Minutus

Hi David,
This issue does not seem to be settled yet - it is only a hypothesis.

I found something about it on pubmed:

****************

1: J Pathol. 2008 Nov;216(3):328-36.
Distinctly different expression of cytokines and chemokines in the
lungs of two H5N1 avian influenza patients.
Deng R, Lu M, Korteweg C, Gao Z, McNutt MA, Ye J, Zhang T, Gu J.

Department of Pathology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking
University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.

The pathogenesis of human H5N1 influenza remains poorly understood and
controversial. 'Cytokine storm' has been hypothesized to be the main
cause of the severity of this disease. However, the significance of
this hypothesis has been called into question by a recent report,
which demonstrates that inhibition of the cytokine response did not
protect against lethal H5N1 influenza infection in mice. Here we
showed discrepant findings in two adult H5N1 autopsies and a fetus
obtained at autopsy which also raise doubt about this hypothesis.
Antigens of 10 cytokines/chemokines which were found to be
significantly elevated in previous H5N1-infected patients and in vitro
experiments, and mRNA of eight of these, were absent from the lungs of
a pregnant woman and her fetus. In contrast, antigens of seven
cytokines/chemokines and mRNA of six of these were found to be
increased in the lungs of a male autopsy. The cells expressing these
cytokines and chemokines were identified as type II pneumocytes,
bronchial epithelial cells, macrophages and vascular endothelial
cells. Levels of cytokines and chemokines in the serum of the male
case were also significantly higher than those of infectious
(infection other than by H5N1) and non-infectious controls. In
comparison with results from our previous study, it appeared that the
male case had increased cytokine/chemokine expression but reduced
viral load, while the pregnant female had diminished
cytokine/chemokine expression but a significantly increased viral load
in the lungs. These disparate findings in these two cases suggest that
'cytokine storm' alone could not be a sufficient explanation for the
severe lung injury of this newly emerging disease. (c) 2008
Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PMID: 18788084 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

*************

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi David,
Well no - I would not say that. I agree with Irene ( presume that is
your opinion alos, Irene) that research of this kind is
kind is neither allopathic nor homeopathic nor.. - just neutral.
Hmm - I scanned the pumed articles on that, but only in the one I
cited I found on what the authos base their hypothesis. The others do
not seem to have references on the source of their statements in the
abstracts.
Oh yes - sometime some "animal-flu" will wipe us out. Poetic justice!
We'll have to wait and see what hom. will do if ever homeopaths gets
hold of the flu victims.

Well, I am going to take Influenzinum and also will try and get people
I know to take it. Most of them may on the idea "why not do Luise a
favour:-))
Well, I do not see things that way. It is obvious that some day some
pandemic will occur, and it is well to be prepared. We should get
Influenzinum while nosodes are still available -- it might also be a
goot idea to be stocked with food. If too many people are not working
the logistics are apt to break down. Being prepared is not the same as
panicking.

Let's be fair even if the others are not. No-one can know in the
beginning whether an outbreak of something may not turn into a
pandemic. Actually, they all do and have done, since cases of
the flus happened worldwide. So the question is not "pandemic or not"
but how many people worldwide get infected and how severely (after
all, coryza is pandemic:-)

Regards

Luise.
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Luise Kunkle > wrote:

Hi Luise,
I do not see it that way: "modern science" is often fundamentally lacking in "science"
-it is in some sense a self-serving pack of Cartesian reductionist belly-button contemplating wankers.
Most if not all- "modern medical research" is:
performed in schools &/or labs paid for &/or otherwise controlled by
allopathic / pharmaceutical industries / mindsets...
through direct or indirect political process (interpersonal politics, grants from corporations, foundations, government-which-is largely controlled by networking within large corporations, foundations, etc.)
Modern science .. especially the incestuous allomed / pharmaceutical branch..
is a self-fulfilling creature .. a sort of living statue, which is creating its image in homage to itself, and excludes from that creation any and everything which does not conform to that which it determines to be suitable as it's own image.
(a lot like one's own personal self-image --which hopefully is less hidebound where persons may be more amenable to self-contemplation and "growth" than profit-making networks of corporations have so far shown themselves to be)

I suppose there may have been some "golden age of science"
-in which guys sorta like Hahnemann would've been relentlessly pursuing truth, prodded by their conscience and compassion for fellowman.

Some of the individuals working within various fields for various companies are no doubt well-intentioned.
sadly the actions of the all-for-the-money corporations are easily evaluated as sociopathic .. bordering often on psychopathic as in cases such as Monsanto's collusion with FDA in hiding information about six out of seven test animals going into seizures- and one of them dying .. during test of Nutra-Death "sweetner" (... which they'd originally thought might make a nice rat poison) and then continuing to vigorously whitewash their sales of this neurotoxin for YEARS and years and even up to today!
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartam ... angers.htm
http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_makers_in_tizzy.htm

When most of the "science" being done is being done "to order" and "for profit"
and when certifiably insane corporations are the ones giving orders and taking profit.
-any "real" science is practically a by-product.

Of course, I am speaking of the U.S.
I am not that well informed on the misdeeds of corporations wholly outside of U.S., I know he EU is way ahead of the U.S. in recognizing and responding to various issues related to pollution & environmental conservations .. though I think there is nowhere in the world where "black science" such as chemtrails and a lot of these shenanigans with multinational vaccine companies being caught shipping out vaccine with LIVE "biological weapon H5N1 avian flu virus" in it (an absolute impossibility, according to their manufacturing procedure..) the company, Baxter, is headquartered in the U.S. .. the lethal vaccine was shipped from its facility in Austria, to eighteen different countries,
http://tinyurl.com/dlmwa5

and Baxter is the company which is apparently chosen by "the powers that be"
http://tinyurl.com/dagmpl to work with W.H.O. to create vaccine for this recent "media event" / "military excercise" "fizzled out" (non) pandemic.
Not Good. Bad Science, giving the job to a company who just missed CREATING a pandemic from their own laboratories and into the vaccine bottles, and shipped out around the world.
Yes.. the conditions in the "factory farms" such as the one in Mexico which is being blamed for the current Mexico outbreak of "swine flu" are typically and abominably inhumane and toxic .. raw sewage in open pits, animals covered with flies who are also enjoying the sewage pits.. cages which many animals are permanently imprisoned in .. tons of antibiotics in their genetically butchered food -it would be a marvel if something pretty toxic did NOT breed in such hellholes.
The U.S. company (Smithfield) that runs that particular pork farm & supplies McDonalds
http://tinyurl.com/cfr7m8
had been fined some hundreds of thousands $USD for having created quite a lot less of a toxic problem on a U.S. farm. (is it sociopaths, psychopaths, or both .. who cannot learn right/wrong ?)

You seem to be placing a lot of faith in Influenzinum. Why ?
If I could have only one Rx for homeoprophylaxis in the face of
what I've seen of this current example of flu, I'd choose Bapt.,
due to pronounced nausea/vomiting.

If someone(s) wanted to get really inventive ...
we should perhaps have one or more modern provings of say,
Influenzinum A-2009 -I'd bet some clever homeopathic pharmacy
could gain some yearly-subscription sales to such a thing,
especially if they would support provings .. a great research &
teaching project, and possibly a good source of income.
a fine sentiment
mmm.. okay, well this gets back into .. maybe weltanschauung?
zeitgeist? .. at any rate, while attempting to correlate a diversity of "bullet points"
(current events related to this non-pandemic)
(many of which are listed here)
http://www.legitgov.org/flu_oddities.html

with such things as "who stands to benefit"
It is difficult NOT to see an Ian Fleming novel being played out by the syndication of mad scientist, criminal corporations, and fascist legislators... trouble is, where is 007?
Sometimes truth IS stranger than fiction..
warm wishes,
david 510.776.5914 fax: 510.336.6671
www.holistiq.com
www.DavidHartley.com
I.T. support: www.cafegratitude.com
co-founder: www.GratefulMindandBody.com
web developer: www.iamResourceful.com

Feel free to scoff, but the information in original research has been
life saving when used well along with homeopathy.
It is usually necessary to read the original research - not the lazy
approach of using someone else's opinion of it.
that way you see what was done and why and in which circumstances and
what resulted - and you draw the concllusions that make sense. What
actually happens in research is not fudged - it's what some people
conclude from it that gets fudged.
So it's more work - but do that all for yourself and add some common
sense - and you get good information and no junk.

Common sense example: If the study feeds cats food that is 44% fat,
and forgets to consider that in the conclusions - you can do better -
hopefully!

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."

Hi David,

as far as science is concerned, Irene has already said most of what I
would have said.

One addition: Scientist are biased in what questions they ask and how
they set up their experiments/studies to answer that question.

This is not restricted to scientist, of course. It is the way with all
of us.

So, when looking at original studies - as Irene urged we should - we
have to look at the questions and at the set-up of the study.

This is one of the things that has been at the root of the problems
with the trials to show that homeopathy works. We have let it happen
that the wrong questions were asked: the idea never was to show
whether remedy A could be effective for illness B. Yet we set up our
trials this way. The question was: Can ANY high-potency remedy effect
ANY illness.

Thus: The question must be such that the answer is relevant. The
set-up of the study must be such that the question can be answered.

We have to look for that.

(Of course for Irene this is a matter-of-course, I guess -- not worth
mentioning:-)

As to the question why I chose influenzinum:

Just because it seems that experience has taught that it works -
unless the doctor JW quoted talked rot.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========