Are All Diseases Of A Reactionary Nature

[boagie]

Hi Everyone,

This is more of a quest on my part, for I am unsure of the answer to the above question. Any health professionals out there, or just someone with an insight into the said question. The floor is wide open, please give us your slant on this.----thanks!

[urangutan]

Yeah, G'day Boagie. I like believing that many afflictions are simple disorientations of the senses and awareness. Take cerebral palsy for example. I hope that if any one feels they should take offence to this, they first look at it through what I believe.


Just like accupuncture can cause reaction to the nervous system through pressure points, I belive that certain pressures placed under the feet while standing, will cause a reaction between synapses.


I am by no means a specialist and do not claim that this is the cure, I just believe it is. I hope this is an answer to your question, because I think now that I didn't understand it at all.

[boagie]

G' day to Yourself urangutan,

Interesting post, but, perhaps it would be more to the point if people could state an example of a disease which is indeed, NOT, a reaction in one form or another. It is my belief at present, that all diseases are reactionary. Now, it does seem self-evident that those diseases caused by bacteria, viruses, germs of every discription are reactionary either to the foreign organism itself, or to the waste products of that organism or both. The point being that reaction is key to understanding behaviours across the board, weather reaction understood as disease or reaction understood as a political movement, their nature are the same. Remember the nature of the term, dis-eased, not then, at ease.

Correlational dis-ease, correlational dis-order, correlational degreneration of the organism---------what do you say folks, you must be a healthy bunch!!


Think context illness!

[boagie]

There is a doctor or two here, I am sure some medical professionals ect..,. surely you must have an opinion, even if it is to completely dismiss the premise of reaction as the cause of all illnesses. with the exclusion perhaps of old age.

[Didymos Thomas]

These reaction threads are interesting, boagie, I'm just not entirely sure where to go with them. I guess the underlying question in this thread, as with the others is what is 'reactionary'?

It is my belief at present, that all diseases are reactionary.

What is it for a disease to be 'reactionary'?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

These reaction threads are interesting, boagie, I'm just not entirely sure where to go with them. I guess the underlying question in this thread, as with the others is what is 'reactionary'?
What is it for a disease to be 'reactionary'?

Didymos Thomas,

I think reactionary would mean the source of the difficulty is not of the healthy constitution of an individual working against itself, though one might consider the problems of age, and thus correlated breakdown to be the source of some health difficulties. It is a bit like the business of an object in space traveling in direction, to change said direction requires interference, something to react to. An individuals constitution in a void would not be unlike the object in space traveling in direction, and difficulties that were not attributed to age, would of necessity have to involve reaction to another source, another object, a source interfering with the normal course of the body's direction/health. In other words dis-ease is not the act of a healthy body, it is a reaction to a foreign object and/or substance, which changes the course of one's constitution in health.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by boagie

In other words dis-ease is not the act of a healthy body, it is a reaction to a foreign object and/or substance, which changes the course of one's constitution in health.

Speaking as a well-entrenched insider in the medical profession, I think you've got it half right. There are both intrinsic and extrinsic things that can affect a given disease.

Take pneumonia. Pneumonia is an infection of the lungs (typically a bacterial infection). The bacteria that most often produce pneumonia have toxins that cause tissue injury, that provoke inflammation, and that ultimately produce symptoms. So here it seems that the bacteria is a foreign object or substance, right? And you're correct that much of the damage caused by pneumonia is caused by the body's inflammatory response.

But now consider that there are intrinsic host factors that affect susceptibility to pneumonia and risk of complications with it. The elderly are FAR more susceptible to pneumonia than people who are young and healthy. People with cystic fibrosis (which is a genetic disease) have pulmonary infections all the time. These are unmodifiable risk factors. There are many other extrinsic things that will alter a host's intrinsic susceptibility -- for instance smoking (extrinsic) will lead to a host who is intrinsically more susceptible to infection by pneumonia pathogens. If someone develops cancer (sometimes intrinsic, sometimes extrinsic), the chemotherapy (extrinsic) will lead to a host with an intrinsically weak immune system that is more susceptible.

So diseases can't cleanly be thought of as intrinsic or extrinsic. But to be sure, very often there are external factors that either cause injury or that provoke an injurious response by the body, and there are tons of examples.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Speaking as a well-entrenched insider in the medical profession, I think you've got it half right. There are both intrinsic and extrinsic things that can affect a given disease.

Take pneumonia. Pneumonia is an infection of the lungs (typically a bacterial infection). The bacteria that most often produce pneumonia have toxins that cause tissue injury, that provoke inflammation, and that ultimately produce symptoms. So here it seems that the bacteria is a foreign object or substance, right? And you're correct that much of the damage caused by pneumonia is caused by the body's inflammatory response.

But now consider that there are intrinsic host factors that affect susceptibility to pneumonia and risk of complications with it. The elderly are FAR more susceptible to pneumonia than people who are young andhealthy. People with cystic fibrosis (which is a genetic disease) have pulmonary infections all the time. These are unmodifiable risk factors. There are many other extrinsic things that will alter a host's intrinsic susceptibility -- for instance smoking (extrinsic) will lead to a host who is intrinsically more susceptible to infection by pneumonia pathogens. If someone develops cancer (sometimes intrinsic, sometimes extrinsic), the chemotherapy (extrinsic) will lead to a host with an intrinsically weak immune system that is more susceptible.

So diseases can't cleanly be thought of as intrinsic or extrinsic. But to be sure, very often there are external factors that either cause injury or that provoke an injurious response by the body, and there are tons of examples.

Aedes;

From your outline the one thing that jumps out at me is this genetic disease, this is truely intrinsic, it is something amiss from the outset effecting the constitution, or in effect being the constitution of that individual. I would think that would warrent a catagory of its own. I do not think the fact the an individual is weakened by say a bacterial infection and left more susceptible negates the premise that most diseases are reactionary in nature. Once the constitution is compromised it is further compromised by foreign organisms and their by products, the seige is on so to speak.

No a change in the degree of susceptibility due to previous infection does not negate the premise. The example of smoking increasing susceptibility is due to the bodies reaction to this foreign substance. It may well be naive of me but, with the acception of genetic disorder, it still sounds like the major cause of disease is of a reactionary in nature. Risk factors or susceptibility do not change the nature of the premise or negate it. I am missing something I take it? Perhaps if with each assault upon the constitution, it is considers its new state, still the individuals constitution, and still vulnerable to attack by the same said agents--- sorry doc, I've got a hard head.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by boagie

From your outline the one thing that jumps out at me is this genetic disease, this is truely intrinsic

Perhaps, but you could even make the case that there are extrinsic influences on genetics. For instance, a genetic error takes place at some stage in the genetic history of a family lineage -- and whether it only affects the offspring in question, or it's an inherited gene from generations past, it is still something with influences that are extrinsic to itself (though not necessarily the outside world).

That said, there are many many other disease processes that I'd argue are intrinsically derived. Take autoimmune diseases, like rheumatoid arthritis or Crohn's disease or scleroderma or lupus. These result from an intrinsic dysregulation of the immune system by which it inflicts damage on the host. Normally the immune system is intrinsically conditioned to ignore the host and only attack foreign invaders (i.e. microbes).

And don't forget that many extrinsic things only exert their influence because someone is intrinsically predisposed. For instance UV light can lead to malignant melanoma. But people with very dark skin are far less likely to get melanoma given the same sun exposure.

I do not think the fact the an individual is weakened by say a bacterial infection and left more susceptible negates the premise that most diseases are reactionary in nature. Once the constitution is compromised it is further compromised by foreign organisms and their by products, the seige is on so to speak.

Fair enough, but there is no way to separate ourselves from the world we live in. Our bodies depend on the physics of our world, we are covered inside and out with bacteria, we depend on food with all its macronutrients and micronutrients, we depend on social contact to some degree, etc. There is no such thing as the human organism in isolation.

So when you talk about something being reactionary, what you're really referring to is a chain of causality that has some agent that is biologically external to the disease in question. But if you look hard enough, that will be true in every case, if for no other reason because who we are as hosts depends on our entire genealogy.

[boagie]

Aedes,

Quote:
Originally Posted by boagie
From your outline the one thing that jumps out at me is this genetic disease, this is truely intrinsic

"Perhaps, but you could even make the case that there are extrinsic influences on genetics. For instance, a genetic error takes place at some stage in the genetic history of a family lineage -- and whether it only affects the offspring in question, or it's an inherited gene from generations past, it is still something with influences that are extrinsic to itself (though not necessarily the outside world)." quote

First you will have to give me that, I am not just trying to be difficult. The above seems to me a matter of perspective, granted perhaps an unusual one. Genetic history could be said to be the constitution of said individual as well as his ancestors, a recessed gene, not activated, is still a part of the individuals contstitution is it not. I am thinking of Arlo Guthrie he could not be sure he would not come down with huntingtons until he was fifty. At anyrate this is the constitution of a given individual, the orginal source of the genetic mistake or its cause would not be descernable.

"That said, there are many many other disease processes that I'd argue are intrinsically derived. Take autoimmune diseases, like rheumatoid arthritis or Crohn's disease or scleroderma or lupus. These result from an intrinsic dysregulation of the immune system by which it inflicts damage on the host. Normally the immune system is intrinsically conditioned to ignore the host and only attack foreign invaders (i.e. microbes)"

The above diseases the cause of which are dysregulation of the immune system, either this is genetic or there is a infectional cause is there not? A perfectly healthy individual's immune system does not suddenly turn on itself. What has caused this disfunction and/or reaction, it is unknown is it not. Aids of course is attributed to a virus is it not.

"And don't forget that many extrinsic things only exert their influence because someone is intrinsically predisposed. For instance UV light can lead to malignant melanoma. But people with very dark skin are far less likely to get melanoma given the same sun exposure.

Yes I have no difficult with weak or healthy constitutions coming down with something, it is reasonable that a weak constitution is a vulnerable one. That certain aspects of the constitution of the less vulnerable are not as susceptible to the same risks due to their difference in constitution is understandable.


Quote:
I do not think the fact the an individual is weakened by say a bacterial infection and left more susceptible negates the premise that most diseases are reactionary in nature. Once the constitution is compromised it is further compromised by foreign organisms and their by products, the seige is on so to speak.

"Fair enough, but there is no way to separate ourselves from the world we live in. Our bodies depend on the physics of our world, we are covered inside and out with bacteria, we depend on food with all its macronutrients and micronutrients, we depend on social contact to some degree, etc. There is no such thing as the human organism in isolation." quote

The very basis of my premise is based on the inclusiveness of a fully relational world, reaction being the bases of all transformations, including the transformation into a diseased state. One aspect you have brought to the fore though that I did not think of, was, reaction to the need unfulfilled, we are indeed inseparable from the physical world, and most any need we have is out there to be had, so when the body lacks there is reaction in the form of perhaps a chemical change. Lonelyness is quite a reality in this society, and it is one of these needs unfulfilled.

"So when you talk about something being reactionary, what you're really referring to is a chain of causality that has some agent that is biologically external to the disease in question. But if you look hard enough, that will be true in every case, if for no other reason because who we are as hosts depends on our entire genealogy." quote

Geneology determines the form and constitution, the real assurance of the premise is in the belief that the world is entirely relational. If this is established, the premise does not seem outrageous at all. It in fact could be no other way. Sorry doc, this must sound terriably cheeky, particularly coming from a layman.