The Cost of a Strong Immune System - by Jon Barron

January 22, 2008

The Cost of a Strong Immune Systemby Jon BarronOkay, so having a strong immune system is good...you would think? The stronger the better...right? You should be buying whatever supplements you can lay your hands on to pump up your immune response...who could argue with that?

As it turns out, not necessarily. It seems that too much of a good thing, in some circumstances, may

actually be bad for you. Last month, a study was published in

Behavioral

Ecology and Sociobiology that just might explain why the obvious ain't necessarily so.

Bird behavior

The

reason for the study was an observation that when it comes to raising

children, extended family units, or what is referred to as "cooperative

breeding" is not that common. At first glance, shared rearing of

offspring would seem to provide a host of natural advantages. It better

defines the home/nest. It allows for more food to be gathered, better

care to be taken of the young, not to mention, offering the potential

for better education. And yet, in most species it just doesn't happen.

Think lions and bears, for example. The cubs are raised by the mothers

alone -- lest the fathers kill the cubs. In fact, infanticide has been

found in many species, including gorillas, cats, dogs, whales, rodents,

insects and fish. The bottom line is that among species, cooperative

breeding is the exception, not the rule -- common primarily in humans

and birds. So the question arises, with all its "apparent" advantages

, why do so few species do it?

As it turns out, the benefits of cooperative breeding come with a cost. Or to put it another way, the benefits of cooperative breeding extend not only to the immediate species, but also to the pathogens and parasites that

plague them. Quite simply:

Because of all the close contact among family members in cooperative breeding, there is more interaction among individuals, thus more chance for transmission of the pathogens.Since the interaction is with close relatives, they share similar immune system capabilities -- their bodies are actually selectively breeding parasites better able to overcome those capabilities. (Any parasites that survive, by definition, survive because they can resist those capabilities.)

As Dr. Spottiswoode, the lead researcher in the study said, "This hypothesis predicts that

cooperative breeders should invest relatively more in immune defense than closely related species which breed in pairs."

She tested her hypothesis by examining the PHA response of the immune system in different species of

African birds. The actual methodology was to inject the birds with phytohaemagglutinin (PHA), a substance that induces an

immune reaction. In particular, when PHA is inserted under the skin of a bird's wing, it causes minor swelling. Dr

Spottiswoode reasoned that the amount of swelling from a dose of PHA would reveal the activity of a bird's immune system. The more at risk the bird was, the more swiftly its immune system would respond to any challenge, and the greater that

response would be. That response, however, comes at a price. The stronger the response, the greater the swelling. The greater the swelling, the greater the immune stress on the bird and the more energy its immune system ended up using to fight off the effects of pathogens. The bottom line was that among 66 species tested, the PHA response was significantly higher in the 18 cooperatively breeding species. Based on Dr. Spottiswoode's hypothesis, these results suggest that

cooperatively breeding birds, because of their increased exposure to more virulent pathogens, had developed "stronger"

immune systems than non-cooperative breeders. But these stronger immune systems came at a cost:

Greater immune stressMore use of body resourcesIncreased inflammation

Although Dr Spottiswoode's research focused on birds, the principle is likely to apply to other cooperative

breeders such as human beings. Indeed, the evidence is that many human infections -- malaria, measles and flu, for example -- stem from the crowded living conditions shared by modern man. As a result, we see more virulent infections,

stronger immune responses, and greater stress on the body. This gives a whole new meaning to Hilary Clinton's line, "It takes a village."

Where do we see this in humans?

Back in August of 2005,

I first addressed the issue of Bird Flu

(although at the time, despite the beginnings of the media frenzy, I said that I didn't see it as an imminent threat -- which it turned out not to be.). More importantly, though, I proposed that contrary to most of the advice you would hear

in the alternative health community, building your immune system could be a major contributing factor in mortality rates if

bird flu did hit. As I said back then:

Many alternative health companies are trying to tell you to boost your immune system to protect yourself. That's a questionable tactic with bird flu -- at least if not accompanied by the use of pathogen destroyers. Death from bird flu is most likely to come from a cytokine storm triggered by your own immune system, not from the flu itself. This is the same situation we saw in the great influenza pandemic of 1918/1919.

And now, thanks to Dr. Spottiswoode's study, we have an idea as to why this happens. In the case of bird flu, the stronger immune response of "healthy" people exacts too great a cost on the human body -- literally killing it by virtue of its overreaction. Or to put it another way, the cost of an extremely strong immune response is too high.

It's interesting that almost three years later, and even with the new study now available for all to see, little has changed. Medical doctors still tell you to get flu shots to protect yourself (even though

they are, at best, only marginally effective), and people in the alternative health community still tell you to build your immune system (so that your body can be overtaxed and die).

It's not just flu

Once we understand the problem -- that an overly strong immune system forced to address pathogens at full viral or bacterial load is an unbalanced immune system and will exact a cost on the body, we realize that the problem is likely to be endemic and appear in many different forms (some fatal and others not) in many different people. And it

does. For example:

Endemic immune system disordersA significant increase in diseases/symptoms such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigueChronic systemic inflammation in joints, muscles, and cardiovascular systems. (Remember, just like in the birds, inflammation is an immune system response.)

Conclusion

Dr. Spottiswoode conducted her experiments to better understand why more animals didn't have extended families since doing so appeared to offer great benefits. In the end, she went a long way to proving her hypothesis that extended families demand much more active immune systems from individuals, which extracts a heavy cost on the body. Kudos to Dr. Spottiswoode. For me, though, I see other important information coming from this study -- information that can

alter how you choose to "optimize" your immune system and prepare for any invading pathogens. What the study showed, if you look from a slightly different perspective, is that when it comes to the immune system, more is not always better. Improving the strength of the immune system comes at a cost. Optimizing the immune system, then, comes down to "cost benefit

analysis."

The bottom line is yes, you want your immune system to respond strongly to any pathogens -- but not too

strongly. If it responds too strongly, the costs can outweigh the benefits. An overactive immune system can lead to:

Sustained systemic inflammationAutoimmune disorders Overactive responses to allergens Even death, as in the case of avian flu

So exactly what does that mean:

It means that you do want to use immune builders such as

Echinacea Pau d'arco Suma Astragalus Medicinal mushrooms AHCC Beta glucans Aloe vera Alkyglycerol Lactoferrin Bovine colostrums Glutathione MangosteenColostrum

But it means you also want a supply of natural antipathogens on hand to ratchet down the need for a high level immune system response.

Garlic Olive leaf extract Oil of wild mountain oregano Grapefruit seed extract

It's also a good idea to regularly supplement with natural immunomodulators that help to regulate immune response - moving a weak immune system up and calming an overactive immune system down. These include

L-carnosineColostrumCMO

When it comes to fighting disease and staying healthy, your immune system is your best friend.

You want the strongest immune system response you can have without it being so strong that it overtaxes the body. If you can tone down the strength of the pathogenic attack, then a strong immune system works in your favor -- finishing off the invading little buggers as quickly as possible, but without the need to drain down your reserves. But if you don't ratchet down the strength of the attack, your immune system actually works against you -- causing chronic inflammation, immune system disorders, overactive allergy responses, or as in the case of avian flu, potentially killing you.

For more information on how to boost your immune system AND what anti-pathogens to stockpile and use:

Click Here.

To understand why antibiotics and antivirals aren't going to save you:

Click Here.

January 24, 2008

Tony, that's a great article, well worth the space and time to read.

Medical question to answer: How do you test the strength of your

immune system, and monitor it to insure it's not operating on too high

a level? If Jon Barron's right, this is important. I suspect with

OS, like vitamin C, the body absorbs what it needs and disregards the

rest. Our brain is very sensitive to chemical balances, and makes

adjustments immediately if it detect an overage, ie: ph of blood,

oxygen ratios, etc.

oleander soup , " Tony " wrote:

>

> The Cost of a Strong Immune System

>

> by Jon Barron

>

> Okay, so having a strong immune system is good...you would think? The

> stronger the better...right? You should be buying whatever supplements

> you can lay your hands on to pump up your immune response...who could

> argue with that?

>

> As it turns out, not necessarily. It seems that too much of a good

> thing, in some circumstances, may actually be bad for you. Last month,

> a study was published in Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

> <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121362>

> that just might explain why the obvious ain't necessarily so.

> Bird behavior

> The reason for the study was an observation that when it comes to

> raising children, extended family units, or what is referred to as

> " cooperative breeding " is not that common. At first glance, shared

> rearing of offspring would seem to provide a host of natural advantages.

> It better defines the home/nest. It allows for more food to be gathered,

> better care to be taken of the young, not to mention, offering the

> potential for better education. And yet, in most species it just doesn't

> happen. Think lions and bears, for example. The cubs are raised by the

> mothers alone -- lest the fathers kill the cubs. In fact, infanticide

> has been found in many species, including gorillas, cats, dogs, whales,

> rodents, insects and fish. The bottom line is that among species,

> cooperative breeding is the exception, not the rule -- common primarily

> in humans and birds. So the question arises, with all its " apparent "

> advantages , why do so few species do it?

>

> As it turns out, the benefits of cooperative breeding come with a cost.

> Or to put it another way, the benefits of cooperative breeding extend

> not only to the immediate species, but also to the pathogens and

> parasites that plague them. Quite simply:

>

> * Because of all the close contact among family members in

> cooperative breeding, there is more interaction among

> individuals, thus more chance for transmission of the pathogens.

> * Since the interaction is with close relatives, they share

> similar immune system capabilities -- their bodies are actually

> selectively breeding parasites better able to overcome those

> capabilities. (Any parasites that survive, by definition, survive

> because they can resist those capabilities.)

>

> As Dr. Spottiswoode, the lead researcher in the study said, " This

> hypothesis predicts that cooperative breeders should invest relatively

> more in immune defense than closely related species which breed in

> pairs. "

>

> She tested her hypothesis by examining the PHA response

> <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121363>

> of the immune system in different species of African birds. The actual

> methodology was to inject the birds with phytohaemagglutinin (PHA), a

> substance that induces an immune reaction. In particular, when PHA is

> inserted under the skin of a bird's wing, it causes minor swelling. Dr

> Spottiswoode reasoned that the amount of swelling from a dose of PHA

> would reveal the activity of a bird's immune system. The more at risk

> the bird was, the more swiftly its immune system would respond to any

> challenge, and the greater that response would be. That response,

> however, comes at a price. The stronger the response, the greater the

> swelling. The greater the swelling, the greater the immune stress on

> the bird and the more energy its immune system ended up using to fight

> off the effects of pathogens. The bottom line was that among 66 species

> tested, the PHA response was significantly higher in the 18

> cooperatively breeding species. Based on Dr. Spottiswoode's hypothesis,

> these results suggest that cooperatively breeding birds, because of

> their increased exposure to more virulent pathogens, had developed

> " stronger " immune systems than non-cooperative breeders. But these

> stronger immune systems came at a cost:

>

> * Greater immune stress

> * More use of body resources

> * Increased inflammation

>

> Although Dr Spottiswoode's research focused on birds, the principle is

> likely to apply to other cooperative breeders such as human beings.

> Indeed, the evidence is that many human infections -- malaria, measles

> and flu, for example -- stem from the crowded living conditions shared

> by modern man. As a result, we see more virulent infections, stronger

> immune responses, and greater stress on the body. This gives a whole

> new meaning to Hilary Clinton's line, " It takes a village. "

> Where do we see this in humans?

> Back in August of 2005, I first addressed the issue of Bird Flu

> <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121364>

> (although at the time, despite the beginnings of the media frenzy, I

> said that I didn't see it as an imminent threat -- which it turned out

> not to be.). More importantly, though, I proposed that contrary to most

> of the advice you would hear in the alternative health community,

> building your immune system could be a major contributing factor in

> mortality rates if bird flu did hit. As I said back then:

>

> * Many alternative health companies are trying to tell you to

> boost your immune system to protect yourself. That's a

> questionable tactic with bird flu -- at least if not accompanied

> by the use of pathogen destroyers. Death from bird flu is most

> likely to come from a cytokine storm triggered by your own immune

> system, not from the flu itself. This is the same situation we saw

> in the great influenza pandemic of 1918/1919.

>

> And now, thanks to Dr. Spottiswoode's study, we have an idea as to why

> this happens. In the case of bird flu, the stronger immune response of

> " healthy " people exacts too great a cost on the human body -- literally

> killing it by virtue of its overreaction. Or to put it another way,

> the cost of an extremely strong immune response is too high.

>

> It's interesting that almost three years later, and even with the new

> study now available for all to see, little has changed. Medical

> doctors still tell you to get flu shots to protect yourself (even though

> they are, at best, only marginally effective

> <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121365>

> ), and people in the alternative health community still tell you to

> build your immune system (so that your body can be overtaxed and die).

> It's not just flu

> Once we understand the problem -- that an overly strong immune system

> forced to address pathogens at full viral or bacterial load is an

> unbalanced immune system and will exact a cost on the body, we realize

> that the problem is likely to be endemic and appear in many different

> forms (some fatal and others not) in many different people. And it

> does. For example:

>

> * Endemic immune system disorders

> * A significant increase in diseases/symptoms such as

> fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue

> * Chronic systemic inflammation in joints, muscles, and

> cardiovascular systems. (Remember, just like in the birds,

> inflammation is an immune system response.)

> Conclusion

> Dr. Spottiswoode conducted her experiments to better understand why more

> animals didn't have extended families since doing so appeared to offer

> great benefits. In the end, she went a long way to proving her

> hypothesis that extended families demand much more active immune

> systems from individuals, which extracts a heavy cost on the body.

> Kudos to Dr. Spottiswoode. For me, though, I see other important

> information coming from this study -- information that can alter how

> you choose to " optimize " your immune system and prepare for any invading

> pathogens. What the study showed, if you look from a slightly different

> perspective, is that when it comes to the immune system, more is not

> always better. Improving the strength of the immune system comes at a

> cost. Optimizing the immune system, then, comes down to " cost benefit

> analysis. "

>

> The bottom line is yes, you want your immune system to respond strongly

> to any pathogens -- but not too strongly. If it responds too strongly,

> the costs can outweigh the benefits. An overactive immune system can

> lead to:

>

> * Sustained systemic inflammation

> * Autoimmune disorders

> * Overactive responses to allergens

> * Even death, as in the case of avian flu

>

> So exactly what does that mean:

>

> * It means that you do want to use immune builders such as

> * Echinacea

> * Pau d'arco

> * Suma

> * Astragalus

> * Medicinal mushrooms

> * AHCC

> * Beta glucans

> * Aloe vera

> * Alkyglycerol

> * Lactoferrin

> * Bovine colostrums

> * Glutathione

> * Mangosteen

> * Colostrum

>

> * But it means you also want a supply of natural antipathogens on

> hand to ratchet down the need for a high level immune system response.

> * Garlic

> * Olive leaf extract

> * Oil of wild mountain oregano

> * Grapefruit seed extract

>

> * It's also a good idea to regularly supplement with natural

> immunomodulators that help to regulate immune response - moving a weak

> immune system up and calming an overactive immune system down. These

> include

> * L-carnosine

> * Colostrum

> * CMO

>

> When it comes to fighting disease and staying healthy, your immune

> system is your best friend. You want the strongest immune system

> response you can have without it being so strong that it overtaxes the

> body. If you can tone down the strength of the pathogenic attack, then

> a strong immune system works in your favor -- finishing off the

> invading little buggers as quickly as possible, but without the need to

> drain down your reserves. But if you don't ratchet down the strength

> of the attack, your immune system actually works against you -- causing

> chronic inflammation, immune system disorders, overactive allergy

> responses, or as in the case of avian flu, potentially killing you.

>

> For more information on how to boost your immune system AND what

> anti-pathogens to stockpile and use:

>

> * Click Here

> <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121366>

> .

>

> To understand why antibiotics and antivirals aren't going to save you:

>

> * Click Here

> <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121367>

> .

>

January 24, 2008

different perspective:An immune system cannot be too strong. The question is does is it properly act in accordance w/ need (physiology) or react inappropriately with need (pathology). The problem is not too much power, but rather how to properly apply it.Dr. Goebeled4soup <ed4636 wrote: Tony, that's a great article, well worth the space and time to read. Medical question to answer: How do you test the strength of your immune system, and monitor it to insure it's not operating on too high a level? If Jon

Barron's right, this is important. I suspect with OS, like vitamin C, the body absorbs what it needs and disregards the rest. Our brain is very sensitive to chemical balances, and makes adjustments immediately if it detect an overage, ie: ph of blood, oxygen ratios, etc. oleander soup , "Tony" wrote: > > > The Cost of a Strong Immune System > > by Jon Barron > > Okay, so having a strong immune system is good...you would think? The > stronger the better...right? You should be buying whatever supplements > you can lay your hands on to pump up your immune response...who could > argue with that? > > As it turns out, not necessarily. It seems that too much of a good > thing, in some circumstances, may actually be bad for you. Last month,

> a study was published in Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology > <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121362> > that just might explain why the obvious ain't necessarily so. > Bird behavior > The reason for the study was an observation that when it comes to > raising children, extended family units, or what is referred to as > "cooperative breeding" is not that common. At first glance, shared > rearing of offspring would seem to provide a host of natural advantages. > It better defines the home/nest. It allows for more food to be gathered, > better care to be taken of the young, not to mention, offering the > potential for better education. And yet, in most species it just doesn't > happen. Think lions and bears, for example. The

cubs are raised by the > mothers alone -- lest the fathers kill the cubs. In fact, infanticide > has been found in many species, including gorillas, cats, dogs, whales, > rodents, insects and fish. The bottom line is that among species, > cooperative breeding is the exception, not the rule -- common primarily > in humans and birds. So the question arises, with all its "apparent" > advantages , why do so few species do it? > > As it turns out, the benefits of cooperative breeding come with a cost. > Or to put it another way, the benefits of cooperative breeding extend > not only to the immediate species, but also to the pathogens and > parasites that plague them. Quite simply: > > * Because of all the close contact among family members in > cooperative breeding, there is more interaction among > individuals, thus more chance for transmission of

the pathogens. > * Since the interaction is with close relatives, they share > similar immune system capabilities -- their bodies are actually > selectively breeding parasites better able to overcome those > capabilities. (Any parasites that survive, by definition, survive > because they can resist those capabilities.) > > As Dr. Spottiswoode, the lead researcher in the study said, "This > hypothesis predicts that cooperative breeders should invest relatively > more in immune defense than closely related species which breed in > pairs." > > She tested her hypothesis by examining the PHA response > <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121363> > of the immune system in different

species of African birds. The actual > methodology was to inject the birds with phytohaemagglutinin (PHA), a > substance that induces an immune reaction. In particular, when PHA is > inserted under the skin of a bird's wing, it causes minor swelling. Dr > Spottiswoode reasoned that the amount of swelling from a dose of PHA > would reveal the activity of a bird's immune system. The more at risk > the bird was, the more swiftly its immune system would respond to any > challenge, and the greater that response would be. That response, > however, comes at a price. The stronger the response, the greater the > swelling. The greater the swelling, the greater the immune stress on > the bird and the more energy its immune system ended up using to fight > off the effects of pathogens. The bottom line was that among 66 species > tested, the PHA response was significantly higher in

the 18 > cooperatively breeding species. Based on Dr. Spottiswoode's hypothesis, > these results suggest that cooperatively breeding birds, because of > their increased exposure to more virulent pathogens, had developed > "stronger" immune systems than non-cooperative breeders. But these > stronger immune systems came at a cost: > > * Greater immune stress > * More use of body resources > * Increased inflammation > > Although Dr Spottiswoode's research focused on birds, the principle is > likely to apply to other cooperative breeders such as human beings. > Indeed, the evidence is that many human infections -- malaria, measles > and flu, for example -- stem from the crowded living conditions shared > by modern man. As a result, we see more virulent infections, stronger > immune responses, and greater stress

on the body. This gives a whole > new meaning to Hilary Clinton's line, "It takes a village." > Where do we see this in humans? > Back in August of 2005, I first addressed the issue of Bird Flu > <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121364> > (although at the time, despite the beginnings of the media frenzy, I > said that I didn't see it as an imminent threat -- which it turned out > not to be.). More importantly, though, I proposed that contrary to most > of the advice you would hear in the alternative health community, > building your immune system could be a major contributing factor in > mortality rates if bird flu did hit. As I said back then: > > * Many alternative health companies are trying to tell you

to > boost your immune system to protect yourself. That's a > questionable tactic with bird flu -- at least if not accompanied > by the use of pathogen destroyers. Death from bird flu is most > likely to come from a cytokine storm triggered by your own immune > system, not from the flu itself. This is the same situation we saw > in the great influenza pandemic of 1918/1919. > > And now, thanks to Dr. Spottiswoode's study, we have an idea as to why > this happens. In the case of bird flu, the stronger immune response of > "healthy" people exacts too great a cost on the human body -- literally > killing it by virtue of its overreaction. Or to put it another way, > the cost of an extremely strong immune response is too high. > > It's interesting that almost three years later, and even with the new > study now available for all to

see, little has changed. Medical > doctors still tell you to get flu shots to protect yourself (even though > they are, at best, only marginally effective > <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121365> > ), and people in the alternative health community still tell you to > build your immune system (so that your body can be overtaxed and die). > It's not just flu > Once we understand the problem -- that an overly strong immune system > forced to address pathogens at full viral or bacterial load is an > unbalanced immune system and will exact a cost on the body, we realize > that the problem is likely to be endemic and appear in many different > forms (some fatal and others not) in many different people. And it

> does. For example: > > * Endemic immune system disorders > * A significant increase in diseases/symptoms such as > fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue > * Chronic systemic inflammation in joints, muscles, and > cardiovascular systems. (Remember, just like in the birds, > inflammation is an immune system response.) > Conclusion > Dr. Spottiswoode conducted her experiments to better understand why more > animals didn't have extended families since doing so appeared to offer > great benefits. In the end, she went a long way to proving her > hypothesis that extended families demand much more active immune > systems from individuals, which extracts a heavy cost on the body. > Kudos to Dr. Spottiswoode. For me, though, I see other important > information coming from this study -- information that can alter how >

you choose to "optimize" your immune system and prepare for any invading > pathogens. What the study showed, if you look from a slightly different > perspective, is that when it comes to the immune system, more is not > always better. Improving the strength of the immune system comes at a > cost. Optimizing the immune system, then, comes down to "cost benefit > analysis." > > The bottom line is yes, you want your immune system to respond strongly > to any pathogens -- but not too strongly. If it responds too strongly, > the costs can outweigh the benefits. An overactive immune system can > lead to: > > * Sustained systemic inflammation > * Autoimmune disorders > * Overactive responses to allergens > * Even death, as in the case of avian flu > > So exactly what does that mean: > > * It means that you do want to

use immune builders such as > * Echinacea > * Pau d'arco > * Suma > * Astragalus > * Medicinal mushrooms > * AHCC > * Beta glucans > * Aloe vera > * Alkyglycerol > * Lactoferrin > * Bovine colostrums > * Glutathione > * Mangosteen > * Colostrum > > * But it means you also want a supply of natural antipathogens on > hand to ratchet down the need for a high level immune system response. > * Garlic > * Olive leaf extract > * Oil of wild mountain oregano > * Grapefruit seed extract > > * It's also a good idea to regularly supplement with natural > immunomodulators that help to regulate immune response - moving a weak > immune system up and calming an overactive immune system down. These > include

> * L-carnosine > * Colostrum > * CMO > > > When it comes to fighting disease and staying healthy, your immune > system is your best friend. You want the strongest immune system > response you can have without it being so strong that it overtaxes the > body. If you can tone down the strength of the pathogenic attack, then > a strong immune system works in your favor -- finishing off the > invading little buggers as quickly as possible, but without the need to > drain down your reserves. But if you don't ratchet down the strength > of the attack, your immune system actually works against you -- causing > chronic inflammation, immune system disorders, overactive allergy > responses, or as in the case of avian flu, potentially killing you. > > For more information on how to boost your immune system AND what > anti-pathogens to

stockpile and use: > > * Click Here > <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121366> > . > > To understand why antibiotics and antivirals aren't going to save you: > > * Click Here > <http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121367> > . >

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

January 24, 2008

Put another way, an immune system cannot be too strong, but could be

overstimulated.

Good point.

For maintenance purposes (when not fighting a serious disease or

condition), it makes no sense to really overload your system with

immune boosters and stimulators, but it is always a good idea to

maintain a very strong immune system

As Jon Barron pointed out, in the event of a pandemic of bird flu, it

would be a good idea to have some good anti-virals and pathogen

fighters around too.

Colloidal silver is hard to beat when fighting any single celled

pathogen, viral or bacterial.

oleander soup , Michael Goebel <goebelchx wrote:

>

> different perspective:

> An immune system cannot be too strong. The question is does is it

properly act in accordance w/ need (physiology) or react

inappropriately with need (pathology).

>

> The problem is not too much power, but rather how to properly apply it.

>

> Dr. Goebel

>

> ed4soup <ed4636 wrote: Tony,

that's a great article, well worth the space and time to read.

> Medical question to answer: How do you test the strength of your

> immune system, and monitor it to insure it's not operating on too high

> a level? If Jon Barron's right, this is important. I suspect with

> OS, like vitamin C, the body absorbs what it needs and disregards the

> rest. Our brain is very sensitive to chemical balances, and makes

> adjustments immediately if it detect an overage, ie: ph of blood,

> oxygen ratios, etc.

>

> oleander soup , " Tony " @> wrote:

> >

> > The Cost of a Strong Immune System

> >

> > by Jon Barron

> >

> > Okay, so having a strong immune system is good...you would think?

The

> > stronger the better...right? You should be buying whatever

supplements

> > you can lay your hands on to pump up your immune response...who

could

> > argue with that?

> >

> > As it turns out, not necessarily. It seems that too much of a good

> > thing, in some circumstances, may actually be bad for you. Last

month,

> > a study was published in Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

> >

<http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121362>

> > that just might explain why the obvious ain't necessarily so.

> > Bird behavior

> > The reason for the study was an observation that when it comes to

> > raising children, extended family units, or what is referred to as

> > " cooperative breeding " is not that common. At first glance, shared

> > rearing of offspring would seem to provide a host of natural

advantages.

> > It better defines the home/nest. It allows for more food to be

gathered,

> > better care to be taken of the young, not to mention, offering the

> > potential for better education. And yet, in most species it just

doesn't

> > happen. Think lions and bears, for example. The cubs are raised

by the

> > mothers alone -- lest the fathers kill the cubs. In fact, infanticide

> > has been found in many species, including gorillas, cats, dogs,

whales,

> > rodents, insects and fish. The bottom line is that among species,

> > cooperative breeding is the exception, not the rule -- common

primarily

> > in humans and birds. So the question arises, with all its " apparent "

> > advantages , why do so few species do it?

> >

> > As it turns out, the benefits of cooperative breeding come with

a cost.

> > Or to put it another way, the benefits of cooperative breeding

extend

> > not only to the immediate species, but also to the pathogens and

> > parasites that plague them. Quite simply:

> >

> > * Because of all the close contact among family members in

> > cooperative breeding, there is more interaction among

> > individuals, thus more chance for transmission of the

pathogens.

> > * Since the interaction is with close relatives, they share

> > similar immune system capabilities -- their bodies are

actually

> > selectively breeding parasites better able to overcome those

> > capabilities. (Any parasites that survive, by definition,

survive

> > because they can resist those capabilities.)

> >

> > As Dr. Spottiswoode, the lead researcher in the study said, " This

> > hypothesis predicts that cooperative breeders should invest

relatively

> > more in immune defense than closely related species which breed in

> > pairs. "

> >

> > She tested her hypothesis by examining the PHA response

> >

<http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121363>

> > of the immune system in different species of African birds. The

actual

> > methodology was to inject the birds with phytohaemagglutinin

(PHA), a

> > substance that induces an immune reaction. In particular, when

PHA is

> > inserted under the skin of a bird's wing, it causes minor

swelling. Dr

> > Spottiswoode reasoned that the amount of swelling from a dose of PHA

> > would reveal the activity of a bird's immune system. The more

at risk

> > the bird was, the more swiftly its immune system would respond

to any

> > challenge, and the greater that response would be. That response,

> > however, comes at a price. The stronger the response, the greater

the

> > swelling. The greater the swelling, the greater the immune stress on

> > the bird and the more energy its immune system ended up using to

fight

> > off the effects of pathogens. The bottom line was that among 66

species

> > tested, the PHA response was significantly higher in the 18

> > cooperatively breeding species. Based on Dr. Spottiswoode's

hypothesis,

> > these results suggest that cooperatively breeding birds, because of

> > their increased exposure to more virulent pathogens, had developed

> > " stronger " immune systems than non-cooperative breeders. But these

> > stronger immune systems came at a cost:

> >

> > * Greater immune stress

> > * More use of body resources

> > * Increased inflammation

> >

> > Although Dr Spottiswoode's research focused on birds, the

principle is

> > likely to apply to other cooperative breeders such as human beings.

> > Indeed, the evidence is that many human infections -- malaria,

measles

> > and flu, for example -- stem from the crowded living conditions

shared

> > by modern man. As a result, we see more virulent infections,

stronger

> > immune responses, and greater stress on the body. This gives a whole

> > new meaning to Hilary Clinton's line, " It takes a village. "

> > Where do we see this in humans?

> > Back in August of 2005, I first addressed the issue of Bird Flu

> >

<http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121364>

> > (although at the time, despite the beginnings of the media frenzy, I

> > said that I didn't see it as an imminent threat -- which it

turned out

> > not to be.). More importantly, though, I proposed that contrary

to most

> > of the advice you would hear in the alternative health community,

> > building your immune system could be a major contributing factor in

> > mortality rates if bird flu did hit. As I said back then:

> >

> > * Many alternative health companies are trying to tell

you to

> > boost your immune system to protect yourself. That's a

> > questionable tactic with bird flu -- at least if not

accompanied

> > by the use of pathogen destroyers. Death from bird flu is most

> > likely to come from a cytokine storm triggered by your own immune

> > system, not from the flu itself. This is the same situation

we saw

> > in the great influenza pandemic of 1918/1919.

> >

> > And now, thanks to Dr. Spottiswoode's study, we have an idea as

to why

> > this happens. In the case of bird flu, the stronger immune

response of

> > " healthy " people exacts too great a cost on the human body --

literally

> > killing it by virtue of its overreaction. Or to put it another way,

> > the cost of an extremely strong immune response is too high.

> >

> > It's interesting that almost three years later, and even with

the new

> > study now available for all to see, little has changed. Medical

> > doctors still tell you to get flu shots to protect yourself (even

though

> > they are, at best, only marginally effective

> >

<http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121365>

> > ), and people in the alternative health community still tell you to

> > build your immune system (so that your body can be overtaxed

and die).

> > It's not just flu

> > Once we understand the problem -- that an overly strong immune

system

> > forced to address pathogens at full viral or bacterial load is an

> > unbalanced immune system and will exact a cost on the body, we

realize

> > that the problem is likely to be endemic and appear in many

different

> > forms (some fatal and others not) in many different people. And it

> > does. For example:

> >

> > * Endemic immune system disorders

> > * A significant increase in diseases/symptoms such as

> > fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue

> > * Chronic systemic inflammation in joints, muscles, and

> > cardiovascular systems. (Remember, just like in the birds,

> > inflammation is an immune system response.)

> > Conclusion

> > Dr. Spottiswoode conducted her experiments to better understand

why more

> > animals didn't have extended families since doing so appeared to

offer

> > great benefits. In the end, she went a long way to proving her

> > hypothesis that extended families demand much more active immune

> > systems from individuals, which extracts a heavy cost on the body.

> > Kudos to Dr. Spottiswoode. For me, though, I see other important

> > information coming from this study -- information that can alter how

> > you choose to " optimize " your immune system and prepare for any

invading

> > pathogens. What the study showed, if you look from a slightly

different

> > perspective, is that when it comes to the immune system, more is not

> > always better. Improving the strength of the immune system comes

at a

> > cost. Optimizing the immune system, then, comes down to " cost

benefit

> > analysis. "

> >

> > The bottom line is yes, you want your immune system to respond

strongly

> > to any pathogens -- but not too strongly. If it responds too

strongly,

> > the costs can outweigh the benefits. An overactive immune system can

> > lead to:

> >

> > * Sustained systemic inflammation

> > * Autoimmune disorders

> > * Overactive responses to allergens

> > * Even death, as in the case of avian flu

> >

> > So exactly what does that mean:

> >

> > * It means that you do want to use immune builders such as

> > * Echinacea

> > * Pau d'arco

> > * Suma

> > * Astragalus

> > * Medicinal mushrooms

> > * AHCC

> > * Beta glucans

> > * Aloe vera

> > * Alkyglycerol

> > * Lactoferrin

> > * Bovine colostrums

> > * Glutathione

> > * Mangosteen

> > * Colostrum

> >

> > * But it means you also want a supply of natural antipathogens on

> > hand to ratchet down the need for a high level immune system

response.

> > * Garlic

> > * Olive leaf extract

> > * Oil of wild mountain oregano

> > * Grapefruit seed extract

> >

> > * It's also a good idea to regularly supplement with natural

> > immunomodulators that help to regulate immune response - moving

a weak

> > immune system up and calming an overactive immune system down. These

> > include

> > * L-carnosine

> > * Colostrum

> > * CMO

> >

> > When it comes to fighting disease and staying healthy, your immune

> > system is your best friend. You want the strongest immune system

> > response you can have without it being so strong that it

overtaxes the

> > body. If you can tone down the strength of the pathogenic

attack, then

> > a strong immune system works in your favor -- finishing off the

> > invading little buggers as quickly as possible, but without the

need to

> > drain down your reserves. But if you don't ratchet down the

strength

> > of the attack, your immune system actually works against you --

causing

> > chronic inflammation, immune system disorders, overactive allergy

> > responses, or as in the case of avian flu, potentially killing you.

> >

> > For more information on how to boost your immune system AND what

> > anti-pathogens to stockpile and use:

> >

> > * Click Here

> >

<http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121366>

> > .

> >

> > To understand why antibiotics and antivirals aren't going to

save you:

> >

> > * Click Here

> >

<http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121367>

> > .

> >

> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with

Search.

>

January 26, 2008

Tony, I understand the mechinism of action of silver against Bacteria. Silver acts on bacteria by generating oxygen from air or water which in turn destroys the cell wall membranes of bacteria (single celled organisms with fragile cell walls). I have not ever heard a good explaination of how Silver works on viruses and have had no success with Silver on what have been apparent viruses among my family and friends. I am supposing that the cold symptoms that friends and family have had have been viral, and I have had no success with the CS on these viral illnesses. I have however seen it work very effectively on Bacterial Sinusitis, Bacterial Pink Eye, Superficial infections, and Food Poisoning. What is your take on this? Have you or anyone else been able to effectively knock out any and all viruses (colds/flu/HIV/Hepititis B, etc.). I appreciate your comments. Blessings to you, JeffTony wrote: Put another way, an immune system cannot be too strong, but could beoverstimulated.Good point.For maintenance purposes (when not fighting a serious disease orcondition), it makes no sense to really overload your system withimmune boosters and stimulators, but it is always a good idea tomaintain a very strong immune systemAs Jon Barron pointed out, in the event of a pandemic of bird flu,

itwould be a good idea to have some good anti-virals and pathogenfighters around too.Colloidal silver is hard to beat when fighting any single celledpathogen, viral or bacterial.Tonyoleander soup , Michael Goebel <goebelchx wrote:>> different perspective:> An immune system cannot be too strong. The question is does is itproperly act in accordance w/ need (physiology) or reactinappropriately with need (pathology). > > The problem is not too much power, but rather how to properly apply it.> > Dr. Goebel> > ed4soup <ed4636 wrote: Tony,that's a great article, well worth the space and time to read.> Medical question to answer: How do you test the strength of your> immune system, and monitor it to insure it's not operating on too high> a

level? If Jon Barron's right, this is important. I suspect with> OS, like vitamin C, the body absorbs what it needs and disregards the> rest. Our brain is very sensitive to chemical balances, and makes> adjustments immediately if it detect an overage, ie: ph of blood,> oxygen ratios, etc. > > oleander soup , "Tony" @> wrote:> >> > > > The Cost of a Strong Immune System> > > > by Jon Barron> > > > Okay, so having a strong immune system is good...you would think?The > > stronger the better...right? You should be buying whateversupplements> > you can lay your hands on to pump up your immune response...whocould> > argue with that?> > > > As it turns out, not necessarily. It seems that too much of a

good> > thing, in some circumstances, may actually be bad for you. Lastmonth,> > a study was published in Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology> ><http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121362>> > that just might explain why the obvious ain't necessarily so.> > Bird behavior> > The reason for the study was an observation that when it comes to> > raising children, extended family units, or what is referred to as> > "cooperative breeding" is not that common. At first glance, shared> > rearing of offspring would seem to provide a host of naturaladvantages.> > It better defines the home/nest. It allows for more food to begathered,> > better care to be taken of the young, not to mention, offering

the> > potential for better education. And yet, in most species it justdoesn't> > happen. Think lions and bears, for example. The cubs are raisedby the> > mothers alone -- lest the fathers kill the cubs. In fact, infanticide> > has been found in many species, including gorillas, cats, dogs,whales,> > rodents, insects and fish. The bottom line is that among species,> > cooperative breeding is the exception, not the rule -- commonprimarily> > in humans and birds. So the question arises, with all its "apparent"> > advantages , why do so few species do it?> > > > As it turns out, the benefits of cooperative breeding come witha cost.> > Or to put it another way, the benefits of cooperative breedingextend> > not only to the immediate species, but also to the pathogens and> > parasites that plague them. Quite simply:>

> > > * Because of all the close contact among family members in> > cooperative breeding, there is more interaction among> > individuals, thus more chance for transmission of thepathogens.> > * Since the interaction is with close relatives, they share> > similar immune system capabilities -- their bodies areactually> > selectively breeding parasites better able to overcome those> > capabilities. (Any parasites that survive, by definition, survive> > because they can resist those capabilities.)> > > > As Dr. Spottiswoode, the lead researcher in the study said, "This> > hypothesis predicts that cooperative breeders should investrelatively > > more in immune defense than closely related species which breed in> > pairs."> > > > She tested her hypothesis by examining the PHA response> ><http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121363>> > of the immune system in different species of African birds. Theactual> > methodology was to inject the birds with phytohaemagglutinin(PHA), a> > substance that induces an immune reaction. In particular, whenPHA is> > inserted under the skin of a bird's wing, it causes minorswelling. Dr > > Spottiswoode reasoned that the amount of swelling from a dose of PHA> > would reveal the activity of a bird's immune system. The moreat risk > > the bird was, the more swiftly its immune system would respondto any> > challenge, and the greater that response would be. That response,> > however, comes at a price. The stronger the response, the greaterthe > >

swelling. The greater the swelling, the greater the immune stress on> > the bird and the more energy its immune system ended up using tofight> > off the effects of pathogens. The bottom line was that among 66species> > tested, the PHA response was significantly higher in the 18> > cooperatively breeding species. Based on Dr. Spottiswoode'shypothesis,> > these results suggest that cooperatively breeding birds, because of> > their increased exposure to more virulent pathogens, had developed> > "stronger" immune systems than non-cooperative breeders. But these > > stronger immune systems came at a cost:> > > > * Greater immune stress> > * More use of body resources> > * Increased inflammation> > > > Although Dr Spottiswoode's research focused on birds, the principle is> > likely to apply to other

cooperative breeders such as human beings. > > Indeed, the evidence is that many human infections -- malaria,measles> > and flu, for example -- stem from the crowded living conditionsshared> > by modern man. As a result, we see more virulent infections, stronger> > immune responses, and greater stress on the body. This gives a whole> > new meaning to Hilary Clinton's line, "It takes a village."> > Where do we see this in humans?> > Back in August of 2005, I first addressed the issue of Bird Flu> ><http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121364>> > (although at the time, despite the beginnings of the media frenzy, I> > said that I didn't see it as an imminent threat -- which it turned out> >

not to be.). More importantly, though, I proposed that contraryto most> > of the advice you would hear in the alternative health community,> > building your immune system could be a major contributing factor in> > mortality rates if bird flu did hit. As I said back then:> > > > * Many alternative health companies are trying to tellyou to> > boost your immune system to protect yourself. That's a> > questionable tactic with bird flu -- at least if notaccompanied> > by the use of pathogen destroyers. Death from bird flu is most > > likely to come from a cytokine storm triggered by your own immune> > system, not from the flu itself. This is the same situationwe saw> > in the great influenza pandemic of 1918/1919.> > > > And now, thanks to Dr. Spottiswoode's study, we have an idea asto why> > this happens. In the

case of bird flu, the stronger immuneresponse of > > "healthy" people exacts too great a cost on the human body --literally> > killing it by virtue of its overreaction. Or to put it another way,> > the cost of an extremely strong immune response is too high.> > > > It's interesting that almost three years later, and even withthe new> > study now available for all to see, little has changed. Medical > > doctors still tell you to get flu shots to protect yourself (eventhough> > they are, at best, only marginally effective> ><http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121365>> > ), and people in the alternative health community still tell you to> > build your immune system (so that your body can be

overtaxedand die).> > It's not just flu> > Once we understand the problem -- that an overly strong immunesystem> > forced to address pathogens at full viral or bacterial load is an > > unbalanced immune system and will exact a cost on the body, werealize> > that the problem is likely to be endemic and appear in manydifferent> > forms (some fatal and others not) in many different people. And it > > does. For example:> > > > * Endemic immune system disorders> > * A significant increase in diseases/symptoms such as> > fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue> > * Chronic systemic inflammation in joints, muscles, and> > cardiovascular systems. (Remember, just like in the birds,> > inflammation is an immune system response.)> > Conclusion> > Dr. Spottiswoode conducted her experiments to better understandwhy

more> > animals didn't have extended families since doing so appeared tooffer> > great benefits. In the end, she went a long way to proving her> > hypothesis that extended families demand much more active immune> > systems from individuals, which extracts a heavy cost on the body. > > Kudos to Dr. Spottiswoode. For me, though, I see other important> > information coming from this study -- information that can alter how> > you choose to "optimize" your immune system and prepare for anyinvading> > pathogens. What the study showed, if you look from a slightlydifferent> > perspective, is that when it comes to the immune system, more is not> > always better. Improving the strength of the immune system comesat a> > cost. Optimizing the immune system, then, comes down to "costbenefit > > analysis."> > > > The bottom line

is yes, you want your immune system to respondstrongly> > to any pathogens -- but not too strongly. If it responds toostrongly,> > the costs can outweigh the benefits. An overactive immune system can> > lead to:> > > > * Sustained systemic inflammation> > * Autoimmune disorders> > * Overactive responses to allergens> > * Even death, as in the case of avian flu> > > > So exactly what does that mean:> > > > * It means that you do want to use immune builders such as> > * Echinacea> > * Pau d'arco> > * Suma> > * Astragalus> > * Medicinal mushrooms> > * AHCC> > * Beta glucans> > * Aloe vera> > * Alkyglycerol> > * Lactoferrin> > * Bovine colostrums> > * Glutathione> > * Mangosteen> > * Colostrum> >

> > * But it means you also want a supply of natural antipathogens on> > hand to ratchet down the need for a high level immune systemresponse.> > * Garlic> > * Olive leaf extract> > * Oil of wild mountain oregano> > * Grapefruit seed extract> > > > * It's also a good idea to regularly supplement with natural> > immunomodulators that help to regulate immune response - movinga weak> > immune system up and calming an overactive immune system down. These> > include> > * L-carnosine> > * Colostrum> > * CMO> > > > > > When it comes to fighting disease and staying healthy, your immune> > system is your best friend. You want the strongest immune system> > response you can have without it being so strong that it overtaxes the> > body. If you can tone down the strength of

the pathogenicattack, then> > a strong immune system works in your favor -- finishing off the> > invading little buggers as quickly as possible, but without theneed to> > drain down your reserves. But if you don't ratchet down thestrength> > of the attack, your immune system actually works against you --causing> > chronic inflammation, immune system disorders, overactive allergy> > responses, or as in the case of avian flu, potentially killing you.> > > > For more information on how to boost your immune system AND what> > anti-pathogens to stockpile and use:> > > > * Click Here> ><http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121366>> > .> > > > To understand

why antibiotics and antivirals aren't going to save you:> > > > * Click Here> ><http://www.adz2go.com/mailmgt/Url.asp?CID=81896 & HID=8048916 & UID=121367>> > .> >> > > > > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.>

Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.