On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:02:23 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Moosh:] writes

Oz
There is even a mechanism proposed. There are two main mutually
inhibiting immune response pathways (whose names I always forget). One
basically designed to hit bacteria, the other viruses and toxins. In the
event of unnaturally low exposure to bacteria (ie modern sanitary
living) the virus-toxin one dominates. It becomes exquisitely sensitive
and liable to over-reaction. Hence (it is proposed) both allergies and
auto-immune diseases (both being very significantly higher in the first
world).

But isn't the reaction to ANY foreign protein the thing that is
exacerbated when the immune system is not given enough to do?

No, not if you are continually exposed to significant bacterial
challenge as fighting them off inhibits the viral pathway.

I didn't realise they were significantly different. Thanks. How do you
explain the marked increase in autoimmune diseases lately?
As well as food allergies and asthma like allergies?

Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.

Yes, but given little to do the viral one dominates.

I wonder why.

After all with two mutually inhibitory systems, like a swing one will
dominate (thus further inhibiting the other).

I didn't realise they were so. Thanks again

Probably in nature bacteria are a more common threat than viruses.

It probably depends a lot on the environment/lifestyle.

Intriguingly, this also posits a mechanism for the use of antibiotics in
young farm animals (babies in effect) attacked by a serious virus. It is
usual for them to recover from the virus, only to succumb to a bacterial
disease (often scours). The switching over to viral attack, leaves their
immature immune system open to attack by bacteria. This is so common as
to be expected.

So what was the antibiotic given for?

Indeed. Prophylactically.

Not a good practice routinely, I would have thought. But at least one
with relevant sensitivities would be better, if the bacterial
infection is routinely expected.