in particularly their Special Editions, especially one published

about 10 years ago, entitled " Immune " . There are medical school

web sites that cover this area of " theory " as most practicing

doctors no longer recall this " theory " , and do not have any

working knowledge, just what the drug rep sales person tells

them, for the new pills they can prescribe for you to pop. I've

yet to find these web sites go into the depth I have read from

the first two sources.]

IMPORTANT:

Key info to remember from above, when reading the below, is

why an initial low dose level might be well tolerated, but a second

low dose level might not be, that is the immune system is

now " prepared " with " stored " defense cells.

Medical studies that do not test for this second exposure

reaction will be entirely misleading. Also, there is delayed

symptoms, that without follow up study, at weekly intervals,

very expensive for a researcher to do, and mostly is no longer

done by drug firms today, may result in policy changes in the

FDA and EPA that are dangerous to the people. More on this

below.

--

Second Half

Now that you understand the basic survival mechanism of the

immune system, let's go back to the two edge sword, and

the other, " bad " edge of it.

The concept is two fold. First, let's look at survival tactics

the body likely found useful to invent and were successful

for millions of years, since the first animal roamed the Earth.

A deadly toxin gets into an animal, at sufficient levels to

impact it's daily ability to acquire food. The animal, to remain

viable as a species for hundreds of years, must adapt to this

toxin by many means. Primarily move away from the external

source, reducing the influx of the toxin into the body. But the

danger is still in the body, the count of toxic molecules in the

blood, etc, is high. The body must eliminate it. It learns how.

The next exposure the body knows how to cope, and does so,

allowing more time to leave the area of the external source.

Certainly a successful survival trait.

Thereafter, low levels of exposures the body easily copes,

showing no signs of impacting food acquisition. The animal

can venture closer to the external source without harm.

Thus, low level exposures are now programmed into the body

to not have a large response on the second exposure... unless

the exposure level goes " high " .

Low level doses of the toxin are now " neutral " .

The next step is those low level doses becoming " beneficial. "

There are many ways this might occur. One is the continual

booster shot effect. The animal over time can get closer and

closer the external toxin source. Like taking low level doses

of arsenic, one can become relatively " immune " to this poison

at doses that would easily kill others.

A beneficial mechanism is so established.

Now, this seems like an edge of the sword that is " good. "

And for many types of external toxins it is. But certainly

there is a class that it is not true for.

I've read that radiation is possibility the least likely candidate

for low doses being beneficial. But wait, there are two types

of radiation, and this article is about " ionizing " radiation.

What is this type? It means your body is " stabbed " at

the molecule level, by an invading, fast moving 'particle',

not a molecule, that as it bounces off your body's molecules,

it's energy, or kinetic speed, velocity, smashes into a normal

body molecule and cleaves it in two. This fast moving particle

is so fast, it smashes hundreds of molecules before it starts

to slow down.

What type of defense would an animal create over thousands of

years for such ionizing radiation? Well, it's not going to be directed

towards the invading 'particle' as that particle does not live long,

not even a full second, in the body. So, the immune system will

not develop a specialized cell for it. Instead, it's like your body

has been stabbed by a narrow spike. The damage is cleaved

molecules of your own body's molecules. The immune system

will react to the count of these molecules. But there is huge

variety of them. Why? The invading particle cleaved at random

locations on the molecule, leaving two molecules of strangeness

in the body, but they are " like " the body.

So, some will not be defended against, but scavenged by the

normal process of dead body cells being cleaned up. While

others the immune system will defend against. But wait,

these invading molecules are very similar to your own body's

molecules. In some cases, the immune system will create

a specialized defense cell that not only attacks the cleaved

half molecule, but also healthy molecules in your body.

The immune system now attacks your own body.

Inflammation is the result.

This is bad.

Now, the second half of the bad edge of the sword.

Industry has a reputation for moving in the opposite direction of

the good of the people (psychiatry taken too far).

If this hormesis theory is adopted by the FDA and EPA, and

if they then allow low levels of many, " all, " types of toxins and

poisons, and ionizing radiation into our environment, we could

die by the millions, a slow death, not long life, a low level of

quality of life, becoming mere 'cattle' for mass production of

consumer goods, without thought, slaves.

So, the bad edge of the sword is two fold, one at the individual

level, and again at the policy level, that would allow mass slow

death.

Personally, I am on the deciding line, not knowing which way

to go on this issue. Why? There has been for the last 100 plus

years a strong movement, growing very strong under the last

30 years of leadership, towards policies that shorten life,

not lengthen it. For those not " in the know " , the general

mass of people, buyer beware, they suffer shorter lives

and the result is for those " in the know " to have more

material goods with longer lives.

Moving from one group to the other is a survival move

for the individual. There are good benefits. Now, to

promote the change of this policy so that everyone

gets those benefits, means more people on this planet,

and as the population grows with more births, and longer

lives, I can imagine the light at the end of the tunnel for

the human race being turned off. Humanity folds. No

more humans as we become extinct.

Not a desirable end game goal. So, I sit on the line.

Not a good place to sit, as it allows those on either

side one less vote, which helps one side, and hurts the other.

So, these leaders " in the know " so believe. Thus, the leaders

support policy changes that are subtle, that appear at face

value to be " good " , but have a dark edge, that once written

into law, and the law is " enforced " at the product delivery

level (health care, medicines, pollution levels and type),

there will be a period, decades, where people's lives are

slowly eroded, on the " wrong side of the tracks " , in the

inner city, downwind of the industrial belt, where the workers

become less intelligent, and survive less long.

Before the workers wise up, and ask the law to change, then demand,

and a few decades later get the changes they ask for. Sound good?

Not really. Why? During these decades, the leaders have

found other policy changes... It's going to be constant uphill

battle, until these " leaders " have gotten what they want...

reduced population from 6 billion down to 200 million or even

20 million is a number I have read.

Sounds like these leaders would then have " less " quality of life?

Well, ask a King back a few hundreds years, or even today, if

their quality of life is going downhill or uphill. If their life span

is shorter or longer than their parents.

Put yourself in their shoes, and choose the right policy change for them.

For the human race.

Now, put yourself in your own shoes, and ask yourself, in your life

time what changes can you force to be implemented. Think globally

and act locally. Protect yourself first, then your loved ones, family

and friends. Then, think about your neighbors, then the community,

and the city you live in. You will ration your efforts in each area,

with those closest to you getting the highest ration of your effort,

and those furthest from you getting less and less.

The leaders depend upon this behavior, as it reduces your influence

upon their decisions, and allows them to make subtle policy changes.

Now, this hormesis is seen as a two edge sword. With this advanced

knowledge you can now " act " for these " subtle " policy changes to include

recognition of the nature that not all modern chemicals fall into the

one category, of low doses are " beneficial. "

Any new written laws must include the Precautionary Principle FIRST

and foremost. This principle would have ALL classes of hormesis molecules

first restricted, at both low and high doses, pending scientific proof

that low doses are beneficial. [Go live in Europe if you want this now.]

You've been warned. Buyer beware.

My 2 cents.

P.S. It's not like this information is " new " . Read most any political

magazine or journal in the last 5 years. You will find several articles

dealing with the issue of a elite leadership deciding for policy changes

that are not beneficial for the masses, the ensure the power base

of these elitists. It's not new. It's just these highly educated leaders

keep adopting new measures, new directions, before the masses

learn about them, to defend against them.

My goal is to act locally to provide education to the masses, free

college for everyone, mandatory college for everyone, mandatory

advanced graduate degrees for everyone, leaving the yearly education

system at age 25, so everyone can participate in the leadership

decision making process. I want the drinking age changed to 27,

so by the time a person 'weakens with drink' they are losing

things they " have " , not just " want. " (Good income, good home,

good friends, etc - compared to a fresh grad with no job, no income, etc)

These two items, lack of education, and alcohol, are primary tools of

the elite.

I could list a dozen others, and hundreds of minor tools.

Thus, I write long posts, packed with info, some you need, some

you did not know you wanted, and encourage you to spread the info,

acting locally.

If you do not speak out, no one will listen.

If do not vote, then I will not listen (to your complaints about the " system " ).

If you do not vote, nor speak up, then you will suffer worse [imho].

Write your Congress persons (at state and federal levels).

Off my soap box.

You have my best wishes for a speedy and full recovery.

..

..