About Lyme disease (borreliosis)

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
"infect" the individual, a few drops of lemon and voila.

Whether the head stays or not has nothing to do with the risk of infection! You are infected if the tick is infected ... whether the head is removed or not!

precisely if, the lemon will avoid a possible infection by its disinfecting power and I have experience of it over many years of practice for many different cases: wounds dirty by the ground, by oils, nails, etc ...
It would be strange that those who used this very simple means were injured ONLY with non-infectious agents and that the others (those who infect) lacked luck to be.
The memory is still fresh on the avian and swine flu which were to infect whole populations risking to make millions of deaths (like AIDS) and which made a magnificent flop! (like this one!)

By cons, apparently, it would be necessary that the tick remains at least 24h hooked to be infected ... and small ticks we see them right now ... But again, I do not think that this is a certainty ... after 24h the risk of contamination by an infected tick approaches 100% ...

It would be more judicious (for specialists of this "disease") to ask the question: why some will develop the infection and others not as it is observed during epidemics where some are spared and others infected, in the same place, in the same family?
This case is similar to the recent topic on cancer, plants and antioxidants (among other anticancer factors) and which are as simple and effective as this lemon.

[Christophe]

If you are bitten by a contaminated tick long enough for the bacteria to pass into your blood, then you will be systematically contaminated! (highfly will correct if necessary)

What changes from one individual to another is the evolution of the disease ...

Maybe those with a very strong immune system can go below the detection limit for borelia? There, i dont know...

[Obamot]

Please note that viruses should not be treated in the same way as bacteria! It just has nothing to do with it.

In comparison (and as a general rule), a bacterium is the size of an elephant compared to a virus, which will be the size of a field mouse.

Unlike bacteria, a virus is not considered a living being because it cannot: breathe, move by itself, grow, reproduce on its own, etc. in short, it does not exist a priori as a biological entity. It is a kind of "poison-hybrid" between living and mineral world.

In truth and by way of example, viruses are extremely vulnerable compartmentally to bacteria, they are totally deactivated as soon as they do not find a "host" cell, are in the presence of UV or are found in an immune system which knows them. eliminate (as long as it is not overloaded ...) nor are they picked up by receivers due to their mere presence nearby. For example, a simple rise in temperature can deactivate them (the rise no longer gives them the favorable circumstances to pierce the body's defenses, in certain cases).

So curiously the pharmaceutical industry regularly scares us with viruses, while they are very harmless for a healthy subject! But fear has always brought in a lot of money.

On the other hand, we hardly hear about the fight against bacteria when the "com" should be reversed. Since you can hardly get rid of some of them such as Staphylococcus aureus, Lyme, etc. The mere mention of these names could induce the rest by pure parallogism: "They are bacteria, so it's dangerous" But it is a mistake, because out of 5 bacteria only a hundred are pathogenic, the others are perfectly useful and one could not live without some of them ... (production of vitamin K, assimilation-digestion, etc. )

This is why viruses are not constituents Biography-a logic a priori, they are insensitive to anti—Biography-tiques.

After, agree with serology, but a viral load is not to be compared with a bacterial load, since our body has learned to live with one and to control it, while it can be colonized by the another with new fomes that he cannot recognize.

What is very strange in our modern society is that hygiene standards have kept us away from pathogenic bacteria - but by de facto creating a favorable ground in subjects weakened for more benign pathologies (the so-called "degenerative" diseases ) - which is favorable to viruses which "thrive" because the multiplication of poisons which surround us overload the organism (there is therefore no "virus attack", as some medical sources mistakenly suggest (since 'no virus can move), as one might say for bacteria, but rather a collapse of immunity due to an overload of poisons in our environment - collapse, or more precisely loss of impermeability of the cell membrane which then lets the poisons pass and causing cellular disturbances - collapse of the interior and rather a kind of chain reaction to itself that I understood, taking advantage of a mechanism existing in gold ganism, ultimate defense mechanism - like the functioning of certain cancers - but I could be wrong, what was valid yesterday may not be valid today, given that the sciences advance so quickly, although the bases remain: the land, always land ...). And this is where one can wonder how it is that poisons can be so miscible with our cells, simply because by nature they are very close to them (a virus is a type of poison made of 'a single type of nucleic acid RNA or DNA)

We cannot therefore draw lessons from what Highfly-Addict said about bacteria, to apply them as they are to viruses.

[Christophe]

+1 Obamot

This is why viruses are not constituents Biography-a logic a priori, they are insensitive to anti—Biography-tiques.

Why this "a priori"?

Because anti bio could attack the host of the virus?

[Obamot]

Yes and no (but in principle not *), it is simply because:

- as long as the virus has not - CIRCUMSTANTIALLY (therefore fortuitously, to simplify) - invests the cell which will create its envelope and disrupt it by locking itself up with it, it is still not a link in the a living link! (Hence "a priori")

- and even afterwards - once in the cell - it is disputed, because it serves as a reagent and disappears with the cell as soon as the immune system takes over.

These poisonous filths aren't even vampires.

While antibiotics will attack the ability of bacteria to:
- move;
- reproduce therefore break their multiplication;
- block their development and / or survival;
- operate by attacking their machinery;
- attack the bacteria membrane;
- directly act on their DNA to prevent their division and proliferation.
etc (therefore everything that does not affect viruses, since inert "a priori")

But doing so can also target useful bacteria (or even cause life-threatening allergies, depending on the subject), which is why it is necessary to rebuild the herd of digestive bacteria after taking antibiotics, such as by eating plain yogurths, (and not with sugar since it develops pathogenic flora ... hence the risk of relapse!)

I think so far we understand the nuance. After that it gets complicated;)

* Except to consider "bacteria" as an integral part of the human organism. To my knowledge - except ubiquitous processes - antibiotics do not attack the cells of the body.

[Edit:] for example, if an antibiotic inhibited an enzyme (see protein) which allows DNA to be replicated ... hehehe ... Pure speculation on my part! But here honestly, we are entering direct medicine called orthomolecular, with the question of enzymatic digestion by fermentation!

And there we have to start all over again, because little chance that a bacteria or a virus will not find themselves in conditions of proliferation in an organism of a healthy subject;)
In an old man or an infant, I do not say ...
Last but not least, are some viruses "useful" to the body? Mystery, but there is reason to believe so. Voices are finally rising on the subject, even in so-called "orthodox medicine!"

[Janic]

obamot hello
+1 too.
That's quite right! The notion of anti is purely cultural and has to do with the mentality of societies, where this concept is used, which separates individuals between good and bad, between friends and enemies, and therefore approaches the subject in a warlike manner: to get rid of his enemies by killing them. (which is moreover effective as much as an atomic bomb on a city of civilians!) The problem, known besides, it is effectively the non-selective side of the anti and self-resistance which ensues whatsoever for anti bio, antibacterials or antimitotics (for cancers) hence this reflection of the oncologist Laurent Schwartz, working at the Tenon hospital, in Paris, who wrote in the review La Recherche in February 1996 -The effectiveness of chemotherapy is limited by the ability of tumor cells to develop resistance to antimitotic drugs (which prevent cell division) ... In addition, a cell made resistant to an antimitotic in particular, can become so at the same time, to several antimitotics at the same time. That is, the cancer becomes resistant even to drugs that it has not yet been confronted with..
Antibiotics, after being used in mass for anything, follow the same logic: loss of immediate effectiveness and above all risk that the body becomes self-resistant to other products with the same function.
moreover these anti products are poorly or unrecognizable as living and the organism must fight against the "invader" and against the product introduced into the organism.
It is this same mechanism that we can see (sorry to come back to it) between natural disease where the organism will fight and become resistant for the whole life and a vaccine which must be repeated regularly to obtain an approaching effect. or on the contrary will develop the disease which one seeks to eradicate (typical case of smallpox)

[Capt_Maloche]

So, is there only a blood test with reliable reliability to detect this disease?

[Christophe]

No, reliability is good ... if you are "well" infected!

[Did67]

Indeed, it was useful to take stock between viruses and bacteria. Lyme borelliose is a bacterium.

Now that said, there is indeed a gradation in the 'aggressiveness of viruses per se (regardless of the different reactions of individuals depending on their general health, the state of their immune system, and the imprint left by them. previous attacks - immunization).

The vast majority of bacteria, in fact, are useful. A lot of them are simply "saporophytic" (they take advantage of the favorable living environment that the human body can be) without harming.

And finally, pathogens. With gradations according to the nature itself. We can not compare a common bacteria whose name I do not know which will infect a wound and cause a pocket of stink which will heal you naturally and a staphylococcus aureus which can have the misfortune to find very favorable for him your heart valve - which will be very unfavorable for you!

Likewise, to testify to things that I know, malaria. If Plasmodium malariae is "relatively" harmless but annoying (the white man rarely dies of it, but often carries it around for life), Plasmodium faciparum can very quickly be fatal. On the other hand, treated, you have no recurrences [I had two, without sequelae, nor recurrence; the first, untreated; misdiagnosed - a false negative! - almost carried me away; finally diagnosed at midnight after five, treated with a horse, forgotten ...]

So putting all the bacteria in one bag is silly!

Ditto for viruses: in general, we only catch them when they are dangerous for humans. But plants are infected with viruses and you will eat them without any problem. Other animals have them, which do not spread to humans, so you cohaibitate with them. But some are common (Malta fever is called Brucellosis in cows or sheep ...).

So there again, beyond the more or less lively individual reactions, there is a whole gradation of the intrinsic "dangerousness" of each species, depending on what it has "specialized" in for its "attacks". ..

A Herpes is boring, but benign. Ebola fever, I would not cure with a drop of lemon! [besides, there is no care; we protect the nursing staff]

[highfly-addict]

So, is there only a blood test with reliable reliability to detect this disease?

NO ! All the specialists say it, a diagnosis of Lyme must rest essentially on the clinical examination and not on a serology!
The improvement of the patient's condition by antibiotics adapted to his case validates the diagnosis.

No, reliability is good ... if you are "well" infected!

Not that good apparently! : http://www.associationlymesansfrontieres.com/une-avancee-spectaculaire-en-virginie-usa/

I quote a sentence from the video: "the test is notoriously inreliable"

Lyme borelliose is a bacteria

Uh ... rather: Lyme borellia is a bacteria or Lyme borellosis is caused by bacteria

Same for viruses ....... Maltese fever is called Brucellosis in cows or sheep

.... Yes, of course, but it is caused by bacteria.

As for viruses, we really don't know much about them, but we are sure that part of our genome comes from them and contains at least fragments of viral DNA.