![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutThere were a number of times while I was reading this book that I asked R., hey, is this for real? He'd read about a lot of the research in the pages of Science News, but some of it surprised him as well. The publisher is Hill & Wang, a division of FSG that I am not familiar with, and I don't know anything one way or the other about the author.
I hope Snyder Sachs is the real deal, because the stuff in this book is amazing. She reaches well back into the 19th century, and around the world (and not just to other English speaking nations, either) to describe in detail how we have learned about and interacted (consciously) with the microbial world (it says bacterial and that's the focus, but virii and phages and so forth are also covered). In addition to supplying a really great, detailed description of antibiotic resistance, she gives a much broader view of MRSA than I have ever encountered before.
There's a lot about vaccines in here (and nothing about the aspect of vaccines that I am usually interested in), particularly vaccines built on top of mycobacteria and using those to "calm" the immune system to treat inflammatory diseases (Crohn's, irritable bowel, Raynaud's, etc.). She thoroughly covers the hygiene hypothesis (we're all sick because we don't encounter enough germs/the right kind of germs/at the right time in our life, etc.). There's some weirdly fascinating stuff about asthma (and how while exercise-induced asthma is ancient, allergy-induced asthma not so much), hayfever, cancers which are an artifact of the immune system not targeting the right stuff -- and how all of these have been "fixed" rapidly and with minimal side effects in lab animals and a few humans. Sometimes requiring ongoing treatments, but still.
Is it for real? *shrug* I'd love to hear the opinion of someone who is familiar with the research she's covering. She's admirably skeptical about phages (going so far as to compare the more extreme claims for them to Laetrile), given how little has come of all the money and hype that went in to them.
I'll be doing some digging over the next few days, to try to come up with a solid answer to the question of whether this book and this author is trustworthy. But, on first read through, I'm impressed as hell, and quite excited by some of the prospects she describes.
[Edited to add:] First cut: positive coverage of the book in the New York Times and Newsweek. She's been doing science writing for a while, and is well-respected.
I hope Snyder Sachs is the real deal, because the stuff in this book is amazing. She reaches well back into the 19th century, and around the world (and not just to other English speaking nations, either) to describe in detail how we have learned about and interacted (consciously) with the microbial world (it says bacterial and that's the focus, but virii and phages and so forth are also covered). In addition to supplying a really great, detailed description of antibiotic resistance, she gives a much broader view of MRSA than I have ever encountered before.
There's a lot about vaccines in here (and nothing about the aspect of vaccines that I am usually interested in), particularly vaccines built on top of mycobacteria and using those to "calm" the immune system to treat inflammatory diseases (Crohn's, irritable bowel, Raynaud's, etc.). She thoroughly covers the hygiene hypothesis (we're all sick because we don't encounter enough germs/the right kind of germs/at the right time in our life, etc.). There's some weirdly fascinating stuff about asthma (and how while exercise-induced asthma is ancient, allergy-induced asthma not so much), hayfever, cancers which are an artifact of the immune system not targeting the right stuff -- and how all of these have been "fixed" rapidly and with minimal side effects in lab animals and a few humans. Sometimes requiring ongoing treatments, but still.
Is it for real? *shrug* I'd love to hear the opinion of someone who is familiar with the research she's covering. She's admirably skeptical about phages (going so far as to compare the more extreme claims for them to Laetrile), given how little has come of all the money and hype that went in to them.
I'll be doing some digging over the next few days, to try to come up with a solid answer to the question of whether this book and this author is trustworthy. But, on first read through, I'm impressed as hell, and quite excited by some of the prospects she describes.
[Edited to add:] First cut: positive coverage of the book in the New York Times and Newsweek. She's been doing science writing for a while, and is well-respected.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Sounds like something for me to read.
Date: 2008-03-27 10:59 pm (UTC)I'm interested to know what your usual area of interest is re: vaccines.
And how she determines the chronological place of exercize-induced vs. allergen-induced asthma... ummm, how? If she's commenting on the apparent physiological mechanisms involved (trauma/stress vs. immunopathology) I suppose that's one way, but it's certainly not set in stone.
And there's a general view that a lot of cancers come from a failure of immune surveillance, but that's never really held up when shaken vigorously. The 2 (or 3)-strike hypothesis is generally considered much more solid.
As for rapid 'fixes'... I doubt that those were achieved sans transgene technology. So it sounds like I should pick this thing up and give it a run-through (as someone who has full access to the modern literature and the capability to cut through the chaff).
Re: Sounds like something for me to read.
Date: 2008-03-28 01:38 am (UTC)My usual areas of interest re: vaccines are the preservatives/metals issue (aluminum still and thimerosal, which is gone from most in the US, but still present in the flu vaccine, and in multi-dose stuff sold/donated overseas), and the possibility that some infants are susceptible to MMR (in that their immune system doesn't respond appropriately, but they instead come down with one or more of MM and R, possibly at a subclinical level). The attitude prevalent among a lot of parents (and me) is that most of the potential developmental problems can be managed by spreading out the schedule, and rigorously adhering to the standard guidelines (never vaccinate someone who is sick with anything more serious than a minor cold).
As for the exercise v. allergen/other asthma, that's reviewing early mention of/description of asthma in the literature. Exercise-induced asthma dates back to Hippocrates; the other kind doesn't show up until a few centuries ago. I'm curious whether she found someone who had gone digging through the Indian or Chinese literature (or, for that matter, the Egyptian medical papyri, altho those are primarily focused on trauma). It is not based on physiological mechanism.
A bunch of the rapid fixes were using M. vaccae (which the Stanfords got in the mud somewhere in Uganda); there were others that involved killed listeria, and there were some that involved transgene technology.
Looking forward to what you have to say; let me know if you want me to send a copy your way.
Re: Sounds like something for me to read.
Date: 2008-03-28 04:33 pm (UTC)As to the vaccines issue... makes sense. Although, given the large body of work out of Britain regarding the putative link between mercury-thimerosal in the MMR vaccines and the development of autism (man, the venom in those arguments), it seems that the actual metal levels in the vaccine sera, once diluted in the body, really are nontoxic. Certainly in the short term.
But, yes, the vaccine schedule and recommendations are there for some very good reasons, folks... conflating vaccinations with extant infections is a terrible, terrible thing (I am TA'ing a virology class this term... heh). The failure to immunize against M, M, or R is interesting, I'll have to look into that. And really, it's true of just about any vaccine, that it may fail to properly immunize. Tetanus and Vaccinia both require boosters, and there's evidence that the oral polio vaccine employed worldwide could also do with a booster regimen. But with herd immunity, I suppose the WHO and co. feel confident.
I was unware of the ancient literature about asthma--I knew of the references to various and sundry parasites and characteristic infections (smallpox, polio, etc.). My comment stems from the very interesting work of a few labs investigating the evolutionary development of the immune system, if you will--plants actually employ anti-microbial proteins that have immunoglobulin-fold structure, even if they aren't antigen specific as seen in mammals, fish and birds. Then there's the entire innate/adaptive immune system question...
M. vaccae. Hrmmm. Know nothing of that one. (looking looking looking) Ah, it appears to be an uber-adjuvant, or something of the sort, in opposition to the normal immuno-evasive profile of the pathogenic Mycobacterium species. I know that M. tuberculosis components (never living bacteria) have been used as adjuvants in the past, and in fact a direct injection of the BCG (bacille Camette-Guerin) fraction of an M. tb prep was one of the earliest known anti-cancer treatments, specifically for bladder cancers. Not that it's in common usage in this day and age.
Re: Sounds like something for me to read.
Date: 2008-04-01 06:46 pm (UTC)The details are really beyond me, I'm afraid.
Helen S.
Re: Sounds like something for me to read.
Date: 2008-04-01 07:30 pm (UTC)For the greatest part, it's a meta-analysis, i.e. a summation of dozens of other research studies ranging with patient enrollment ranging from small (108 patients) up to large (nationwide surveys in some cases, so likely the tens of thousands).
Some of the issues raised about the immune responsiveness of newborns are things well known to immunologists and developmental biologists (though without the right background, certain things are probably not obvious at all): the ability of neonates to respond to *millions* of different antigens within hours of birth; the genesis of the immune system is actually in the first five months of development in utero so it's rip-rarin'-ready-to-go at birth.
Another of the major points covered is that as the newborn and childhood immune system is capable of recognizing *and responding* to antigen immediately at birth (not to mention millions of new antigens each year), throwing in a few hundred epitopes from a dozen vaccines over the first few years is small change, really. 'Wearing out' the immune system is impossible in a healthy individual (immunocompromised patients are always the exception, as are those with certain severe illnesses, like the flu), given that we are capable of mounting immune responses to new antigens from about 20" post birth until the day we die.
One point that I was unaware of was the trend demonstrating that vaccination also protects against bystander infections, i.e. the chicken pox vaccine (although against a virus) reduces the chances of suffering from bacterial infections like Group A strep (incl. the ever tasteful necrotizing fasciitis, or 'skin-eating' infection).
Overall, a good summary, though it would take more time than I have at the moment to go through all of the references (and some I just don't have access to, like the books).
Re: Sounds like something for me to read.
Date: 2008-04-01 09:33 pm (UTC)(1) The smallpox vaccine had _horrendous_ side effects at levels that were only acceptable because smallpox itself was so horrifying.
(2) While the old pertussis vaccine did not have _as high_ or _as bad_ side effects as smallpox, it was probably the worst on the schedule we grew up on; reactions to that vaccine were often severe enough to convince parents to stop giving their kids any more vaccines (and this was 20 and more years ago).
This is not a good argument. It's right up there with, "better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick".
T. is finally waking up, so off I go; post more later.