Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
BST MILK and Ordinary MILK Indistinquishable? Not Really.
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Cleaning vinyl siding - not ordinary "stain" | Lawns | |||
Really, really O/T - you're back | Ponds | |||
Really really sandy soil | United Kingdom | |||
Ground Ivy REALLY, REALLY bad this year... | Gardening | |||
Glue really really really works? | Ponds |