Join Date: Sep 2006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's interesting that upon noticing that the flu example seems to contradict the idea that infection strengthens immunity in a general way, rather than question the validity of that idea itself, your first response is to question whether the flu example is valid.
|One is that is was reading a study that claimed that children raised on farms and that were allowed to play in the dirt and with animals, had less instances of allergies, illnesses than children reared in "cleaner" environments.|
|Wow, that is amazing that your kids never get fevers!|
|This might very well be fresh air, though, and not exposure to disease.|
I haven't read past this post, so I don't know if anyone else has addressed this yet. Your naturopath seems to not understand fever very well. It's true that it's a sign the body is working hard on something but it usually occurs because the immune system increases the body's temperature in order to weaken the pathogens. A fever is a sign that the immune system is working as it should. A lot of bugs we get can survive in a very limited range of temperatures. The fever weakens them, making it easier for the immune system to kill them. Reducing the fever makes the immune system work harder, reducing the chances that it can fight off whatever the disease is. That is why fever is beneficial, because it is part of the way the body fights off disease. If you reduce the fever there is a chance, particularly with a very virulent disease, that you are also reducing the chances of survival. At the very least, reducing fevers increases the length of the disease.
We are in agreement about how to treat fevers. I am not understanding where the supposed disagreement is coming from. Maybe you don't give meds to a fever at all? Is that it? My naturopath actually is against giving meds for a fever but does not tell me I cannot do it if I want to and fever is high. She just tells me it is not necessary. .
|She also agreed that while it is not wise to give meds to a minor fever, that it is best to let it run its course unless the child is in serious pain and/or the fever gets worse, it is also not true that a fever is beneficial or does some good for the body. Fever indicates the body is working hard on something that is wrong. Therefore, avoidance of fever, and avoidance of illness, is best.|
Either fevers are beneficial in fighting illness or they aren't.
|We (and the WHO, and lots of scientific evidence) are saying fevers are useful for fighting illness.|
Funny, upon reading the link you provided above, the take-home message I get is: "it depends".
|In summary, what does the evidence seem to indicate? Fever represents a universal, ancient, and usually beneficial response to infection, and its suppression under most circumstances has few, if any, demonstrable benefits. On the other hand, some harmful effects have been shown to occur as a result of suppressing fever: in most individuals, these are slight, but when translated to millions of people, they may result in an increase in morbidity and perhaps the occurrence of occasional mortality.|
|Policy and Practice
Evidence on the use of paracetamol in febrile children
|Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2003;81:367-372.|
|The relative costs of the benefits of symptomatic relief
versus the adverse effect of toxicity or the impact on illness
response have not been determined. Some evidence shows
that paracetamol may prolong patient discomfort by prolonging
the duration of illness. Children with varicella infection who
were treated with paracetamol showed a longer time to total
crusting of lesions compared with those who received placebo
(14). This may prolong pruritis. In addition, patients with
malaria who were treated with paracetamol had a longer time to
parasitic clearance (33).
The current WHO recommendations for the management
of fever in children include the use of paracetamol for
children with fever of539 oC (12). Insufficient data, however,
support this recommendation. We recommend that health
professionals should not be encouraged to give antipyretics
routinely to febrile children. Treatment should only be given to
those children in obvious discomfort or those with known
|They're all antigens, though, even if some are infectious and some aren't. So it's the same principal either way, I think.|
Originally Posted by Mahtob View Post
|Fresh air as an antigen?|
|I was referring to its property of having more oxygen,|
|of course generally there being more sun out there even in cloudy weather,|
|and the fact that we do breathe more deeply when engaged in physical activity, and all that.|
|...we're getting pretty far away from the properties of fresh air here, but I guess that might factor in...|
I just have two thoughts.
One is that is was reading a study that claimed that children raised on farms and that were allowed to play in the dirt and with animals, had less instances of allergies, illnesses than children reared in "cleaner" environments.
And in another natural health book, as a PP naturopath stated, that natural immunity is a much better defense than aquired immunity (vax).
Also viruses and bacteria are very smart and they ADAPT. That is why the rampant use of antibiotics causes new strains that are resistant to the usual treatments.
You guys probably know this better than I, but there is also a test to see if you are naturally immune to something, which means you were exposed to say the measles and became immune without actually showing symptoms, which to me would mean you have a very healthy immune system. And may explain why babies and the elderly can get sicker.
So how do you gals feel about using herbs to boost immune function?? And what about babies/toddlers who are still on breastmilk??
My DD hasn't had anything but a stuffy nose once and she is 9mo, altho she doesn't really play with other children and is only exposed to my 5-6 yo nephews who are in school.
Originally Posted by Angela512
I look at it as the body knows what it is doing. To try to interfere with what it is already working will only cause problems in the long run. Medicine is good, but in moderation and I know people who take medicine to "cure" everything...they end up sicker, longer than if they were to just let it run it's course.
|Some of the consequences of the way we live are psychophysiological; it may be hard to put a scientific finger on the benefits of fresh air and sunshine, as it is of the benefits of spending one's entire life within the bosom of a small, tightly-knit agrarian community -- but this is how most people lived until very recently, and even if we weren't strongly guided by intuition to see these as having health benefits, there is the logical inference that since human physiology is still better tuned for success on the African savannah than in the modern city, many of the recent changes are likely to be detrimental simply because they are changes. By turning away from traditional lifestyles, we have already "interfered with what was working". Living in artificial environments means relying on artificial support systems.|
|To significantly lower the oxygen content of indoor air, you'd have to have a tightly sealed building, and leave it completely closed up for quite a while (depending on how many breathers were present). Even then, the depletion of oxygen isn't the first thing that would impact you health-wise; it would be the buildup of carbon dioxide.|
Yes it is. I understood. I think you don't really see that you are begging the question. You say that you don't have any proposition to support, which I find odd, because in that case, what exactly are you posting about? I'll keep this short and simple: you say it is not a valid example because it doesn't support a particular premise that is at the very heart of the debate. It doesn't matter whether you believe the premise or not. This is circular reasoning, begging the question.
|if you still aren't exactly sure what I am trying to say, if having the flu this year protected you from the flu next year, I would've said that this wasn't evidence that the immune system had been "strengthened" in any general sort of way. Just like being immune to rubella after infection (or vaccination) doesn't mean that the immune system has undergone some generalized "strengthening".|
|52 members and 20,265 guests|
|agentofchaos , anisaer , Anne Jividen , averysmomma05 , Azure Klein , b00angelz , bananabee , Deborah , emmy526 , girlspn , happy-mama , hillymum , japonica , jcdfarmer , JElaineB , jeslynn , joycef , juliebird , katelove , Katherine73 , keepingFAITH , Kelleybug , kiachu , lab , lilmissgiggles , lisak1234 , lmevans , mamabear0314 , Mamalari , mckittre , Mirzam , moominmamma , Mylie , NaturallyKait , newmamalizzy , oaksie68 , otterandsun_mama , rocky , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , Shmootzi , sidrajedi , siennaflower , Skippy918 , Sojourner , Sugarbaby416 , tifga , transpecos , zebra15|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|