Do Germs Cause Type 1 Diabetes?


https://speciality.medicaldialogues.in/do-germs-cause-type-1-diabetes/

‘Germs May Confer Significant Health Benefits, Research Suggests


Fears surrounding exposure to harmful microbes are omnipresent, which is why it may come as a surprise to find research showing infection with certain ‘germs’ may confer significant health benefits.

Germ%20Theory%3A%20More%20Theoretical%20Than%20Evidence-Based%3F

We live in a day and age where germ theory has undergone a sort of apotheosis, assuming an almost Godlike power to affect and permeate every area of our lives with the fear of infection.

Not only are external institutions increasingly attaining the authority to force us to inject ourselves and children with preparations purported to defend us against germs, but even our inner thoughts are often infected uncontrollably with fears about exposure to them. Even the CDC has declared itself impotent against so-called “nightmare” bacteria, adding to the sense of powerlessness so many feel about their health destinies.

What makes this situation all the more surreal is the relatively recent discovery of the microbiome, namely, the 100 trillion viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites, which outnumber our own cells 10-1, and which proves that we are more “germ” than “human,” and in many respects, would not be alive without them: e.g. about 8% of our genome is retroviral in origin, 90% of our immune system depends on bacteria in our gut. How, then, can these microorganisms be as deadly as we are told, while at the same time be responsible for making possible our life itself?

The cognitive dissonance generated by these diverging, if not diametrically opposed paradigms — “microbes as deadly” versus “microbes as essential to life” — is enough to drive the non-fluoridated mind a bit crazy. But so much is riding on belief in one narrative over another. If germs are not as deadly as we are told, how would we justify the 60+ vaccines in the childhood vaccination schedule, and the 250+ in the developmental pipeline? Clearly, there are biopolitical and economic motivations pushing the germ-centric ideology forward, even in the face of an accumulating body of contrary evidence.

One such recent academic challenge to the germ theory can be found in a study published this year in Atherosclerosis titled, “Association of measles and mumps with cardiovascular disease: The Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) study,” which found that exposure to common infections during childhood could decrease risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The study was based on,

“43,689 men and 60,147 women aged 40–79 years at baseline (1988–1990) completed a lifestyle questionnaire, including their history of measles and mumps, and were followed until 2009. Histories of infections were categorized as having no infection (reference), measles only, mumps only, or both infections. Hazard ratios (HR) for mortality from CVD across histories of infections were calculated.”

The study found that a history of measles and mumps infection, especially in case of those with both infections, were associated with lower risks of mortality from atherosclerotic CVD.

The detailed results were reported as follows:

“Men with measles only had multivariable HR (95% confidence interval) of 0.92 (0.85–0.99) for total CVD, those with mumps only had 0.52 (0.28–0.94) for total stroke and 0.21 (0.05–0.86) for hemorrhagic stroke, and those with both infections had 0.80 (0.71–0.90) for total CVD, 0.71 (0.53–0.93) for myocardial infarction, and 0.83 (0.69–0.98) for total stroke. Women with both infections had 0.83 (0.74–0.92) for total CVD and 0.84 (0.71–0.99) for total stroke. We also compared subjects with measles only or mumps only (reference) and those with both infections. Men with both infections had 0.88 (0.78–0.99) for total CVD. Women with both infections had 0.85 (0.76–0.94) for total CVD, 0.79 (0.67–0.93) for total stroke, 0.78 (0.62–0.98) for ischemic stroke and 0.78 (0.62–0.98) for hemorrhagic stroke.”

[Need help interpreting the results above? For examples, “.21” represents a 79% reduction in disease risk, and “.71” represents a 29% reduction in disease risk.]

This is not the only evidence available to show the value of infection with measles. For instance, we have indexed over twenty studies showing the potential immunological value of measles infection for over a dozen different conditions. You can view them on our page, “Health Benefits of Measles Infection.” I reported in more detail on this research in an article titled, “The Underreported Health Benefits of Measles Infection.”

Should we be so surprised that our immune system, which co-evolved with microbes for millions of years, is now dependent in some degree on interaction with them? In a previous article titled, “Why Vaccines Are Not Paleo,” wherein we explored this concept in greater depth:

“Our collective consciousness around infectious disease has been programmed with the alluringly reductionist perspective that vaccination has helped to save us from major deadly diseases, irrespective of the radical changes in sanitation and hygiene that marked the early to mid twentieth century. This line of rhetoric, of course, also ignores the fact that the ~3.4 billion year long struggle of the living cell to perfect itself into our present day organism required the development of a sophisticated immune system – one that successfully interfaced with a virtually infinite number of infectious challenges along the way, and kept us alive and well before the nanosecond old (in biological time) shift into modern medical interventions began only 100 years ago.”

Germ theory has, in certain respects, taken on the characteristics of an infection itself. Not a physical one, but an ideological one, i.e. a meme. Ironically, these memes not only have a life of their own, and replicate like the very infectious entities they conceptualize, but they have physiological effects that can adversely affect immunity. A nebulous fear of “germs” (lethal, invisible, omnipresent), for instance, can contribute to a flight-or-fight/sympathetic dominant state and therefore can result in immune dysregulation, up-regulating cortisol and down-regulating the very cell-mediated immunity needed to prevent opportunistic infections. Even more ironic is the fact that the very attenuated germs the vaccine industry created to inject into our bodies and “educate” our immunity are often deadlier than the wild-type virusesor bacteria they are meant to replace as safer versions.

As our scientific understanding of the microbe-dependent nature of our health continues to expand, and germ theory and its derivative agenda of vaccinology continues to confront evidence that contradicts its basic tenets, we finally can see a way past the increasingly dismal view projected by health authorities like the CDC and the WHO that germs will be the end of us all; that is, unless we employ “live saving” vaccines and drugs, or support global germ eradication campaigns that are not only not working, and by principle never will, but may actually be harming more than they are helping.

Ultimately, when we come to embrace the “germ” not so much as other but self, the endless war against microbes will give way to a type of peace and compassion between self, body, and the natural world that will be essential for true healing to take place. For an in-depth, high gravitas discussion of how the virome — i.e. the collective of viruses that, together, contribute to our total self (microbiome + our human cells), also known as the holobiont — is undermining classical, “us versus them” germ theory.

NIH Officially Lifts Ban on Research Studying Germs with Pandemic Potential


PANDEMIC POTENTIAL

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has lifted a three-year freeze in federal funding for research projects pertaining to germs that can cause pandemics. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a new framework dictating how research that could create newer and deadlier germs with pandemic potential is funded.

“We have a responsibility to ensure that research with infectious agents is conducted responsibly, and that we consider the potential biosafety and biosecurity risks associated with such research,” wrote NIH director Francis S. Collins in a statement published on the organization’s website. “I am confident that the thoughtful review process laid out by the HHS P3CO Framework will help to facilitate the safe, secure, and responsible conduct of this type of research in a manner that maximizes the benefits to public health.

Pandemics are disease epidemics that occur worldwide and affect a large number of people, like the Spanish Flu in 1918 that killed nearly 50 million people. Typically, scientists manipulate existing pathogens – making them deadlier or easier to pass on – to better understand them and develop countermeasures against those that may threaten public health.

But the funding ban was put in place after a string of incidents involving avian flu and anthrax that raised concerns about the consequences of an accident occurring in a lab. Any research involving influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) viruses was blocked.

The issue has become a point of contention among members of the scientific community. While some argue that this work is an essential component of preparing for future pandemics, others maintain that the risks are too great.

“The public and regulators are looking for science-based advice, but, in this case, there is still considerable disagreement within the scientific community,” explained Daniel Rozell, a research assistant professor in the department of technology and society at Stony Brook University, in an email correspondence with Futurism.

“Furthermore, there is some unavoidable bias in the advice. Some of the virologists most acquainted with the specifics of the research have careers that depend on its continuance,” he said. “While they may have the best of intentions, there is still a tendency to underestimate familiar risks and to be partial towards one’s own efforts.”

RISK AND REWARD

When funding was paused in 2014, the NIH Office of Science Policy was tasked with carrying out a “comprehensive, sound, and credible” risk-benefit analysis to inform how the situation should be handled. Even this analysis proved contentious. However, risk assessments don’t just serve to determine whether or not the research can be carried out safely – they can establish best practices for doing so.

“A risk-benefit assessment is still a useful exercise because it can be used for risk exploration,” said Rozell. “When researchers are cognizant of the most likely hazards arising from a line of research, they can take steps to redesign the research to achieve the same outcome without the potential for unintended consequences.”

Research into pandemic pathogens could play a vital role in ensuring that we can respond appropriately to an outbreak – but it’s crucial that such research is carried out in such a way that it doesn’t end up causing the very situation it’s meant to address.

Germs Are Magic and Other Things We Learned From Ed Yong’s New Book


WE TEND TO describe our immune systems with military metaphors. Pathogens invade our bodies, knock down our defenses, and try to kill us dead. We fight back with hand sanitizer and mild germ-related panic. Or we go nuclear and blast them with antibiotics. Ed Yong’s beautiful, smart, and sometimes shocking new book I Contain Multitudes: The Microbes Within Us and a Grander View of Life will make you take a deep breath.

Yong, a science writer, blogger, tweeter, and TED talk-giver, takes readers from coral reefs to hyena backsides to describe the stunning amount of work bacteria (and viruses too) perform for us humans and for every other thing on Earth. How do Hawaiian bobtail squid get their glow? Germs! Don’t care about that squid? You will once you read Yong’s description of how luminous bacteria colonize and illuminate it. Here are seven other questions you probably have never thought to ask, but that will be answered anyway in these pages.

EdYong.jpg

For starters, you shouldn’t think about some kind of battle between good and evil. Microbes in your body dial the immune system up and down (so you don’t get all infected or go all auto-immune); they cause certain cells to get made; they train it to differentiate good guys from bad guys. “I think it’s more accurate to see the immune system as a team of rangers in charge of a national park—as ecosystem managers,” writes Yong. “They must carefully control the numbers of resident species, and expel problematic invaders.” Because the immune system isn’t a standing army. “The immune system isn’t just a means of controlling microbes. It is at least partly controlled by microbes.” They are kind of the boss of you. You need to update your mental metaphor.

What would happen if every germ on Earth suddenly vanished?
All hell would break loose. Animals that eat grass (deer, cows, horses) would starve, since they need germs in their stomachs to digest cellulose. Coral would bleach out. “In the deep oceans, many worms, shellfish, and other animals rely on bacteria for all of their energy,” Yong writes. “Without microbes, they too would die, and the entire food webs of these dark abyssal worlds would collapse.” And don’t stand there all smug, vegetarians. Microbes make nitrogen, and plants need nitrogen, so there’s the rest of the food supply shot. Also, as Yong says, “microbes are lords of decay.” There would be shit (and rotting leaves and dead bodies) everywhere.

What’s so great about mucus?
You guys, mucus—snot, boogers, slime, nose goblins, phlegm—is the best. It’s made of huge molecules that make a big tangle (Yong calls it “a Great Wall of Mucus”) to keep microbes where they belong. And it has a posse. A posse of little guys called phages, which are actually viruses that infect bacteria and kill them. “Imagine hordes upon hordes of them, stuck head-first, their legs outstretched and waiting to embrace passing microbes in a lethal hug,” he writes. One mucus researcher even thinks that creatures might switch up the composition of mucus to attract specific phages so that they kill some bacteria and not others. Woah.

Why do babies have lame sluggish immune systems?
Most people think that babies are prone to infection because their immune systems are dumb and immature. Not so. “To allow our first microbes to colonize our newborn bodies, a special class of immune cells suppresses the rest of the body’s defensive ensemble,” Yong writes. The infant’s immune system is taking a dive so germs can move in and get settled. But of course the baby only wants the best and most friendly germs to come to this little microbial birthday party. Mom to the rescue!

Why do human mothers make 200 types of molecules called oligosaccharides in their breastmilk when babies can’t even digest oligosaccharides in the first place?
Look kid, it’s not about you. The fats and the lactose in breastmilk, that’s for you. Drink up. But those oligosaccharides, those are for microbes, specifically one called Bifidobacterium longum infantis. You really want to attract that that guy and keep him around. Because B. infantis, as Yong writes, earns its keep by eating up those oligosaccharides and spitting out short-chain fatty acids. Baby gut cells eat the fatty acids. In other words, mom is feeding the B. infantis so the B. infantis will feed the baby.Your baby is eating germ poop! This microbe also tells gut cells to make proteins that glue everything together. And it makes anti-inflammatory molecules. It’s kind of a big deal. Unfortunately, B. infantis might be an endangered species. In developing countries, up to 90 percent of babies are colonized with the germ. In developed countries, however, that number is around 30 or 40 percent. Scientists aren’t sure why, but it’s probably not good.

Is there a bacterium that has a thing for men?
Yes! Here are some things that Wolbachia pipientis can do. It can eliminate the males of a certain wasp species. It can turn guy woodlice into gal woodlice. It kills baby boy butterflies. “Females are its ticket to the future; males are an evolutionary dead end,” Yong writes. “So it has evolved many ways of screwing over male hosts to expand its pool of female ones.” Oh, but also? It protects mosquitos from Zika, which means it could be deployed to protect you from Zika. Which goes to show you. “There is no such thing as a ‘good microbe’ or a ‘bad microbe.’ These terms belong in children’s stories. They are ill-suited for describing the messy, fractious, contextual relationships of the natural world … In reality, bacteria exist along a continuum of lifestyles, between ‘bad’ parasites and ‘good’ mutualists.”

Are there probiotics for goats?
There was this plant in Australia, and people wanted goats to eat it, but it was poisonous. But goats in Hawaii could eat this same plant. So scientist Raymond Jones, (“After several long flights, some involving thermos flasks full of rank rumen fluids and others involving live goats,”) dosed the Aussie goats with rumen germs from the Aloha goats and presto! They could eat the poisonous plant. Farmers buySynergistes jonesii as a “probiotic drench” they spray on the critters. Which sounds a little more palatable than a fecal transplant.

Bonus question: Speaking of! What is the worst/best fecal transplant joke in this book?
Well, if you could give people the microbes that live in the poop that seems to help when given to people withClostridium difficile infections, but not include the actual poop… that would be a stool substitute. It would be (drumroll) a sham-poo.

How long do cold and flu germs stay alive after infected people cough and sneeze all over everything?


It varies, depending partly on where the germ-laden droplets fall. Experiments with specific cold and flu germs have shown potential survival times ranging from a few minutes to 48 hours or more. How long such germs remain capable of infecting you in day-to-day life is harder to say.

Germs generally remain active longer on stainless steel, plastic and similar hard surfaces than on fabric and other soft surfaces. Other factors, such as the amount of virus deposited on a surface and the temperature and humidity of the environment, also have effects on how long cold and flu germs stay active outside the body.

It’s easy to catch the flu or a cold from rubbing your nose after handling an object an infected person sneezed on a few moments ago. But personal contact with an infected person — a handshake, for example — is the most common way these germs spread.

The best way to avoid becoming infected with a cold or flu virus is to wash your hands frequently with soap and water or with an alcohol-based sanitizer. Also avoid rubbing your eyes or biting your nails. Most importantly — get a flu vaccine every year.