Minutus

Hi Irene,

Re: “Th-1 cytokines are part of the FIRST line of defense again both acute and chronic conditions or invasions......”

and

“This is normal Th-1 activity and will happen as long as the Thymus is healthy.”

Would Thymuline support the health of the thymus???

References:

Thymuline is one of the hormones produced by the thymus that are believed to play a role in the maturation of T-lymphocytes and overall modulation of the immune system.
----------------------------

Thymus glands produces thymopoietin and thymosin. These 2 hormones are stimulus to the thymus to produce Thymus cells (t-cells).
---------------------------------
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... kd2uDn-kZw

------------------------------------------------

Atb,

Leilanae

Dear Irene,

Thanks for sharing your ideas but please accept my apology, in advance, to challenge your comments.

1. It seems that what you are considering as Th1 and Th2 profiles are confused with T-cell and B-cell activity. You are somehow contrasting cellular and humoral immunity and not Th1 and Th2 activities. There is a great difference between B-cell humoral immunity and Th-2 enhanced B-cell activity. Please have a look at updated cellular and molecular immunology texts.

2. There is a strict polarity in Th1/Th2 axis. The reason is that IL-4 and IL-10 secreted by Th2 cells inhibit development of Th1 cells.

3. There is a common origin for Th1 and Th2 subsets. They both develop from naive CD4+ T lymphocytes; defferentiation depending on cytokines.

4. Th2 activity doesn't necessarily follow Th1 activity. It can be the first and the only defence in specific infections.

5. The term, parasite, traditionally was referred to what you have described. In recent modern terminology it includes viruses, too.

6. Therapeutics vaccines has nothing to do with the common preventive vaccines. I am not an advocate of current therapeutic vaccines in conventional medicines. I believe that our remedies are actually acting like therapeutic vaccines. Please do not be allergic to the name of vaccine. The concept is important.

7. EBV is an intracellular infection and is not cleared by neutrophil activity. There is actually a lymphocytosis reaction in acute EBV infection. The defence is done by cytotoxic CD8+ T cells. Humoral immunity just helps the process and neutophils have no role. Neutophils do not have any significant role in defense against viruses.

8. The most extreme cases of Th1/Th2 polarity happens in chronic conditions.

9. My example in my post was Hodgkin's lymphoma and EBV. In other diseases, the primary infection may have a Th2 profile.

10. By primary infection, I mean the initial picture of an infection not modified by immune secondary defense mechanism that are activated to manage an unresolvable acute condition.

11. I am not a traditionalist but I love to extract the primary core valuable ideas and then combine the concepts, if still valuable, with new empirical data.

Warm regards,

Ardavan

P.S.

By the way, what was the reference and the date of publication of your immunology points?
Sent from my iPad

Ardavan,

Any civilized person would be happy to receive your comments, positive or negative, on the topic of discussion, but without the passive aggressive personal remarks, and would they need to be on the topic of discussion, which these remartks are not.
No it does not seem so, which is why I had not mentioned T-cells or B-cells, and is why I spoke of cytokines.
Your criticism is intended to discredit by replacing my words with ones I did not use.
Perhaps you woud be so good as to quote what I said that you disagree with, insteaad of inventing suppositions I did not make.
It comes across as defensive rather than informative. You do not even bother to mention EBV, the true topic.

If there is something to be learned by either of us, there is a more polite way to go about it than this invention of things I did not talk about and which you want to pretend I did, such as T-cell and B-cell and humoral versus cellular concepts. None of those are in my email for you to pretend I knew nothing about or supposedly confused.

If you can not be so polite as to keep it to what I actually said, quote it and respond to what was actually written, without immunological kindergarten substitutions, then I have no further comment. None of what you list here has any relationship to what I wrote (which comes from this century research and knowledge) and also has no relationship to explaining the medical topic first raised - by you.

You join John in playing games with semantics and misquotes, which does not engender respect in my eyes. I am happy to have discussion of what I wrote, but not this disrespectful replacement of it by outdated concepts YOU raise and then like to pretend I confused.
I have worked in immunology for most of my adult life and still do, currently in FIP research, in which my progress in new understanding is not unknown. A little respect please.
Namaste,
Irene

PS Feel free to quote your own research sources if you feel they are needed in a friendly discussion.
--
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."

Dear Irene,

If it's unclear even to somebody of your intellectual prowess and inventiveness just how Ardavan's or somebody else's dispassionate discussion of the topic relates to what you have written, then there is a more helpful way to go about seeking clarification than taking umbrage at the notion that you might have something to learn and making ludicrous accusations of disrespect, passive aggression, conspiracy, and irrelevance. You might think about how helpful it might be to actually understand the points that Ardavan is making and how they bear on your own arguments before attacking his arguments, let alone attacking his person in the way you have done.

In order to do that, questions in the form of those to which I'm awaiting responses from you might be helpful. You could, for instance, raise individually each point he has made and ask, if it's not clear, how it bears on what you've said.

This approach you adopt instead of attacking and withdrawing while claiming to be a victim of passive aggression does you no favours, wins you no friends, gains you no new knowledge, and earns you no respect at all; quite the opposite. So it may be worth a thought.

Kind regards,

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

The men involved need to take note of this, not I.
The correct way is to quote what was not understood and ask about it.
Not to invent what was clearly not there and ask about that.
And not to pretend what is there, is missing.

For example you quote me mentioning multicellular parasites,
and then claim in the next line/breath that I exclude multicellular organims as parasites.
That has nothing to do with "intellectual prowess" - or lack of it; it is just stirring the pot.

I choose not to respond to such nonsense. It is the protocol on email lists to quote what was said and ask for further explanation, if the words are unclear. Quoting keeps a conversation IN context, among many conversations, and is especially relevant where someone feels a point is unclear. Ardvavan used inventions, not quotes. You quoted but claimed what was there was not there.
Neither is a genuine discussion approach, and I am not intrested in anything less. I have no problem learning from new information that may arise, or heping to explain somethig if Ican, but arguing about what I did not write is a complete waste of time. I value mine.

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."

According to sarcode theory it shoud help yes, but in practice I have seen less help than I like (hard to measure) from say Thymuline 12C , and no true regeneration of thymus function - for example glucocorticoid steroids and vaccine adjuvants do vast damage ot the thymus, and the functions of the thymus in immune system activity do not seem to recover with a thymus gland sarcode or even thymuline, to a significant extent - not that I can measure so far in a SHORT while. It may help more over a long time, but I have not studied effect over a long time as I mostly work witih diseases where you need the thymus to get back to work very fast.

Homeopathy DOES help that to happen but not just any remedy. The one I call an ICT works best. (And a simillimum certainly helps.)

So I am not sure whether a different potency or longer duration of dosing may help. This is what little I have seen to date. (It can take longer for a cat owner to obtain than the time their cat has available, so not easy to study.)

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."

Dear Irene,

I've just reread my question and find that you're perfectly correct: I should have asked about macroscopic organisms rather than multicellular ones. But I suspect that, in your preparedness to take offence where you may, you've still missed the point of my question, which was to ask whether you had sought to exclude non-microbial organisms, such as ticks and tapeworms, from consideration as parasites by confining parasites to microbes as you did when you said:

"Parasites in medicine are defined as microbes…"

In a nutshell, then: why are larger parasitic organisms not parasites for your purposes?
As to the continual claims of being misquoted, misunderstood, maligned, and generally mistreated that you direct toward everybody who questions your authority, e.g.

"Ardvavan used inventions, not quotes. You quoted but claimed what was there was not there":

although your claim about what I'd quoted was correct, let me point out that the standard you set for everybody else --

"It is the protocol on email lists to quote what was said… Quoting keeps a conversation IN context, among many conversations, and is especially relevant where someone feels a point is unclear"

-- is one you failed to follow yourself, and that you often fail to follow.
Let me further point out that when I do quote you, as I've tended to do in order to keep you honest, you still claim to have been misquoted! Simply invite me to, and I'll provide you with several examples of this -- as you say -- nonsense behaviour.
Let me further point out that Ardavan's rebuttal of your attempt to take him down a peg or two with your self-qualified expertise in microbiology was gentle, humble, and impossible of interpretation by the person to whom it was directed as being in the least insulting unless she were a paranoid schizophrenic, or as being in the least misrepresentative unless she were unsure just what she herself had meant.

Not that I imagine that you are a paranoid schizophrenic; not at all. I think you're most likely a highly manipulative psychopath, highly practised in choosing to find insult and to invent contradiction where none exists and to use such invention to your advantage. Obviously it works for you: when you find yourself backed into a corner -- as you often do, due to your extremism and your delusion of omniscient infallibility -- your method of refusing further discussion is invariably to launch a volley of ludicrous claims of having been misquoted and insulted (would you like me to quote you on that?). But certainly you are capable of discussion when you choose to be capable of it. Your paranoid-schizophrenic act raises a bit of sympathy, I appreciate; but such sympathy is wasted on anybody incapable of similarly feeling for others, as you so plainly are. If I may make a small suggestion, you might try reading some of your more outrageous claims from the point of view of their recipients. I'm not speaking of your claims against me, here -- I'm fully inured to them and find them rather amusing, which is partly why I don't pull my verbal punches with you -- but of the claims you freely make against somebody as inoffensive as our dear Ardavan. Rather than extend and enrich what had promised to be an enlightening discussion between the two of you, by choosing to shut up shop in your usual insulting way, you have acted, as usual, without the least sense of what justice there is in what you've written about him.

Irene, you could do worse than to emulate Ardavan's example and ask for the sources of the information he has provided that you wish to dispute. That would make for a constructive way forward in sorting out what information is most up-to-date and most complete, and it would also make for reading that's more interesting than your polar extremes of haughty declamations and hysterical accusations. Could be worth trying. Who knows, it could change your life.

Cheers --

John

Dear All

Having known Ardavan for nearly 20 years and often worked closely with him and met him socially, I would say that he would never knowing insult any one.

I read Ardavan’s response and I do not think it was insulting nor rude.

However, these exchanges are taking us away from the discussion physiology and homeopathy and how to make people better and best stopped. Therefore, please let us get back correct exchanges.

Best wishes

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 April 2014 09:54
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Post 7
Dear Irene,
I've just reread my question and find that you're perfectly correct: I should have asked about macroscopic organisms rather than multicellular ones. But I suspect that, in your preparedness to take offence where you may, you've still missed the point of my question, which was to ask whether you had sought to exclude non-microbial organisms, such as ticks and tapeworms, from consideration as parasites by confining parasites to microbes as you did when you said:
"Parasites in medicine are defined as microbes…"
In a nutshell, then: why are larger parasitic organisms not parasites for your purposes?
As to the continual claims of being misquoted, misunderstood, maligned, and generally mistreated that you direct toward everybody who questions your authority, e.g.
"Ardvavan used inventions, not quotes. You quoted but claimed what was there was not there":
although your claim about what I'd quoted was correct, let me point out that the standard you set for everybody else --
"It is the protocol on email lists to quote what was said… Quoting keeps a conversation IN context, among many conversations, and is especially relevant where someone feels a point is unclear"
-- is one you failed to follow yourself, and that you often fail to follow.
Let me further point out that when I do quote you, as I've tended to do in order to keep you honest, you still claim to have been misquoted! Simply invite me to, and I'll provide you with several examples of this -- as you say -- nonsense behaviour.
Let me further point out that Ardavan's rebuttal of your attempt to take him down a peg or two with your self-qualified expertise in microbiology was gentle, humble, and impossible of interpretation by the person to whom it was directed as being in the least insulting unless she were a paranoid schizophrenic, or as being in the least misrepresentative unless she were unsure just what she herself had meant.
Not that I imagine that you are a paranoid schizophrenic; not at all. I think you're most likely a highly manipulative psychopath, highly practised in choosing to find insult and to invent contradiction where none exists and to use such invention to your advantage. Obviously it works for you: when you find yourself backed into a corner -- as you often do, due to your extremism and your delusion of omniscient infallibility -- your method of refusing further discussion is invariably to launch a volley of ludicrous claims of having been misquoted and insulted (would you like me to quote you on that?). But certainly you are capable of discussion when you choose to be capable of it. Your paranoid-schizophrenic act raises a bit of sympathy, I appreciate; but such sympathy is wasted on anybody incapable of similarly feeling for others, as you so plainly are. If I may make a small suggestion, you might try reading some of your more outrageous claims from the point of view of their recipients. I'm not speaking of your claims against me, here -- I'm fully inured to them and find them rather amusing, which is partly why I don't pull my verbal punches with you -- but of the claims you freely make against somebody as inoffensive as our dear Ardavan. Rather than extend and enrich what had promised to be an enlightening discussion between the two of you, by choosing to shut up shop in your usual insulting way, you have acted, as usual, without the least sense of what justice there is in what you've written about him.
Irene, you could do worse than to emulate Ardavan's example and ask for the sources of the information he has provided that you wish to dispute. That would make for a constructive way forward in sorting out what information is most up-to-date and most complete, and it would also make for reading that's more interesting than your polar extremes of haughty declamations and hysterical accusations. Could be worth trying. Who knows, it could change your life.
Cheers --
John
The men involved need to take note of this, not I.
The correct way is to quote what was not understood and ask about it.
Not to invent what was clearly not there and ask about that.
And not to pretend what is there, is missing.

For example you quote me mentioning multicellular parasites,
and then claim in the next line/breath that I exclude multicellular organims as parasites.
That has nothing to do with "intellectual prowess" - or lack of it; it is just stirring the pot.

I choose not to respond to such nonsense. It is the protocol on email lists to quote what was said and ask for further explanation, if the words are unclear. Quoting keeps a conversation IN context, among many conversations, and is especially relevant where someone feels a point is unclear. Ardvavan used inventions, not quotes. You quoted but claimed what was there was not there.
Neither is a genuine discussion approach, and I am not intrested in anything less. I have no problem learning from new information that may arise, or heping to explain somethig if Ican, but arguing about what I did not write is a complete waste of time. I value mine.
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."
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.
The men involved need to take note of this, not I.
The correct way is to quote what was not understood and ask about it.
Not to invent what was clearly not there and ask about that.
And not to pretend what is there, is missing.

For example you quote me mentioning multicellular parasites,
and then claim in the next line/breath that I exclude multicellular organims as parasites.
That has nothing to do with "intellectual prowess" - or lack of it; it is just stirring the pot.

I choose not to respond to such nonsense. It is the protocol on email lists to quote what was said and ask for further explanation, if the words are unclear. Quoting keeps a conversation IN context, among many conversations, and is especially relevant where someone feels a point is unclear. Ardvavan used inventions, not quotes. You quoted but claimed what was there was not there.
Neither is a genuine discussion approach, and I am not intrested in anything less. I have no problem learning from new information that may arise, or heping to explain somethig if Ican, but arguing about what I did not write is a complete waste of time. I value mine.
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."
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.

Dictionary help:

par·a·site........what you learn about in a parasitology courses, such as malaria, bilharzia, liver flukes, fleas, toxoplasmosis and ten foot long beef tapeworms (hardly microbes!) for example.
Dictionary: PARASITE
ˈparəˌsīt/
noun
an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

I do not include viruses, Ardavan does.

What mattered in the discussion was not the semantics (storm in a teacup), but the way the immune system cytokines are different for every pathogen. Understanding the LATTER is relevant to using homeopathy well.
(There are always exceptions to generalizations in these list discussions too. eg. Not all parasites are pathogenic.)

Had I not properly understood pathogenic behavior of organisms (whether parasites, viruses, cancers or stress effects on the body or somethig else) I would not be able to do the homeopathy that works where it doesn't in the hands of others who lack that understanding.

For example it helps in Bordetella bronchiseptica (BB) cases in cats and sheep adn people, to know that the single gene difference from Bordetella pertussis is a gene that destroys the alpha lipoic acid (ALA) essetial to the lungs, causing lung tissue destruction (but no coughing). Pertussis instead has a gene for a toxin that forces constant cough reflex, but it does no ALA destruction. Hahnemann teaches that we cannot cure without the right nutrition - and here in BB you need to know about the gene for ALA so you can supplement the missing ALA - a nutrient no remedy can provide. Otherwise the lungs burn as if they had oven lye applied, and you can lose cases before remedy can help.

For example it helps to know in Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP) that the FIP virus can only live in macrophages and that they send ageing factors to misdirect neutrophils to age and damage the body, make blood vessels leak out their plasma, smash red cells, put granulomas all over etc using neutrophil internal toxins and granules - all of which are misdirected to a high toxic level that kills in days. No remedy can fix that kind of damage in days. But if you can provide detoxification to get rid of the excess neutrophil toxins and pull it below threshhold red cell smashing levels, while the remedy tries to catch up, and you boost red cell production fast, as those cells take 2 weeks to mature (which you need to also know) -then you can save lives where otherwise there is only death.

Hahnemann considered some diseases incurable. That might have been so back then but we can and should do better in 2014. To do so:

The point is that understanding what the immune system does in EVERY different pathology - is a TOOL for homeopaths, not something to be ignorant about in 2014, when the research is readily available on line.

That is the part that is relevant to homeopahty - the understanding of the pathology and of the immune system.
IN ORDER to be a better homeopath.
Not in order to split hairs on semantics of words used. I really do not give a hoot whether you call a pathogen a virus, microbe, parasite, or pig in a poke, so long as the discussion stays on track - which I see as the pathology and immune system knowledge that can make us better homeopaths.

We all are human and have off days. I get/got irritated at the sematics games you play John by messing about with picky and hairsplitting word games that do not add to the objective.

also .....
I was irritated at the imaginary lesson one immune concepts Ardavan substituted for my actual words. (I DO expect to be properly quoted and not misquoted. I consider everyone has that right.). I spoke of cytokines and how pathology and immune system and the so-called vaccine for Hodgkins works in EBV victims per recent research. If that lesson one immune concepts substitution looks polite to anyone - I did not see it that way.

I would like future discussion to be about "being better homeopaths" and learning towards that - as a valid objective; with no substituted inventions and misapplication for anything someone takes the time and trouble to write.

I hope the week will be great from here for all.
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."

Irene, that's very, very interesting, what you've put here. Perhaps this kind of thing is potentially of great value to physicians of all stripes. Thank you for the details. I'll be interested, if he's willing to risk further bashing by you, in Ardavan's response to it.

My question about larger parasites (larger than microbes), by the way, was not intended to be hairsplitting, but to ask whether you were including the larger parasites amongst those that the organism deals with using the same branches of the immune system. I don't recall taking unfair advantage of any semantic mistakes on your part, but I must admit that if anybody tempted me to do so, you would. Anyway, if you'd care to follow your own protocol requirements and quote us on our unfair tricksiness toward you, perhaps we will be able to address it.

Also, it might help Ardavan work out what on earth you're talking about in criticising his "lesson" if you were to follow your own protocol in doing so. You keep asking everybody else to quote you etc., but you seem to except yourself from that requirement fairly consistently even after it's pointed out to you that you're doing so. With your writing in particular, which tends to go round in circles a bit, being able to see in quotations the exact topic of each critique in a message would probably serve as a useful anchor for us mere mortals.

Cheers!

John