Ashton Embry’s article entitled Multiple Sclerosis and Food Hypersensitivities wrote:The various proposed environmental causes of MS can be tested against the epidemiological data base to see if they are compatible with the various constraints. All but one of the proposed causes,including a specific infectious agent (virus, bacteria) and common infectious agents (e.g. influenza virus), can be eliminated due to various incompatibilities with the established data. The only environmental factor which reasonably fits all the epidemiological constraints is diet.
from a "loss of evolutionary normal" perspective and want to take my "crack" at it.Nick wrote:nine constraining aspects of MS
The loss of the parasites commonly considered to have shared evolution with us is unique to the "developed" populations, which experienced the alarming increase in inflammatory immune dysfunctions, while those parasites continue to plague the "undeveloped" populations, which retain their historic low rates of incidence of inflammatory immune dysfunctions.1. It must be found throughout the world but be specific enough to affect only half or less of the susceptible individuals.
While it doesn't necessarily constitute conclusive evidence, it's especially interesting that both the MS researchers and the "hygiene hypothesis" researchers separately and unknowing used different information to come to very similar conclusions. Most striking is that the age of 14/15 is an important turning point.2. It must affect immigrant children more than it does immigrant adults. On the other hand it must affect susceptible identical twins mainly when they are adults rather than when they are children.
It might not seem kosher for me to pick and choose what I do and don't want to answer but that one seems to fallen out of the sky and isn't a valid question. MS affects so few people that it's always been hard recruiting the necessary numbers to do valid studies. MS/Twin studies involve such low numbers that their results are below consideration. The attempt to reverse those results and arrive at reasonable conclusion is counter productive.On the other hand it must affect susceptible identical twins mainly when they are adults rather than when they are children.
As with anything in life, it's all a matter of perception. I honestly find it painful that possibly/probably the biggest failing in MS research was the early conclusions drawn from the "MS gradient of geographic incidence". That led researchers to the early (and continuing) conviction that because people living farther from the equator were lighter and more affected by MS that lighter skinned people must have a genetic predisposition to MS. In hindsight it's entirely possible and more likely that light skinned people who live farther from the equator were the "go getters" behind the industrial revolution which led to the creation and our being able to bankroll the world's first "developed" populations and lifestyles, part of which involved electricity, well water, flush toilets, sterile food and refrigerators to extend the life of food.3. It must be much more common or effective in northwestern Europe, Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand than in the rest of the world.
Similarly, although a complicated situation, not only is it harder for parasites to survive in the harsh Northern climes but that is also where the "developed" lifestyle originated and increased.4. It must be more common or effective in higher latitude areas so as to create a pronounced north/south gradient of MS prevalence.
Hygiene hypothesis is complicated but also very interesting. As mentioned earlier, higher latitudes make it increasingly hard for parasites to survive but it's also become obvious that the MS "exceptions to the rules" invariably involve "undeveloped" populations living in proximity to "developed" populations. Almost invariably involving aboriginal populations who live in closer quarters than "developed" populations, which is a necessity for continued parasite life cycle in hostile climes. Additionally aboriginal populations traditionally eat more wildlife and seafood (highly parasitized-zoonotic) and don't have what we would consider sanitary means of storing their food. In other words, the obvious difference between these genetically similar and latitudinally similar populations is their NOT sharing the "developed" lifestyle.5. It must have enough variation so as to create significant MS prevalence and incidence differences within ethnically homogeneous populations over relatively short distances.
I wish we had better info on what studies Ashton used to arrive at this conclusion but what has long been obvious in my studies is that MS incidence is a continually evolving situation. Despite that, people aren't hesitant to compare study results from the 40's with results from the 80's etc....which leads to absolutely impertinent conclusions and I think that is what is going on here.6. In Hawaii it must adversely affect those of Japanese origin whereas at the same time have a positive effect on Caucasians.
Among the biggest reasons that the Hygiene Hypothesis/Loss of Evolutionary Normal Conditions is slow to be accepted is that it's not only complicated but it's the reverse of what everyone is looking for. Ashton didn't word it in a way that is easy to respond to but rather than the British bringing something with them to the Faroes it's possible, and I say likely/certain that the British presence changed the Faroese lifestyle/diet which eliminated their previously evolutionary normal lifestyle/living conditions.7. It must be transportable so as to explain the sudden increase in MS prevalence in the Faroes following British troop occupation during World War II.
With the Hygiene Hypothesis/Loss of Evolutionary Normal Conditions in mind it's obvious that you can't transmit the absence of something via contact or a transfusion.8. It cannot be transmitted by either person to person contact or by a blood transfusion.
"Developed" conditions and what it entails is more widespread and complete over the last 100 years. Regardless of a person's beliefs as to what "caused" the increasing MS incidence, that is a very good point because as we notice an increasingly global economy, the "MS gradient of geographic incidence" becomes more and more faint to the point that now some people attempt to make the argument that our strongest clue to the cause(s) never really existed at all.9. It must be increasingly more widespread and effective over the last 100 years.
Nick wrote:Hi Ken
The paragragh you quote refers to the the nine constraining aspects of MS that were in my original post. These are unassailable facts of MS and Ashton's diet hypothesis honors these.
To suspect diet is not such an inconceivable proposal IMO. Certainly you're aware of another well know AI disease (Celiac) that is caused by a hypersensitivity to gluten (gliadin) in predisposed individuals.
If you are sweet on the bacterial cause, can you honestly say it satisfies all nine constraints?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA Maybe things aren't quite that bad Ken. Just consider that human evolution dictates that you evolved not to be able to digest your food and survive without the aid of the bacteria in your gut.notasperfectasyou wrote: The words "Hygiene" and "hypothesis" being so close together causes some sort of inponderable loop in my head. It keeps looping and looping and then it explodes and there's ear wax everywhere.
rather than the British bringing something with them to the Faroes it's possible, and I say likely/certain that the British presence changed the Faroese lifestyle/diet
You might find some of Ashton's information interesting then.lyndacarol wrote:Lyon wrote:rather than the British bringing something with them to the Faroes it's possible, and I say likely/certain that the British presence changed the Faroese lifestyle/diet
I can wholeheartedly agree (because I am thinking a change in diet -- increased carbohydrates -- leads to increased insulin secretion).
Lyon wrote::lol: In this regard I feel a little like the bastards I work with who like to spread rumors and then sit back and be entertained by what happens after.
Lyon wrote:while people of any age migrating from an area of high MS incidence risk to an area of low MS incidence will retain the original high risk of MS incidence (people from "modern" populations go to great lengths to continue a civilized lifestyle, even when transferred to an "undeveloped" area. In other words, regardless of where we go, we insure that we retain sterile food and water and clean toilet habits).
On the other hand it must affect susceptible identical twins mainly when they are adults rather than when they are children. It might not seem kosher for me to pick and choose what I do and don't want to answer but that one seems to fallen out of the sky and isn't a valid question. MS affects so few people that it's always been hard recruiting the necessary numbers to do valid studies. MS/Twin studies involve such low numbers that their results are below consideration.
Nick wrote: there were less than 2000 British troops in the Faroes and, given the 90/100,000 prevalence of MS in Britain, there were, at best, 2 troops with MS. Furthermore, given that any soldier exhibiting neurological disease would have likely been sent home, it is highly unlikely that there were enough troops to infect the islanders.
Lyon wrote:I agree that there probably would have been darned few infected British to spread an "unidentified" infection, although my contention is that the British presence didn't spread anything more than well water, choice of food and refrigeration among the Faroese.
Users browsing this forum: DougL