3 ms·

I've been doing some searches since I asked the question and I wouldn't say there's a satisfactory answer. A mainstream source just saying that autoimmune disor

by jemmyw 4y ago

I've been doing some searches since I asked the question and I wouldn't say there's a satisfactory answer. A mainstream source just saying that autoimmune disorders are on the rise isn't good enough, especially as most articles I've read couch that with "and we now recognise more of these disorders" or something similar. There seems more evidence that allergies are on the rise. Maybe. I note that I found a lot of articles saying things like "autoimmune conditions are a Western disease" and blaming modern lifestyle. But arthritis is as old as the hills. I'm not at all denying that they are actually on the rise, but nothing really seems to tackle this in a way that answers all the questions - is it on the rise or do we just detect and categorise it now. Does it occur because people live longer? In the past did people have these conditions and not know, have to live with it or die? I know that for my back condition people in the past got it and their back bones fused together over time, nowadays people tend to get treated with anti-inflammatories and now biologicals plus exercise regimes to prevent it. As there is a wide range of intensity within each autoimmune disorder the majority of people who had a condition in the past might be unreported. So if anyone can point to articles or papers that address all those things I'd be very interested.

hirako2000 4y ago
That's a lot of tough questions. I don't think answers are lacking, but you will find anything and its exact opposite. Who funds this and that research? You will find that pharnaceuticals in their desire to show growing market opportunities to their backers, and grow, will make very well sure to fund enough groups so that some of them come up with the conclusion: these issues are on the rise and don't appear to relate to environnemental exposures, even adding that treatments are or will be made available to diagnosed patients. You will then find another paper, likely funded by an NGO working on reducing the use of pesticides, or other surely health impacting industrial habits, that there is undeniable correlation between the intensive use of chemicals in agro and the rise of auto-immune disease, with a lag of X years, whatever make the numbers look legit. I'm not qualifying scientific research in general as biased towards the backers' incentives, but there is a lot of noise in statistical discoveries, scientists mostly interested in publishing something since that's their financial prerogatives to stay in the game. With all that being said, I will give my "opinion" which may answer part of your questions, but my conclusion wasn't reached by the standard of scientific methods: - we are ingesting and getting exposed to a wider range and higher quantities of toxic compounds, often so synthetic. - the immune system is a complex machine, that tilts and can overreact when on alerts, tends to have good memories, and can trigger or retrigger oversensitiveness, all for our survival's sake, it isn't de facto a disease to have the immune system take the wrong fights. - that immune system, shown to not always discriminate properly, probably having evolved to be rather safe than sorry. - we don't fully understand the immune system, maybe we barely do. Is it possible that we diagnose as a disease what might simply be the expected consequences of long term exposures to undersirable chemicals? That pharma got to sell something so they don't have any problem marketing chemical therapies and strongly promoting that rather than suggesting addressing the causes might be a better option? It wouldn't be the first time in history that physicians insist with the known treatments for symptoms they ignored the causes. Again take this with a pinch of salt, i am not advising against drug treatments altogether but took the opportunity to remind this thread that health care is also a business. From a non medical scientist who happen to have allergies and skimmed through a few hundred papers on the subject.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  > but you will find anything and its exact opposite That is the marker of a bad question. The way to solve it is to move into more actionable questions.

by jemmyw 4y ago

hirako2000 4y ago

That's a lot of tough questions. I don't think answers are lacking, but you will find anything and its exact opposite. Who funds this and that research? You will find that pharnaceuticals in their desire to show growing market opportunities to their backers, and grow, will make very well sure to fund enough groups so that some of them come up with the conclusion: these issues are on the rise and don't appear to relate to environnemental exposures, even adding that treatments are or will be made available to diagnosed patients. You will then find another paper, likely funded by an NGO working on reducing the use of pesticides, or other surely health impacting industrial habits, that there is undeniable correlation between the intensive use of chemicals in agro and the rise of auto-immune disease, with a lag of X years, whatever make the numbers look legit. I'm not qualifying scientific research in general as biased towards the backers' incentives, but there is a lot of noise in statistical discoveries, scientists mostly interested in publishing something since that's their financial prerogatives to stay in the game. With all that being said, I will give my "opinion" which may answer part of your questions, but my conclusion wasn't reached by the standard of scientific methods: - we are ingesting and getting exposed to a wider range and higher quantities of toxic compounds, often so synthetic. - the immune system is a complex machine, that tilts and can overreact when on alerts, tends to have good memories, and can trigger or retrigger oversensitiveness, all for our survival's sake, it isn't de facto a disease to have the immune system take the wrong fights. - that immune system, shown to not always discriminate properly, probably having evolved to be rather safe than sorry. - we don't fully understand the immune system, maybe we barely do. Is it possible that we diagnose as a disease what might simply be the expected consequences of long term exposures to undersirable chemicals? That pharma got to sell something so they don't have any problem marketing chemical therapies and strongly promoting that rather than suggesting addressing the causes might be a better option? It wouldn't be the first time in history that physicians insist with the known treatments for symptoms they ignored the causes. Again take this with a pinch of salt, i am not advising against drug treatments altogether but took the opportunity to remind this thread that health care is also a business. From a non medical scientist who happen to have allergies and skimmed through a few hundred papers on the subject.

marcosdumay 4y ago
> but you will find anything and its exact opposite That is the marker of a bad question. The way to solve it is to move into more actionable questions.