January 7, 2013 § Leave a comment
A small chronicle of the early days Of the Swine flu fraud
(First Published in Nexus Magazine, August-September 2009 Issue)
We are desperately in need of a new scientific discipline which we
should name “prognosticology”, the science that studies the way
in which predictions are made in science. For the last three
decades, there have been ample prognoses. Most of these have
been proven wrong or have constituted false alarms. Especially in the realm
of medicine, there seems to be a consistent mechanism that not only
inaccurately predicts but also invents pandemics and projects their
realisation into the near future.
The swine flu “epidemic” is the latest product of this pandemic
mechanism. And this medical mechanism that feeds on billions of dollars in
grants is just a part of an even greater mechanism. It is a device of the
“feartron”, this unfailing political machine that creates and manipulates fear.
In the public health domain, the mechanism pretty much started with the
AIDS epidemic. Monstrously wrong prognoses and estimates were made,
the world was seized with terror, and sexual behaviour was regulated by the
state. The AIDS theoreticians made panic-inducing estimates and overhyped
prognoses about the AIDS threat while receiving overwhelming support from
celebrities. It is typical that Oprah Winfrey herself stated on her show in
1988 that “one out of five heterosexuals could be dead of AIDS by 1990”. As
a matter of fact, these predictions failed to such an extent that in 2008 the
World Health Organization (WHO), under the overwhelming evidence of the
actual numbers and of previous statistical abuse, was forced to declare the
heterosexual AIDS pandemic over.
The mechanism continued to create post-pandemic imaginary universes
incriminating other viruses. Hantaviruses, the West Nile virus, the SARS
coronavirus and, more recently, bird flu strains of viruses have all been
morphed by the pandemic industry into malevolent entities that could bring
modern civilisation to an end, or at least to its knees. Trillions of dollars has
been spent on drug purchases and on drug and vaccine development.
In the case of West Nile Virus, the spraying of New York with pesticides to
get rid of the virus carriers, mosquitoes, caused a substantial ecological
disaster.3 The SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) ghost pandemic
disappeared within a year, in mid-2003, never to reappear. And hardly
anyone remembers hantaviruses any more. From 2003 to 2009, fewer than
500 people were affected with bird flu, with fewer than 300 deaths,4 while the
annual common flu death toll ranges from 250,000 to 500,000 worldwide.5
It is obvious that common sense, as well as humanity, is being targeted
and victimised by “novel epidemics”.
The new virus on the block
The pandemics industry was desperately seeking for a new product, a fresh
approach. It found this in Mexico with swine flu. And Mexico is neither the
first nor the last station in the pandemics prognostics train of thought.
So far, the reasoning behind the pandemic prognostics has been ridiculously poor. Scientists have been desperately trying to connect the causal agent of the “Spanish flu” pandemic, which back in 1918–20 killed 50 to 100 million people, with present strains of viruses. Two researchers, Taubenberger and Tumpey, attempted to connect the 1918–20 virus with avian flu virus strains based solely on a permafrost sample. A
loose scientific connection created a very real tsunami of fear that swept through the world and crippled reason. The connection between the Spanish flu universal tragedy and novel epidemics is not novel at all.
In 1976, 13 cases of swine flu appeared among Fort Dix recruits. One case was deadly.
The then US President, Gerald Ford, perceived these swine flu cases to be an imminent
national health threat that had to be handled immediately at all costs. A mass vaccination program was initiated, ambitious enough to target all the US populace, but it was so incompetent that it had to be halted 11 months after it began. About one third of the US population received the emergency vaccine. This vaccine that was supposed to protect the people from a possible health risk from swine flu was possibly
associated with a very tangible and undesirable health threat. A few weeks after the vaccination program commenced, the incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome rose sharply among those who were vaccinated. Guillain-Barré is an acute inflammatory demyelinating
polyneuropathy, an autoimmune disease that involves a misfiring of the immune system in response to foreign antigens. The relationship between vaccines and the quality of immune response that is mounted is still in question.
The reasoning behind such imprudent and rushed reactions over the 1976 swine flu cases was once again the possible connection between the presumed 1918–20 killer virus and the swine flu strains of viruses. And once again the prognosis was unsubstantiated and
caused much more harm than good. The same connection is being attempted with the current swine flu situation.
The 1918–20 pandemic was without doubt a disaster.
The word “disaster” literally means “bad star” in Greek.
And it is no coincidence, because everything that may resemble the 1918–20 “bad star” is instantly equated with pandemics. Pandemic predictions are like astrological predictions. Furthermore, they have systematically failed.
So, one should ask: why is it that failed prognostics and unsuccessful policies are consistently maintained and reproduced as if they proved themselves in any
Tamiflu as a panacaea
Next, bird flu begets Tamiflu® (oseltamivir phosphate), the commercially highly successful drug.
And now, swine flu is being treated with Tamiflu, which earns billions of dollars in profits for Roche, the pharmaceutical giant that manufactures and markets
the drug. But Roche is not the only company that benefits from Tamiflu’s sales going up. The drug’s rights are owned by Gilead. Former US Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld served as Gilead’s chairman, and he remained a substantial Gilead stakeholder
even after he joined the Bush administration in 2001.
It is surely not a crime to make some extra million bucks from a drug that saves the Earth from monster viruses. The only problem is that while Tamiflu
may be a huge commercial success, this does not necessarily make it a successful
treatment against flu viruses.
Back in 2005, US Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt was commenting on Tamiflu’s effectiveness against bird flu: “Tamiflu is effective, or at least partially effective. We don’t know how effective it is against the virus.”
Some reports from health experts actually treating bird flu patients with Tamiflu were rather discouraging.
Despite the considerations about Tamiflu’s effectiveness in dealing with bird flu, now we are using Tamiflu to deal with swine flu as if the drug were some kind of anti-flu panacaea.
It gets worse. Dr Anne Moscona, a professor of paediatrics, microbiology and immunology, has been warning us since 2005 about viral strains mutating and
evading the drugs that target them—a phenomenon known as drug resistance:
“This scenario, however, is potentially dangerous. Misuse of the drug [Tamiflu] could rob us of the advantages that neuraminidase inhibitors provide, by favoring the emergence of oseltamivir-resistant influenza virus…
“It is therefore worrisome that personal stockpiling of oseltamivir is likely to lead to the use of insufficient doses or inadequate courses of therapy. Shortages during a pandemic would inspire sharing of personal supplies, resulting in inadequate treatment. Such undertreatment is of particular concern in children—the main source for the dissemination of influenza within the community, since they usually have higher viral loads than adults and excrete infectious virus for longer periods. The habit of stopping treatment prematurely when symptoms resolve…could also lead to suboptimal treatment of influenza and promote the development of drug resistance.
“Could drug-resistant viruses then spread?…
“There have now been several reports that oseltamivirresistant influenza A (H5N1) viruses with the H274Y mutation have been isolated from humans with avian
influenza infection who were treated with oseltamivir.
The cases described by de Jong et al. raise the worrisome prospect that even with therapeutic doses, oseltamivir resistance may develop during the course of
illness and may affect clinical outcomes…
“Like any successful infectious agent, influenza virus will most likely evolve to evade
any single drug. By targeting several points in the viral life cycle simultaneously with different drugs, we are more likely to discourage the emergence of viruses that can resist all drugs at once. But we currently rely solely on the neuraminidase inhibitors—and solely on oseltamivir [Tamiflu] in many situations…”
Dr Moscona, unlike the pandemic prognostics, has been proved absolutely right.
But by now it may be too late. As reported in the New York Times (8 January 2009), 99 per cent of this season’s dominant flu strains are by now resistant to Tamiflu.
The astonishment of health expert Dr Kent Sepkowitz (Director of Infection Control at Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Center in New York) at the extent of the phenomenon was such that he exclaimed:
“It’s quite shocking. We’ve never lost an antimicrobial this
fast. It blew me away.”
This is not the end of the story, but the beginning of a new, horrifying, public health chapter.
The conditions of modern living make us highly susceptible to the development and spread of a pandemic. Dense urban populations and regular highspeed circulations between them are favourable pandemic factors. However, these conditions are also met in the meat industry. An extensive global trade and the crowding of livestock so densely that we are never going to see its counterpart in even the most crowded of human cities are typical in this industry.
And it gets worse.
Sixty to eighty per cent of the overall US antibiotics production is absorbed by the
meat industry for non-therapeutic use, namely for growth purposes. That is, antibiotics are overused to make the animals grow bigger much faster, so the
industry can get more meat from one animal. Perhaps that would be okay if bugs didn’t have this nasty habit of developing drug resistance quickly and rendering the
available antibiotics useless and us helpless.
It gets even worse.
It has been shown that the meat industry–trained superbugs spread through air, water
and soil. Before the WHO and the media proclaimed swine flu as a pandemic candidate, a peculiar outburst of respiratory disease troubled the Mexican village of La
Gloria in mid-February 2009. Out of the 3,000 or so villagers, more than half of them were affected. Two infants died. Eyes turned in suspicion to a Smithfield Foods Inc. installation situated in Perote, 12 miles [~19 kilometres] from the village. Smithfield is the leading pork producer in the world, and its environmental record is far from flawless. According to the Guardian, the Supreme Court in October 2000 upheld a $12.6 million fine levied on the company by the US Environmental Protection Agency for polluting the Pagan River near Smithfield, Virginia. The Mexico City newspaper La
Jornada fearlessly presented the Mexican public with its own explanation of the strange
La Gloria disease: “According to state agents of the Mexican social security institute, the vector[s] of this outbreak are the clouds of flies that come out of the hog barns, and the waste lagoons into which the Mexican–US company spews tons of
This possible connection is far from well represented in the mass media, which choose the natural-born killer viruses theory over industry-created threats and pollutants including resistant, mutated microorganisms. After all, viruses, though microscopic, are easier to target: they don’t have lawyers to defend them or any political strings to pull.
The “industry is to blame” epidemic started to spread outside of Mexico. A Texas resident, Steven Trunnell, filed a wrongful-death petition on behalf of his late wife,
Judy Rodriquez Trunnel, a teacher who was eight months’ pregnant when admitted to hospital with swine flu on 19 April 2009 and who died on 5 May shortly after
her baby was delivered through Caesarean section.
Trunnell holds Smithfield Foods responsible for his wife’s death, as he thinks that the conditions in its installations are capable of generating a serious public
health threat. In the petition, filed on 11 May 2009, Trunnell states that “there may be evidence which links the creation of the newest strain of the deadly swine
flu…with Smithfield Foods’ humongous pig farm operation in Mexico, which, under the joint control of Smithfield Foods, has been allowed to lapse into a breeding ground of immense unsanitary proportions for a deadly virus”.
There is sound scientific literature to support such an hypothesis. It has been there for quite some time, but no one until now has ever dared challenge the meat barons. This is the first legal action of its kind, and it may create a precedent capable of changing the face of modern civilisation and force us to face the real manmade
threats instead of wasting billions of dollars in a senseless virus hunt. After all, small initiatives can bring about big changes.
This is an age in which values have to be reinstituted.
If life has value, then meat as a direct product of life should also posses nutritional, aesthetic, financial and “moral” value. We can no longer afford profit-mongering with what we eat. We can no longer afford cheap meat.
In fact, we need pricey, valuable meat. It is, after all, part of what we are made of. And no one wants to be considered as made of “crap”. It is time for the world to
begin the “no cheap meat” campaign. ∞
1. Tierney, John, “In ’80s, Fear Spread Faster Than AIDS”,
The New York Times, June 15, 2001
2. Laurance, Jeremy, “Threat of world Aids pandemic
among heterosexuals is over, report admits”, The
Independent on Sunday, 8 June 2008
3. Nadel, Laurie, “With Lobsters Scarce, Questions
Abound”, The New York Times, December 9, 2001
4. WHO, “Cumulative Number of Confirmed Human
Cases of Avian Influenza A (H5N1) reported to WHO”, 1
July 2009, http://www.who.int/csr/disease/
5. WHO, “Influenza”, Fact Sheet No. 211, April 2009
6. Taubenberger, J.K. et al., “Characterization of the
1918 influenza virus polymerase genes”, Nature 2005 Oct
Tumpey, T.M. et al., “Characterization of the
Reconstructed Spanish Influenza Pandemic Virus”,
Science 2005 Oct 7; 310:77-80
7. Gaydos, J.C. et al., “Swine Influenza A outbreak, Fort
Dix, New Jersey, 1976”, Emerging Infectious Diseases 2006
8. Freedman, D.A. and Stark, P.B., “The Swine Flu
Vaccine and Guillain-Barré Sundrome: A Case Study in
Relative Risk and Specific Causation”, 15 August 1999,
9. Schwartz, Nelson D., “Rumsfeld’s growing stake in
Tamiflu”, Fortune, October 31, 2005
10. “Is the US Ready for an Avian Flu Pandemic?”,
interview with Mike Leavitt by Brit Hume on 1
November 1, 2005, Fox News, http://origin.foxnews.com/
11. Moscona, Anne, “Oseltamivir Resistance –
Disabling Our Influenza Defenses [Perspective], New
England Journal of Medicine 2005; 353(25):2633-36,
12. McNeil Jr, Donald G., “Major Flu Strain Found
Resistant to Leading Drug, Puzzling Scientists”, The New
York Times, January 8, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/
13. Mellon, M. et al., Hogging It!: Estimates of Antimicrobial
Abuse in Livestock, Union of Concerned Scientists
Publications, Cambridge, MA, January 2001
14. Campagnolo, E.R. et al., “Antimicrobial residues in
animal waste and water resources proximal to largescale
swine and poultry feeding operations”, Sci Total
Environ 2002; 299:89-95;
Chee-Sanford, J.C. et al., “Occurrence and diversity of
tetracycline resistance genes in lagoons and
groundwater underlying two swine production facilities”,
Appl Environ Microbiol 2001; 67:1494-1502;
Zahn, J.A. et al., “Evidence for transfer of tylosin and
tylosin-resistant bacteria in air from swine production
facilities using sub-therapeutic concentrations of tylan
in feed” [Abstract], J Anim Sci 2001; 79:189;
Chapin, A., “Airborne multidrug-resistant bacteria
isolated from a concentrated swine feeding operation”,
Environmental Health Perspectives, February 1, 2005
15. Tuckman, J. and Booth, R., “Four-year-old could
hold key in search for source of swine flu outbreak”, The
Guardian, 27 April 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/
17. Shlian, Deborah, “Swine flu related lawsuit and
February 21, 2011 § 1 Comment
a) Obama’s health reform: the goal is to rationalize public health, cutting down costs, limit the intervention of middlemen and health brokers and create a health system that is more direct and accesable. The main reason for this turn in policies is relieve economy from ever increasing public health costs
b) Global vaccinations against the “new flu” which are obviously burdening global economy with extra “health” costs.
It is apparent that these policies are contradicting eachother. Still they coexist in the same time frame.
How can this be?
It is quite simple. They are two different policies envisioned by two different administrations. The first one was envisioned and executed by Obama’s administration, the second one was envisioned by the neocons who were pulling the strings of the G.W.Bush Jr administration, a catastrophic and plundering policy which is regretably followed by the Obama administration as well.
So the logical thing to ask is: why now? And what the heck has Bush politics to do with this mass vaccination propaganda?
After 9-11, the Bush administration embarked on a terror propaganda against “terrorism”. Later on, letters contaminated with anthrax were sent to strategic points of US public life, including congessmen and the press. Shock waves ran through the entire US, paralizing critical thinking and logical processing. ABC propagandists managed using unverified, contradictory anonumous sources to turn US public opinion against the Iraqi administration. A war was waged. 7 years latter the FBI were closing in on Bruce Ivins, considering him a possible perpetrator of the anthrax attacks. Ivins was a leading scientist in issues of biosafety and served as a scientific advisor in the question of the origin of the anthrax letters. It was clear from the very beginning that the anthrax strains enclosed were closely related to the USAMRIID and with the US “biosafety” program. Most available data indicate today that the anthrax letters were an inside job.
The aftermath: A war is declared, project bioshield is promoted, a project which is supposedly “strengthening” national biosafety but which at the same times relieves big pharma from liabilities in the case of public health emergencies!!!
In 2008 Bruce Ivins comitts suicide. Case closed.
Now what all these have to do with vaccines?
In 2002, under the atmosphere of terror and artificial “emergencies” crafted by the Bush administration, G.W.Bush tries to initiate a mass vaccination programm against smallpox. Smallpox is an eradicated disease, still, biological warfare program experts in the US and Europe know only too well of the Soviet extensive smallpox expirementation of the past. The 2002 unsuccesfull mass vaccination attempt was an obsolute echo of the biological factors armrace and a n attempt to revive the US bioweapon program and not a beneficial public health campaign.
The same goes for the bird flu scare. Two scientists, Tumbey and Taubenberger insist that the 1918 pandemic flu strain resempled currenlty circulating avian flu strains. The “1918 killer virus” is geneticaly reconstructed and stored in quantites. The US biological armament is strengthened with -what some experts consider to be- a deadly biological agent.
Anthrax and bird flu had everything to do with biowarfare, nothing to do with public health concerns.
Specialized biotech companies, tradiotional contractors of the US millitary like Battele and Acambis (let’s not forget that the US troops are subjected to extensive vaccinations provided by exactly these type of companies) are boosted financely and the strategic alliance between US armed forces and biotech industry is upgraded.
We allready know of the financial ties between Rumsfield and the tamiflu market. But what about vaccines? As we have allready exhibited, small biotech companies, US armed forces contractors, dominate the field of vaccine development prior to 2006. In 2006 there is going to be a huge turn in the vaccine industry. Amids the bird flu scare and encouraged by Bush Politics, Big Pharma made a strong comeback in the vaccine field.
Let’s see what DDW, Drug Development World remarked on the issue: But first lets get acquainted with DDW. According to DDW, “Over the last 8 years DDW has firmly established itself as a highly respected and the ‘must read’ journal within the drug discovery & development arena. DDW is renown for voicing the opinions of some of the Industry’s leading luminaries and has become a recognised platform for ‘Industry Gurus’ to talk about and encourage debate on some of the more challenging issues surrounding the technological and business facets of the biopharmaceutical industry. DDW adheres to the maxim ……’Turning Science into Business'” 1
So, lets examine their very own report entitled: “21st vaccines, a development rennaicence”
“…Vaccinations were widely accepted by the public, as a new spirit of compliance emerged, partly the result of militarisation and a heightened public trust in medicine… Before mass media, it was hard to shake the controversy surrounding vaccines that began in the 19th century… The military, it appeared, was the one institution that could coerce society into believing that vaccines were beneficial … Indeed, the US defence establishment was the innovator of inactivated influenza vaccine and helped to instill – through mandates and coercion – broad and deep acceptance of vaccines as a public good…
from 1949-1960 development slowed and only a handful of vaccines were developed for more than 30 years, beginning in the late 1960s. Due in part to …narrow profit margins… more than 90% of all vaccine manufacturers dropped out of the market by the late 1970s. Vaccine risks – always a part of the landscape for vaccines – became relatively more visible as the very diseases the vaccines prevented declined in incidence. In 1967, there were 26 companies making vaccines in the United States… By 2006, only five major firms remained in the market including Merck, sanofi-aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth and Novartis… By the turn of the 21st century a combination of technological, economic, social and political forces would come together to give rise to a vaccine development renaissance…
Politics and war have historically had an impact on vaccine acceptance. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy made vaccinations a key issue of his administration, and his interest in the immunisation programme established a pattern so that every time a Democratic administration took office over the next 32 years, public sector support for vaccination got a boost…
The influences of war, or in the example that follows terrorism, can be seen by examining the changes to vaccine development following the attacks of September 11, 2001. In December 2002, President George W. Bush received a smallpox vaccination as part of a public health campaign to immunise 10 million police and health workers against the disease by the fall of 2003, preparing the nation for a terrorist germ warfare attack. History has shown that fear motivates increases in vaccination of a population. With political influence, the CDC recommended the vaccination of 500,000 hospital workers, police officers, and firefighters in the first month of 2003, and 10 million others by the end of summer”
The Bigpharma think tank called DDW high lightened aspects of public health policies previously unknown to public opinion, and helped validate issues and arguments and data I ve been trying to demonstrate for years now. Novel pandemics are invented by an intricate plexus of powerbrokers, politicians, bigpharma interests and military leadership. A plexus that regards citizens as plankton meant to saturate their greed.
Bigpharma abstained from the high risk and low profit vaccine field for decades and did not re-enter it untill it was officialy invited to it by the Bush administration, an administration that did everything in its power to pave the way and remove all obstacles for the industry’s impressive comeback. In 2006 bigpharma is re-entering the vaccine industry with massive take overs, mergures and heavy investments. Once bigpharma took control of the vaccine industry it would procceed in overiding public opinion vaccine reluctance. A global pandemic fear campaign orchestrated by international and national health organisations would neutralize critical thinking and allow powerbrokers to enforce destructive publich health policies in the name of safety.
Hence the 2006 bird flu scare, hence the 2009 swine flu scare, hence the 2009 global vaccination program and propaganda. Bigpharma invested in fear and they sought to capitalize on it. They were succesfull.
This is in brief the modern socioeconimic history of the pandemic and pandemic vaccination propaganda.
Its science is all together different issue and it is widely disputed. Lets examine some of its less known aspects.
Lets talk about “immune potentiators”, or simply and more familiarly “vaccine adjuvants”. Those are a spectrum of chemical substances. Without the addition of adjuvants in the vaccine, sometimes no immune reaction is elicited.
They call vaccine adjuvants “immune potentiators”. Clearly they are not. Have you ever heard of these substances used in AIDS and immune defeciencies in general, have you heard of these specific substances being used to potentiate the immune system to fight off infections? Offcourse not. Because vaccine adjuvants do not “potentiate” or “enable” the immune system to react. They force it to do so. It is a kind of the vaccinology’s Bush politics, an immunological blackmail. If you don’t do it on your own, we ll force you to do it, because We know what’s best for you.
They make the immune system go heyware, obliging it to perceive as a threat an antigenic stimulous that it would possibly ignore and not respond to. This is blackmail, not guidance or aid. It is brute force exerted blindly.
Before we return to the immune system lets examine another aspect of the “swine flu” science and expose the name of the game revealing the game of the name as well. They call chemicals “immune potentiators”, something they are clearly not. They used to call this flu swine flu but they changed the name under the pressure exerted by the meat lobby, as swine flu was hurting pork exports and sales. In science as we used to know it, terms are attempted to be as precise as possible. Politics distort the name of things and the essence of names and terms. For example, most dictatorships call themselves democracies. Distortion and cover ups is a political thing, not a scientific one. Swine flu and vaccines have nothing to do with science, yet they have everything to do with Politics.
Now let’s return to science and the philosophy of science.
The immune system, along side with the nervous system are the more sophisticated and complex systems because they have to cope with an ever changing externall realitty. The immune system has to constantly realize and translate biochemical signals to immune responses or no responses at all. It is a velvet shield that does not suffocate us, that allows us to breath, to eat, to interact. It is not perfect, it is not bulletproof but most of the times it carries a wisdom that extends far beyond our current capacity to understand the Cosmos: the wisdom of life, of a highly succesfull force that terroformed planet earth, that mastered the inorganic, that created the atmosphere that supports life.
It is the infinite wisdom and awesome power of life, and life’s wisdom governs the immune system. And we know s..t about both.
So the immune system has to be responsive and flexible. And what a great job it has done so far. We still exist and flourish patrly due to our higly succesfull immune systems.
When it comes to well defined organisms whose behavour and interactions have been well recorded, it is ok to give the immune system a little tip about them.
But when it comes to these living variables called viruses, higly mutatable, not constant in their genetic make up and our incompetence to predict “random mutations” (that’s why scientists call them random, because we just can’t tell) it would be wiser to let things take their natural course and let the flexible immune system and not stiff politics decide.
Directed immuno responses make sence only in a totally controlled enviroment. And we, humans, may be succesfull parasites that have created artificial macroenviroments and extinguised almost all other macro-life forms in our cities, replaced ecosystems with techosystems, but we can not do the same to the micro-life-cosm, or to the realm of viruses. With a few exceptions, we are unable to destroy all micro-life forms. Complete sterilization is impossible. And we know from scientific studies, that people who grow up in “sterile” enviroments are more susceptible to allergies and autoimmune diseases. There immune system is virgin, naïve and like a virgin or a naïve person, it can be more easily deceived.
We can not even begin to imagine creating totally sterile or totally controlled condtions in the microenviroment. And that means that directed immunoresponses are not only uselless but extremelly dangerous to our future survival.
Like in macro ecosystems, where imbalance and mass destruction of the ecosystems’ architecture occurs when a species from an allien ecosystem arrives, survives and prevails, in human populations, epidemics occur when a “new”, “allien” microorganism arrives, survives and prevails. This much afraid invader of our artificial world will probably originate from artificiality as well, not from nature. The “allien” will have been created or “mutated” due to the extent and the depth of human intervention in nature, even in human nature.
By insisting on “directed immune response” the architecture of our immune shield might collapse. When we make a shield less flexible, when we stiffen it or harden it selectively in certain points, the shield, if delivered a heavy blow at another unfortified point, might shutter.
We are not only making our immune system crazy with chemical vaccine adjuvants (hence Gullain Barret and thousands of possible unrecorded vaccine indused autoimmune cases), we are also making it less flexible and responsive thus weaker in the longterm.
And pretty much like the destruction of the enviroment, we will not realize the extent of destruction we have caused in the human populations until it is too late.
Every human being is a complete ecosystem comprised of friendly microrganisms like the intestinal flaura, by bacterialy originated mitochondria. Part of our DNA is of viral origin. If we don’t understand the nature of things, artifiacility will unmake us. That’s what ecology has taught us, a very hard lesson we stubournly refuse to learn.
The industry’s masterplans and intentions are clear by now- crystall clear. They have made up their minds about drying this planet of resourses and life.
They have made up their minds.
They have declared war on everything.
They, have made up, their minds
What about us? Have we decided yet which side to take?
February 21, 2011 § Leave a comment
Cannabis has been with us for thousands of years and it has served us well. We depended on her to make clothes, ropes, to take some of the pain and stress away and sometimes even to float away from everyday’s life worries into the unexplored space between words and ideas. Though recreational use of cannabis is not supported or suggested by the writer, the therapeutic use of cannabis is an altogether different issue.
The use of cannabis has been for the most of human history well accepted both culturally and medically.
Cannabis demonization was motivated by social prejudices and racial discrimination. In the early 20th century it was used to barricade the US from Mexican immigrants and later on from African American Jazz Musicians and the “evil” and “immoral” culture they were generating. Cannabis illegalization was promoted by Randolph Hearst who did not want cannabis as an antagonist in the paper business, and pharmaceutical companies who did not want to compete with a cheap and easily accessed – even homegrown painkiller.163 As it is now, back then arguments did not have to be truthful to win over the support and sympathy of public opinion. They only had to appear credible and use fear and loathing to appeal not to the intellect but rather to the most primitive part of human nature. Even when people are unable to respond and conform to reason they can easily understand and comply to fear.
Today, thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens are imprisoned as common criminals and thousands of patients are denied the therapeutic benefits of cannabis because of a social stigma that was adhered to it and a prohibitory culture which was, is and will be contradicting personal rights and freedom of choice.
Cannabis is not harmless. With the exception of side effects related not to cannabis itself but to respiratory problems associated with smoking, most of them are mild and fleeting. Still cannabis use may have some more severe implications like worsening the progression of liver fibrosis, triggering psychotic episodes,164 causing subtle immune suppression.165 But even some of these side effects can be turned into diagnostic and more easily therapeutic opportunities: cannabis-induced psychotic episodes have been suggested to have prognostic psychiatric value,166 whereas the endocannabinoids’ system immunomodulatory properties can inaugurate a whole new chapter in autoimmune disease therapeutics: the cannabinoid system in the central nervous system has been shown to regulate autoimmune inflammation, implying possible cannabinoid manipulation and treatment of multiple sclerosis!167 Cannabinoids are also being investigated for the treatment of other autoimmune disorders and allergies.168 The active component of cannabis, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has been found to inhibit the formation of “Alzheimer’s plaques”, slowing or possibly halting the progression of this virtually untreatable debilitating disease. According to the research team:
Compared to currently approved drugs prescribed for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, THC is a considerably superior inhibitor of Aβ aggregation, and this study provides a previously unrecognized molecular mechanism through which cannabinoid molecules may directly impact the progression of this debilitating disease.169
Another study exhibited nerve growth promotion in the hippocampus of rats induced by the combination of high dosages of a synthetic cannabinoid alongside with the endocannabinoid anandamide.170 Cannabis compounds have also shown a potential in the inhibition of lung (in vitro and animal models),171 breast172 and brain cancer. In brain cancer especially, THC promoted cancer cell autophagy leaving healthy cells intact.173
A brand new brave world of cannabinoid therapeutic possibilities and options lies ahead of us. Cannabis is also invaluable in chronic or drug-resistant pain management and general quality of living of patients with chronic health conditions. Despite the mild cannabis-induced immune suppression that is probably a counter-indication for AIDS patients, cannabis use was found to be beneficial both in AIDS anorexia and in AIDS related neuropathic pain.174 175 Cannabis use has been shown to be beneficial also in nausea (especially drug-resistant cancer-chemotherapy induced nausea), vomiting, weight loss, premenstrual syndrome. Antioxidant properties have also been attributed to it.
After the illegalization of cannabis, medicalization happened to it. Instead of licensing patients in need of cannabis to even grow it at controlled amounts for personal therapeutic use, cannabis became a drug-industry property and cannabinoid compounds such as Nabinol, Marinol and Sativex that don’t have the much-wanted immediate symptom relieving effects that the inhalation of vaporized cannabis possesses have been promoted as legal medical forms of cannabis. Who’s next? Tea, chamomile, peppermint?
The benefit/risk ratio of cannabinoid compounds and of cannabis herself is very attractive and superior to that of other drugs employed to treat severe medical conditions. Cannabis appears to be “a miraculous” multitask therapeutic agent and its therapeutic use should be and would be heralded by scientists, patients and relatives worldwide. Instead, the social and legal stigma that has been attributed to her has inhibited relative research. It is once again a matter of politics against science, of prejudice against reason, of myths against facts. Who in his right mind would compare or downsize Alzheimer’s disease or cancer or chronic drug-resistant pain, or multiple sclerosis to the side effects of cannabis use?
The hundreds of therapeutic applications, implications and possibilities of cannabis, even in conditions that there are no attractive, or not so effective or no therapeutic alternatives at all leaves us in awe of the extent to which human stupidity and stubbornness, political and financial mannerism and indecency, scientific cowardice and subjugation are halting medical progress.
February 21, 2011 § 4 Comments
“Fetch,” I enthusiastically shouted but to no avail.
The ball passed by a disinterested dog and landed to the grass some yards away from him, unchallenged, unclaimed.
OK, I was the one who was doing the fetching. Again.
I kneeled and patted the dog softly on his head.
“What’s wrong with you, boy? Why can’t you be just like all other normal dogs and go fetch a ball? Is that too much to ask for a dog?”
The dog looked meaningfully at the far side of the park and off he was to his favorite butterfly chasing.
This dog is never going to make anything great of himself. He should become a poet but dogs don’t get to become poets, I thought sorrowfully, but kept the thoughts to myself not to hurt his feelings.
But I wasn’t the only one with problems or the only one who was keeping thoughts to himself not to hurt other people’s feelings. At the direction that the dog was facing a moment ago there was a father standing, throwing a softball at his son, waiting for him to strike it with his clumsily-held baseball bat.
But the boy was clearly not interested in baseball. He appeared to be interested in everything else, the grass, the dog, the butterflies, me, but not the ball. The ball landed on the grass, some yards from the boy, unchallenged, unclaimed.
It was as if I could hear the father’s disappointment resounding in my head: Why can’t you just be like all other normal boys and hit a ball? Is that too much to ask for a boy?
Then it struck me, almost as hard as a baseball bat: the dog and the boy were co-patients. I mean I may not be a psychiatrist, but it was crystal clear even to the eyes of the untrained, wasn’t it? The boy and the dog shared the same medical condition: ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Four letter medical abbreviations were almost a perfect match for three letter words like boy or kid and, hey, why not a dog?
I was thrilled with my finding. I had killed with the ADHD diagnosis two birds, well not two birds but rather a boy and a dog.
I dashed home to go refresh my DSM, the Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, currently in its fourth edition. I opened the psychiatric bible, the great book that defines and separates the good from the damaged, the ordinary people from the deranged, the normal fellows from the nutcases, the functional from the certifiable, the people who are allowed a certain degree of exercising their free will from the cuckoos that need to be checked, supervised, restrained or regulated.
There it was: instant enlightenment. According to DSMIV, ADHD is defined as a:
persistent pattern of inattention or hyperactivity—impulsivity that is more frequently displayed and more severe than is typically observed in individuals at a comparable level of development.
In science it is critical for definitions to define the conditions or terms they attempt to define as thoroughly as possible.
So what is it then? Inattention or hyperactivity? Both? A bit of the one and a bit of the other? A racemic mixture of them? It is obvious that the two terms are not identical, and more often than not seem to even contradict each other. Hyperactivity does require attention in the very thing they want to be active in, with a corresponding disinterest in the thing you want them to be interested in. Normal people who are not interested in something will naturally find their attention shift away. If it shifts away quickly, is that a disorder? Do people who lose interest quickly, with their attention also shifting away quickly to something else, really have a disorder or a disorder related to being impulsive? Yet the same kids can run around and play games that they like.
And so let’s look at it again: “…impulsivity that is more frequently displayed and more severe than is typically observed…”
More frequently displayed… Meaning? How often, I mean like every ten seconds, every minute, every hour? And what about “severe impulsivity”? What does severe impulsivity mean? To be honest I have never heard a human creature accusing another as being severely impulsive. Too impulsive for his own good perhaps, but severely impulsive? And what is the golden standard to which ADHD persons are compared to? But of course the typically observed impulsivity. The typically observed impulsivity. It has a nice ring to it as if it was meaning or describing or actually defining anything. What behavior is typical? Or perhaps the definition refers to typical observers, or to typical acceptance amongst typical experts on what constitutes typical behavior? Where do they come up with such ill-defined definitions of illness?
And that brings us to critically look at what is to be typical? Was Einstein typical? Was Newton typical? Was Leonardo da Vinci typical? Was Galileo typical? And do you want to be typical? An impulsive response may not be typical but is it always part of a disorder? And what disorderly biochemistry typifies it?
A typical impulsivity in Harvard Law School is not the same as the typical impulsivity in the streets of Harlem. The typical modern behavior has nothing to do with the typical Victorian behavior. Things that are considered scandalous or way out of limits in one place today were considered as normal, accepted, well tolerated and even expected in other societies of the past and the present and vice versa…
Read more in: Pulp Med, coming out in June 24 2011, by O-books
February 21, 2011 § Leave a comment
One of the most commonly used terms in medical language is the word placebo. The placebo effect is used as a scale for evaluating the effectiveness of new drugs. But what exactly is the placebo effect and what are its consequences in the deterministic structure of Western medicine? The placebo effect has been frequently abused by health professionals to denote and stigmatize a fraud or fallacy. Alternative therapies have often been characterized as merely placebos. But the placebo effect is not a fraudulent, useless or malevolent phenomenon. It occurs independently of the intentions of charlatans or health professionals. It is a spontaneous, authentic and very factual phenomenon that refers to well-observed but uninterpreted and contingent therapies or health improvements that occur in the absence of an active chemical/pharmacological substance. Make-believe drugs – drugs that carry no active chemical substances – often act as the real drugs and provoke therapeutic effects when administered to patients. In many drug trials, the manufacturers of the drug sadly discover that their product is in no way superior to the effect of a placebo. But that does not mean that a placebo equates to a null response of the human organism. On the contrary, a placebo denotes nonchemical stimuli that strongly motivate the organism towards a therapeutic course. That is, the placebo effect is dependent not on the drug’s effectiveness but solely on therapeutic intention and expectation.
Effects of positive and negative thinking
The placebo effect has been often misunderstood as a solely psychological and highly subjective phenomenon. The patient, convinced of the therapy’s effectiveness, ignores his symptoms or perceives them faintly without any substantial improvement of his health; that is, the patient feels better but is not healthier. But can the subjective psychological aspect of the placebo effect account for all of its therapeutic properties? The answer is definite: the placebo effect refers to an alternative curative mechanism that is inherent in the human entity, is motivated by therapeutic intention or belief in the therapeutic potential of a treatment, and implies biochemical responses and reactions to the stimulus of therapeutic intention or belief.
But placebos are not always beneficial: they can also have adverse effects. For example, administering a pharmacologically inactive substance to some patients can sometimes bring about unexpected health deteriorations. A review of 109 double-blind studies estimated that 19% of placebo recipients manifested the nocebo effect: unexpected deteriorations of health.1 In a related experiment, researchers falsely declared to the volunteers that a weak electrical current would pass through their head; although there was no electrical current, 70% of the volunteers (who were medical students) complained of a headache after the experiment.2
In a group of patients suffering from carotid atherosclerosis, prognosis and progression of the disease were burdened when their psychological health was bad (i.e., they were affected by hopelessness or depression). In another group of carotid atherosclerosis patients, prognosis and progression were burdened not only by hopelessness but also by hostility.3 In patients with coronary heart disease, hopelessness was a determinative risk factor.4 Social isolation, work stress and hostility comprised additional risk factors.5
Positive or negative thinking seems to be a decisive risk factor for every treatment, perhaps even more important than medical intervention.
The nocebo effect appears to have a specific biological substrate. A group of 15 men whose wives suffered from terminal cancer participated in a small perspective study. After their wives’ deaths, the men experienced severe grief that caused immunodepression. The spouses’ lymphocytes for a period of time after their wives’ deaths responded poorly to mitogens.
Grief had assaulted their immune system. The study proposed that grief and grief-induced immunodepression resulted in high level mortality of the specific group.6
A short history of a small miracle
The term placebo (meaning “I shall please”) was used in mediaeval prayer in the context of the phrase Placebo Domino (“I shall please the Lord”) and originated from a biblical translation of the fifth century AD.7 During the 18th century, the term was adopted by medicine and was used to imply preparations of no therapeutic value that were administered to patients as “decoy drugs”. The term began to transform in 1920 (Graves),8 and through various intermediate stages (Evans and Hoyle, 1933;9 Gold, Kwit and Otto, 1937;10 Jellinek, 194611) was fully transformed in 1955 when it finally claimed an important portion of the therapeutic effect in general. Henry K. Beecher, in his 1955 paper “The Powerful Placebo”, attributed a rough percentage of 30% of the overall therapeutic benefit to the placebo effect.12 In certain later studies, the placebo effect was estimated at even higher, at 60% of the overall therapeutic outcome. In a recent review of 39 studies regarding the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs, psychologist Guy Sapirstein concluded that 50% of the therapeutic benefits came from the placebo effect, with a poor percentage of 27% attributed to drug intervention (fluoxetine, sertaline and paroxetine). Three years later Sapirstein, along with a fellow psychologist Irving Kirsch, processed the data from 19 double-blind studies regarding depression and reached an even higher percentage of therapeutic results attributed to the placebo effect: 75% depression therapies or ameliorations were placebo induced!13
Hróbjartsson and Gotzsche (2001,14 200415) doubted the effectiveness of the placebo phenomenon, attributing it solely to the subjective factors of human psychology. And indeed, there is a major aspect of the placebo effect related to psychology. In two studies where placebos were exclusively administered, the placebo effect seemed to be effected from the subject’s perception of the applied therapy, i.e., two placebo pills were better than one, bigger pills were better than smaller, and injections were even better.16 The placebo induced a reaction not only to the therapy but also to its form, suggesting that the placebo phenomenon is shaped according to the personal symbolic universe of the patient. Before the placebo response occurs, human perception has already interpreted the applied therapy and has prepared a certain response to it. It would appear that not only chemical but also non-chemical stimuli participate in the motivation of the human organism towards therapy. But is the placebo reaction solely a psychological phenomenon or does it have additional tangible somatic effects? One of the more dramatic events regarding placebo therapy was reported in 1957 when a new wonder drug, Krebiozen, held promise as the final solution to the cancer problem. A patient with metastatic tumors and with fluid collection in his lungs, who demanded the daily intake of oxygen and the use of an oxygen mask, heard of Krebiozen. His doctor was participating in Krebiozen research and the patient begged him to be given the revolutionary drug. Bent by the patient’s hopelessness, the doctor did so and witnessed a miraculous recovery of the patient. His tumors melted and he returned to an almost normal lifestyle.
The recovery didn’t last long. The patient read articles about Krebiozen’s not delivering what it promised in cancer therapy. The patient then had a relapse; his tumors were back. His doctor, deeply affected by the aggravation, resorted to a desperate trick. He told his patient that he had in his possession a new, improved version of Krebiozen. It was simply distilled water. The patient fully recovered after the placebo treatment and remained functional for two months. The final verdict on Krebiozen, published in the press, proved the drug to be totally ineffective. That was the coup de grâce for the patient, who died a few days later.17 In spite of the melodrama of the Krebiozen case, there is no single case or personal testimony that can denote or prove a therapy to be effective. Statistical studies, not personal testimonies, can verify a proposed therapy’s effectiveness, and well planned studies are able to concur that the placebo phenomenon has somatic properties. One such study was implemented in 1997. The two study groups consisted of patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy. One group took actual medication while the control group received placebo treatment. The placebo recipients reported relief from their symptoms and even amelioration of their urinary function.18 A placebo has also been reported to act as a bronchodilator in asthmatic patients, or to have the exact opposite action—respiratory depression—depending on the description of the pharmacological effect the researchers gave to the patients and therefore the effect the patients anticipated.19 A placebo proved highly efficient against food allergies and, subsequently, impressively effective in the sinking of biotechnologies on the stock market. How could that be? Peptide Therapeutics Group, a biotech company, was preparing to launch on the market a novel vaccine for food allergies. The first reports were encouraging. When the experimental vaccine reached the clinical trials stage, the company’s spokesperson boasted that the vaccine proved effective in 75% of the cases—a percentage that usually suffices to prove a drug’s effectiveness. But the good news didn’t last long. The control group, given a placebo, did almost as well: seven out of 10 patients reported getting rid of their food allergies. The stock value of the company plunged by 33%. The placebo effect on food allergies created a nocebo
effect on the stock market!20 In another case, a genetically designed heart drug that raised high hopes for Genentech was clobbered by a placebo.21 As aptly put by science historian Anne Harrington, placebos are “ghosts that haunt our house of biomedical objectivity and expose the paradoxes and fissures in our own self-created definitions of the real and active factors in treatment.”22 The placebo’s pharmacomimetic behavior can even imitate a drug’s side effects. In a 1997 study of patients with benign prostate hypertrophy, some patients on a placebo complained of various side effects ranging from impotence and reduced sexual activity to nausea, diarrhea and constipation. Another study reported placebo side effects as including headaches, vomiting, nausea and a variety of other symptoms.23
The placebo effect in surgery…
Read more in: Pulp Med, coming out in June 24 by O-books
February 21, 2011 § 2 Comments
One fundamental characteristic of the current civilization is selfishness permeating all levels and spheres of human existence: from the individual perceptions of being, to the social implications of co-existing, to the economic theories of managing and turning co-existence into a profitable network, to the environmental issues of ecologic co-dependence and to the scientific innovations that promote knowledge in all of the aforementioned fields and in even more, selfishness has governed and spawned most of the theories and practices that we today encounter. This solipsism, this egomania, this perception that only I and Mine exist and are worth serving, saving and caring for has already created huge financial problems with the 2008 crash, and is creating even huger environmental problems that no one can confidently predict if and how we are going to be able to resolve and restore balance to our cosmos. In other words, this approach, though a sometimes admirable driving force of the Western world, has an innate limitation: it considers expansion of “self” and exploitation of others as limitless. But since space exploration is underdeveloped, for the next decades we are bound to live in a “sphere” called earth, a world whose limits are well defined and known, a limited world not a limitless one. When expansion has reached exhaustion, when new sources, ideas, innovations, markets, technological breakthroughs are hard to find, when “self” has expanded to such a degree that it can no longer transpose or transfer or dump its problems into new grounds, into fresh “others”, once self has become almost “everything”, at least everything it knows and owns of the cosmos, than “self” has to encounter all of the problems of the “others” that it has by now conquered, phagocytosed, incorporated. And when this time comes, “self” is left only two options (actually only one but for the sake of argument we’ll propose that there are two). One is to try to survive by metamorphosing, to become more introvert, reinvest some of the dynamics of the expansionistic aggressiveness onto solving the internal problems by creating more detailed and extensive networks and regulations and attempt to stabilize and redefine this uncontrollable “self”. This is a model of internal expansion, of expansion within one’s self, an introspective approach. The other is to attempt to expand further at the same or higher rate than previously when expansion is no longer viable and to ultimately collapse, collapse onto itself like a black hole.
There are many paradigms that attest to the nature and outcome of expansion in a limited world. It begins with marvelous aggression, almost unobstructed, until it reaches its limits. Historically, all universal empires collapsed from within, when they could no longer sustain expansion. Rome lasted longer because it transformed some of its aggression into administration. In cosmology, if expansion speed does not overcome the escape velocity, the world will contract (and finally collapse), possibly back into a universal pre-Big Bang state. In biology, a cell culture grows geometrically until the nutrient substrate is exhausted. Then the culture starves to death and diminishes (in a sense collapses onto itself) until the proper ratio of available nutrients is restored. In the sociologic and financial Malthusian model, overpopulation can exhaust the planet’s available resources and lead to war, famine or both, again in a sense collapsing onto itself (off course Malthus took into consideration only overpopulation and not – as he should have done – also overexploitation).
That is what universally happens when expansion is no longer sustainable but it is still perceived as indefinite: collapse.
The sense of self and infinite expansion onto others has these implications in all other aspects of human activity and thought. But what about medicine?
Medicine and biology in general is fraught with selfish perceptions. From the Darwinian survival of the fittest to the neo-Darwinian selfish gene, from antidrugs (antibacterial, antiviral, anticancer etc.) to a genetically governed world, all these disciplines teach us of is Self. Self is good and must be preserved, non-self must be destroyed or controlled. Even cancer, which is a bizarre immortal yet often lethal and ultimately self-destructive expression of self, is treated by medicine as a non-self, as the enemy that has to be destroyed. Since the human body is limited and well defined, expansionism is expressed in exerting control and destroying the others. But even this introvert by nature expansion of self has limitations. Because – as the immune system knows all too well – the notion of self in medicine cannot be taken literally.
Our own genome consists also of incorporated inert (most of the time) viral genetic material. Our own intestinal flora consists of non-self bacteria, vital for our survival and well-being. And our own cells contain cell organelles that billions of years ago were non-self and still are not completely subjected to our cellular government of the nucleus.
We call them mitochondria. They are our power plants. They are matriarchally inherited to us. They have their own DNA (mtDNA) which is independent from our “core” DNA, the biological essence of our being and fate as “macho” medicine wants us to believe. They are not just organelles that are centrally and absolutely governed by core DNA. They are essentially symbiotes, merged with our viscera in our cellular ancestors billions of years ago, giving us now the energy we depend upon in order to live.78
When needed they multiply to provide our tissues with additional energy. But their DNA is also more sensitive than core DNA. They don’t have the complexity and the longitude of the core DNA repair system. So they get damaged more easily. And when they get damaged or depleted they can lead to or get involved in any type of non-infectious disease states one can imagine. Imagine a factory without power or with a shortage of power. It can be completely dysfunctional or the administration can choose to shut down sectors to save power for the most important ones. Some or all workers in the factory will work in the dark. Occupational accidents will happen. If there is a general power our shortage, the factory, no matter what the administration decides to do, will dysfunction or ultimately shut down. Our civilization will be seriously impaired or shut down if faced with serious energy shortages. There is no need to argue that our body will definitely do the same, deteriorate or die.
There are few to thousands of mitochondria in each cell. Each mitochondrion in turn contains multiple copies of mtDNA. This variable mitochondrial numerology has many implications and complications for health and for disease expression, duration, extent and severity. As it has been accurately described in the proceedings of the June 2008 NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke June 2008 workshop on Mitochondrial Encephalopathies and potential relationship to Autism:
“…mutations in mtDNA may affect all copies of mtDNA (homoplasmy), but frequently they only affect some copies (heteroplasmy). Since the many copies of mtDNA are distributed randomly between daughter cells during cell division, heteroplasmy can lead to significant variation in the proportion of mutated mtDNA over time and across different organs or tissues. This variation in mutation load can influence the clinical expression of mitochondrial disease. Heteroplasmy may also complicate the diagnosis of mtDNA diseases because the causative mutation may be present in only some tissues, such as specific brain regions or specific muscles, and not in others, such as blood or hair. In addition, an individual’s mtDNA haplotype can modify the effect of pathogenic mutations in mitochondrial genes. More broadly, mtDNA haplotypes may also modify susceptibility for diseases in which mitochondrial dysfunction may not be a primary cause, including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and some cancers and neurodegenerative diseases.”79
One has to understand the complexity and the diversity of mitochondrial involvement in health and disease states. Mitochondrial deficiency, damage, inefficiency, mutation or any combination of the previous mitochondrial states does not manifest itself homogeneously, and may effect certain cells or tissues of the body or be systemic or even catholic. It may be sudden or slow or cataclysmic or acute or chronic or degenerative, episodic, chronic or both, triggered or remain “dormant”, with mild or severe symptoms or no symptoms at all or with subclinical symptoms that may not be necessarily associated to a disease state, such as fatigue and restlessness. It might contribute to other disease states or be affected by other disease states. It might even be associated with dysmotility, migraine, depression,80 anxiety,81 mood or other psychiatric disorders.82 In depression and especially in depression with somatization low energy production and mitochondrial dysfunction has also been indicated.83 The reverse process, that is whether depression with somatization causes mitochondrial dysfunction which in turn aggravates depression, should be also examined as this loop is in accordance with the “positive feedback” depression, low self-esteem and reduced motivation and physical mobility progression. And it is not only about non-infectious diseases. Infectious diseases can also cause direct damage to mitochondria complicating things even further.84 And there has been a novel discovery indicating that mitochondria play also a vital role in immune response and thus that mitochondria are vital in fighting off infections and especially RNA-Viral infections such as flu, hepatitis, West Nile Virus, SARS (and possibly the so-called HIV infection). A protein named MAVS (Mitochondrial Anti-Viral Signaling protein) located in mitochondrial membrane plays an initial role in triggering immune response against viruses:
The researchers modified normal cells so that the cells could not produce the MAVS protein, which is short for Mitochondrial Anti-Viral Signaling protein. Without MAVS, the cells were highly vulnerable to infection with two common viruses in a class called RNA viruses Other RNA viruses include hepatitis C, West Nile, SARS and the flu viruses.
Cells altered to produce an overabundance of MAVS were protected from dying from viral infection.85
On the other hand, one of the key elements of the biochemical chain of events that comprise an immune response (co-triggered, as suggested, by MAVS) is interferon. Interferon has the ability to inhibit mitochondrial DNA expression and therefore function. As research suggests: “We showed previously that type I interferon causes a down-regulation of mitochondrial gene expression. We show here that IFN treatment leads to functional impairment of mitochondria…
Possibly as a consequence of the inhibitory effect on mitochondrial gene expression, treatment with interferon causes a reduction in cellular ATP levels. The inhibition of cellular growth by interferon may thus be partly a consequence of a reduction in cellular ATP levels.”86 Furthermore there has been some mitochondrial involvement indicated in autoimmune diseases.87
So, in this long chain of events and counter-events, of effects and counter-effects, it is very hard to distinguish cause from effect, first from second. The mitochondrial realm is not governed by some linear strictly-deterministic rational, but it rather works in circular patterns with intertwining positive and negative feedback mechanisms. It is not about intervention, it is about balance. It is not about attacking or prohibiting. It is about regulating, coordinating and tuning. It is not only about finding and defining. It is about understanding, understanding the big picture. And these are tasks that the overspecialized lab-rat scientist will fail to address over and over again, tasks that Big Pharma will either ignore or conceal.
One has to completely understand that any kind of non-infectious, infectious, immune, autoimmune, acute, chronic health conditions, large or small, direct or indirect, primary or secondary may present mitochondrial involvement…
Read more in “Pulp Med”, coming out on June 24 2011 by O-books