Minutus

Ardavan, your post was very interesting, and very clear. And I'm intrigued to know what you make of Irene's critique of it.

Irene, your post makes a number of very interesting points. Could I ask you please to clarify several of them?
(1) What do you mean, in your fourth sentence ("it depends on the illness type"), by "illness type"?
(2) In what respects do your fifth sentence, beginning "Th-1 cytokines are part of the FIRST line of defence" (or, for that matter, your second sentence, beginning "The body's immune system only has one set of 'rules'"), contest anything that Ardavan said?
(3) In "It is important to know that NO chronic disease can be helped in any way by antibodies. It HAS to use FIrst line if defense Thymus action" (ninth paragraph), what do you mean by that second sentence?
(4) In "Parasites in medicine are defined as microbes with a full cellular or multicellupar physiology, unlike viruses. It matters because the immune system handles viruses and parasites differently" (18th paragraph), you seem to exclude anything larger or smaller than a microbe. Whilst ordinary dictionary definitions of a parasite encompass any “animal or plant” that obtains nutrients from the host without benefit to the host, the couple of online medical dictionaries I’ve just consulted define the term a little more broadly, using the word “organism”, which may therefore include your microbes and exclude viruses. But no definition I’ve come across would exclude multicellular organisms, such as tapeworm and ticks. Are you excluding multicellular organisms from your consideration of parasites here, or is it the intent of your discussion here to include them too (in your use of the word "microbe")?
(5) Could you clarify what you mean by: "In any case the thymus MUST continue while antibodies are made (if it is nottoo damaged to do so)" (21st paragraph)?
(6) In reply to Ardavan's statement

"Th2 response is unable to ‘see’ inside the cells",

you say, in your 25th to 27th paragraphs:

"I do not know where this idea comes from.

"Antitbodies (TH-2 components) are transported by the bloodstrem, same as the cells of the Th-1 response.

"But they have NO effect on chronic conditions".

How do these statements of yours bear on the statement they set out to contest?
(7) In your 44th paragraph, you say:

"There is no such thing as a primary EBV state".

Could you clarify just what you mean by that?
Thanks --

John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.

Every illness has a cytokine (immune system chemical triggers) profile, usually a single profile though a few complex disesaes change profile at stages. There are a few dozen cytokines adn any one of them can be high or low in an illness - the combination of changes being the profile of that illness.
MOST illnesses have a generally Th-1 skewed profile or a generally Th-2 skewed profile, but either can involve both TH-1 and TH-2 skewed cytokine - positively or negatively skewed.
Ardavan has a different (invalid) theory of how the immune system works than my explanation.
Just what it says. ...with typo fix; if should be of.
Only TH-1 cytokine activity from the thymus can help any chronic disease.
Obviously not
Clarify what?
You shoud read more carefully.
Ardavan has an intracellular theory for EBV which is invalid. In fact is there is an epigene activity. I explained it.
Why?
It's a simple fact to understand in context.

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, Irene --

Thanks very much for clarifying points (1), (3), and (4).

Your reply to question (2) doesn't actually respond to the question, which asks how the particular statements I quoted contest what Ardavan has said.

Since it was technically an inaccurate expression of what constitutes a parasite by any definition I've come across, my intent in question (4) in checking whether you mean just what you'd said was to clarify whether your overlooking of multicellular organisms was deliberate or accidental. I wouldn't think it obvious that it was deliberate, as that would presume that your view of what a parasite is is rather narrow. The alternative in fact seemed more plausible; that you'd simply overlooked the larger parasites.

I don't quite understand what's unclear about what it is I'm asking you to clarify in question (5); I actually said "what you mean by [the quoted statement]". Did you miss that?

Question (6), like question (2), asks how particular statements bear on the statements they seem to set out to contest. Stating that Ardavan has a different theory doesn't respond to that question any more than it does to question (2). I'm asking how you believe your statements there counter Ardavan's immediately above them. When, instead of responding, you recommend that I read more carefully, do you mean that reading more carefully will help every reader to understand what you mean by "In fact is there is an epigene activity"? I don't yet see that that has clarified much about how your statements counter Ardavan's.

If you're unable to explain what you mean by "There is no such thing as a primary EBV state", as I asked in question (7), then I'm not sure that there's value in saying it. Do you recall what you meant by it? Was it perhaps just a throwaway line?

Thanks for any further clarification of what you meant us to understand by your claims -- which, again, are very interesting.

Cheers --

John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.