So, I have stared at Jillian's section concerning fungus for 2 weeks or more . I still can not make any sense of it without delving into mycobiology 101 or “worse.” My initial response has run to 67 pages – verbose even for me.
The long and short of it, Jillian has made statements that are unsupported. As I stated in the last post,,, this woman just loves to rehash old junky science - IOWs systemic candidiasis
In general, chronic candidiasis (Candida albicans) is a fungus that lives on and around the human body. They're usually harmless, but if your immune system is compromised, such as by cancer or cancer-treatments, the fungus can invade the body. There are many papers that show higher rates of Candida infections in cancer patients; the fungal infection is correlated with cancer, but is not the cause. But note that pretty much all humans have Candida on them! The most common manifestations are thrush (a superficial Candida infection in the mouth) and vaginitis, also commonly referred to as a yeast infection.
and auto-intoxication.
Autointoxication was a catch-all diagnoses, eventually the voice of opposition became louder, “treating intestinal toxemia [as it was also known as] was practicing medicine by hypothesis alone.” One would figure that germ theory would have relegated autointoxication moot. In reality, bacteriology only buttressed the notion that fecal decay triggers physical decay. The notion that the colon and appropriate plumbing where a cesspit, hung out for a bit longer.
It wasn't until a growing discontent among physicians concerning the marketing of bacterial products within medical journals and beyond, that support for autointoxication began to be questioned more thoroughly. “Due to autointoxication be being both scientifically vague and broad in its potential application, the diagnosis itself became a Petri dish for the growth of quackery and charlatanism,,,
Although Jillian has added a new twist – anti-bodies. Which we will come back to in a moment – maybe.
If you remember, Jillian began by citing LumenLearning's page concerning fungus. An introductory page highlighting the “characteristics of fungi.”
From there, Jillian makes this leap.
No where does LL speak to the role of fungus in the human body. In fact the closest they come is this statement.
In
humans, fungal infections are generally considered challenging to
treat. Unlike bacteria, fungi do not respond to traditional
antibiotic therapy because they are eukaryotes. Fungal infections may
prove deadly
for individuals with compromised immune systems.
Fungi have many commercial applications. The food industry uses yeasts in baking, brewing, and cheese and wine making. Many industrial compounds are byproducts of fungal fermentation. Fungi are the source of many commercial enzymes and antibiotics.
What LL speaks to is the role of mushrooms in the external ecosystems of nature. What Jillian states, is at best unsubstantiated conjecture based in long debunked medical mythos. We will come back to mycoviruses in a moment, but this is her first mention of antibodies.
While she doesn't state much at this point,
it is important to note a recent claim she makes concerning antibodies.
“Antibodies are proteins the body has to attack you at the micro level. Antibodies is what destroys the body and is the crux of auto immunity,,, The enemy is the antibodies that biotech - and your nurses and doctors, your naturopathics and homeopathics – are selling you as some kind of healing.”
First,
auto-immunity while not rare, is a very specific ailment (actually
80+ ailments) affecting 23.5 million individuals. Not everyone
suffers from auto-immunity; contrary to Jillian's overall
presentation.
Yes, simply put, antibodies are the root issue.
BUT,,,
Without antibodies
(immunodeficiency)
we have no means to fight foreign invaders (antigens) like bacteria,
viruses,
toxins,
cancer
cells,
and foreign blood or tissues from another person or species.
This is fact, there is no re-interpreting the information
concerning our immune system. What Jillian states is borderline germ
theory denial at best or deadly mis-information at worst.
Contrary to her belief doctors have years of peer-reviewed consensus science to support their medical opinions. Not, as we shall see, piss-poor literature review(s) by some con-artist trying to make a buck and justify her binge-purge eating lifestyle.
No, the role of antibodies is to neutralize an infectious agent. It is a part of our immune system. From the German anti-toxischer Körper "anti-toxic body.” With “body” referring to the physical structure and material substance of an infectious or disease causing agent.
Jillian
then claims in a subsequent post
(and video)
description “programming
antigen which is programming B cells to induce T cells this is how
you can weaponize your environment against the human body,.”
Citing this as her source, the abstract at least, Molecular
programming of B cell memory.
(Jillian
also randomly cites this source in a previous post.)
The paper is not talking about weaponizing “your environment against the human body,” it is speaking to how “[t]he development of high-affinity B cell memory is regulated through three separable phases, each involving antigen recognition by specific B cells and cognate T helper cells.”
IOWs how our bodies, via cellular and molecular processes, remember antibody-mediated immune responses in the case of re-infection. It is our adaptive (acquired) immune response.
The adaptive immune system, also referred as the acquired immune system, is a subsystem of the immune system that is composed of specialized, systemic cells and processes that eliminates pathogens by preventing their growth. The acquired immune system is one of the two main immunity strategies found in vertebrates (the other being the innate immune system).
Acquired immunity creates immunological memory after an initial response to a specific pathogen, and leads to an enhanced response to subsequent encounters with that pathogen. This process of acquired immunity is the basis of vaccination. Like the innate system, the acquired system includes both humoral immunity components and cell-mediated immunity components.
The authors then speak to of different innate means the body regulates B cell immune responses. While the article does refer to “programs,” it is referring to cell programming via DNA/RNA and cellular processes, not intentional physical manipulation.
The author's conclude with this in regards to vaccines.
We remain cautious of manipulating crucial adaptive immune functions, but quietly optimistic. The molecular regulation of antigen-specific cellular events initiates a complex but finite set of regulatory programmes that can be modified both indirectly, following vaccination with innate stimuli, and perhaps directly, during the acquisition of high-affinity B cell memory. The vaccine boost is the most readily accessible phase of this strategy that can directly target antigen-specific adaptive responses. Unravelling the molecules and programmes that control each phase of memory B cell development provides a plethora of new targets for vaccine-based modification in vivo.
To put it bluntly, the success of vaccines, or should I say the improvements within the field of vaccines, is dependent on the generation and maintenance of immunological memory. It is dependant upon understanding the role of the memory cells. Instead of properly educating herslf Jillian has chosen to fear-monger and spread lies.
Any manipulation on the part of “bio-tech” is to make a better vaccine. This point is lost on Jillian as she IS an anti-vaxxer. Do not let her rhetoric fool you. While she claims she is neither anti-vax or pro-vaxx, her repetition of AV talking points - ie shedding - belies her claim of neutrality.
At
this point I am unaware of what further lies Jillian
presents in regards to antibodies. I have not looked ahead. As I stated before, I may have to do a series on her lies concerning anti-bodies seperate from what is presented in her book.
Instead of weponized fungus (candida), we have weponized anti-bodies !!
No comments:
Post a Comment