Intracellular VIRUSES (Related to Post 7)

[Irene de Villiers]

Dear Soroush,

Et tu?

A parasite EATS;
A virus cannot eat:-)
A virus uses another life form's DNA to make more;
A parasite uses its own DNA to make more.
They could not be more different.

The point here is not a matter of "right fighting" which the gentlemen here are doing - namely fighting to "be right" (an ego thing of no use to anyone as a health professional).
The point is that the VAST differences between viruses and parasites are SEEN that way by the immune system and are handled differently. Thus we as homeopaths need to understand the differeces - not for ego reasons - but for learning and health professional reasons.

At the universities where one can study science, one can study virology and become a virologist - OR one can study parasitology and become a parasitologist, or one can study both (which I did). Either way no parasitology course teaches virology and vice versa.These life forms have nothing in common.
Just as the dictionary definitions vary, so does everything about these very different categories of organisms, otherewise they would be studied under a common heading and classified scientifically as the same thing.
Parasites have at least one cell. (In fact a virus could take up residence inside one).
Plant and animal cells, including those of parasites, all have a semi-permeable membrane (as is mentioned in the dictionary definition of viruses as being ABSENT from viruses.
That cell membrane is necessary to life for a parasite, as it is only inside the cell that food can be assimlated and used, and it is only inside the cell, that reproductive functions can take place.
Hence all definitons of parasites point out the relevance that they need nutrients.
ANy parasite is gigantic compared to the largest virus. The smallest parasite can still be seen under a light microscope (as "Light" microscopes can see anything bigger than a wavelength of LIGHT) as the smallest parasite is orders of magnitude bigger than the largest virus.
Parasites have reproductive functions, all performed internally, with theor own eqipment (all such equipment not even present in a virus) and they do that independent of host involvement apart from nutrition.

Viruses are completely different structures. They do not have any kind of semi-permeable wall as all higher forms of life do, including parasites. They have no cell contents as they have no cell. They cannot eat, they cannot perform ANY independent functions in their body, unlike parasites all of whose functions are within the body. They live in/or another life form, for food, but otherwise are independent life forms.
Viruses are so tiny there is no way to see them under a Light microscope. THey need an electron microscope as that can see anythig bigger than the wavelength of an electron.
Viruses cannot even make more of themsleves using their own (nonexostent) cell contents, as parasites do.
Viruses use the DNA of the cell in which they live, much like a copy machine, in order to produce new viruses - or "replicate", as it is called for viruses.
Essentially a virus and a parasite could not be more different as life forms.

So let's stop this "right-fighting" and get back to WHY we shoud know that viruses are viruses with common features, and a huge well worked out classification of types....and likewise parasites are a huge category, with cell classified types.
(LIfe forms have families, genera etc - classified by structure, function and other features - all the things that make a parasite a parasite and a virus a virus. These are separate classifications for viruses and parasites.)

The immune system does a better job than the gentlemen on the group here. It behaves differently in response to viruses and parasites. The virus Ardavan introduced was one of the human herpes viruses, the one called Epstein Barr Virus, or EBV as he wrote it. It is a virus.
Please forget parasites for this discussion. It can only confuse.

A good friend once said: "Leave your ego at home and it will never get trodden on"
I find it excellent advice.
We should be scientists in this matter and egos have no place in science.

EBV (the V stands for VIrus not parasite) as Ardavan implied, is a nasty virus which can hide out in the body. MOST herpes viruses have that trick. Even the feline herpes virus has a hideout - it uses the brain - where it hides out between outbreaks, but it can reactivate to do more harm later. EBV does ugly later harm, including some B-lymphocyte malignancies. Meantime it lives in B-lymphocytes.

Usually, the reason herpes hides out is that some suppressive drug has been used, such as during the first obvious infection, or during some concomitant infection.
IF that first herpes outbreak is healed by homeopathy instead, the latent (hiding out) stage and its consequences, do not occur.
Now, to me, THAT is worth learning.
And doing:
Homeoprophylaxis for herpes is extremely effective.

To further continue the mechanism of the immune system with a EBV, which as Ardavan says, hides out inside the cells when latent (it has to be inside a cell to replicate as that is where the DNA is, that it needs to borrow), the response of the imnune system is a mechanism called autophagy, or actually a subset called xenophagy in EBV. When it works properly, for EBV, the EBV is sequestered (separated out) into into double-membrane autophagosomes that eventually fuse with lysosomes inside the cell, so that the EBV is engulfed, degraded, and can be removed. (Lyse = split apart)
The problem is that EBV triggers the making of chemicals to interrupt this xeonphagy process. I do not know which chemical EBV makes to defest this immune mechanism, but a typical strategy is to prevent the acidification necessary to the desctruction of viral material.

It is not known exactly what triggers xenophagy, (or it was not in 2011 when I last looked) except that it involves direct and specific recognition of the virus, either when it enters the body, or it can happen later. There are receptors in the cell membrane of the mammalian body which have the ability to detect the EBV. It is part of the innate immune system.
Xenophagy is used on bacteria as well, not only EBV, bit it is shown to work on EBV. It is basically a kind of engulfing system, in which the virus is surrounded by specially made cellular material, engulfed, and taken to a cell component (lysosome) to be split apart.

So we would (IMO) need homeopathy to strengthen the immune system (such as ICT homeopathy) to enhance the immune system over the EBV interruption of it.

Once the EBV has triggered the formation of lymphoma of some kind (it can trigger at least three kinds) , you have a more complex problem, but it still needs the one to strengthen the immune system to oust the latent herpes. Separate Immune system functions also include ones against the various possible lymphomas that can result.
I would hope that Ardavan agrees with this homeopathy need.

I will quote where I still see problems from Ardavan's original email:
"One of the novel strategies in immunotherapy of Hodgkin’s lymphoma is to push the immunological state by a vaccine-type agent (A remedy!) toward EBV specific immune control (a Th1 response)."

I am not aware of any TH-1 activity against EBV. The normal immune response is xenophagy. Please proviude a reference?
There are vaccine type options for NON-Hodgkins lymphoma, but EBV causes Hodgkins disease. I know of no vaccine for that which is any better than say the pappiloma virus vaccine (which is less than useless iMO).

Ardavan further adds:
This means pushing the chronic state towards a primary infection state related to EBV. Isn’t this exciting?
An assumption with which I disagree.
The immune system MAY be flogged into a response, not made healthy and balanced; there is a difference.

Another typical example to show the difference:
Diabetics may be given a glipizide drug, as it forces the pancreas to produce more insulin.
This does not heal the pancreas or make it balanced or better in any way - in fact the opposite. Glipizide indeed forces more insulin for a while - but it is like whipping an overtired donkey, it moves again then drops dead - as does the pancreas after glipizide.
I do not find that exciting.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Ardavan Shahrdar]

Dear Irene,

The most comprehensive book written on EBV is 'Epstein Barr Virus' edited by Erle S. Robertson. It is a 764 page book only about EBV with the first chapter written by M. Anthony Epstein, discoverer of EBV. My main reference regarding Th1 activity in EBV infection and the link to Hodgkin's is Chapter 13 of this book, Immune Response and Evasion in Host-EBV Interaction' written by Christian Münz. You can find the point regarding novel strategies on p.218 beginning from line 20. Christian Münz is a scientist at Laboratory of Viral Immunology at The Rockefeller University (his email: munzc@rockefeller.edu ).

I have read this book word by word, thought about it, and searched several references of this book when interested in. I recommend it to every person interested in EBV and its related infections and how they are linked to chronic conditions such as different cancers.

Warm regards,

Ardavan
Sent from my iPad

[John Harvey]

Good god, these things are complicated without pictures, aren't they.

Irene, I hadn't seen your effort here when I replied to the other thread (which, strangely, has the same subject line as this one). You make good points here about the very different natures of cellular and acellular "life", and, though I don't know why (since you've disclaimed any matter of personal pride in the question), clearly it is more important to you that a virus not be classified as a parasite than it is to Ardavan that it be understood to be parasitic. I have no basis for calling it either way.

But for the purposes of this discussion, surely all we want to do is to clarify which immune mechanisms are called into action by which stimuli, via which pathways? I'm wondering how much the question of whether a virus is a parasite may be diverting our attention from communicating clearly our (that is, at least, your and Ardavan's!) understanding of what leads to what.

The case in point being EBV, a virus, if we were all merely to agree to differ on the classification question, would that let us successfully attend to the critical question of who is doing what to whom?

Cheers --

John

P.S. I like this word "defest"; but a quick search tells me nothing about it. What does it mean? Or am I being dimwitted -- is it "defeat"?

[Irene de Villiers]

It may well be a great book. It costs $300; there is a book review here:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMbkrev39523
Sorry but you started a discussion on a list for FREE sharing and discussion.

For me, I find it useful to learn the strategies used by viruses and the immune system agains them, as when you learn one option and then see something similar later, it rings a bell and is easier to investigate and respond to, and make use of.
There is lots of research to read free of charge at PubMed on EBV, including new information this month. (The book is 2006, which is good - for a book). I have explained some of this year's research, also at no charge to list members, despite the constant barrage of excuses to play ad hominem games instead.

New excuse now:
but you decline to explain any of it here?
That is fine. Nobody is obliged to contribute anything at all.

The review (which I CAN afford) has :
"The thesis of Burnet and Thomas..........."......theory not new facts discovered.
" The virus MAY induce autoantibody...."...........supposition
" Book describes basic research...."......................does not imply new findings

One ref I used is free here - Mar 13 this year:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24633785
J Pathol. 2014 Mar 13. doi: 10.1002/path.4351.
Xenophagy in Helicobacter pylori- and Epstein-Barr virus-induced gastric cancer.
Zhang L1, Sung JJ, Yu J, Ng SC, Wong SH, Cho CH, Ng SS, Chan FK, Wu WK.

You may find that interesting, it is less about basic research and more about specific immune system response by xenophagy, which is new discovery.
Xenophagy or at least the wider category of which xenography is a subset, is used against many microscopic organisms which can get into the cells, especially bacteria - TB for example.

AS with other immune mechanisms like neutrophils, the EBV has counter-mechanisms to xenophagy.
One has to have a MORE ROBUST immune system to beat the virus.

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[John R. Benneth]

It's been said there's more non human material inside a human than human, but I'm not sure it's relevant to human health, as is whether or not the virus is parasitic, as its function could be symbiotic rather than opportunist, it could be an endogenous element of human health, it could be a scavenger, performing some role yet unknown. To attack it or try to remove it does not fit into homoeopathic philosophy but rather into what Hahnemann referred to as symptomatic therapy. Simply palliating it may cause more symptoms than it cures.
John B.
In a message dated 4/25/2014 3:33:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, John.P.Harvey@gmail.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

[John Harvey]

Irene, is it possible that, in response to Ardavan's gentle forays into opening your closed little mind, you could be any more obnoxious than you consistently have been toward him?

I don't mind when you call out your cheer squad to hammer me, because I've worked at hammering a point through your thick skull on many occasions, and the reaction by you and your goons tells me that at least something is clearing the hurdles of unbounded self-confidence. Ardavan, though, is a different case; he has always discussed matters with you in a way that surpasses the high standards you hold everybody to except yourself; he is dispassionate, interested beyond the bounds of self-preservation in your viewpoint, and never less than perfectly gentlemanly. So you do him and everybody watching this discussion a disservice when you offer him the kind of disrespect that nobody could show you without copping a long diatribe on manners, ego, science, and the wonderful qualifications and experience in saving cats that make every drop of spittle from your foam-flecked lips worth its weight in gold.

There's something basic that you're overlooking -- and I mean something more than the fact that, of all the people who share this planet, all but one of them are not you. It's this: because Ardavan's attempt to discuss the topic of EBV with you in the broad resulted, as always, in a disorderly catalogue of disputes with him that utterly failed (even despite my suggestion that you remedy the failure) to relate your disputative viewpoints to his various statements, Ardavan kindly chose to raise just one small topic at a time -- keeping, as he did so, to the rules that you insist upon though you see no reason to apply them yourself -- and, in so doing, simplified the task of executive control that you seem so ill-adapted for, and allowed you the greatest possible chance of remembering what you're talking about once you get going. You had already turned what could and should have been a straightforward factual discussion into a small war, complete with rules of engagement, feints, defensive postures, surprise attacks, and propaganda, and Ardavan's gentlemanly response was to accommodate your needs.

So when -- rather than pick on somebody, such as I, who'll be glad to throw cold water on your overweening pride -- you continue insulting this gentleman by whose generosity and undoubtedly severely tested tolerance you have a forum in which to air your pretensions, you evidently do so without the least cognisance of your place in the world or of the confabulatory nature of your personal self-history, because you're missing something quite basic in what's going on in this place.

That Ardavan is willing to treat you and me and everybody here as colleagues on the same footing, you have doubtless failed to realise is something of an honour that he has bestowed on all of us with a casualness and grace that come naturally to him. Have you ever noticed that Ardavan never contests your views with statements about how well-qualified he is, having studied this and that and treated and saved so many head of cattle or of cannon fodder? That's because, like many others here, he doesn't think in those terms and doesn't relate to his colleagues via status jockeying. The man is a natural-born leader, which is why the readership of this list is as large as it is. But you will keep on telling him and everybody else just what a unique expert you are. And he lets it pass without embarrassing you; and how do you respond to that? You just get worse.

Well, we're all clueless at times. But there comes a time to grow up; and whether that's at the age of six or, for the benighted, at the age of sixty, that time is an opportunity to outgrow the constraints of the personal hurts and fears and pride in accomplishment that rule the affairs of emotional cripples.

When I say "grow up", though, Irene, it means something well beyond recognising for yourself the childish self-indulgence from which comes the gall to make the outrageous claims that the rest of us generally let pass without comment. It means looking around you; recognising the right of others to have an existence upon which you shall not impinge, even in momentary flights of fancy; recognising that you are surrounded by crying needs, in the face of which habits of indulgent self-love and self-gratification must at least take a back seat; recognising, as I signalled earlier, that, of all the people on the planet, all but one are not you, making you -- and all of us, however much we wish it were not the case -- nothing special, just another animal in a society of others poorly adapted to a nest we've trampled almost beyond all recognition. And it begins with a recognition and an acknowledgement that you are, as we all are, sometimes wrong; sometimes in the wrong; sometimes wrong-headed; and maybe even occasionally wrong-hearted; and that, as the rest of us do, you have room yet for growth and improvement. And that's an exciting thing and a fabulous opportunity for refreshment.

Only the very young -- that is, the spectacularly ill-informed -- are capable of believing that they know everything, know best, or own the best set of rules for living. Getting out of their rut and being exposed to something of the real world seems to most reliably shake a teenager out of a lifelong habit of happy complacency with himself. Perhaps, when we've fallen into a long-standing pattern of self-complacency again later in life, we can use a fresh exposure to real life and to the pains and joys of others to give ourselves a fresh shakeup.

Life's too short to waste veiled in fancies.

Cheers --

John

[Maria Bohle]

Hello Ardavan and friends,

If I may return this discussion to 'medicine' and particularly homeopathic medicine, I have a few questions.

First, Ardavan, I am delighted and grateful for your posting this information, it is the most satisfying that I have seen in a long time. You have explained the damage the EBV can eventually cause if suppressed.

Can we consider that 'most likely', a similar type reaction could occur with Pneumonia and/or the HPV virus? Or, perhaps with many other vectors.

I have heard from some homeopaths when a patient had a history of pneumonia that was suppressed they could indeed get a cancerous condition later - I have read if we could bring back the pneumonia we can cure those cancers.

If HPV had a similar kind of ability to shut down the cell - it might explain that connection also.

Of course this is always great information to have. We homeopaths have always tried to address a 'never well since' and this just takes that concept farther.

After this discussion, my next letter will ask questions about how to address these conditions in a patient, especially when there are few symptoms.

Warm regards, Maria

[Veronique Bouan]

Good thinking Maria !
Wait until Dr Shardar goes further....you'll see you get the point !
Véronique
2014-04-25 18:15 GMT+02:00 Maria Bohle >:

[Ardavan Shahrdar]

Dear Irene,

If interested, I can send the book for you. It is based on empirical data and worth reading for anyone professionally interested in microbiology or infectious diseases. Just send your address for me and I will post it to you. Let's be unprejudiced and only judge after reading it.

Warm regards,

Ardavan
Sent from my iPad

[tikva]

Thank you for this interesting topic. I am looking forward to more information.
Tikva Sasson
HomeopathyforHumanity.org