Theoretical Immunology

[NHE]

I am glad to see that the Trump administration, with the new MAHA (Making America Healthy Again) Commission chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has taken the first steps to build a new future, a new paradigm, and is creating conditions for “ending the chronic disease epidemic.” Right now, the NIH is standing still, probably in an attempt to force the much-needed, disruptive change.

"Make America Healthy Again" is just an empty advertising slogan akin to "You deserve a break today." RFK Jr has no knowledge of medicine nor science. He does not posses the ability to make any progress in medicine. He has a history of heroin abuse and also has a dead worm in his brain. His conspiracy theory addled brain has killed people. He spreads lies about the measles vaccine that have killed many people. For example, his lies led to a measles outbreak in Samoa in 2019 which killed 83 people many of which were children. He promotes vitamin A as a measles preventative and treatment over the vaccine. This has led to children hospitalized for vitamin A toxicity which can be lethal. He has also slashed research programs in Alzheimer's, heart disease and diabetes just to name a few. Moreover, he has censored researchers in reporting their results about nutrition and ultra processed foods, the very field he purports to champion. With RFK Jr at the helm of Health & Human Services (HHS) US health science will likely be set back 70 years or more.

[Leonard]

Hi NHE,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the thoughtfulness you bring to these discussions.

I do think, though, that we’re looking at this from fundamentally different angles. What I’m proposing isn’t a conventional hypothesis to be tested within the existing framework of biomedical science. It’s a systems-level perspective—one that challenges not just individual assumptions but the overall structure of how we approach chronic disease.

We’re at a point where incremental science isn’t enough. The current standstill—and yes, even the chaos we’re seeing in institutions—isn’t just a disruption; it’s a necessary clearing of the ground. Paradigm shifts are rarely tidy, and this one will need courage, political will, and new organizing principles.

I know it can be hard to hold onto energy or optimism when dealing with MS—I’ve been there too. But it’s exactly people like you who help keep the conversation going, even when we disagree. So thank you for engaging.

Warm regards,
Leo

[DIM]

I don't know the exactly situation over there but these news look good to me.
The Food and Drug Administration will remove industry representatives from advisory committees and replace them with patients and caregivers, Commissioner Marty Makary announced Thursday.

It’s the latest effort by Makary and his boss, health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to reduce the influence of the pharmaceutical industry.

Makary announced the change during his first interview as commissioner, with former Fox News host Megyn Kelly. He spent much of the conversation with Kelly lambasting his agency for its ties to industry, and said he was shocked to learn that drug industry representatives are allowed to sit on FDA advisory committees (really???)

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-a ... committees

[Leonard]

In light of Secretary Kennedy’s recent address to the World Health Assembly—where he openly criticized the WHO’s entanglement in bureaucracy and entrenched paradigms—it’s becoming clear that the old institutions of public health are losing credibility. In the U.S., the NIH is at a standstill. The MAHA Commission has been launched. Something fundamental is shifting. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/us-withd ... .%E2%80%9D

With the U.S. now openly calling for structural change in global health institutions, it’s clear that the old ways are breaking down. In April, I sent a letter to the Presidents of the European Council and the EU Presidency urging them to prepare for the same shift—toward prevention, resilience, and a deeper understanding of chronic disease.


My core message was that we must go beyond clean air, clean water, and nutrition. We must start asking harder questions about cellular immunity, mitochondrial fitness, and the role of latent viruses like herpesviridae. There are growing signs—from Stanford to Vienna to Berlin—that we’re missing the true underlying picture. The time for deeper dialogue is now.

This recent publication from Vienna questions the dominant MS dogma and underlines how EBV may play a key role not only in MS but in other post-viral diseases:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10883233/
Stanford has launched a new initiative to "connect the dots" in these discoveries—indicating that the implications of EBV could extend well beyond MS to a broader class of autoimmune diseases.
viewtopic.php?t=32599
Even in Alzheimer’s research, we’re starting to see shifts with questions asked whether we are overlooking crucial factors. These recent studies point to inflammation, cellular dysfunction, and possible viral triggers including EBV as central components—challenging long-standing ideas about amyloid or tau:
https://scitechdaily.com/alzheimers-puz ... -dementia/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11091575/

I would welcome any thoughts you might have as we are watching these changes unfold.

[Leonard]

If our luck did hold, and the universe turned out once again to be simple in ways we couldn't have previously imagined, then our children, our grandchildren, and our grandchildren's children and grandchildren would not be seeing the same sky that we did, because they would not be thinking of it in the same way. They would see the same stars, and they would marvel at the hundreds of billions of galaxies other than our own. But they would sense the dark too. And to them that darkness would represent a path toward knowledge – toward the kind of discoveries that we all once called, with understandable innocence, the light.

[NHE]

"RFK Jr is doing irreparable harm..."

Senator Tammy Baldwin

[Leonard]

Hi NHE,

I respect your caution. Like you, I want science and public health to be grounded in truth—not ideology. But I would urge you to look at the bigger picture. This is no longer about Kennedy’s past. It's about whether the MAHA Commission will go beyond surface-level reform—and actually confront the biomedical root causes of chronic disease.

Yesterday, the MAHA Commission released a report allegedly exposing the root causes of the childhood chronic disease crisis:
https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/maha-com ... auses.html
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... ssment.pdf

As it stands, MAHA is focusing on clean food, water, air, and reducing toxins. That's important—but it doesn’t get to the heart of why chronic diseases are rising—even in children. It leaves the underlying biomedical paradigm untouched.

I believe that the real target should be the herpes–mitochondrial–immune axis: a systems-level understanding of how persistent viral burden, immune dysregulation, and mitochondrial collapse are interlinked. These forces aren’t marginal—they may be central to the epidemic of chronic illness.

That’s what I wrote in the above letter to Europe’s presidents. And it’s what MAHA now urgently needs to consider—before it gets locked into another layer of superficial policymaking. We stand at a crucial strategic moment.

I say this with respect: As an American and a thoughtful contributor here, you could do something constructive. Why not write to HHS or Secretary Kennedy? Or support a call for MAHA to dig deeper?

This isn’t about defending Kennedy. It’s about asking the right questions—and making sure MAHA doesn’t miss the moment.

Warmly,
Leonard

[Leonard]

On June 18, I received a formal reply from the Secretariat of the European Council to the open letter I sent in April regarding the chronic illness epidemic and the need for a deeper medical paradigm shift in Europe.

While some of my high-level contacts interpreted the letter as a polite dismissal, I choose to see it differently. The Council acknowledged the importance of public health, referenced recent Council conclusions, and pointed to the role of the European Commission, the Council and the Member States. No, they didn’t directly address the theory I shared—but let’s be clear: they now know. The ideas are there. The theory is in the system. And they understand what this implies—that it may be possible, for the first time, to end the chronic disease epidemic at its root.

From their response, I also infer that there is room—perhaps quiet, perhaps not yet visible—for joint action at the EU level, that is conclusions, recommendations, events, and discussions but also co-legislative action. The reply opens the door, even if it doesn’t step through it. I trust that concrete steps at the EU level will follow, and soon. Time is of the essence.

But let’s not pretend Europe is moving quickly. Recent EU initiatives remain largely inward-looking, focused on continuity and management. Meanwhile, the U.S. is moving disruptively: it is clearing the ground—questioning orthodoxy, redirecting institutions, preparing for something new.

I’ve seen this before. In the 1990s, the U.S. broke up its telecom monopoly and embraced the Internet. Europe, by contrast, protected its legacy players and lost its lead. We must not repeat that mistake in health.

There is no way back. The science is coming together. The questions are becoming clear. The burden of delay is growing. Let’s hope Europe has the courage—and the urgency—to act.

Leo

[NHE]

The New York Times reports that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Health Again” report cited fake studies.

[Leonard]

Over the past years, I’ve shared parts of my journey here on TIMS. I’ve now brought it all together in a book, which I’d like to share with you. Below you’ll find a prepublication copy of Clearing the Ground: A Journey to the Root Causes of Chronic Illness, freely available to all members of this community.

Update August 13, 2025: I wish to present a slightly revised and upgraded version of my book, now available at the link below. The main changes are: the addition of a foreword by myself, the removal of molecular mimicry from the main text, with a new discussion added as Point 15 in Annex I (Fault Lines in Modern Medicine), and an updated title for Chapter 12.

Update September 17, 2025: Bibliography added

Update September 24, 2025: Chapter 6 revised

Update October 9, 2025: Bibliography amended and expanded

[Leonard]

A paradigm shift is emerging in medicine. This shift will challenge not only our science, but also our structures of trust, accountability, and power.
It concerns how we organize knowledge, not just how we apply it.

In the United States, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the MAHA Commission appear to be preparing for a structural overhaul of public health. Think here about what is happening in HHS, the very creation of MAHA, the standstill at NIH, about what was said in the September meeting of MAHA or the recent news about cholesterol and Hepatitis B vaccinations. They are Clearing the Ground, creating space for interdisciplinary, post-dogmatic thinking.

The focus is on chronic illness, immunity, and metabolism—areas that link viral activity to systemic disease. The US may soon formally recognize that many chronic diseases are virally and metabolically driven—and therefore potentially treatable. This would fundamentally reshape clinical and pharmaceutical practice.

Change will not come easily: the medical establishment will feel challenged, patients are losing trust, and companies may fear liability. That is why political preparation is essential—not only scientific evidence. The philosophy behind my book Clearing the Ground (see the above posting) offers an intellectual and moral foundation for rethinking health policy—not as a rejection of the old science, but as the next evolutionary step in how humanity manages health and disease.

- - - - - - - - - - -


Over the last few months, I’ve developed a hypothesis to stop autoimmunity, see the study proposal below. If the proposed mechanism is real, even a modest reduction in herpes activity and T/B-cell stimulation could help stabilize a patient’s condition over time. I just have to think here about my father and how he managed his diabetes 2. We now need moving from theory to a carefully supervised clinical discussion.

The goal would be to determine whether host-directed metabolic therapy using metformin could reduce herpes viral load and systemic immune activation, potentially stabilizing autoimmune disease progression — evaluated safely within a clinical setting. We may then start to think of recovery through diet and mitochondrial repair, after we halt the autoimmune process. Halting the autoimmune process would give us the foundation on which diet and lifestyle changes could take hold.

[Leonard]

Something seems to be shifting in how public institutions understand chronic illness.
It is slow and quiet—not yet visible to the public—but noticeable if you watch the signals closely. I want to share a perspective that brings a number of developments together. It may help us understand where things are heading.

1. A system that is overloaded

Both in the United States and in Europe, public health systems are overwhelmed by chronic illness. There are thousands of studies, committees, working groups, and guidelines. Everyone is very busy, yet no one seems to have a clear overview. And when no one has the overview, it becomes almost impossible to ask the most basic question:

What is the underlying mechanism of chronic disease?

For decades, the dominant assumption has been that chronic illness is mainly:

autoimmune,

degenerative, or

genetic.

This has produced an enormous and expensive system focused largely on managing symptoms rather than understanding root causes.

2. A different way of thinking is emerging

In my book Clearing the Ground (see my posting of 26 July 2025), I describe chronic disease as arising from a disturbance in the relationship between the cell and the viruses that live within us—particularly herpesviruses.

When cellular immunity is strong and metabolism is stable, these viruses remain latent. When immunity weakens or metabolism becomes unstable, viral activity increases. The cell responds with interferon signalling and inflammation. Over time, this response can become systemic.

This offers a more integrated and, in many ways, simpler explanation of chronic illness: not an immune system “attacking itself,” but an immune system attempting to control viral and metabolic stress inside the cell.

3. Why systems resist change

Public health systems do not change easily. They are built on layers of trust, accountability, professional identity, and economic incentives. Pharmaceuticals, reimbursement structures, clinical guidelines, and academic careers are all deeply anchored in the existing model.

As a result, even when new ideas are valid, systems tend to change only when the cost of not changing becomes too high.

4. Europe waits; the United States is moving

European institutions are aware that change is needed. I know this from correspondence with the European Commission and the European Council. The issue is “in the system.” The language in official replies is beginning to shift, with references to “global health transitions” and “joint actions with Member States.”

Still, Europe remains cautious. Historically, Europe rarely “clears the ground” itself. It tends to move once scientific consensus has already shifted elsewhere.

5. The American system appears to be preparing for a reset

In contrast, the United States seems to be preparing for a major re-evaluation of chronic disease—and to take the lead. This is visible in several developments:

- The March 2024 report of the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which highlighted fragilities in public health and their global impact.

- President Trump’s inaugural statement in January 2025: “We will not be deterred. Together, we will end the chronic disease epidemic.”

- The appointment of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for questioning established paradigms and challenging medical orthodoxy.

- The very creation of MAHA, explicitly designed to address chronic illness at a systemic level.

During the September MAHA meeting, it was said that next year “big things will come that will blow people away.” That phrase only makes sense if those driving the change understand that there could be a potential blowback that could derail reform. Accordingly, MAHA and HHS appear to be preparing not only new policies, but also preparing themselves—institutionally, psychologically, and operationally—for resistance.

Post script: Recent steps from December 25 reinforce this impression:

Reorganization of state capacity, with appointments to key HHS positions aligned with rethinking immunity, metabolism, regulatory barriers, and public trust.
https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-five ... -maha.html

The launch of PHS Mission Fit, aimed at strengthening readiness, resilience, and unity across the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps. As one of the eight U.S. uniformed services, the USPHS is capable of executing non-consensus policy shifts when ordered. Strengthening it as a disciplined, resilient force is a classic move when a government anticipates turbulence but wants continuity of execution.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/commissi ... 37856-pONq

The appointment of Harvey Risch as Chair of the President’s Cancer Panel. Risch is not a conventional “incremental oncology” figure. His work focuses on etiology, prevention, immune factors, and infectious and metabolic drivers. This signals a move away from cancer as a purely stochastic genetic accident—and toward cancer as a systemic, potentially preventable disease process linked to immunity, metabolism, infection, and environment. In other words, cancer is being repositioned within the broader chronic-disease framework, which closely aligns with the core thesis of my book.
https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/dr-harve ... panel.html

None of this proves that a paradigm shift is inevitable. But these are precisely the kinds of structural moves governments make when preparing for one.

6. What this could mean for people with chronic illness

For those of us living with diseases like MS, these developments matter.

If chronic disease increasingly comes to be understood as virally and metabolically driven, it opens the door to therapies aimed at:

- reducing viral burden,

- stabilising cellular metabolism,

- strengthening natural immunity, and

- calming systemic inflammation.

This represents a fundamentally different philosophy from long-term immune suppression. It is about helping the body regain control of its own biology.

7. A quiet transition may be starting

With the latest MAHA appointments, it appears that the U.S. is building the administrative structure needed for a new approach. This will take time. Nothing is official yet.

But groundwork is being laid.

MAHA and HHS are not only preparing policy—they are preparing themselves for transition. If that transition unfolds, my book Clearing the Ground would offer a conceptual framework for understanding it.

For now, I will continue to follow these developments carefully.

Warm regards,
Leo

[NHE]

Note: The ideas expressed by Leonard are his own. They are not endorsed by ThisIsMS.