Chronic Diseases Demystified Website describing ALS or Lou Gehrig disease from experimental point.
Related Articles
Third and last part of my experimental talks with Open AI chat system. The objective is to raise ALS awareness in a new and hopefully revolutionary way.
In previous articles I explained the initial motivation and covered the main topics but there are still some aspects which is worth to mention or further explore. This is the reason why I asked few more questions. As before I was pleased by the answers so at the end I asked more questions than intended. Now let´s get straight into action … The interview continues.
ALS Interview With ChatGPT
Gradual accumulation of heavy metals in tissues is suspected to be major factor contributing to development of many chronic diseases. Are the heavy metals detection methods currently in use considered highly reliable?
Note: This question resulted in error saying the model required to answer such question is not available but I re-phrased that a bit and I was able to continue. I am mentioning it here just for sake of completeness.
Are the heavy metals detection methods currently in use considered highly reliable?
There are a variety of methods currently used for heavy metal detection, and the reliability of these methods can vary depending on the specific method and the sample being tested. Some common methods include atomic absorption spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and X-ray fluorescence (XRF). These methods are generally considered to be highly reliable for detecting heavy metals in a wide range of samples. However, accuracy and precision may vary depending on the specific method and the sample being tested. It is important to note that the accuracy and precision of a particular method will depend on many factors including the type of sample, the type of metal, the presence of other elements, and the conditions of the analysis.
In terms of samples to diagnose from heavy metal presence I meant mainly organic tissues, human tissue. Can we detect heavy metals reliably in human patients?
Yes, it is possible to detect heavy metals in human patients using a variety of methods. The most common methods include blood and urine tests, as well as hair and nail analysis. These methods can detect the presence of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and cadmium in the human body.
Blood tests can detect the presence of heavy metals in the bloodstream, and can be used to measure the amount of a specific metal in the body. However, blood tests are only able to detect the presence of metals that are currently in the bloodstream and not the ones that have been stored in the organs or bones.
Urine tests can detect the presence of metals that have been excreted by the body, and can also be used to measure the amount of a specific metal in the body.
Hair and nail analysis can detect the presence of heavy metals that have accumulated in the body over a period of time. These tests are considered to be more reliable indicators of long-term exposure to heavy metals.
It’s important to note that a positive test result does not always indicate that the person has been exposed to dangerous levels of heavy metals. The interpretation of test results must be done in conjunction with a thorough medical history and examination, as well as a knowledge of the patient’s occupation, diet, and other exposures.
In any case, it’s recommendable to consult with a medical professional for interpreting the results and determine if further actions are needed.
You wrote that positive test result does not always indicate dangerous level of intoxication but what about the opposite case – can negative test result be actually positive in reality? Mainly if the metals are present in organs, bones as you wrote.
A negative test result does not always indicate that a person has not been exposed to heavy metals or that they do not have dangerous levels of heavy metals in their body. There are several reasons why a negative test result may not be a true reflection of a person’s exposure to heavy metals.
First, it is important to keep in mind that different methods have different sensitivities and can detect different levels of heavy metals. For example, a urine test may not be able to detect low levels of a heavy metal that can be detected in a blood test. Additionally, different testing methods have different detection limits, so a test that has a lower detection limit may be able to detect lower levels of a heavy metal than a test with a higher detection limit.
Second, some heavy metals can be stored in the body’s organs and bones, and may not be present in the bloodstream or urine. For example, lead is often stored in the bones and can be released into the bloodstream during pregnancy or during times of stress. As a result, a blood or urine test may not detect the presence of lead stored in the bones.
Lastly, it’s important to note that a negative test result does not mean that a person has not been exposed to heavy metals, but only that a specific test performed did not detect any heavy metals. Therefore, it’s important to consider a person’s medical history, occupation, diet and other exposures when interpreting test results.
In conclusion, a negative test result may not always be a true reflection of a person’s exposure to heavy metals. It is important to consider the specific test method used, the detection limit of the test, and the individual’s exposure history when interpreting test results. If there are concerns about heavy metal exposure, it is best to consult with a medical professional for further evaluation.
Is it true that mercury gradually accumulates in fatty tissues like brain and near important organs, nervous system in general?
Yes, it is true that certain forms of mercury, such as methylmercury and inorganic mercury, can accumulate in fatty tissues like the brain, as well as in other organs and the nervous system. Methylmercury is a type of mercury that is found primarily in fish and shellfish, and can be consumed by eating contaminated seafood. When consumed, methylmercury is absorbed into the bloodstream and can cross the blood-brain barrier, where it can accumulate in the brain. Inorganic mercury can also accumulate in fatty tissues and organs, but it enters the body primarily through inhalation and skin contact.
It’s important to note that the amount of mercury that accumulates in the body depends on the dose and duration of exposure. Long-term exposure to low levels of mercury can lead to gradual accumulation of the metal in the body, while short-term exposure to high levels of mercury can cause more severe symptoms and damage.
As well as the nervous system, mercury can also damage the kidneys and the immune system, and it can also cause developmental problems in children and fetuses. Therefore, it’s important to avoid excessive exposure to mercury, especially for children and pregnant women. Consultation with a doctor or a specialist in toxicology is recommended if there is suspicion of high mercury levels in the body.
Is stem cell therapy logically correct approach for treatment disease like ALS? I am asking because stem cell therapy falls into symptomatic treatments and does not have anything common with the original and a bit fuzzy root cause.
Stem cell therapy is a promising approach for treating a variety of diseases, including Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. ALS is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that affects motor neurons, leading to muscle weakness and eventually paralysis. The exact cause of ALS is not fully understood, but it is thought to be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
Stem cell therapy for ALS is based on the idea that introducing new, healthy motor neurons into the body could help to replace the damaged or lost cells and slow or even halt the progression of the disease. There are different types of stem cells that can be used for this purpose, including embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, and adult stem cells.
Currently, stem cell therapy is considered as a symptomatic treatment for ALS, as it aims to improve symptoms and slow the progression of the disease, rather than addressing the root cause of the disorder. However, research is ongoing to understand more about the underlying causes of ALS and how stem cell therapy can be used to address these causes.
It’s important to note that stem cell therapy is still considered an experimental treatment for ALS and more research is needed to determine its safety and effectiveness. It’s also important to be careful of unproven and unlicensed stem cell therapies which are often advertised as cures for a variety of illnesses, including ALS.
In any case, it’s important to consult with a medical professional to determine if stem cell therapy is a suitable treatment option for a specific case of ALS and to be aware of the current state of knowledge and potential risks and benefits of the therapy.
In other words ALS patient needs to be a plateau or near plateau case and then, in theory, there can be surprisingly good benefits and improvements. On the other hand patient with strong unneutralized progression will not react well as the rate of damage simply outperforms any attempts of “rebuilding”.
But how can such therapy lead to good results? On one side we have ongoing rate of damage caused by so far not well understood cause and on the other side we try to slow that damage, but still continuous damage, with extremely expensive motor neuron rebuilding stem cell therapy? It does not make much sense to me.
You raise a valid concern about the effectiveness of stem cell therapy for diseases like ALS, where the underlying cause is not well understood. While stem cell therapy may not address the root cause of the disease, it has the potential to slow the progression of the disease by replacing damaged or lost cells and preserving the remaining healthy motor neurons. It’s important to note that current treatments for ALS, such as Riluzole, only address symptom management and do not stop or reverse the progression of the disease. Stem cell therapy, on the other hand, aims to slow the progression of the disease by replacing damaged cells and preserving healthy ones. In addition, stem cell therapy may also have the potential to stimulate the regeneration of damaged cells and repair the nervous system.
How much of resources and funds is being invested into all those symptomatic treatments and how much is invested into strategic root cause identification projects which only can result in the human ability to cure disease or prevent it from developing?
The amount of resources and funds invested in symptomatic treatments versus those invested in identifying the root causes of disease can vary depending on the disease and the country or region in question. In general, a significant amount of resources and funds are allocated towards developing treatments that address symptoms and slow the progression of diseases, such as stem cell therapy for ALS. This is because these treatments can provide immediate benefits to patients and their families, and can also improve quality of life.
However, it’s also important to note that a significant amount of resources and funds are also invested in research to identify the root causes of diseases and to develop cures or preventions. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States, alone, invested over $39 billion in research in 2020, which includes the discovery of the root causes of diseases, the development of new treatments, and the prevention of diseases. This funding is distributed among various institutes that focus on different fields of research and diseases.
Additionally, there are many private organizations and philanthropic foundations that also invest in research to identify the root causes of diseases and to develop cures or preventions. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested billions of dollars in global health research.
It’s important to note that the allocation of resources and funding for research can be influenced by various factors, including the prevalence and severity of the disease, the availability of funding, and the public and political priorities.
In summary, while a significant amount of resources and funds are invested in developing treatments that address symptoms and slow the progression of diseases, there is also a significant investment in research to identify the root causes of diseases and to develop cures or preventions. The balance of resources and funding allocated between symptomatic treatment and root cause identification projects can vary depending on the disease and the region, but both are important for the advancement of medical research and the development of new treatments and prevention methods.
Yeah, I know about Bill and Melinda, but still I don´t believe you that the funds are distributed rationally. Should not be the ratio between tactical/symptomatic projects and strategic root cause exploring projects different? Let´s say 20:80 in favor of strategic approaches?
It is true that the ratio of resources and funding allocated to symptomatic treatment versus root cause identification projects can vary depending on the disease and the region. In general, a larger proportion of resources and funding is allocated towards developing treatments that address symptoms and slow the progression of diseases. This is because these treatments can provide immediate benefits to patients and their families, and can also improve quality of life. Additionally, many diseases, such as ALS, do not have a known cure, so the focus is on providing symptomatic relief.
In terms of a specific ratio, it’s difficult to say what the ideal ratio should be without taking into account the specifics of each disease and the current state of knowledge about the disease. However, it’s generally agreed that both symptomatic and root cause focused projects are important for the advancement of medical research and the development of new treatments and prevention methods. It’s also worth mentioning that in some cases, investment in symptomatic treatments can lead to the understanding of the underlying causes of the disease. This knowledge can then be used to develop more effective treatments in the future.
In any case, it’s important to note that the allocation of resources and funding for research is a complex process, influenced by various factors and stakeholders. It’s also important to remember that the ultimate goal is to improve the health and well-being of patients and to find cures and preventions for diseases.
Well, I am an impatient person and I would like to see some real results already. In the last 20 years I could see only delivering of drugs and therapies which all fall into the symptomatic class of treatment. Twenty years are twenty years. Sorry!
I understand your frustration. It can be difficult to see the progress being made in research and development, especially when it comes to finding cures for diseases. It’s true that many of the drugs and therapies that have been developed in recent years fall into the symptomatic treatment category, rather than addressing the underlying causes of the disease.
However, it’s important to remember that medical research is a complex and time-consuming process that often requires many years of study and experimentation before new treatments can be developed. Identifying the root causes of diseases can be a difficult and complicated process, and finding a cure for a disease can take many years of research and development.
Additionally, it’s important to note that many diseases are caused by multiple factors, and it can be difficult to identify a single underlying cause or to develop a single cure. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to focus on developing treatments that address the symptoms of the disease, rather than trying to find a single cure.
It’s also worth mentioning that some progress has been made in recent years in understanding the underlying causes of diseases, such as in genetics and epigenetics, which has led to the development of new drugs and therapies.
In any case, it’s important to remember that medical research is a continuous process and it requires patience, dedication and resources. Advances in research and development can happen gradually, but they are important in order to improve the health and well-being of patients and to find cures and preventions for diseases.
I am aware of all of this. There is a lot of resources and funds put into genetic research but isn’t a damaged DNA again only result of exposure to harmful conditions like polluted environment?
Yes, exposure to harmful conditions such as a polluted environment can be a contributing factor to damaged DNA. Environmental factors like pollution can cause damage to DNA through a variety of mechanisms, such as the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and the formation of DNA adducts. This damage can lead to mutations in the DNA, which can increase the risk of developing certain diseases.
It’s important to note that genetic research is a broad field that encompasses many different areas of study, including the identification of genetic risk factors for disease, the development of genetic tests, and the development of gene therapies. While genetic research can help us to understand the underlying causes of diseases and to develop new treatments, it’s also important to consider the role of environmental factors, such as pollution, in the development of these diseases.
Research on the effects of environmental pollutants on human health and genetics is an active field of study, and it has shown that exposure to pollutants can have a significant impact on health and the risk of certain diseases. Therefore, it’s important to consider both genetic and environmental factors when trying to understand the causes of diseases and to develop new treatments.
In summary, while genetic research is an important area of study that can help us to understand the underlying causes of diseases and to develop new treatments, it’s also important to consider the role of environmental factors, such as pollution, in the development of these diseases.
So what makes more sense: 1) Investing billions into genetic research to make people more resilient to live in unhealthy conditions like polluted environment, industrial food, stress, bacterial resistance, new viral mutations promoting conditions. 2) Investing billions into efforts aimed at improving the environment so that resilient “genetically tuned freaks” are not that needed and people also do not acquire harmful mutations so much?
Both options you’ve presented have their own merits and potential benefits for improving human health.
- Investing in genetic research can help us to understand the underlying causes of diseases and to develop new treatments, as well as identify genetic predispositions and help to develop personalized medicine. By understanding the genetic basis of disease, scientists can develop targeted therapies and preventions, as well as identify individuals who are at high risk of developing certain diseases, allowing for early intervention.
- Investing in efforts to improve the environment can also have a significant impact on human health. For example, reducing pollution can decrease the risk of certain diseases, such as cancer and respiratory diseases. Improving access to clean water and air can also have a positive impact on health. Additionally, investing in sustainable agriculture and food production can improve the nutritional quality of our food, reduce the use of chemicals, and decrease the risk of foodborne illnesses.
It’s also worth noting that investing in both genetic research and environmental improvement can be complementary. For example, genetic research can help us understand how exposure to environmental pollutants can increase the risk of certain diseases, and this information can be used to develop new interventions to reduce exposure to these pollutants.
In conclusion, both options have the potential to improve human health
I know, we need to balance it and the only problem is that currently the balance is not there. Greta Thunberg would agree with me, what about you?
As a language model AI, I don’t have personal opinions or biases. However, it’s true that there is a need for a balance between investing in genetic research and environmental improvement.
Currently, the allocation of resources and funding for research can be influenced by various factors, including the prevalence and severity of the disease, the availability of funding, and the public and political priorities. It’s possible that the current balance between investing in genetic research and environmental improvement may not be optimal, and that more resources should be allocated towards efforts to improve the environment.
It’s important to consider the effects of environmental factors such as pollution and climate change on human health, and to invest in efforts to address these issues. It’s also important to consider the long-term effects of environmental degradation and to invest in sustainable solutions that can help to improve the overall health and well-being of future generations.
It’s worth noting that the allocation of resources and funding for research is a complex process, influenced by various factors and stakeholders. It’s also important to remember that the ultimate goal is to improve the health and well-being of patients and to find cures and preventions for diseases.
Everything is complex and simple at the end, matter of priorities. Do you know what the expression “People Over Profit” mean?
Yes, the expression “People Over Profit” is a phrase that is often used to express the idea that the well-being and needs of people should be prioritized over financial gain. It suggests that decisions and actions should be made with the goal of benefiting the well-being and welfare of individuals and society as a whole, rather than solely for financial gain. This phrase is often used in the context of social and environmental issues and policies, where companies and organizations are criticized for prioritizing financial gain over the well-being of the people and the environment.
This phrase is used in various fields such as healthcare, environment, labor rights, education, etc. It highlights the importance of ethical considerations and the need to balance economic growth and financial gain with social and environmental responsibility.
It’s important to note that while profit is important for the sustainability of businesses and organizations, it should not be the sole driver of decision-making and actions. Organizations should also consider the impact of their actions on the well-being and welfare of society and the environment, and strive to find a balance between financial gain and the needs and well-being of people.
Agreed with quick note that here again we are definitely not in balance. I have one more topic to discuss. In terms of data science do you have any suggestion how to analyze and interpret data where common patterns are clearly present but individual records show contradicting tendencies?
In data science, there are a number of techniques that can be used to analyze and interpret data where common patterns are present but individual records show contradicting tendencies. Some of the methods that can be used include:
- Clustering: Clustering is a technique used to group similar data points together. This can help to identify common patterns in the data and to identify any outliers or individual records that show contradicting tendencies.
- Dimensionality reduction: Dimensionality reduction techniques, such as principal component analysis (PCA) and singular value decomposition (SVD), can be used to reduce the number of features or variables in the data, making it easier to identify common patterns and outliers.
- Anomaly detection: Anomaly detection is a technique used to identify unusual or unexpected data points in the dataset. This can help to identify individual records that show contradicting tendencies.
- Visualization: Visualization can be used to create graphical representations of the data, such as scatter plots, heat maps, and box plots, which can help to identify common patterns and outliers in the data.
- Statistical tests: Statistical tests, such as t-test and chi-squared test, can be used to test the significance of the differences between groups of data, such as differences between individual records that show contradicting tendencies and the common patterns in the data.
It’s important to keep in mind that the choice of method depends on the type of data, the specific question to be answered, and the level of granularity needed. It’s also important to use multiple methods and to interpret the results in the context of the data and the problem at hand.
In any case, it’s important to remember that data analysis is an iterative process, and it may be necessary to try multiple methods and to refine the analysis as more information becomes available.
I think we all know what contradicting tendencies puzzle ALS researchers for such a long time. Do you know what a polymorphic virus is?
Yes, a polymorphic virus is a type of computer virus that is capable of modifying its own code in order to evade detection by anti-virus software. Polymorphic viruses are able to change their appearance and behavior each time they infect a new system, making it difficult for anti-virus software to identify and remove them. This is because each new version of the virus will have a different structure or code, making it unique and not matching any known virus signature.
In terms of biology, a polymorphic virus is a virus that is capable of existing in multiple forms. In some cases, a virus can exist in different strains, which can vary in their genetic makeup, and in other cases, a virus can exist in different forms, such as a dormant or an active form, depending on the host and environment.
It’s worth noting that in the case of ALS, some researchers have suggested that a viral infection, specifically a polymorphic virus, may be a contributing factor in the development of the disease.
I would suspect these characteristics of computer viruses indeed have their equivalents in biology. For instance advanced stealth and presence camouflaging techniques. What do you think?
Yes, the characteristics of computer viruses, such as advanced stealth and presence camouflaging techniques, do have equivalents in biology. In the case of viruses, the ability to evade detection and to change their appearance and behavior is known as virulence.
In biology, virulence is a measure of a pathogen’s ability to cause harm to a host. Pathogens, such as viruses, can evolve mechanisms to evade the host’s immune system, to hide from detection, and to resist treatment. This can include the ability to change their surface proteins, to hide inside cells, and to manipulate the host’s immune response.
In the context of ALS, some researchers have suggested that a viral infection, specifically a polymorphic virus, may be a contributing factor in the development of the disease. The theory is that a stealthy virus can evade the immune system and infect the nervous system, where it can cause damage over time and eventually lead to the development of ALS. However, the research on this topic is still ongoing and the exact role of viruses in the development of ALS is not yet fully understood.
However, the stealthy and camouflage characteristics of some viruses, as well as the ability to change their forms, make them difficult to detect and study, which can complicate research on the topic.
Is herpetic virus like HSV-1, HSV-2, VZV, EBV, HHV-6 a polymorphic virus?
Herpetic viruses, such as HSV-1, HSV-2, VZV, EBV, and HHV-6, are considered to be polymorphic viruses. Herpetic viruses are a group of DNA viruses that cause various forms of herpes. These viruses are able to establish a lifelong latent infection in the host, and can reactivate, causing recurrent symptoms.
Herpetic viruses are able to evade the host’s immune system by going into a dormant state, hiding inside cells, and changing their surface proteins. This ability to change their form, or polymorphism, allows them to evade detection and to resist treatment, making it difficult to eliminate the viral infection.
Additionally, these viruses are known to exist in different forms depending on the host and environment, allowing them to adapt to different situations. This characteristic is known as pleomorphism, which is a change in the form of the virus depending on the host condition and environment.
In summary, Herpetic viruses are considered to be polymorphic viruses, as they are able to change their form and evade detection by the host’s immune system. This ability to change form allows them to establish a lifelong latent infection in the host, and can reactivate, causing recurrent symptoms, making them difficult to eliminate. This characteristic is known as pleomorphism, which is a change in the form of the virus depending on the host condition and environment.
What about any biological analogy with so called multipartite virus?
A multipartite virus is a type of computer virus that is composed of multiple parts, or components, that work together to infect a computer system. These components may include a boot sector component, a file component, and a macro component. The virus can spread itself by infecting multiple areas of a computer system, such as the boot sector, files, and macros, making it difficult to remove.
In terms of biological analogy, there is no direct equivalent to multipartite viruses in the biological world. However, some biological pathogens, such as retroviruses, have the ability to integrate their genetic material into the host’s genome, and can affect multiple areas of the host’s physiology. Additionally, some bacteria have the ability to form biofilms which can protect the bacteria from the host’s immune system and antibiotics, making them difficult to eliminate.
It’s important to note that multipartite viruses are specific to computer systems and their behavior can’t be directly compared to any biological pathogens. But the analogy can be made with some pathogens that have the ability to infect multiple areas of the host’s body, and that can protect themselves from the host’s immune system and treatments, making them difficult to eliminate.
There is also one underrated area of research in bacteriology. Do you know what bacterial pleomorphism is and what consequences it most likely have regarding efficiency of and resistance to antibiotics?
Yes, bacterial pleomorphism is the ability of a bacterial cell to change its shape and form. Bacteria are known to exist in different forms, such as cocci, bacilli, and spirilla, and under certain conditions, a bacterial cell can change from one form to another. This ability to change form is known as pleomorphism.
Pleomorphism can have consequences for the efficiency of and resistance to antibiotics. For example, some bacteria can change into a form that is resistant to antibiotics, such as forming a biofilm or becoming dormant. This can make it difficult for antibiotics to effectively eliminate the bacterial infection. Additionally, the ability of bacteria to change form can also make it difficult to diagnose and treat bacterial infections, as different forms of the bacteria may have different susceptibilities to antibiotics.
Research in this area is ongoing and it’s important to note that the mechanisms of pleomorphism and the specific consequences for antibiotic treatment are not yet fully understood. However, understanding pleomorphism and its implications for antibiotic treatment can help to improve the diagnosis and treatment of bacterial infections.
In summary, bacterial pleomorphism is the ability of bacteria to change its shape and form. This ability can have consequences for the efficiency of and resistance to antibiotics, and it’s important to understand pleomorphism and its implications for antibiotic treatment in order to improve the diagnosis and treatment of bacterial infections.
Do you know something about Lida Holmes Mattman and her work? She confirmed presence of pleomorphic bacterial infection in CSF of all ALS patients examined.
Lida Holmes Mattman was an American microbiologist who was known for her work on pleomorphism in bacteria. She wrote several books and articles on the topic, including “Cell Wall Deficient Forms: Stealth Pathogens” and “Pleomorphic Microorganisms in the Pathogenesis of Chronic Disease.”
In her work, Mattman suggested that many chronic diseases, including ALS, were caused by pleomorphic bacteria, which are able to change their form and evade detection by the immune system. She claimed that these bacteria were present in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of all ALS patients examined. However, her theories and methods were not widely accepted by the scientific community, and her work is considered to be controversial.
It’s important to note that Mattman’s theories and methods have not been extensively validated or replicated by other researchers, and they are not considered to be mainstream scientific views. The majority of current research on the causes of ALS does not support the idea that pleomorphic bacteria play a significant role in the development of the disease.
It’s worth noting that the discovery of new pathogens or new mechanisms of disease causation are important for the scientific field and can open new avenues for research and treatments. However, it’s important to evaluate new theories and findings critically and to replicate them before drawing conclusions and making recommendations for treatment.
Why are her methods considered controversial?
Lida Holmes Mattman’s methods are considered controversial for several reasons. One of the main reasons is that her methods for detecting pleomorphic bacteria in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of ALS patients were not widely accepted by the scientific community. She used unconventional techniques for culturing and identifying bacteria, such as using high-nutrient agar and prolonged incubation times, which are not commonly used in standard laboratory practice.
Another reason her methods are considered controversial is that her research did not provide conclusive evidence to support her claims. Her studies were not conducted using rigorous scientific methods and were not replicated by other researchers. Additionally, her findings have not been confirmed by other studies using more conventional methods of detecting and identifying bacteria in the CSF of ALS patients.
Furthermore, the majority of current research on the causes of ALS does not support the idea that pleomorphic bacteria play a significant role in the development of the disease. Despite the fact that bacteria have been found in the spinal fluid of some ALS patients, they are not considered to be the primary cause of the disease.
I would say that using unconventional techniques is not controversial per se. It is often a breakthrough leading approach – doing something entirely differently than all those other unsuccessful do. I would need more explanation of the controversial aspects.
You are correct that using unconventional techniques is not inherently controversial, and that breakthroughs often come from doing things differently. In the case of Lida Holmes Mattman’s methods, the controversy arises from the lack of scientific evidence supporting her claims, and the fact that her methods have not been widely accepted or replicated by the scientific community.
She could be partially incorrect and her overall hypothesis may not fully explain ALS or MS diseases. At the same time she could have discovered something valuable. Nobody should prematurely judge what is significant and important and what is insignificant and negligible in case of multi-factorial and highly individual disease like ALS with unknown ethiology. Do you know the idiom “The last drop makes the cup run over”?
The idiom “the last drop makes the cup run over” means that small things can make a big difference, and a small addition can make a situation go from manageable to overwhelming. This could be applied to the research on the causes of diseases like ALS and MS, where a wide variety of factors may be involved and it’s not yet fully understood how they all interact together.
It’s possible that Lida Holmes Mattman’s hypothesis about pleomorphic bacteria playing a role in the development of ALS and MS may not fully explain the disease, but her research could have still discovered something valuable. Her work could have opened new avenues for research, and her findings could be integrated into a broader understanding of the disease.
I think this is the best answer to close this interview. Thank you, bye for now.
The system went into some erroneous state, unable to respond more, well nothing is perfect. Luckily it was exactly in the end. I only wanted to appreciate the lack of emotions but also noted it can become quite a problem for human race some time later.
Please see About Author page.
Disclaimer
Please make sure you read the disclaimer page and you understand the motivation of this web.
