Addendum to the above manuscript
The challenge is now to integrate the addendum with the manuscript, and make the text a bit shorter and crispier.
Theoretical Immunology
Re: Theoretical Immunology
As the tiny example on ccsvi under the link below shows, the sector has gone off course. Its governance is failing. What was once a shared responsibility has degenerated into a distributed irresponsibility.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32538&p=263399#p263399
There is an urgent need to shift the primary mode from network-based self organizing governance to government meta-governance. The main task of the State is to provide the general conditions for the stabilization and continued development of the endogenous medical society itself.
For any one reading here: If you have any idea what sort of actions should be taken, please send me your suggestions.
If you are a professor at one of the more renowned American or European universities or any others in the world, and you would like to help shape a new era in medicine, please let me know. I need a team to reflect on a newly composed manuscript, the draft version of which you find in the postings above.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32538&p=263399#p263399
There is an urgent need to shift the primary mode from network-based self organizing governance to government meta-governance. The main task of the State is to provide the general conditions for the stabilization and continued development of the endogenous medical society itself.
For any one reading here: If you have any idea what sort of actions should be taken, please send me your suggestions.
If you are a professor at one of the more renowned American or European universities or any others in the world, and you would like to help shape a new era in medicine, please let me know. I need a team to reflect on a newly composed manuscript, the draft version of which you find in the postings above.
Re: Theoretical Immunology
Greetings:
I didn't realize you re-posted my article on how big money has hindered development of research on CCSVI MS. Thank you.
I don't see how government meta governance can be of help since at present in the USA govt regulatory agencies have been taken over by big money private interests. Researchers fear losing access to their labs/research facilities if their research threatens these private interests. Apparently CCSVI research has moved to China. Where in the West are scientists free to pursue research wherever it leads them?
Regards, Vesta
I didn't realize you re-posted my article on how big money has hindered development of research on CCSVI MS. Thank you.
I don't see how government meta governance can be of help since at present in the USA govt regulatory agencies have been taken over by big money private interests. Researchers fear losing access to their labs/research facilities if their research threatens these private interests. Apparently CCSVI research has moved to China. Where in the West are scientists free to pursue research wherever it leads them?
Regards, Vesta
Re: Theoretical Immunology
Thank you Vesta for your comments. You may like this video about what’s wrong with modern science:
National agencies worldwide are incredibly risk averse. No cutting edge research, no risky projects, no bold new ideas. For researchers, the main aim is to ensure continuity of funding to keep the machine going. Proposals are made with tiny little adjustments. For policymakers, science should be a safe bet where failure is not an option.
Yet, the true value of science is full of blind alleys but these are not explored. Except on forums like these. By outsiders. The German philosopher Peter Finke wrote a nice book about it called Citizen Science (in German). They have nothing to loose. Their mind has not been set, they have fresh eyes. For them it’s the new ideas, the new perspectives, not the money.
In the US, it seems that science is much politicized, to have become a punch ball of republicans and democrats. In Europe, I often think that our continent has so much history, establishment, rules and procedures that it doesn’t have room for the future.
Some of these comments should be added to Chapter 6 of the manuscript.
Below is an Addendum to Chapter 3 of the manuscript. It claims a new different role for HERVs in health and disease. The old dogma of HERVs contributing to cancer progression is probably WRONG.
Recent data about HERVs transactivation induced by tumor viruses and their function in malignant diseases indicate that HERV transactivation may act as potential regulators of host gene expression to control or dampen viral pathogenesis, not to contribute to it.
The main mechanism of viral oncogenesis is mitochondria losing control. All the rest is downstream, including the HERV transactivation. A role for HERV or its antigens to control or dampen pre-tumors would be a natural and logical outcome of a positive evolution.
National agencies worldwide are incredibly risk averse. No cutting edge research, no risky projects, no bold new ideas. For researchers, the main aim is to ensure continuity of funding to keep the machine going. Proposals are made with tiny little adjustments. For policymakers, science should be a safe bet where failure is not an option.
Yet, the true value of science is full of blind alleys but these are not explored. Except on forums like these. By outsiders. The German philosopher Peter Finke wrote a nice book about it called Citizen Science (in German). They have nothing to loose. Their mind has not been set, they have fresh eyes. For them it’s the new ideas, the new perspectives, not the money.
In the US, it seems that science is much politicized, to have become a punch ball of republicans and democrats. In Europe, I often think that our continent has so much history, establishment, rules and procedures that it doesn’t have room for the future.
Some of these comments should be added to Chapter 6 of the manuscript.
Below is an Addendum to Chapter 3 of the manuscript. It claims a new different role for HERVs in health and disease. The old dogma of HERVs contributing to cancer progression is probably WRONG.
Recent data about HERVs transactivation induced by tumor viruses and their function in malignant diseases indicate that HERV transactivation may act as potential regulators of host gene expression to control or dampen viral pathogenesis, not to contribute to it.
The main mechanism of viral oncogenesis is mitochondria losing control. All the rest is downstream, including the HERV transactivation. A role for HERV or its antigens to control or dampen pre-tumors would be a natural and logical outcome of a positive evolution.
Re: Theoretical Immunology
These people from Vienna are on the right track: viewtopic.php?t=32568
Broadly speaking, their thinking aligns with my own ideas here above.
The gist of the article demonstrates the generally poor understanding of MS in medical circles.
I am convinced that ccsvi plays an important role, to break the BBB, possibly for as much as 85% of cases.
The herpes viridae (from the nasopharynx) can then access the CNS and may work in concert to do their destructive work.
ATARA Bio thinks in that same direction.
Vaccination against EBV is risky if the homeostasis of the cells with herpes viridae has not been thoroughly understood.
It might even trigger cancer development, or as a reaction, the onset of an autoimmune disease (a paraneoplastic syndrome).
You then arrive at my theory i.e. that the ineffective control of herpes and EBV causes chronic diseases as cancers and autoimmune diseases and indeed MS progression.
The real important thing is that if our microcellular immunity fails or falters, the complex interactions between herpes viruses and our cells cause chronic diseases. And that is not just MS but the majority of cancers and autoimmune diseases. The title of the article and the very last paragraph hint at this and suggest that there is a lot more to come.
Broadly speaking, their thinking aligns with my own ideas here above.
The gist of the article demonstrates the generally poor understanding of MS in medical circles.
I am convinced that ccsvi plays an important role, to break the BBB, possibly for as much as 85% of cases.
The herpes viridae (from the nasopharynx) can then access the CNS and may work in concert to do their destructive work.
ATARA Bio thinks in that same direction.
Vaccination against EBV is risky if the homeostasis of the cells with herpes viridae has not been thoroughly understood.
It might even trigger cancer development, or as a reaction, the onset of an autoimmune disease (a paraneoplastic syndrome).
You then arrive at my theory i.e. that the ineffective control of herpes and EBV causes chronic diseases as cancers and autoimmune diseases and indeed MS progression.
The real important thing is that if our microcellular immunity fails or falters, the complex interactions between herpes viruses and our cells cause chronic diseases. And that is not just MS but the majority of cancers and autoimmune diseases. The title of the article and the very last paragraph hint at this and suggest that there is a lot more to come.
Re: Theoretical Immunology
continued from previous posting:
...
The title of the article and its very last paragraph hint at the fact that change is needed of our current view about chronic diseases and suggest that there is a lot more to come.
That is, if 'they' don't throw the blanket to put out the fire.
There will be many incentives to do so for the sector (e.g. to keep the status quo of the multi billion dollar industry) and for the government (e.g. to avoid inconvenient questions on the safety of vaccinations).
But the biggest victim of such action would be public health.
So in the end they would shoot themselves in the foot if they were to do so.
We are living in exciting times...
...
The title of the article and its very last paragraph hint at the fact that change is needed of our current view about chronic diseases and suggest that there is a lot more to come.
That is, if 'they' don't throw the blanket to put out the fire.
There will be many incentives to do so for the sector (e.g. to keep the status quo of the multi billion dollar industry) and for the government (e.g. to avoid inconvenient questions on the safety of vaccinations).
But the biggest victim of such action would be public health.
So in the end they would shoot themselves in the foot if they were to do so.
We are living in exciting times...