kumar said:Hello,
Hi. I see that someone has already replied to your answer, and pretty
much fed you a load of horse hooey. There is no single supplement which
can magically "fix" your immune system, so ignore any advice in that
purports that. Just to put things into context, I'm a medical
researcher who actually works on the immune system, so hopefully I can
give you real answers.
Having read your description, I am quite interested in what "drug"
you're talking about. Some of what they claim smacks of pure BS, but
other stuff shows a knowledge of the immune system. I'm guessing you're
talking about either some form of dietary supplement, at which point its
garbage. Or you're talking about a combinatorial drug for cancer
patients, which is a different ball of wax.
Quoted message said:
What tells us pathologically, whether we are immuno-deficient or
immuno-strong?
Scientifically/medically speaking there isn't really "immunostrong".
The gene's which cause immunity are highly variable, so amoung different
people we see a broad range of immune response against different
pathogens. But it is extremely difficult to say which sets of genes are
better then others, as these genes often tend to give enhanced immunity
to some infectious agents, but not towards other infectious agents.
That's about as clear as mud, so here's an example. You may find that
you rarely get the flu, and that when you do you tend to get less sick
then most people. A friend of yours may be highly susceptible to the
flu, and gets quite ill when he contracts it. But this doesn't mean
that you're immune system is "stronger" then his; rather, it means that
your immune system is better at identifying the flu virus. Your friend
may simply have a different set of genes, which may allow him to attack
another pathogen much better then you can. So while you may be
relatively immune to the flu, your friend may instead be relatively
immune to plague.
The main genes involved in this process are called "MHC" genes. These
genes are central to the process by which our immune system identifies
pathogens, and they are also some of the most variable genes in the
human genome. As such we see a huge range of immunities verses
susceptiblities, but it's pretty rare to find someone with MHC's which
are simply "bad".
On the other hand, immunodeficiencies are very well characterized, and
often have very specific underlying causes. Some are genetic (SCID
[bubble babies], LAD, etc), but these forms of immunodeficiency are rare
and usually quite severe. For example, without a bone marrow
transplant, both SCID and LAD patients usually die within one or two
years due to infections.
More often, immunodeficiencies are caused by an infectious agent. The
worlds most common immunodeficiency is caused by the HIV virus, which
specifically kills the cells which regulate immune responses. Most
chronic infections have the capability of inducing immunodeficiencies,
and there are many pathogens which have evolved specific mechanisms for
inducing immunodeficiencies.
The last category of common immunodeficiencies is caused largely by
diet. These range in severity, but most are relatively mild. In
general, people who are malnourished have some suppression of their
immune system, although the mechanisms which cause this are not well
understood. But there are some specific known dietary
immunodeficiencies. For example, veganism is associated with
deficiencies in the innate immune system, which defends us against
bacteria. This deficiency is directly linked to a lack of certain metal
ions and vitamins required for proper immune function.
Other things can cause immunodeficiencies - cancer treatment, various
drugs, radiation, etc. But to go into all of these things would take a
whole book...
Quoted message said:Are healthy or weak RBCs, WBCs related to it?
RBC's have very little to do with immunity. RBC's have a few proteins
on their surfaces which are designed to "mop up" products of the immune
system, but aside form that they're not really involved in immunity.
WBC's, on the other hand, are absolutly central to most
immunodeficiencies. For example, SCID patients lack T and B WBC's.
T-cells regulate immune responses, and B-cells make antibodies, so
lacking these is a real problem. WBC's in LAD patients cannot leave the
blood to enter sites of infection, which prevents the cells from
clearing infections.
In the case of the MHC's, they are expressed on all cells in our bodies,
so all cells are involved. But it is the responses of WBC's the the
MHC's which induces immunity, so even in this case, WBC are absolutely
central.
Quoted message said:Can circulating old senile worn out cells trigger auto-immune response?
No. Firstly, worn-out and damaged cells are readily destroyed by our
bodies. Secondly, autoimmunity is usually seen as an "over-reaction" of
the immune system, rather then an "old cell" problem.
There are several mechanisms by which autoimmunity can arise, but they
all have the same underlying mechanism. All autoimmunity starts with
T-cells. T-cells "make" receptors for pathogens by randomly combining
together pieces of DNA to make unique receptors. This allows them to
develop receptors to pathogens which we've never been exposed to;
something very important when we have viruses like the flu which tend to
mutate. The t-cells do not recognize the pathogens directly; rather
they recognize a piece of the pathogen which is "presented" to the
T-cell on the MHC molicules I mentioned earlier. If a T-cell recognises
a pathogen product on a MHC, it then induces an immune reposne.
But because of the way this works, all T-cells have a bit of
autoimmmunity built in - they all must recognize MHC's. Highly
self-responsing cells are destroyed while they develop, as are T-cells
which cannot recognize MHC at all. But inbetween these two extremes are
a spectrum of cells, all of which have some degree of self-reactivity.
Normally, these cells are kept under control by various systems in our
body, but on occasion they escape and cause autoimmunity.
Quoted message said:One healing agent's physico-chemical reactions indicates:-
"It(healing agent) destroys old-senile worn out cells, esp. RBCs, WBCs
and macrophases in the liver by taking away their water.
There are a couple of problems with this statement. Firstly, how would
this chemical "take away" water from only old cells? I am unaware of
any chemical process by which this could work. You could target certain
types of cells (say WBC's, or RBC's), but I'm unaware of any chemical
process which could specifically recognize "old" RBC's and WBC's. In
fact, the molecular changes which occur in "old" RBC's makes them look a
lot like "young" WBC's, so it counter-intuative how this could all work.
Not to mention that old RBC's and WBC's are cleared from the circulation
increadibly effeciently, so you rarely even see them in the blood.
Plus, this method of killing old cells would be highly dangerous to your
body. Noramlly, when cells die they under go a process called
"apoptosis". Basically, dieing cells "fall appart" in a maner which
forms little "blobs" of cell debris. This keeps the stuff normally
inside of the cells inside of the blobs. These blobs can then be
removed and properly disposed of by macrophage. Killing cells in the
way these people claim would not result in this "blobing" process;
rather, the cell would simply fall apart (a process called necrosis).
When this happens the stuff inside of the cell is released into the
body. This is an extremely powerful activating signal for the immune
system. At best, you would develop painfull inflammation at the site
where the drug was administered; at worst you would die of a sepsis or
anaphalaxis-like condition.
Seocndly, destroying macrophage in the liver is a bad, bad, bad idea.
These macrophage (called "Kupffer cells"😉 are absoutely central to our
immune responses - they sit in small blood vessles called "sinusoids",
where they filter out bacteria, cell fragments, and other junk from the
blood. They are absolutly central for the filtration of your blood, so
destorying them would be a very, very bad thing.
Quoted message said:Therefore, its
defficiency results into excessive useless circulating, wandering cells
in blood vessels and causes spherocytosis.
Bull [censored]. Firstly, old and damaged cells are normally removed very
quickly by our bodies - RBC's in the spleen, WBC in the bone marrow and
liver. Secondly, spherocytosis is a specific *genetic* condition which
leads to abnormal RBC's. You cannot treat this disease by removing
water, and people who do not have the pre-existing *genetic* condition
will not develop spherocytosis. So claiming that our old RBC's cause
spherocytosis is an out-an-out lie.
Quoted message said:Cells are enlarged but with
poor performance. They block capilalary ends and cause local ischemic
and necrotic changes.
This is true of spherocytosis, but keep in mind that only people with
the genetic mutation which causes spherocytosis experience this. So
there is no need for a non-spherocytosis patient to worry about this.
Considering that most people are diagnosed when they are quite young
(less then 10 years old), it is highly unlikely that you suffer form
this condition.
Quoted message said:Its defficiency causes sepretion of old cells from growing tissues.
I don't even know what they're saying here, but I think that they are
trying to say that if you don't take their drug you're dead cells will
enter your blood and flow around your body. If so, this is FALCE. Your
blood vessles are lined by cells called "endothelium", which forms an
almost unpenatrable barrier. As such dead cells stay in the tissue,
where they are destroyed by macrophages. This is an ongoing process;
the average cell in your body only lasts a few weeks or months, and then
dies. The cell is replaced, and the old cell destoryed by macrophage.
It is a normal part of our biology, and nothing to worry about.
Quoted message said:They circulate in the body and become antigenic in nature.
RBC's and WBC's normally circulate, so this is a problem how? And if
we're talking about "generic" dead cells, I'd first point out that they
rarely enter the circulation, and if they do they're rapidly cleared by
the kupffer cells in the liver.
As for "antigenic", everything in your body is antigeneic. All this
means is that your immune system has the potential to recognize it.
That doesn't mean it's going to cause disease or autoimmunity. Your body
actually relies on the antigenic nature of your own proteins as a way to
prevent autoimmunity (see below).
Quoted message said:Thus the
body produces auto-immune bodies against these cells.
Firstly, our bodies don't always make antibodies against an antigen. In
fact, it is the recognition of self-antigens which is a major way in
which our body prevents autoimmunity. When your body sees an antigen it
doesn't just automatically respond to that antigen; rather, additional
"signals" are needed to induce an immune response. So aside from having
an antigen present you need a second activating signal, such as the
presence of specific bacterial products or tissue damage. Without this
you DO NOT get a destructive immune response.
In fact, without this second signal you get a very specific immune
response - cells which recognize the antigen either die, or become
regulatory cells. In the first case you eliminate the cells which would
be required for autoimmunity. In the second case, you develop cells
which actively suppress the autoimmune response. If you've ever
recieved shots to reduce an allergy you've deliberatly initiated this
type of a responce. Simular techniques may one day lead to treatments
for a variety of autoimmune diseases.
Secondly, your body is full of self-reactive antibodes. That is also a
normal part of our immune system. Why these antibodies are present, and
what they do, is a complete mystery. But they are found in all of us,
and do not seem to cause disease.
Quoted message said:Therefore, it is
usful in auto-immune disorders.."
To date there are very few treatments for autoimmune diseases which
actually do anything. At best we can suppress the immune system and
reduce disease severity, but there is not cure.
Quoted message said:Two more agents indicate physico-chemical reactions :
"It increases bone-marrow activity to produce more RBCs, WBCs and
platelets."
Possibly, but this doesn't necisarily result in better immunity. If you
are immunosuppressed (say due to cancer treatment), you'll be given
drugs which have the specific purpose of increasing the numbers of
WBC's, RBC's and paltelts. This is important, as cancer treatment
damages bone marrow, and as a result you're not making enough of these.
If you're healthy, there is no benifit to "extra" cells. Our bodies
have remarkable self-regulatory mechanisms to keep cell numbers in the
proper ranges; fiddling with this is not a good idea. In fact, too many
blood cells is a sign of disease - leukemia for example.
Lastly, if you have an immune defeciency that is caused by a genetic
disorder, an infectious disease, or a dietary defeciency, making more
immune cells is not going to help. Afterall, having additional broken
cells isn't going to help you; rather, you need to "fix" the cells
you've already got.
Quoted message said:"Defecsive action: Initially it decreases phagocytosis followed by
increase in phagocytosis, by an increase in the nuclear maturity of
neutrophils and macrophases.
This makes very little sence at all. How the drug nwould both decrease
and increase phagocytosis is not obvious; and their reason for this
makes no sence at all. During their formation neutrophils undergo a
"compression" of their DNA. This has the effect of turning off the DNA,
after which the neutrophil relies almost entierly on pre-made proteins.
This doesn't happen in macrophage, and in either case would have no
effect on phagocytosis.
BTW, phagcytosis is the process by which cells like neutrophils and
macrophage "eat" pathogens and debris.
Quoted message said:Thus, it protects against pus producing
bacterials.. "
Neutrophils and macrophage are what make up pus, and the formation of
pus s a sign that your immune system is actively killing an infection.
So a drug which claims to improve neutrophil/macrophage function, while
at the same time suppressing an indication of neutrophil/macrophage
function, is essentially impossible. You cannot enhance and suppress
the same neutrophil/macrophage function at the same time; it's one or
the other.
Quoted message said:how can my previous mentionings be relavant to following consideration?
" Cytokines
Cytokines (pronounced "sigh-toe-kines"😉 are hormones made by immune
system cells. They have a crucial role in regulating the growth and
activity of other immune system cells and blood cells.
At the present time, the main use of cytokines in cancer treatment is
to lessen the side effects of other treatments such as chemotherapy.
Very much true. Cytokines called "GM-CSF" and "G-CSF" are used somewhat
regularly with cancer patients. Both of these drugs increase the
numbers of neutrophils and macrophage produced by bone marrow. They are
most often prescribed after a bone marrow transplant, or after certain
types of chemotherapy. In both cases the goal is to bring neutrophil
and macrophage numbers upto the proper levels more quickly.
If RBC levels are low another cytokine, called EPO, can be given. This
cytokine increases the production of RBC's in most patients, and is
often used along with G-CSF or GM-CSF.
On a side note, my lab is currently trying to get permission to test
GM-CSF in HIV patients, to see if we can fix some neutrophil defects
often seen in these patients. This would be a case where neutrophil
numbers are normal, but they don't work. We think GM-CSF may correct
the defect, which would have the direct effect of "fixing" neutrophils.
Quoted message said:Manmade versions of cytokines can help the bone marrow make more white
blood cells, red blood cells, or platelets when the levels in the body
have become too low. While this is important, it isn't truly
immunotherapy.
Depends on your definition of "immunotherapy". If you mean "used to fix
the immune system", then it is most definitely an immunotherapy. If you
mean "teaching the immune system to (not) destroy something", then it is
not.
Bryan
