About Lyme disease (borreliosis)

[Janic]

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]

I! you have to know if we are talking about bacteria or viruses: in this case it would be valid for bacteria, there are other ways for viruses.
For Ebola, we find on Wikipedia "Non-fatal cases can lead to neurological, hepatic or ocular sequelae. The Zairian virus appears to be more dangerous than the Sudanese virus, with mortality reaching 60 to 90% of cases [4]." What about the 10 to 40% for the most dangerous and above all, do all those who have been bitten develop this disease?
We see that it is not simple!
David Servan Schreiber cites in his book the case of mice infected by doses of injected cancers and which all die more or less quickly, but a mouse resists abnormally, it is injected with a lethal dose of 10 times, then 100 times and even 1.000 times and she shows brilliant health despite these deadly doses and her descendants have the same resistance.
The famous land already mentioned!

[Obamot]

Herpes is annoying, but benign. Ebola fever, I would not cure with a drop of citro Hi Did "n! [Besides, there is no care; we protect the nursing staff]

Hi Did ", that is clear that yes, the body's immunity is a set of things and in particular a good" food mix ". The drop of lemon is not enough. But I do not believe that it is that what did Janic mean (since he starts from the principle of a "healthy" body), then in this case, the lemon juice serves as a catalyst, and then yes, it is effective (see the work of Linus Pauling and following ...) Honestly I have not tried this juice on my own, since it would be necessary to consume large quantities to reach more than one mg required when you are sick (to be distributed throughout the day) And I would even less like to try with this Ebola filth! The problem with Africa is endemic malnutrition, so it is difficult to judge whether populations could be more resistant, if they were fed properly. yes, but I wouldn't be crazy enough to inoculate myself with a virus to prove this theory: some doctors have already done it, however ant.

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).

Mmmmh for bacteria yes, but for viruses I'm not sure you can say it like that! Since viruses have intrinsically "no aggressiveness". Rather, it is the gradation of the immune response that varies from individual to individual - IMHO - and of course, not independently but based on their differentiated response. Shade! Since their virulence depends on the viral load, and therefore directly on the immune response. But I may be wrong.

[Did67]

No. Viruses are the "kings of crooks". They are "champions" in the art of entering a cell and diverting its mechanisms to duplicate ...

The cells have defense mechanisms, which recognize more or less well, more or less quickly, the "capsule" of the virus. Hence the incessant recombinations to confuse this defense (H1N1, H1N5, etc ...)

So viruses are hyper-specialized to find some flaws in such and such a type of cell, in such an animal, others in another living being, etc ... [the majority of "leaf spotted color effects" - varities say variegata - or twisted branches in plants are viral diseases].

It is in this sense that I say that they are more or less "aggressive" for such and such being, such and such a man for example! It's just that they have the right pass or the right pliers to "screw" the locks in question ...

Afterwards, the impact that this has on humans will depend on the tissue attacked: the herpes which will cause a "cold sore" will be less "toxic" for the host than the hepatitis virus (which attacks to a sensitive organ ... without being normally fatal, but in a latent form can be carcinogenic 20 or 30 years later).

So you have to cross two things:

a) "aggressiveness": viruses whose "strategy" is to be more or less destructive of the cells they infest (some do a little damage; others completely "explode" the cells)

b) the targeted tissue, which is more or less "vital" for the host ...

All the combinations are in nature from the "soft" voirus on a little sensitive "tissue", to the very aggressive virus on a vital tissue ... (nerves - rabies!)

And it would still be necessary to differentiate the strategy of propagation adopted by the virus: that which will pass by a vector "stinging" (dengue) will spread less quickly than that which will pass by droplets in the air (influenza) ... This will play on the dynamics of the epidemic.

What I mean is that it is an extremely complex world and I will be careful not to give "recipes" from there. I treat my flu with "grog". My Plasmodium falciparum (deadly palu), it was intravenous chemistry. Hepatitis, by diet.

Measles was a trivial illness, with a small percentage of complications. Almost eradicated here (thanks to vaccines, no offense to the "anti"!]. In Africa, I have seen half of the children disappear [die] in the villages in which I worked following an epidemic! [80s ]

[PS: I don't know of a doctor who injected himself with the Ebola virus; it existed for AIDS; It should be noted that the strategy of this very "extremist - quickly fatal - virus is losing; it kills its hosts too quickly; suddenly, it has never succeeded in" prospering "- and fortunately, it seems that it is maintained in populations of monkeys that 'do not die ??? So even for a virus, not everything is easy; you have to be "aggressive", but not too much either!]

[Janic]

obamot hello

Honestly I have not tried this juice alone, since it would be necessary to consume significant quantities to arrive at more than a mg required when one is sick (to be distributed throughout the day).

I only indicated a few drops on the part bitten by the tick. For the rest it is indeed a question of "corpore sano".

did67 hello

Measles was a trivial illness, with a small percentage of complications. Almost eradicated here (thanks to vaccines, no offense to the "anti"!].

so as not to "pollute" this subject, I am moving this point to the subject concerned, to demonstrate official figures in hand that this point is inaccurate.

In Africa, I saw half of the children disappear [die] in the villages in which I worked following an epidemic! [80 years]

As Obamot points out, we must not compare our society, which is affluent with a high rate of hygiene, and countries like Africa with a low rate of hygiene and low income and therefore malnutrition.

[Obamot]

Okay !

No. Viruses are the "kings of crooks". They are "champions" in the art of entering a cell and diverting its mechanisms to duplicate ...]

Maybe, but no way to get in if the impermeability of the cell membrane is maintained. And you give no argument there ...

The cells have defense mechanisms, which recognize more or less well, more or less quickly, the "capsule" of the virus. Hence the incessant recombinations to confuse this defense (H1N1, H1N5, etc ...)]

Finally, I respect your point of view, but a priori a good part of the literature tells us that viruses do "disconcert"not immune defenses, since they would be incapable of it (a posteriori, it's a different story). Unless you have a link to back it up (which I will read carefully ...) these are combinations "fortuitous", or at least circumstantial (because here, you should not fall into the trap of describing them as bacteria, which they are not, and what you wanted to avoid).

So the viruses have hyper-specialized to find some the fault in such and such type of cells, of such animal, others in such other living being, etc ... [the majority of "effects of colors spotted with leaves" - varities called variegata - or twisted branches in plants are viral diseases].

I see where you want to come from but beware of parallogism, since they are a priori incapable of it. Always fortuitous combinations, which suggests that they would be specialized, is the fact that they are so close to us, because they are part of our own genome (unless I am mistaken, this is the most plausible hypothesis) . Afterwards, the immune barrier will fall to the weak links, which still does not mean proof of a "targeted attack", since we immediately understand why.

It is in this sense that I say that they are more or less "aggressive" for such and such being, such and such a man for example! It's just that they have the right pass or the right pliers to "screw" the locks in question ...

Yes and no, but that's after. In short, I still understand your point, but if we see it differently: they do not "screw" the locks, but their mere presence explodes the DNA or RNA combinations of the cell. Because from what I know, they acquire their potential (for some) because of an intrinsic defense mechanism put down (the barrier of the cell membrane falls, another takes over ... and all that to cause of overloading the body, and concomitantly acid-base imbalance or something). The virus is useful, since it activates the immune defenses, following the loss of the impermeability of the cell. It is therefore the reaction which follows which allows (or not) the organism to find its adjustment variables. The sudden stress causing the internal temperature to rise, the cells regain their balance (or not, it depends on the viral load, the "terrain" etc ...)

Afterwards, the impact that this has on humans will depend on the tissue attacked: the herpes which will cause a "cold sore" will be less "toxic" for the host than the hepatitis virus (which attacks to a sensitive organ ... without being normally fatal, but in a latent form may prove carcinogenic 20 or 30 years later).

1) No, a virus does not attack anything, it is not a bacterium: that's for sure.
2) You don't rather want to say: carcinogenic?
3) You could not choose a better example than hepatitis, since it is the liver which is affected (the eternal opposition between orthodox medicine "known as firefighter", and field medicine "known as preventive"). Which says a lot about the way the metabolism works, and which does not go absolutely in the direction of "attack" but rather loss of permeability of the cell membrane (tired liver, acid-base imbalance, digestion flagada by putrefaction and so on ...), Proven on experiments done on purebred female white mice (supplied by the Institut Pasteur).
Otherwise it is more like saying, egg or chicken, who was there first.? Question cow, because the viruses were there from the very beginning! Unless you have a thesis to tell us how a virus would target this or that part of the human body (beware there is a trap ...)

So you have to cross two things:
a) "aggressiveness": viruses which have the "strategy" of being more or less destructive of the cells they infest (some do a little damage; others completely "explode" the cells).

It may be your way of seeing it, but it is not that of orthomolecular medicine, nor that of biologists!

b) the targeted tissue, which is more or less "vital" for the host ...

Here we are ... You will note that I had anticipated this point, it is not due to chance.

All the combinations are in nature from the "soft" voirus on an insensitive "tissue", to the very aggressive virus on a vital tissue ... (nerves - rabies!).

So what? What does this prove stp?

And it would still be necessary to differentiate the strategy of propagation adopted by the virus: that which will pass by a vector "stinging" (dengue) will spread less quickly than that which will pass by droplets in the air (influenza) ... This will play on the dynamics of the epidemic.

It's easy to check, as long as there isn't any "a priori". Upstream, as soon as the cell is out of order, it's another matter ... And there you have to prove who is who and who does what, hey hey ...

What I mean is that it is an extremely complex world and I will be careful not to give "recipes" from there.

it depends, so ...

I treat my flu with "grog".

Do you still have flu? So wouldn't it be that you are in chronic immune deficiency! Some transient allergies?
The last one I had dates back to 15 years ago (approximately) ... By cons, I take care not to catch cold!

My Plasmodium falciparum (deadly malaria), it was intravenous chemistry.

No idea, I don't know. What preparation please?

Hepatitis, through diet.

... Inevitably ... Even if presented like that it is indisputable that it works, but the approach (diet therefore deprivation) is questionable! 

Measles was a common disease, with a small percentage of complications. Almost eradicated here (thanks to vaccines, no offense to the "anti"!]. In Africa, I saw half of the children disappear [die] in the villages in which I worked following an epidemic! [80 years].

In my day, we'd rather say that it was good for a kid to have chickenpox and measles, since "that was how he built his immunity". Vaccination has ruined the chances that it can be established as it should be. It's too bad.

[PS: I don't know of a doctor who injected himself with the Ebola virus; it existed for AIDS; It should be noted that the strategy of this very "extremist - quickly fatal - virus is losing; it kills its hosts too quickly; suddenly, it has never succeeded in" prospering "- and fortunately, it seems that it is maintained in populations of monkeys that 'do not die ??? So even for a virus, not everything is easy; you have to be "aggressive", but not too much either!]

Why bother to think that a virus can "have strategies", be "aggressive", reasoning as if it were a bacterium. But hey, I wouldn't want to an influencer nobody.
Hey, hey, by the way it reminds me of the name of a strain of virus called "influence", the vaccine sector protects itself as best it can ...

[Janic]

PS: I have no knowledge of a doctor who injected the Ebola virus; it existed for AIDS

I did not tilt right away, but how can you inject a syndrome? And if it is HIV: how can you inject a virus that no one has found? It would be like injecting an alcoholism virus which is a syndrome but without virus or bacteria for that matter!
But that keeps us away from ticks (it's a tick to deviate constantly! sorry i didnt find better! )

[Did67]

1) NO, I have neither ready-made "citation" nor reference. An "old fund of organic managed culture".

2) On the treatment of my palus (I said that I had it twice, in fact it was three times). The treatment varied each time. Once intravenous quinine + a molecule whose name I forgot: there I was on the verge of death, because it took me a long time to reach the hospital. I was almost unconscious and dehydrated when I arrived ... Hence the immediate horse treatment; the malaria was on a cycle of eplus and he exploded too many globules for me to survive. Another time, this molecule alone. And the first time, nivaquine orally in high doses (nivaquine is also taken as a preventive, 1 tablet per day).

3) My apologies for having lent a "strategy" to the virus. Recombinations are the result of billions of multiplication. Ditto for the "adaptation to such tissue" ...

I should have written, but it's a long time, that among the billions and billions of recombinations, chance makes that there is one which is interesting and blows up such and such a "defense".

4) "Scientific" basis of this ???? Influenza virus, which is "new" every year, while remaining "influenza virus". He thus thwarts defenses ...

5) Yes, not having explored these questions for years, but knowledge has "crumbled", become incomplete, even erroneous ...

So I will leave you, not being competitive!

The bottom of my thoughts, you will understand. It's fair to say it's a little more complicated than "you just have to be healthy not to be sick"!

I did not intervene to "be right". This is how I acted for myself and my children [I will spare you the Quinck's edema of my 2 year old child when the nearest hospital was 200 km away], that's all.

[Janic]

The bottom of my thoughts, you will understand. It's fair to say it's a little more complicated than "you just have to be healthy not to be sick"!

yes and no at the same time! The disease is a defensive reaction of the organism in the face of any aggression. therefore anyone attacked by a bite, a cut, an intoxication will automatically be "sick". The difference is in the reactive capacities of the organism and therefore in the level of response of the immune system. This is why, in the face of an epidemic, some will show almost no symptoms, others a little sick, very sick or die of it.
The vaccines mentioned and certain medications (when they exist) only distort the defensive reactions!

[Obamot]

We should also note a sort of "memory" effect (cells? Of the whole organism?) Following stress! Which acts as a "watchdog" alerting a tired body at the slightest alert. If anyone saw any news on this ...

I did not intervene to "be right" [...] I will therefore leave you, not being competitive!

On the contrary, I really appreciated your observations, because they show what "health" information at one time was able to inculcate in us as "borderline" ideas (it is not very fair while not being not completely wrong) honestly, I would have a hard time blaming anyone.

2) On the treatment of my palus (I said that I had it twice, in fact it was three times). The treatment varied each time. Once intravenous quinine + a molecule whose name I forgot: there I was on the verge of death, because it took me a long time to reach the hospital. I was almost unconscious and dehydrated when I arrived ... Hence the immediate horse treatment; the malaria was on a cycle of eplus and he exploded too many globules for me to survive. Another time, this molecule alone. And the first time, nivaquine orally in high doses (nivaquine is also taken as a preventive, 1 tablet per day).

Thank you, I note the preventive treatment ...! Certainly very useful for those who have to go to these regions (I had taken Nivaquine tablets the first two years "just in case", I got bitten dozens of times without ever developing anything, so I left then fell. But I cannot give an explanation.)

3) My apologies for having lent a "strategy" to the virus. Recombinations are the result of billions of multiplication. Ditto for the "adaptation to such tissue" ... I should have written, but it is long, that among the billions and billions of recombinations, chance makes that there is one which is interesting and blows up such or such "defense" ... "Scientific" basis of that ???? Influenza virus, which is "new" every year, while remaining "influenza virus". He thus thwarts defenses ...

Not better...

Yes, not having explored these questions for years, but knowledge has "crumbled", become incomplete, even erroneous ...

Yes, but at least you, I have already noted, you are an intellectually honest interlocutor, so that forgives everything. And even, as said by MP, it's inspiring because we know that we will not be "bullied" afterwards.

The bottom of my thought, you will have understood. It's fair to say that it's a little more complicated than "it is enough to be in good health not to be sick"!

It is good, good this woeful, but it is so true. I'll use it again one day, in the first degree! Because basically we could also say that finally: "It's that simple...". Why no?
Since in the end, it all depends on what "to be in a good health»Means, amha.

[ ]

[Did67]

Always just on malaria: having made the choice to live "long term" in Africa, I decided not to take preventive treatments (children, at a young age, took them because as we lived in the bush, a malaria , in a toddler of "white strain", it can "sweep" it away before reaching the hospital! - neuro-palu = when the Plasmodium goes straight into the nervous system).

So the first element of everything is the prophylactic measures: come home at nightfall / mosquito nets / regular insect control / long and repellent clothing ... I have never caught malaria in 1 years, never my "normal life". My malaria are all related to missions in the bush, trips, business trips with "camp in the bush" without always the logistics (no tents, mosquito net put too late, holes ...).

My wife and kids never had malaria ... just with that.

You can get bitten a thousand times. As with borreliosis (to come back to this), all bites are far from infectious. Depending on the health level of the population, the season (rainy, dry season), mosquitoes are more or less numerous and themselves more or less contaminated (carrier of Plasmodium). They sting for the blood. Not to infest someone. They can, if they have previously stung a person carrying Plasmodium, be contaminating (so enocre in them too, the Plasmodium is at the "suitable" stage) ...

So these are more or less likely, in a given area ... You can be lucky and be bitten a thousand times without anything. And no luck, with a few bites!

[NB: today, nivaquine has been used so much that Plasmodium has developed resistance almost everywhere. So it is no longer a "guaranteed" protection, even if there again, all the Plasmodium strains have not acquired, by "chance" genetic recombinations / mutations, this resistance! Finally, this is about twenty years ago. I no longer know the current state of this subject ... It was then recommended to take anyway because under Nivaquine, no case of neuro-malaria had then been observed ... Now, this is what can "fatally overwhelming ". The last effective medicine to come out was an extract from a plant, mugwort. Nivquine is also a derivative - well, a modified copy - of a natural molecule, quinine]