The recent, October 2009, news that a retrovirus, XMRV, found in men with prostate cancer, was also found in over 90% of people with CFS by the Whittemore Peterson Institute, and funded by the NIH, the Nat'l Cancer Institute and the US Dept. of Defense, etc., has me really concerned because I totally disagree.
Before this recent discovery, quite a few people thought that having CFS was all to do with the psychological makeup of the person involved. One study in England thought that CFS was the result of childhood or marital abuse; a French doctor said that CFS was the result of the "terroir" (the backgound, the environment and the genes - taken from how wine differs depending on where the grapes are grown) of the person; but easier access to high-powered electron microscopes showed huge damage to certain cells such as macrophages (WBC scavengers which monitor the body for damaged and cancerous cells), mitochondria (the cells' powerhouses), and the brain in the form of small white dots, UBO's (Ultra Bright Objects), which all shows that there is physical damage in people with CFS.
If the XMRV virus is reponsible for CFS, then why don't the men with prostate cancer have CFS? Are we to suppose that we have another new disease? Why has CFS rapidly increased from 1984 onwards? How does the XMRV virus reduce the amount of serotonin and dopamine being made so that people with CFS feel depressed; some have gone on to get Parkinson's? Why do people with CFS rarely get a viral disease and yet have the antibodies to any virus that's going aound - just like having the XMRV virus without actully having a disease caused by this virus; and yet are prone to bacterial infections?
How does the XMRV virus reduce tha numbers of "good" gut bacteria, while increasing the numbers of "bad" bacteria? How does the XMRV virus reduce the amount of certain fatty acids which the intestines and colon are dependent upon?
How does the XMRV virus cause edema and pain? How does the virus cause immune system depression?
What if CFS is really caused by a certain well-researched food additive? One that the NIH, etc., knows all about? I'll leave you to think about this. Leave a reply. More next week!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any reasonable comments - even if diametrically opposed to mine - are welcome