SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Chronic fatigue syndrome affects some, is ignored in those who have anything-at-all wrong, might be accepted with a shrug and a pat on the back for the otherwise healthy, and is otherwise unknown. Until now, no one has had anything to go on — but now, there's a way to show that seemingly healthy people are, in fact, affected by something. Well, it's a start.
Using a test to judge the stress of the immune system, researchers at Stanford have now identified those symptomatically diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome as having a condition that is not identified in a control group. While this is very little to go on, it is more than nothing to go on, and so could start a search for a treatment for an otherwise clueless grab at nothing. The simple fact that there is now a distinction is itself news, but also that the research uses a lab-on-a-chip to assess change in current of a sample of immune cells, giving them an indicator of the health (or stress) of the sample is an example of a technology that hasn't been considered until the last few years — and a hint at advances offered by even simple, routine advances of technology.
As a shameless plug, I consulted a trusted holistic health friend (note: whole-health/holistic, not homeopathic/pretend) about CFS, and she mentioned that she feels it's a general toxicity problem. The immune system does play a role in clearing various toxins from the body, so perhaps another clue for researchers to pursue. (Tip: up until 1990, lead-based solder was used in household plumbing. How much that matters, perhaps not a whole lot.)
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 07 2019, @04:51PM (18 children)
Your friend gives you standard-issue bullshit meaningless alt-health drivel like that, and you think she's "one of the good ones".
Let me tell you about toxins. Toxins are substances characterized one of two things.
One is "acute" toxicity, where there are immediate, localized, and directly attributable effects such as cell-death, mutational load, or pain. Effects particular to the substance in question. Easily recognized examples are botulism toxin, which causes cell death, bee venom causing acute pain, cell disruption, often dangerous immune response, poison ivy oils causing rashes.
The other is "chronic" toxicity, that your friend is pretending to know about. Chronic toxicity is characterized, more than anything, by a dose response curve over time. Again, particular the the toxic substance in question. Long-term lead exposure in children is characterized by degraded mental development. In proportion to the amount of lead in their environment. Ash causes increased risk of lung cancer in direct proportion to the amount of smoking done over a lifetime. These are "toxic" substances.
What your friend describes, however, doesn't attribute to any particular substance, in any particular amount, vaguely defined health effects. Your friend is completely and totally full of shit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @05:26PM (6 children)
This post will probably confuse more than help. It seems to imply there is no dose response curve in the case of acute toxins.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:13PM (5 children)
I thought that was a misunderstanding that was unlikely to happen. People going "Oh it doesn't matter how many bees sting me, it's exactly the same" is a pretty silly conclusion almost anyone would see for themselves.
But for chronic toxicity, particular toxin to particular effect, with a particular rate of moderation being essential is something OP's friend intentionally obfuscates in order to sell holistic cleanses or some shit.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday May 07 2019, @07:07PM (3 children)
Bees & wasps, so many times, one sting is enough to cause a big problem -- Anafalactic Shock. And the Penicillin can do that too, unfortunately.
Other things, too much at once is very bad. You're so right about that. You know, autism has become an epidemic. 25 years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control. I am TOTALLY in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump. I mean, it looks just like it's meant for a horse, not for a child, and we've had so many instances, people that work for me.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday May 08 2019, @01:30PM (2 children)
Anaphylactic?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:01PM (1 child)
I was going with some sort of shock associated with Aflac.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:19PM
I see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @09:55PM
It is just your total lack of mention of dose response in the acute case along with extreme overemphasis of it in the second case makes it seem like you are using that to discriminate between them. It is just as important for both.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 07 2019, @05:31PM (10 children)
There's also more to toxin load than simple mass of toxin onboard. For example: mercury in the body in non-reactive form, hidden away in non-circulating pockets is, by definition, harmless. The problem is, there's no such thing as completely non-reactive form for mercury, nor are there pockets within the human body where such compounds can dwell indefinitely without circulating somewhat - but, there are degrees of this, quite a broad range in fact.
Unfortunately, for victims of poorly conceived and executed chelation therapy, they can have their "total mercury load" reduced by large, measurable amounts through chelation treatments which, unfortunately, transform relatively harmless deposits of relatively non-reactive mercury (same applies for many other toxins, particularly elemental / heavy metals), into more reactive, circulating form where much of it leaves the body "through normal channels" but, a significant quantity of it goes on to cause accelerated neurological and other damage in a matter of days - damage that undisturbed toxins might have taken decades to inflict.
Fun "toxin" fact: LSD flashbacks can happen when fatty tissues are mobilized because LSD molecules "hide" in fat, sometimes for decades. Go on a diet, take a trip from back in time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @05:44PM (5 children)
Chelation is pretty rare these days and only used for very severe metals poisoning.
OSHA talks about it in their lead standard. [osha.gov]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:22PM (4 children)
Depends on your social circles... they messed up quite a few kids with it 15-20 years ago, but some bad ideas never seem to die.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:39PM (3 children)
Whelp, I roll with the science-based occupational health and safety posse, then!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 07 2019, @08:04PM (2 children)
Boring! and also quite unhelpful for many conditions.
I have done science-based medical research for work. It's quite depressing how many safe and effective therapies for serious - even life threatening - conditions exist, are known, but will not be developed into clinically available treatments or be positively endorsed by doctors, even the doctors who developed them, due to the system we have in place.
Chelation is not among these safe nor effective treatments for the many conditions that are anecdotally attributed to long-term low-level heavy metal poisoning. But, from the perspective of the caregivers, they have essentially nothing to lose, so...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by Acabatag on Tuesday May 07 2019, @11:59PM (1 child)
Medical device companies always ask early in the idea phase "what is the reimbursement model."
I am certain drug companies ask that question as well.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 08 2019, @02:01AM
Even among researchers who don't ask about the reimbursement model, the people who fund their research do...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @05:51PM (3 children)
No, this has never happened.
People may have intense emotional experiences and then have a flashback for that reason, but it is not re-release of LSD from a tissue reservoir years (or even days) later. I'd love to know what incompetent and/or malicious government employee came up with that one.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:26PM (2 children)
I do appreciate the bare assertion of their claim against the bare assertion of your rejection of their claim.
Only somehow, in rejecting their extraordinary claim you managed to make your rejection more extraordinary "no this has never happened". Clinicians have documented enough claims of it happening [popsci.com] that "it has never happened" is a spurious assertion. That the events that have been recorded are unrelated to prior drug use, or unrelated to the fat solubility of lysergic acids, those are arguments you could make, and there's no compelling evidence you're wrong.
But "This has never happened" is grossly inaccurate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07 2019, @06:43PM
I didn't say flashbacks are a myth. I said lsd is not stored in some tissue reservoir and then released years later to cause a flashback. This has never happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @12:36AM
Lsd is not a stable molecule it does not stays intact that long : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Reactivity_and_degradation [wikipedia.org]
Also it is water-soluble so it will not accumulate in fat