Study claims evidence to support dormant bacteria in AS

[Maz]

Evidence supporting a role for dormant bacteria in the pathogenesis of spondylarthritis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23473929

This research seems to support the role of bacterial persistence due to “dormant” bacteria in spondylarthritis. The authors speculate that if these dormant bacteria can be reactivated that antibiotics would have a role in treating this rheumatic disease.

John (DragonSlayer), if you see this, would be interested to hear your take on this research. Thanks

[DragonSlayer]

Hey, Maz:

Sorry, not around very much these days, but in answer to this study, I cannot but wonder at the contortions people go to when they don’t want to accept the obvious. Occam’s Rule almost always wins when time finally reveals the truth.

This paper has elements more and more like Dr. Brown’s assertions, which I do not dispute even in AS. I believe that, once we are prone to one bacterium, we become hosts for other bacteria of all stripes, and whether a viable colony of Klebsiella pneumoniae “looks” like a different creature (because singular Kp do not exude the muccopolysaccharide envelope–which is in fact not a true or effective bacterial ‘wall,’ but colonies produce this glue which binds them together and also picks up camouflage), or there really are other bacteria all involved in a disease does not matter.

The study suggested that antibiotics do not work in AS-family diseases, but I vehemently dispute this claim of course.

Louis Pasteur’s critics, with whom he eventually agreed, asserted that it is not so much bacteria as the host–the substrate–that determines the course of disease and treatment, and couple of thousand years earlier, Hippocrates noted that the same disease in two different individuals can appear very different, so there is nothing at all new about suggesting the diseases are modified by the host’s genetics, but it is a convoluted and confused reasoning.

I prefer starting with the salient observations, acting upon speculations and discarding what has no effects, and eventually achieving resolution. It is incorrect to suggest that a bacterial hypothesis has no potential therapeutic role. Sometimes, I wonder whether these researchers actually studied the existing literature before performing their experiments or publishing their own musings: The scientific method begins with very liberal speculations, but once it ends, it ends with a very narrow answer–one and only one correct answer and this is very tyrannical albeit not capricious at all.

In a world that becomes more capital “L” Liberal daily, such ultimate TRVTH (that is, “TRUTH” the way it is written in stone) is anathema; people want ‘wiggle’ room to allow themselves the ability to equivocate everything away. In AS I hear from people all the time that “diet did not work…for me,” (and sometimes it really does not work) so it must be a “different kind (or cause) of AS.” This kind of thing heaps more inertia upon our situation, and contributes to “paralysis due to analysis.”

In AS the real answers have been suspected since 1973, reduced to successful therapeutic practice since 1983, and proven in hundreds of peer-reviewed accepted scientific papers prior to but especially focused upon 1992. The “medical industry” (guilds) still balk while they continue to injure their patients–and bury their mistakes. They still get a lot of mileage by telling patients what they want to hear, instead of the truth–it is up to us, with wonderful support like this very site, to help each other.

HEALTH,
John

[Author]

Posts