On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:35:11 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Moosh:] writes

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?

That was explained (although more info is required for proof) by the un-
naturally hygienic living conditions of the first world (and a lesser
extent the second).

Yep, I understand this, but I was wondering how your contention about
the different bacteria/virus pathways fitted into this.
I'd just assumed that lack of any immune challenges led to an immune
system with "idle hands".

Modern hygiene clears up viri as much as bacteria.

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

I wonder why.

probably because the systems evolved in a situation where bacteria
dominate.

So why would the viral one dominate? Sorry for being dense, I was
force-fed pasteurised milk as a child

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

It probably depends a lot on the environment/lifestyle.

I'm not sure 'lifestyle' is appropriate a word for neanderthals.

I've heard it said that neanderthals would make fine accountants
And the reason they died out was they were Goddam fugly

Certainly in evolutionary terms it's very very recent that man lived in
large (say 2000+) closely packed groups with good communication between
groups.

Within the groups, surely. Ten to 30 k anni?

I would thus imagine that new viral attacks were very rare (and
probably pretty devastating).

Well they still are in modern times. Flu and small pox to name just
two.

Typically the local endemic viruses would
have all been encountered in childhood. Bacterial challenge, though,
would continue throughout life.

Well I still get regular (but seldom) colds and flu, how about you?

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.

Indeed.

But at least one
with relevant sensitivities would be better, if the bacterial
infection is routinely expected.

This is typically the case in young animals with clinical viral disease.

Prophylactic antibiotics for likely bacterial secondary infections.
This is what some doctors do for susceptible patients with viral
URTIs. They used to do it routinely when I was younger. They have seen
the light. I have actually told an older quack that I didn't want his
script for antibiotics if all I had was a virus. All I wanted from him
was confirmation that I didn't have anything eminently treatable.
Oh, and a certificate for work