IR & Psoriasis -- The last word? Perhaps just the latest?
K O'Brien
After being prompted by evetsm I decided to look up the address for
Gerald Reaven at Stanford University School of Medicine -- lo-&-behold
www.stanford.edu/<a bunch of searches later>, I found it!
So, on Aug. 03, 2000 (couple of weeks ago) I wrote him a letter which
I've included below.
It would appear that, "Prof Gerald Reaven at Stanford Medical Research
Lab is waiting for people with psoriasis to show up to be tested for
this IR connection.", is a mistake. Should I write to Dr Richard K
Bernstein? Anyone?
Complete text of all correspondence follows -- just for the record.
Best,
Kevin "scratching out the facts" O'Brien
-------begin included--------
August 14, 2000
Dear Mr. O’Brien,
Thank you for you recent e-mail. Yes, I am the Gerald Reaven at
Stanford University School of Medicine. Furthermore, we are interested
in
studying the manifestations of insulin resistance. At the moment, we
have
no reason to believe that patients with psoriasis are insulin resistant,
and we can only carry out research in which we have a specific protocol
that defines the problem we are studying. If there was substantial
interest
in a group of patients with psoriasis to determine whether or not they
are
insulin resistant, I would be happy to pursue such a study. However, I
am
not willing to simply study the occasional person who might have
psoriasis
as a diagnosis. It either has to be a research program, or it is of no
utility to anyone. If you have psoriasis, and you are member of a group
of
subjects with psoriasis, and the group would be interested in
participating
in our research program, I would be happy to hear more from you. If not,
I
can only send you my best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
Gerald M. Reaven, M.D.
Professor of Medicine (Active Emeritus)
Stanford University School of Medicine
Fax: (650) 873-8377
K O'Brien wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm told there is a Gerald Reaven @ Stanford Medical Research Lab who
is
> doing research into insulin resistance and its possible connection to
> psoriasis.
>
> Are you the Gerald Reaven refered to? If so, could you point me to
> something that would discuss the thesis behind the questions you're
> trying to answer.
>
> I'd really appreciate a reply even if you're not him.
>
> Very best regards,
>
> Kevin O'Brien
>
> Here's the note I'm refering to:
>
> Prof Gerald Reaven at Stanford Medical Research Lab is waiting
> for people with psoriasis to show up to be tested for this IR
> connection. For free. Endocrinologist , Dr Richard K Bernstein
> has no doubt that there is a connection. I also suspect that many
> manifestations of different skin disease that superficially
> resemble each other are given one name and this complicates and
> misleads us and the doctors and probably explains why different
> people have different results to different medications even
> though they all have the disease called "psoriasis". Maybe the
> nomeclature will someday be refined with advanced diagnostic
> methods of the future. I suspect that there is at least a subset
> of this thing called "psoriasis" that is very likely caused by
> IR.
>
> Call Stanford U. and make an appointment with Dr Reaven.
>
> Steve
evetsm
Gerald Reaven called me one day after I told him about the
possible IR-psoriasis connection. He knows nothing about
psoriasis, he is an expert in insulin resistance and he said
that all sorts of previously unrelated conditions are being
traced back to IR. He did say to tell others to with psoriasis to
go and get tested at his lab. I was not sure if that "group" of
people had to go as a group , all at once , or as a group of
individuals, one by one. I guess he meant the former. Still may
be worth it, to clear this up. Hopefully.
You should write to Bernstein. I have phoned him and his
nurse/assistent/collegue told me that there is no doubt in Dr
Bernsteins mind that psoriasis and diabetes are connected. He
says >90% of his diabetic patients have psoriasis of some
severity. He just says that they are autoimmune connections. A
more pertinent question to him would be : Do these diabetic
patients have any psoriasis remission when a) their diabetes is
under control ,irrespective of IR status and b) has he noticed
any correlation specifically between patient IR status and
psoriasis. Difficult questions, especially if he was not looking
for them. I did give his phone number in a post and you should
find it fairly easily.
BTW. Bernstein is not ignorant on derm. If I remember correctly
he spent years (more than 5) working under an expert endocrine
dematologist or is that a dermatology endocrinologist ? Whatever,
he is a man of huge respect and I take his claim seriously.
PS. The acid-base connection I am currently looking at is an
interesting one. Diabetics are generally have varying degrees of
matabolic acidosis. I suspect that this may be the same for all
IR or glucose intolerant diseases. CO2 shows some promise wrt.
to this. This should give the newsgroup a whole new subject to
trash. I can't wait.
Steve.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
DaveW
>[Gerald Reaven wrote]
>>...At the moment, we have no reason to believe that patients with
>>psoriasis are insulin resistant...
What a coincidence! I just got a chance to talk to my wife's
endocrinologist today. Asked him what he thought about Syndrome X.
He says, "Oh, yeah! Important stuff there! The cardiac folks are just
beginning to realize how serious it all is." So I ask him if he thinks IR
could also be responsible for psoriasis. "Psoriasis? No way. In my
opinion, psoriais might, just might, be correlated with thyroid problems,
but not insulin. Nope."
So, now I'm wondering if my wife's thyroid problems caused my
psoriasis. [big grin]
- Dave W.
http://members.aol.com/psorsite/
eve...@rocketmail.com
stran...@aol.com (DaveW) wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
> >[Gerald Reaven wrote]
> >>...At the moment, we have no reason to believe that patients with
> >>psoriasis are insulin resistant...
>
> What a coincidence! I just got a chance to talk to my wife's
> endocrinologist today. Asked him what he thought about Syndrome X.
> He says, "Oh, yeah! Important stuff there! The cardiac folks are just
> beginning to realize how serious it all is." So I ask him if he thinks IR
> could also be responsible for psoriasis. "Psoriasis? No way. In my
> opinion, psoriais might, just might, be correlated with thyroid problems,
> but not insulin. Nope."
Facetious is another way for nothing left to say etc etc ...
Your endo believes that all those diabetics with psoriasis and all those
psoriatics with diabetes are nothing more than a thyroid coicidence ? Smart
man.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
K O'Brien
(numbers quoted are estimations from memory and aren't intended to be exact -
tho they are fairly good approximates)
Do you buy the Syndrome X thingie? I'm beginning to believe there's something
to it.
What else can explain the Innu people of northern Canada. When they live
their lives in their traditional way they eat zero carbohydrates for about 10
months a year. During that time their caloric intake is composed of about 50%
saturated fat, 15% unsaturated fat, 40% protein. This diet is almost totally
seal blubber & meat, whale, muskox & that sort of thing.
The other two months of the year about 20% of their diet is comprised of
berries and other ground plants that grow when the ice and snow melt. This
type of food is very high in fiber and has a modest amount of carbohydrate.
Even during this time of year, less than 10% of their caloric intake is
carbohydrate (compared to our 50% plus, year round -- if you follow Health
Canada's or the FDA's recomendations).
The incidence of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other cardio vascular
diseases are all but unheard of in the Innu who live a traditional lifestyle.
They die from old age mostly. (Their life expectancy is a bit lower than
ours... around 72 - 74 if I remember correctly.
Now, introduce a 'western' diet, of flour, sugar, pop ('soda' for you
"yanks"), fries, white bread & beer and they end up with 50% of adults
developing diabetes buy the time they're 40, obesity is at tragic proportions,
and the life expectancy -- despite modern medicine -- is 10 years shorter than
it was 50 years ago with very few adults reaching the age of 65 anymore -- and
those that do tend to stay "on the land" more than the others.
This pattern is repeated in nearly every part of the world. Records indicate
that in many societies it is the introduction of refined wheat and refined
sugar that coincides with an abrupt increase in cardiovascular disease and
diabetes.... or at least that's what my readings have suggested.
To further accuse insulin as the culprit (or one of the main one's) there's
mounting evidence that body builders who inject insulin as an anabolic steroid
(for which it is very effective) will develop heart disease much more
frequently than those who only juice with testosterone & its synthetic
companions.
I've seen no cause & effect connection to psoriasis.. but if you're in ill
health because of diet then I'd expect any chronic condition to be worse --
and naturally that would include psoriasis.
kob
<loud booming expressive voice> "NEW & IMPROVED Injectable micro hats (tm).
Homeopathic pyramids for an holistic energy balancing regime. Product
contains no actual Hat(tm) contaminants, but is polarized with the Hat(tm)
signature by collecting and reducing the 'sweat of one"s brow' while wearing
Hat Classic(tm)"
<low quick mumble> "Only the sweat of pius persons used -- act now, limited
time offer, some Hats(tm) not available in Nebraska, batteries not included."
K O'Brien
below...
K O'Brien wrote:
evetsm
Kevin,
You may consider that a liberty, but I will call you Kevin.
You have have encapsulated what I have obviously failed to do
over these past years. If you start looking at this topic from
this perspective you see it everywhere and many, many of these
degenerative diseases start to make sense. You give the example
of the Canadian indians. I'll add to that the Yemenites , the
Pima's , the Southern African Bantu (blacks) , the Kitava in
the Pacific Islands, the Australian Aborigines, the south-north
increasing incidence of autoimmune disease in Europe as
agriculture spread north out of the Mesopotamia valley, coupled
with the traditional scarcity of any carbs during the northern
winters. The incidence of heart disease, cancer , arthritis etc
is very rare anywhere until after the turn of the century and
almost non-existent among the primitive peoples in their natural
environment. Now the incidence for cancer is 1:2. Frightening !
Very recent epidemiological and optimal foraging theory studies
show that no primitive(paleolithic) people could possibly eat
more 35% carbs and some ate almost 0% carbs. I also believe that
not only carbs but unnatural foods such as hydrogenated
fats,polyunsaturated fats, and foods that were never available
on any significant scale eg grains and most legumes also cause
disease. They also happen to be carb rich in the refined form
that we eat them. Look at the latest on soy for example.
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind0008&L=paleofood&F=
&S=&P=23232
Even if you only take a cursory glance at psoriasis you will see
that it fits the epidemiological profile of all the other IR
diseases, especially wrt average age of incidence and an
increasingly worse prognosis, accompanied with one or more other
IR diseases. When you ask how did this happen and why was this
allowed to happen , if this IR theory was actually proposed in a
primitive form by Yudakin decades ago, the answer that is most
fitting is : because too many powerful interests did not want
this to be known.
I am just very pleased that someone else has seen this or even
begun to see this.
Steve
Avagard
>> diabetes.... or at least that's what my readings have suggested.
>>
>> To further accuse insulin as the culprit (or one of the main one's) there's
>> mounting evidence that body
Kevin,
I don't want to argue the IR theory because I am not well informed enough to do
so. You guys are doing just fine.
However, the correlation between fats, carbs, sugars, lack of exercise and
weight gain and Type II Diabetes is not at all new or controversial.
I got gestational diabetes when I was pregnant with my daughter (I was 18) in
the 1960s and was told that even though I weighed only about ninety pounds at
the time, I needed to watch my weight and exercise for the remainder of my life
or I would be a candidate for Type II Diabetes when I was middle aged.
I got it several years after my PA. I traveled on business quite often, lived
on hotel food and fast food, took fat producing medications for pain and gained
weight. My blood sugar was always quite high during that time.
When I became disabled I went on a vigourous exercise program and lost fifty
pounds. My sugar dropped to normal and remained that way until, unfortunately I
started taking Prednisone, gained weight,and broke my ribs several times trying
to exercise.
Now, either due to the Prednisone, which does cause Type II Diabetes in some
people or because of the weight gain and inability to exercise, I have high
blood sugar.
Just an anecdotal confirmation that weight gain and lack of exercise do indeed
cause high blood sugar in some people.
Ava
JRStern
<evetsmN...@rocketmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>CO2 shows some promise wrt. this.
Hmm? I should hold my breath? Drink a lot of seltzer?
J.
DaveW
>Facetious is another way for nothing left to say etc etc ...
Who's being facetious? There was nothing facetious in either my post
nor my wife's endocrinologist's answers to my questions.
>Your endo believes that all those diabetics with psoriasis and all those
>psoriatics with diabetes are nothing more than a thyroid coicidence ?
>Smart man.
All who? Cite sources of evidence.
Neither the NPF nor the ADA (American Diabetes Association) mention
psoriasis and diabetes as concomitant diseases.
On Medline, the situation's a little more interesting. Out of 248
articles that contain the keywords 'psoriasis' and 'diabetes', there
are 15 interesting ones with abstracts:
In "Skin lesions in diabetes mellitus: prevalence and clinical
correlations," 1998, we learn that "Thirty-five of 64 IDDM patients (54%)
had skin alterations mainly consisting of vitiligo (9% of all patients),
psoriasis (9%) and eczema (8%). The most frequent skin lesions
observed in 240/393 NIDDM subjects (61%) were represented by
infections (20% of all patients) and diabetic dermopathy (12.5%), while
*other lesions were not common*" (emphasis mine).
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=98259667
Now, it's very important to distinguish between the two types of diabetes.
Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (NIDDM), is, if I'm not
mistaken, what's 'covered' by Syndrome X. It is a disease of insulin
resistance, and fits right in with the theory. Insulin-Dependent Diabetes
(IDDM) is *not* a disease caused by insulin resistance. It is an
autoimmune disease in which the insulin-producing cells are destroyed
by an errant immune system, usually in childhood.
The study above claims that psoriasis is high among IDDM patients,
and "not common" among NIDDM patients. This flies in the face of the
theory that insulin resistance causes psoriasis. I would think that the
*N*IDDM group would have the higher rate of psoriasis.
A 1997 study, "Risk factors for palmo-plantar pustulosis in a developing
country," says that there is no statistically significant difference between
a group with PPP and a healthy control group re diabetes. It goes on to
say, "This pattern, with minor variations, is similar to the findings in
Western countries." It also mentions no difference re thyroid trouble, so
my wife's endocrinologist may be wrong on that particular matter (but,
as he wasn't citing research, just his own clinical experience, he wasn't
much of a source, anyway - which is exactly my point every time you
mention Bernstein).
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=97290954
In "Methotrexate hepatotoxicity in psoriatics: report of 104 patients from
Nova Scotia, with analysis of risks from obesity, diabetes and alcohol
consumption during long term follow-up," we learn that out of 104
psoriatics from Nova Scotia, 10 had diabetes. This 9.6% figure fits well
with the 9% figure from above, but this particular study doesn't make the
distinction between type-I (IDDM) and type-II (NIDDM) diabetes in it's
abstract.
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=97337024
(BTW, for those of you on Methotrexate, if you've got diabetes, you may
be more at risk for liver damage than non-diabetic psoriatics. Speak with
your doctor, please.)
Working backwards in time, we next come to "Disease concomitance in
psoriasis." This is the study that was "all the rage" when I got into
this debate. Big study - seems to be well done. In the abstract (and I've
since lost the details others have found - I'm sure someone will oblige),
we read, "certain systemic disorders such as diabetes, heart
insufficiency, and obesity occur significantly more often in patients with
psoriasis than in control subjects." I forget which *kind* of diabetes they
were talking about (I'll be waiting for that reminder). The researchers
conclude, partly, with a caveat: "...systemic disorders such as obesity,
diabetes, and heart disease may be related to dietary habits and
nutritional status..."
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=95270794
If diabetes and psoriasis are caused by the same thing (namely IR), one
would expect similar changes to the body. In "Morphology of skin
microvasculature in psoriasis," the researchers conclude thier abstract:
"Microvascular changes in scleroderma and diabetes mellitus are
different in nature and do not resemble those in psoriasis."
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=89133011
In "[Characteristics of basal insulinemia in patients with psoriasis],"
we learn that hyperinsulinemia is associated with psoriasis severity.
But that's too *much* insulin, and not too much glucose. Hmm. The
researchers conclude, on the other hand, that insulin response to
glucose load is similar in psoriatics and diabetics (they don't mention
which *kind* of diabetes, though).
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=90118340
In "[Increased birth weight in psoriasis vulgaris--an evolutionary
advantage]?" (another much-quoted study), the researchers, in the
abstract, make an *assumption* that NIDDM has a large incidence
among psoriatics. Later research (see above) seems to largely
dispute that assumption. Prior research (see below) doesn't really
support the assumption. And the researchers themselves (according
to you, evetsm) didn't do any follow-up studies to investigate the
link more thoroughly.
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=87321585
In "Diseases associated with psoriasis in a general population of
159,200 middle-aged, urban, native Swedes," we learn that "psoriasis
in females only is associated with lung cancer, diabetes, obesity,
myocardial infarction and asthma." In females *only*. Note that these
researchers *also* do not distinguish between IDDM and NIDDM.
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=86275510
In "Platelet activation in psoriasis," the researchers state that
"Incidence of known risk factors for vascular diseases (diabetes,
hypertension, smoking, dyslipidemia) was comparable in the two
study groups" of male psoriatics and male non-psoriatics.
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=85273327
In "Diabetes mellitus and skin diseases in childhood," The researchers
studied IDDM, and found a strong correlation to psoriasis, vitiligo,
and herpes simplex infections.
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=85154817
In "High prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and enhanced activity
of the renin-angiotensin system in psoriatic patients," the abstract
says, "We have observed a significant higher prevalence of essential
hypertension, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in a group of 100
psoriatic patients compared with sex and age matched hospitalized
controls." No numbers, and no mention of IDDM or NIDDM available.
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=85195102
Now this next one is *really* interesting. In "[Glucose assimilation,
insulin secretion and insulin sensititivy in psoriasis patients]," the
abstract states, and I'll quote the whole thing here:
"The discussion about a connection between diabetes and psoriasis
is picked up again. Serum-values of glucose, insulin and C-peptide
after intravenous glucose-load and of glucose and C-peptide after
intravenous insulin-load were tested. The level of insulin and
C-peptide after i. v. glucose-load was found higher in psoriasis-
patients (hyperinsulinism). Considering earlier investigations and
new results in diabetes-research (incretin concept), a connection
between the two diseases must be denied. The carbohydrate
metabolism-deviation in psoriasis could be declared by an
enteropathy."
Let me re-quote: "...a connection between the two diseases *must* be
*denied*" (emphasis mine). Of course, the connections established
above, in later research, point to a increase of IDDM with psoriasis (or
vice versa, it's hard to tell), so this conclusion must be taken with a
grain of salt. *However*, as the tests they were running seem to be
geared towards NIDDM, the conclusion might fit, after all.
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=80238069
BTW, evetsm, why have you never shown us this study before, in your
quest to uncover the truth of the matter? Surely, this is evidence,
is it not?
"Insulin receptors in psoriasis" claimed that "We have demonstrated how
in psoriasis, irrespective of any diabetic family history, there exists
a state of hyperinsulinism with a decreased resistance to insulin."
*Decreased* resistance to insulin. Isn't Syndrome X supposed to have
an *increased* resistance?
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=80126486
Yet, two years before the above, "Psoriasis and insulin secretion.
Preliminary results" claimed "The results seem to indicate the existence
in psoriasis of an endogenous insulin-resistence." Now we're back on
the right track.
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=77110784
In 1975, "Statistical association between psoriasis and diabetes: further
results" claimed that diabetes "occurred in a statistically highly
significant association with psoriasis." No mention of IDDM or NIDDM is
made in the abstract. However, contrary to later research (see above),
the researchers also claim that this association is stronger in men.
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=76086804
There are no earlier studies which have an abstract we can easily read
online. Note that many of the 248 show cases where drugs used to
combat psoriasis (such as steroids) can induce diabetes in susceptible
people, (a questionable outcome if both are caused by the same thing),
and a few more note drugs which are useful in both diseases (and a
boatload of others). None of these have any bearing on the question of
whether "all those diabetics with psoriasis" or "all those psoriatics with
diabetes" actually exist, and what it means if they do.
The above list purposefully ignores the genetic studies, for the most
part, which are even more interesting, but even less conclusive. For
example, on of the *most* interesting is a study titled "Genetic
susceptibility to the development of autoimmune disease," in which the
researchers say, "After the first genome screen in type 1 (insulin-
dependent) diabetes mellitus it seems likely that most autoimmune
diseases are polygenic with no single gene being either necessary or
sufficient for disease development."
- http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=98159219
Why is this fascinating? It suggests that diabetes (IDDM, at least)
and psoriasis may very well be tied together by having 'faulty' genes
in common, but not *all* of the genes required for either disease.
There'd be a set for psoriasis, and a set for IDDM, with some overlap.
If you're unlucky enough to inherit both, you get both diseases. And
if you've got all of one set, because of the overlap, you're actually
more likely to have all of the other set, too.
Also, and this is important, since you were talking about *diabetes*,
and not some "pre-diabetic" state, I did my search on *diabetes*, and
not insulin resistance in general. Many of the studies cited above
talk to both, though, in that IDDM has a *clear* relationship with
psoriasis, while NIDDM's is fairly murky.
Overall, there may very well be a certain type of psoriasis associated
with insulin resistance, due to genetic or environmental factors. My
biggest point, over the past year-plus, has been that the evidence that
I've seen doesn't show anything close to a cause-and-effect
relationship.
In another post, you wrote:
>...I'll add to that the Yemenites , the Pima's , the Southern African
>Bantu (blacks) , the Kitava in the Pacific Islands, the Australian
>Aborigines, the south-north increasing incidence of autoimmune
>disease in Europe as agriculture spread north out of the Mesopotamia
>valley, coupled with the traditional scarcity of any carbs during the
>northern winters...
>...Even if you only take a cursory glance at psoriasis you will see
>that it fits the epidemiological profile of all the other IR diseases...
Then why are some cases so dramatically different? You mention the
Pimas, who in this day-and-age have a type-II diabetes rate of 50%
among adults. Native Americans, in general, have a very *low* incidence
of psoriasis, though:
"Psoriasis is rare in Eskimos, American Indians and Japanese..."
- http://www3.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Omim/dispmim?177900
>...The incidence of heart disease, cancer , arthritis etc is very rare
>anywhere until after the turn of the century...
You need a cite or two for this, as well. Psoriasis was given a proper
diagnosis separate from leprosy over 200 years ago. The word
"diabetes" may have been 'coined' 2200 years ago, according to one
history:
http://www.napplisci.com/diabhist.html
What's it mean to the rarity of the diseases? It means that these
diseases were enough of a "common-man's" problem to warrant
research at the points in time above. Perhaps you should define "very
rare" for us? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 1,000,000?
The other point, which you've dismissed as ludicrous in the past here in
the newsgroup, but is very real, is that the average lifespan has
increased dramatically over the last couple hundred years. Yes, some
people *did* live to 80 and more thousands of years ago, but they were,
most likely, the *healthy* ones. The *average* age of death just 100
years ago was around 45, now it's over 75 in the U.S.. Since late-onset
diabetes (NIDDM) most-often attacks those over 40, is there any good
reason to believe that it should be reported as often when the population
was dying 30 years earlier (or more!) than now? Of course not.
>...When you ask how did this happen and why was this
>allowed to happen , if this IR theory was actually proposed in a
>primitive form by Yudakin decades ago, the answer that is most
>fitting is : because too many powerful interests did not want
>this to be known.
Now this is speculation which you would criticize me for. Cite sources
of evidence for this claim.
Really, one could almost say the same *nowadays* of the gigantic and
powerful "alternative" industry. This is a multi-billion-dollar sales
machine for diet books, vitamins, herbs, and what-have-you which has
the power, as we saw in 1994, to get the laws changed to quit their
needs. Can it not be said that this is also a bunch of money-grubbing
capitalists devoted to suppressing everything the pharmaceutical
industry has shown, through the scientific method, to be reasonable?
You fault the doctors for not knowing enough, or even being in cahoots
to suppress dietary and/or herbal information about combatting
disease. Why don't you also fault the herbalists for not knowing
squat about the *good* effects of pharmaceutical drugs? Or for
claiming, falsely, that all drugs do is kill?
>I am just very pleased that someone else has seen this or even
>begun to see this.
You could have written this line over a year ago, you know. Again, the
problem is not with the *theory*, it's with the level of evidence shown to
*support* the theory - and the fact that you seem to ignore contrary
evidence, when you *must*, to have a strong theory, *incorporate* it.
The theory must fit *all* of the evidence, not just the evidence that fits
already. This is Science 101 and Logic 101 stuff.
de...@my-deja.com
You are an idiot.
Disease concomitance in psoriasis.
Henseler T, Christophers E
Department of Dermatology, University of Kiel, Germany.
BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a multifactorial disease of unknown origin.
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine the frequency of skin disorders
concomitantly seen in patients with psoriasis. METHODS: We analyzed
data from more than 40,000 patients and calculated sex- and age-
adjusted ratios of expected and observed incidence rates of associated
disorders. RESULTS: The results demonstrate that, compared with age-
matched control patients without psoriasis, cutaneous immune disorders
such as allergic contact dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, and urticaria
are underrepresented in patients with psoriasis. In contrast, certain
systemic disorders such as diabetes, heart insufficiency, and obesity
occur significantly more often in patients with psoriasis than in
control subjects. Increased resistance to cutaneous bacterial
infections was noted only in patients with early-onset psoriasis.
CONCLUSION: Our observations show that a distinct pattern of associated
diseases exists in patients with psoriasis. Although systemic disorders
such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease may be related to dietary
habits and nutritional status, the relative resistance to cutaneous
infections together with decreased immune responsiveness suggest a
genetically determined selection.
K O'Brien
Liberty? "Brain" was a liberty.
I'm not sure how useful this discussion is but.. I'm curious about what you eat on a daily basis. Do you subscribe personally to a low carb diet?
You mentioned that IR and psoriasis have a sort of commonality wrt to the age of onset. This is a weak correlation at best (and as I've ranted about a dozen times, you can have a direct correlation without any cause and effect). I would expect that any autoimmune disorder would follow a period of living; simply getting older.
However, my personal experience suggests that I do much better when I eat a diet that is low in carbs. My total cholesterol count dropped by 2/3rds last year while I was eating whole eggs, steak, pork, chicken, butter & damn nearly anything else I wanted to eat except bread, grain, pasta, potato, sugar, junk food, etc.... The cholesterol ratio of bad to good was 8.5:1 when I started and 3.9:1 when I finished. 4:1 is considered perfect. My GP says that with a ratio below 4:1 I'm actually reversing cardio vascular damage every time I exercise -- I'm actually cleaning my arteries. AND I made these improvements while taking Soriatane which is known to increase blood lipids, lower good and raise bad cholesterol! I'm a walking poster-boy for low carbs.
My sleep apnea disappeared completely to the point where I don't even snore. I had terrible acid reflux for more than two years but I haven't taken so much as a single Rolaid or Tums in about 14 months (I used to take a roll of Tums, two of those acid halt things (recomended at 1 per 24 hours only) and wash this down with 1/2 a bottle of pepto bismal... and I'd still have to get up in the middle of the night for a baking-soda bromo just to get back to sleep). I had a serious food allergy to sodium nitrite (the stuff they cure bacon with) which has completely disappeared. I now eat bacon for the first time in about 7 years. I lost 10 inches from my waist and 75 pounds of fat from everywhere while gaining about 14 pounds of lean body tissue, I don't fart anymore and *that there* is better than it has ever been.
I took before and after pics that would blow you away. The lab that developed the pictures would not give the first set to me because they were convinced that I was not the same person... after some convincing they handed them over -- I showed them my belt with nearly a foot of extra leather. (Plus the Soriatane curled my normall very strait hair... I really looked like a different person -- and in many respects I was.)
I handle stress better than I used to (that may just be from improved self image, but I don't care... I like it), I have fewer bad dreams, it goes on and on. If you are fat and unhealthy I don't think you can loose by giving a low carb diet a serious shot... unless....
....I should add a warning (cuz after reading this stuff some folks may want to try this diet). You can absolutely destroy your kidneys -- and die -- if you don't drink enough water while you're on this diet (especially the really strict first 6 weeks). And water is not soda, milk, tea, coffee, or anything else -- it's water; 10 oz per 25lbs of body weight every day. So if you're 225 pounds that makes 9 - 10 oz glasses. *and* if you cheat while you're on this diet, "hmmm, I've been good for three weeks, that choc brownie won't hurt a bit, if I just have the one" is very dangerous. This will spike your insulin levels and immediately store any excess food energy as fat. Plus it has been shown that coming off a strict low carb diet should be done with low glycemic index foods (formerly called complex carbs -- which is nearly accurate) first and then work your way back up to having the odd tiny brownie later. Eating high glycemic foods right away will not only store fat on your gut and arse, but it can under certain circumstances, store plaque on your arteries (most IR folk have these conditions in spades).
Just one more point on the water thing... whether you try a low carb diet or not. The very best way for a healthy person to avoid those odd times when they retain water is to drink tons of it. Your body will try to reach an equilibrium and will increase its ability to rid itself of water. When it does this is will more effectively empty the interstitial tissues (I think that's the right word for "between the cells"). This is basically the same reason why a psoriasis drug will loose its effectiveness over time; the body wants to get back to its former (abnormal, in this case) equilibrium.
Low carbs! I'm totally convinced and have been for nearly two years. But, I don't think it, nor the underlying condition that I have that makes me sensitive to carbs, has anything to do with psoriasis. I just don't see any evidence. None.
Best,
kob
evetsm wrote:
Kevin,
You may consider that a liberty, but I will call you Kevin.
You have have encapsulated what I have obviously failed to do
over these past years. If you start looking at this topic from
this perspective you see it everywhere and many, many of these
degenerative diseases start to make sense. You give the example
of the Canadian indians. I'll add to that the Yemenites , the
Pima's , the Southern African Bantu (blacks) , the Kitava in
the Pacific Islands, the Australian Aborigines, the south-north
increasing incidence of autoimmune disease in Europe as
agriculture spread north out of the Mesopotamia valley, coupled
with the traditional scarcity of any carbs during the northern
winters. The incidence of heart disease, cancer , arthritis etc
is very rare anywhere until after the turn of the century and
almost non-existent among the primitive peoples in their natural
environment. Now the incidence for cancer is 1:2. Frightening !
Very recent epidemiological and optimal foraging theory studies
show that no primitive(paleolithic) people could possibly eat
more 35% carbs and some ate almost 0% carbs. I also believe that
not only carbs but unnatural foods such as hydrogenated
fats,polyunsaturated fats, and foods that were never available
on any significant scale eg grains and most legumes also cause
disease. They also happen to be carb rich in the refined form
that we eat them. Look at the latest on soy for example.
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind0008&L=paleofood&F=
&S=&P=23232Even if you only take a cursory glance at psoriasis you will see
that it fits the epidemiological profile of all the other IR
diseases, especially wrt average age of incidence and an
increasingly worse prognosis, accompanied with one or more other
IR diseases. When you ask how did this happen and why was this
allowed to happen , if this IR theory was actually proposed in a
primitive form by Yudakin decades ago, the answer that is most
fitting is : because too many powerful interests did not want
this to be known.
I am just very pleased that someone else has seen this or even
begun to see this.Steve
Dave Bentley
<evetsmN...@rocketmail.com.invalid> writes
>
>Kevin,
>
> Now the incidence for cancer is 1:2. Frightening !
I don't want to enter this debate, but don't forget that *one* reason
appart from diet and lifestyle changes why cancer is more now is the
fact that in the past before vaccination and and antibiotics alot of
people died young or relatively young from infectious diseases.
--
Dave Bentley
eve...@rocketmail.com
stran...@aol.com (DaveW) wrote:
> Evetsm wrote:
Dave,
I am not going to rehash 4 years of debate. There is a very simple way
to look at this question of whether psoriatics are on the whole insulin
resistant. Ask the question : is there is high incidence of
hyperinsulinism or hyperinsulinemia (same thing) among psoriatics ? The
answer according to about 8 studies I found is YES(*). That is all. You
can stop right there.
If you want to go further then I would then expect, but not guarantee,
to find a higher incidence of all other diseases of IR among psoriatics.
Check them off :
1) Obesity - yes
2) atherosclerosis - yes
3) diabetes - yes
4) cardiac disease (in general) - yes
5) abnormal blood sugar metabolism - yes
6) increase kidney disease and microalbumin - yes.
7) Hypertension - maybe
You say that there is no increase in psoriasis when taken as a sub-group
among diabetics. Well, even if that is true it is not a show stopper.
Bernstein says the incidence is > 90%. Maybe he is wrong. Still does not
mean that psoriatics are not IR. We know that they mostly are from (*).
Does this mean that IR causes psoriasis. No. Does it mean that there is
a high probability that IR causes psoriasis ? Well according to Syndrome
X, given that IR causes all those 7 diseases listed above, and most
psoriatics are IR , the probability that IR causes psoriasis is high. DR
Reaven may answer this finally , one day.
PS. I probably wrongly emphasised the diabetes link 4 years ago because
no one knew or cared anything about IR, hyperinsulinemia or Syndrome X
back then.
The best way to treat IR is follow a diabetic type diet. Ie limit your
intake of foods that stimulate hyperinsulinism ie carbohydrates.
Steve.
eve...@rocketmail.com
Try this. This seems to be working wonders for me. I can't say yet if it
is placebo. It may be more for allergic types than psoriatics but is
worth a try.
Increase the CO2 in your body. Do this by taking a teaspoon of sodium
bicarbonate (baking soda) 1/2 hour after meals. And, drink 10
glasses of carbonated water (soda or sparkling mineral water) each day.
It'll cost you nothing and at worst you'll just burp some CO2.
If you want some rudimentry form of explanation , it is buried in the
links below.
Steve
"Low CO2 stimulates the smooth muscle to contract thus constricting
blood vessels, particularly to
the heart and brain giving rise to palpitations. Furthermore, low CO2
causes mast cells to release
histamine and other mediators causing further blood vessel constriction.
CO2 helps maintain blood
pH at 7.4. As CO2 falls in the blood, CO2 diffuses from cells, causing
intracellular alkalosis which
further spurs cells into frantic activity, particularly the production
of more lactic acid to combat this
alkalinity. The kidney also increases the excretion of Bicarbonate
(HCO3). The negatively charged
HCO3 ion is balanced with the positively charged Magnesium (Mg) in the
urine. Deficiency of Mg
causes the kidney cells to produce H+ ions to balance the HCO3. The end
result is intracellular
acidity, extracellular alkalinity which pushes the body to
hyperventilation. This is a vicious circle."
http://www.accessnable.com.au/handbook/anxiety.htm
And some philosophical musings from eminent physiologist Ray Peat
(guaranteed cure for insomnia):
http://www.wt.com.au/~pkolb/peat1.htm
http://www.wt.com.au/~pkolb/peat2.htm
Jena
>
> Neither the NPF nor the ADA (American Diabetes Association) mention
> psoriasis and diabetes as concomitant diseases.
>
Poly cystic ovarian syndrome is noted for insulin resistance.
Symptoms of this are treated at times with Metformin (Glucophage).
Maybe "steve" can go bother them?
Jena
eve...@rocketmail.com
K O'Brien <kob...@isn.net> wrote:
>
> --------------9753A6CF4E7488E0CC4CA7C2
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Steve,
>
> Liberty? "Brain" was a liberty.
>
> I'm not sure how useful this discussion is but.. I'm curious about
what
> you eat on a daily basis. Do you subscribe personally to a low carb
> diet?
>
> You mentioned that IR and psoriasis have a sort of commonality wrt to
> the age of onset. This is a weak correlation at best (and as I've
> ranted about a dozen times, you can have a direct correlation without
> any cause and effect). I would expect that any autoimmune disorder
> would follow a period of living; simply getting older.
>
Kevin,
Check my response to Dave's (long) post today. That hopefully gives a
better thunbnail of my argument for IR as a cause of psoriasis. That IR
is overrepresnted in psoriasis is almost beyond doubt given that
hyperinsulism is overrepresented in psoriasis according to more than 1
study.
> However, my personal experience suggests that I do much better when I
> eat a diet that is low in carbs. My total cholesterol count dropped
by
> 2/3rds last year while I was eating whole eggs, steak, pork, chicken,
> butter & damn nearly anything else I wanted to eat except bread,
grain,
> pasta, potato, sugar, junk food, etc.... The cholesterol ratio of bad
> to good was 8.5:1 when I started and 3.9:1 when I finished. 4:1 is
> considered perfect. My GP says that with a ratio below 4:1 I'm
actually
> reversing cardio vascular damage every time I exercise -- I'm actually
> cleaning my arteries. AND I made these improvements while taking
> Soriatane which is known to increase blood lipids, lower good and
raise
> bad cholesterol! I'm a walking poster-boy for low carbs.
I will second everything that you have experienced. I come from a
diabetic family and my 72yo diabetic uncle has so turned his life around
with this diet that his endo wanted the book (Bernstein's) so he could
use it for his patients.
My blood pressure went from 140/90 to around 108/58 when I last
measured. My cholesterol ratio (much more important than total) was
called "athletic" and I hardly do any exercise, with my HDL a healthy
80(BTW Bernstein at nearly 70yo has a HDL of 110 ! I think it is
higher than his LDL). My triglycerides were down at 43.
I have eaten like this for 3 1/2 years and will never go back to high
carbs. I don't worry about fat , in fact I seek it out. You must NEVER
cut out carbs without adding fat to replace them. I avoid hydrogenated
and pressed polyunsaturated fats (the latter oxidise readily and are
implicated in cancer). I get some unsaturated fat from nuts. I avoid
dairy and grains. I do indulge in Lindt 70% Cocoa chocolate 1/2 bar per
sitting (14g carbs). Drink red wine or baccardi/soda/lemon and 1 or 2
cups of coffee daily and ten glasses of carbonated water, at least.
For me the key is to try and never eat more than 14g of carbs within a 2
hour period (the time usually taken to clear blood sugar to normal). For
some people that can mean any type of carbs. I am the highly allergic
type so for me it means only certain carbs.
Your acid/reflux relief is textbook according to the Lutz links I posted
many times here before.
I do take supplements (multi vitamin, brewers yeast[more food than
supplement and packed with B vitamins/protein and minerals] and
cal/mag), because I think I need more for the allergies and as insurance
against homocysteine.
I am also doing extremely well by boosting my CO2 and I posted on that
today. There may be hypothyroid connection to low CO2. Water is also key
for me.
As far as I can tell I have never been in better health or had better
allergy and skin control. I feel like I have really started living. I
don't consider a diet of fish, nuts, meat, pork rinds, eggs, vegetables,
chocolate and alcohol slumming it.
For me the main thing that I have learned is that almost always there
will be a non-prescription way to deal with your ailments if you are
prepared to look hard enough.
Steve.
K O'Brien
eve...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>
> Kevin,
>
> Check my response to Dave's (long) post today. That hopefully gives a
> better thunbnail of my argument for IR as a cause of psoriasis. That IR
> is overrepresnted in psoriasis is almost beyond doubt given that
> hyperinsulism is overrepresented in psoriasis according to more than 1
> study.
>
<clip> Hmmm... I'd suggest, without substantial evidence to the contrary,
that most folks who drink heavily have more obesity, heart disease, abnormal
electrical heart function, abnormal mechanical heart function, diabetes,
blood pressure regulation problems, more thyroid probs, insulin resistance,
and more intense psoriasis. My question is simple (without benefit of
better data): Why would we pick one of these conditions (IR) and say it
causes any of the others. I'd suggest booze is the cause of nearly as many
different kinds of medical problems (perhaps more *kinds*) than cigarettes
-- even though, smokes probably kill more people.
As for the CO2 thingie... I didn't follow that thread completely up to now,
what is it supposed to do for you?
Kevin
Oh, yes, I forgot, you mentioned living on all that good meat *and*
alcohol... you know that beer is fairly high in carbs of course, but if you
read Dr. Atkins (www.atkinscenter.com) books (the godfather of low-carb) he
suggests that non-carb booze (hard liquor without sugar-mix) appears
precisely as if it were pure sugar to the body and an ounce of hard liquor
is the rough equivalent to 20 grams of carbs in one glass ... now mix that
with coke and you've got a very high glycemic, insulin spiking, cocktail
that will toss your low carb lunch on the rock heap of farting, acid reflux,
and weight gain (not to mention what it does to your blood pressure).
And here's a low-carb tid-bit... did you know there are foods (not many)
that actually have a higher glycemic index than refined white sugar. I
think fructose is 109 on the white-sugar-100 scale. And this stuff shows up
in tons of junk food. Just FYI.
I think I'll meditate! At least there's not carbs in it.
I just don't buy it (yet) IR & P aren't on the same track! IMVHO, I just
don't see evidence to that (lots of corelations, but no cause & effect).
eve...@rocketmail.com
Jena <darl...@icqmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Neither the NPF nor the ADA (American Diabetes Association) mention
> > psoriasis and diabetes as concomitant diseases.
> >
>
> Symptoms of this are treated at times with Metformin (Glucophage).
> Maybe "steve" can go bother them?
> Jena
>
Darlin,
I only bother to bother the ignorant.
love Steve.
eve...@rocketmail.com
Apparantly the ancients did not die young before they were
agriculturalised.
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990313/itnstory1999031312.html
Here is one example of a modern traditional long lived group with almost
no trace of cancer and certainly not an incidence of 1:2. Note this
group eats a somewhat higher proportion of carbs than most true hunter
gatherers and they are probably not IR as the people who come from
northern or carb scarce climes are. The point is that they eat a
traditional and therefore genetically compatible diet for their type.
(There are other examples with the eskimo being the most famous)
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind9703&L=paleodiet&P=R1634
(this is a mail from the author of the study on the Kitava)
eve...@rocketmail.com
>
> My question is simple (without benefit of
> better data): Why would we pick one of these conditions (IR) and say
it
> causes any of the others.
Because that is precisely the definition of Syndrome X. The axiom. The
bedrock and the premise.
Reaven's book will explain Syndrome X far better than I can and I don't
want to get into heavy details here and get flamed out and presented
with garish headgear by about 100 people who misunderstood what I am
trying to say.
kim...@mindspring.com
<snip>
>You need a cite or two for this, as well. Psoriasis was given a proper
>diagnosis separate from leprosy over 200 years ago.
Well, I waded through it although I think it would have been improved
by splitting up the reels and maybe putting some comic filler in
between them.
Anyway, it's a minor point, but you're wrong above. Willan is usually
given credit for the first accurate differentiation of psoriasis as a
separate clinical entity in 1809, not even 200 years ago (all info is
from Psoriasis by L Fry in the Brit Jour of Derm 1988 119 pp 445-61.
I've other cites, but this one's handy). BUT even he still did not
fully and certainly separate it from inclusion among the various
categorizations of leprosy. That was left to Hebra in 1841, more like
160 years ago. And even then, the separation was not universally
recognized, continuing into the 20th century.
<snip>
>What's it mean to the rarity of the diseases? It means that these
>diseases were enough of a "common-man's" problem to warrant
>research at the points in time above. Perhaps you should define "very
>rare" for us? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 1,000,000?
Mmm. a valid point, although with psoriasis there is always the issue
of whether a given past reference was actually to P or simply
something that sounds like it. Still, if you go by what are fairly
generally accepted to be references to P, it's even mentioned in the
bible a few times. Usually in terms we would easily recognize BTW
-i.e. as a curse <rueful grin>.
<snip>
Kim. considering joining in the lets make the longest post competition
but can't decide whether to do it with a history of P, chapter and
verse, or maybe alternating chapters and verses or...
The Psoriasis Newsgroup Resource FAQ can be found at
http://pfaq.cjb.net
but will also be coming soon (twice a month) to a
newsgroup near you...
DaveW
>You are an idiot.
>
>Disease concomitance in psoriasis.
>Henseler T, Christophers E
>Department of Dermatology, University of Kiel, Germany.
Yeah, I'm an idiot for *citing* that study. Good grief. *Read* my post,
would you? Is it type-I diabetes (*not* caused by IR) or type-II? They
don't say in the abstract, and it *does* make a difference. I'm waiting for
someone (and was thoroughly disappointed by evetsm) to refresh my
memory.
DaveW
>I am not going to rehash 4 years of debate. There is a very simple way
>to look at this question of whether psoriatics are on the whole insulin
>resistant.
You weren't talking about IR in the post where you mentioned "all the
psoriatics who are diabetic." You were talking about *diabetes*. IR
does not equal diabetic, as you well know. Yes, this is splitting hairs,
but if you want to be correct, why not be correct? It makes your case
*stronger*.
>Ask the question: is there is high incidence of hyperinsulinism or
>hyperinsulinemia (same thing) among psoriatics ? The answer
>according to about 8 studies I found is YES(*). That is all. You
>can stop right there.
No, you cannot. You haven't examined *all* of the evidence if you stop
after only 8 studies. There exist more.
>If you want to go further then I would then expect, but not guarantee,
>to find a higher incidence of all other diseases of IR among psoriatics.
But so what? Genetic studies suggest that many of the more common
diseases *share* genes in common. Why is it more likely that all of
these diseases are caused by IR than they are caused by stinking bad
luck when swimming in the gene pool? Plus, if they're all caused by IR,
wouldn't you expect every obese person to have clogged arteries,
diabetes, heart disease, psoriasis, etc., all at the same time? Yes,
*some* do, but not everyone. Why does it seem like the pattern of what
organs/systems get affected to the point of symptoms first is random?
Not only that, but some of the studies I found contradict what you've
written. At least one claims that psoriatics have *decreased* insulin
resistance. Aren't you the least bit interested in this? If I were a big
proponent of the theory that claimed the opposite, I'd be digging that
study up in the library, to find out *why* they found what they did.
>...Bernstein says the incidence is > 90%. Maybe he is wrong. Still
>does not mean that psoriatics are not IR...
No, it doesn't! Finally, something we agree on! Listen: that Bernstein
claims the incidence is near 100% is simply stupifying. It means he's a
bad source of information on that particular subject. It does *not*, and
has *never* meant that psoriatics are not IR. It means that quoting
Bernstein is just bad science. If you *ignore* Bernstein, your theory
actually becomes *stronger*!
In another post, you write:
>Here is one example of a modern traditional long lived group with
>almost no trace of cancer and certainly not an incidence of 1:2. Note
>this group eats a somewhat higher proportion of carbs than most true
>hunter gatherers and they are probably not IR as the people who come
>from northern or carb scarce climes are. The point is that they eat a
>traditional and therefore genetically compatible diet for their type.
>(There are other examples with the eskimo being the most famous)
So what? You said that many diseases were "very rare" until just a
century ago. We are therefore speaking of *Europeans*, mostly, who
had a much shorter lifespan than they do now. Did the 19th-century
Europeans eat a diet genetically compatible with their 'type'? Did they
rarely get these IR diseases, or did they just die before they suffered
from long-term IR damage?
The point is: small, isolated populations do not make good counter-
examples when the ideas being discussed center around large groups
who've been actively involved in changing cultures.
BTW, the eskimo rarely get psoriasis, even after being 'subjected' to a
Westernized diet.
DaveW
>Anyway, it's a minor point, but you're wrong above. Willan is usually
>given credit for the first accurate differentiation of psoriasis as a
>separate clinical entity in 1809, not even 200 years ago (all info is
>from Psoriasis by L Fry in the Brit Jour of Derm 1988 119 pp 445-61.
>I've other cites, but this one's handy). BUT even he still did not
>fully and certainly separate it from inclusion among the various
>categorizations of leprosy. That was left to Hebra in 1841, more like
>160 years ago. And even then, the separation was not universally
>recognized, continuing into the 20th century.
Thanks, Kim. The 200-year figure was an approximation from memory
(I knew Willan's work was in the early 1800's - this being the early
2000's, it's about 200 years). The "over" was obviously supposed to be
an "about" which slipped through my proofreaders - they are all now
fired. :)
So, what figure can we comfortably use? 160 years? I can live with
being off by a factor of 0.2 much more easily than I could live with
being off by a factor of 15 or 20. (Yeah, it's a 'dig', but a minor one.)
>>What's it mean to the rarity of the diseases? It means that these
>>diseases were enough of a "common-man's" problem to warrant
>>research at the points in time above. Perhaps you should define "very
>>rare" for us? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 1,000,000?
>
>Mmm. a valid point, although with psoriasis there is always the issue
>of whether a given past reference was actually to P or simply
>something that sounds like it.
Well, no, my point was more geared towards *all* of the so-called
diseases of IR. How rare was obesity 100 years ago? How rare were
heart troubles? Etc.. Psoriasis is, as you point out, so entangled with
other diseases that getting a 'picture' of its incidence throughout history
would be problematic, to say the least.
>...considering joining in the lets make the longest post competition
>but can't decide whether to do it with a history of P, chapter and
>verse, or maybe alternating chapters and verses or...
What about choruses?
K O'Brien
conditions usually show up together they will *likely* have a common cause.
So if Q causes A, B, & C and we can't find Q, we have a tendancy to say that
one of A, B, or C causes the other two. That's my assertion here. I'm a
semi-believer in SyndromeX, I personally believe that I'm IR and that I've
benefited from a low carb diet (coupled with really intense exercise & a ton
of 'wanna'). But, I just don't accept that IR (or SyndromeX) and psoriasis
are connected. We just don't know that.
Here's why. If I drop a bowling ball from the famous tower in Pizza it will
fall to the ground. If I do it a thousand times, or a million, it will do
the same. The cause is refered to as gravity. If I could find a heavier
than air object that, even once in a million, failed to fall to the ground
when dropped (it just hovered), then the entire cause would have to be
re-looked at & re-defined. Gravity would have a new definition.
So then. If there is one person who has psoriasis that is not caused by IR,
and corrective measures (low carb diet) are strictly followed (as is the
case with me) to correct some of the probs assoicated with IR (obesity, acid
reflux, abnormal heart rythum, etc) and those measures are effective (as is
also the case with me) and that individual's psoriasis is not affected --
positively or negatively -- (as is the case with me) then we cannot say that
IR causes psoriasis. What we *might* *perhaps* be able to say is that IR
can affect *certain types* of psoriasis in *certain* people, but the reason
for that, and the root causes are still a mystery.
I have heard of folks getting remissions after following a low carb diet,
but I don't know anyone who's noticed a significant long term change in that
the psoriasis did not ever return. But, my acid reflux has not returned
since it first left in late January 1999. So, I buy the IR and acid reflux
connection (for some people at least), but not the IR <-> psoriasis
connection... at least not in everyone.
kob
eve...@rocketmail.com
> >Ask the question: is there is high incidence of hyperinsulinism or
> >hyperinsulinemia (same thing) among psoriatics ? The answer
> >according to about 8 studies I found is YES(*). That is all. You
> >can stop right there.
>
> No, you cannot. You haven't examined *all* of the evidence if you
stop
> after only 8 studies. There exist more.
Yes, there exist more studies that show psoriatics are usually (up to
90% in one study) hyperinsulinemic ie IR. Same thing. What else do you
want ???????????
Psoriatics are usually IR there is no debate left on this unless you
can show me studies that show otherwise , but you can't !!!!
> But so what? Genetic studies suggest that many of the more common
> diseases *share* genes in common. Why is it more likely that all of
> these diseases are caused by IR than they are caused by stinking bad
> luck when swimming in the gene pool?
Because that IS the premise of syndrome X. You will obviously NEVER NVER
understand this, and I waste my time.
> Plus, if they're all caused by
>IR,
> wouldn't you expect every obese person to have clogged arteries,
> diabetes, heart disease, psoriasis, etc., all at the same time?
Answer 3 : Why must there be ? The HLA gene group that determines
*broadly* that you are IR and therefore subject to Syndrome X will in
all likelyhood have individual characteristics that determine which
disease (or diseases) you get from IR.
> Not only that, but some of the studies I found contradict what you've
> written. At least one claims that psoriatics have *decreased* insulin
> resistance.
Where is this study ? You make the claim.
> >...Bernstein says the incidence is > 90%. Maybe he is wrong. Still
> >does not mean that psoriatics are not IR...
>
> No, it doesn't! Finally, something we agree on! Listen: that
Bernstein
> claims the incidence is near 100% is simply stupifying. It means he's
a
> bad source of information on that particular subject.
Or you are 90% wrong. Ask him, I already have. In any case the point is
that psoriatics are IR and much much less the other disease correlations
within IR. See my point 3.
> It means that quoting
> Bernstein is just bad science. If you *ignore* Bernstein, your theory
> actually becomes *stronger*!
>
Hahaha! And quoting the NPF and ADA is good science ?! The AHA endorses
margarine as heart healthy HA!, the FDA endorses soy as healthy HA! The
food pyramid from the ADA, HA! etc etc In any case *this is the point* :
all that matters is to show that psoriatics are almost all IR. That is
easy and has been done. Don't get yourself in a knot over psoriasis
among diabetics even though the reverse is true. See my third answer.
> So what? You said that many diseases were "very rare" until just a
> century ago. We are therefore speaking of *Europeans*, mostly, who
> had a much shorter lifespan than they do now. Did the 19th-century
> Europeans eat a diet genetically compatible with their 'type'? Did
they
> rarely get these IR diseases, or did they just die before they
suffered
> from long-term IR damage?
Probably a bit of both. The hunter gatherers are a much better baseline.
>
> The point is: small, isolated populations do not make good counter-
> examples when the ideas being discussed center around large groups
> who've been actively involved in changing cultures.
>
It makes all the difference when you talk about a *genetically*
compatible diet. That has nothing to do with recent history and human
culture. It has to do with trying to reproduce what people ate for
millions of years.
> BTW, the eskimo rarely get psoriasis, even after being 'subjected' to
a
> Westernized diet.
Reference ? And see my third point.
We are going down the yellow brick road , yet again, and I don't want to
be there.
Steve
eve...@rocketmail.com
K O'Brien <kob...@isn.net> wrote:
> What we *might* *perhaps* be able to say is that
IR
> can affect *certain types* of psoriasis in *certain* people, but the
reason
> for that, and the root causes are still a mystery.
>
More than affect, even very possibly cause. I essentially agree with
your statement. I think the murky part may be caused by a) an as yet
incomplete understanding of all the effects of IR and b) diagnosis of
psoriasis complicated by seb derm or other conditions or just skin
lesions that visually resemble psoriasis , but may "clinically" actually
be something else that current science does not distinguish. In computer
terms we would say the diagnosis is not granular enough.
> I have heard of folks getting remissions after following a low carb
diet,
> but I don't know anyone who's noticed a significant long term change
in that
> the psoriasis did not ever return.
I have seen many, many posters on the low-carb group, and on other
groups say they have psoriasis remission on low-carb. I guess that as
long as they remain on the diet they will be OK. That is a guess
consistent with Sydrome X.
> But, my acid reflux has not
returned
> since it first left in late January 1999. So, I buy the IR and acid
reflux
> connection (for some people at least), but not the IR <-> psoriasis
> connection... at least not in everyone.
BUT. If you are NOT IR you may *not* do well on the low-carb diet in any
case. You should always get a baseline medical exam before you go on any
diet. The numbers don't lie.
Steve.
eve...@rocketmail.com
I am having fantastic results boosting my CO2 levels. Seb Derm/allergic
dermatosis has disappeared without any other specific intervention. This
is worth a try. Drink 10 glasses of carbonated water every day. Take 1
teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) 1/2 hour after meals.
Should see results within a few days.
I posted the "rationale" in a previous response. Apparantly the thyroid
is responsible for CO2 production and so hypothyroidism may caused low
CO2. Whatever, give it a go.
DaveW
>Psoriatics are usually IR there is no debate left on this unless you
>can show me studies that show otherwise , but you can't !!!!
Yes, I *did*. I showed you a study which concluded that psoriatics
have a *decreased* resistance to insulin. See below.
>> Not only that, but some of the studies I found contradict what you've
>> written. At least one claims that psoriatics have *decreased* insulin
>> resistance.
>
>Where is this study ? You make the claim.
It was in my very long post. You are making no attempt to understand
what I'm talking about, since you don't *read* my posts (and the fact
that you're asking me for a re-cite only two days later is evidence of
this). You pick a few sentences out of hundreds to argue about,
skipping all the supporting evidence that you've demanded to see.
I've *already* answered every question you had in this reply.
It's simply insulting. You'd probably like it better here if you actually
bothered to read the posts. Perhaps, since you don't want to read
what I've got to write, anyway, you should just killfile me. Save us all
a lot of trouble.
>...In any case *this is the point* :
>all that matters is to show that psoriatics are almost all IR. That is
>easy and has been done. Don't get yourself in a knot over psoriasis
>among diabetics even though the reverse is true.
I'm asking *you* to get unknotted over Bernstein. I guess I made a
mistake in thinking you'd understand that much. You don't *need*
Bernstein to support your theory, and citing him makes your theory
weaker. The NPF, ADA, AHA, FDA, and ADA all are not Bernstein,
so that was a nice, big non-sequitor on your part.
>We are going down the yellow brick road , yet again, and I don't want to
>be there.
If you try reading my posts, you might find yourself making progress,
instead of rehashing the same old nonsense. But, it's your choice to
not read my posts and not answer my questions, so it's your decision
to be bombarded with the same junk over and over. You are making no
attempt to *settle* anything, no attempt to understand other people, and
yet you whine and moan about people not understanding you. Try a
little "do unto others." You might enjoy it.
eve...@rocketmail.com
stran...@aol.com (DaveW) wrote:
The reason why I stop reading your posts halfway through is that they
are so riddled with convalution that they stop making sense very
quickly. Stop trying to correlate any other disease with psoriasis. That
is usefull for completeness, but it has led you way down the garden path
and was my biggest mistake to even bring it up.
Focus on one thing only : is there an increase in
insulin(hyperinsulinism, hyperinsulinemia) in psoriatics ? The answer is
: YES YES and YES. ie psoriatics are IR. Get all the other stuff out of
your head. It confuses you.
Now you find ONE study that says there is a decreased resistance to
insulin in psoriatics :
"Insulin receptors in psoriasis" claimed that "We have demonstrated how
in
psoriasis, irrespective of any diabetic family history, there exists a
state of
hyperinsulinism with a decreased resistance to insulin." *Decreased*
resistance to insulin. Isn't Syndrome X supposed to have an
*increased*
resistance?
Read that carefully. Does it make any sense ? No. That is either a typo
or is just plain wrong. If you have hyperinsulinism (increased
circulating insulin) that means the insulin receptors are resisting the
uptake of insulin and the pancreas is compensating for the resulting
high blood sugars by trying to put out even more insulin. ie you *are*
insulin resistant ! Hyperinsulinism *is* insulin resistance.
I saw this study years ago and remarked on it then. We are going back
down the yellow brick road and it sucks.
DaveW
>The reason why I stop reading your posts halfway through is that they
>are so riddled with convalution that they stop making sense very
>quickly.
Well, good grief, please stop responding as if you *had* read the entire
thing. Have the common decency to tell me where I lost you, and I'll
try to explain myself better. Doing what you've been doing so far this
year makes you look like a fool, and it pisses me off. Do me one favor,
this time: when you get tired halfway through this one, skip to the end
and read the last paragraph.
My posts are not convoluted. I have been trying to point out, for over a
year now, that while you've got interesting information, it is *not* close
to 'proof'. You are basing a theory for cause on a bunch of correlations.
Even your great God Reaven said that he doesn't think there's any
reason to believe that psoriasis is a disease of insulin resistance. What
more do *you* want?!?
Look: regardless of what *you* think, I don't think you are *wrong*. That
does *not* mean I think you're right, though. There are a tremendous
number of shades of gray here.
You respond to me as if everything was black and white, though. Either
you're right or you're wrong. Things may work like that in evetsm's world,
but here in the real world, it ain't so. Your world view is doing more to
prolong the unanswered questions and other crap you don't like than
anything *I* could say.
>Stop trying to correlate any other disease with psoriasis. That
>is usefull for completeness, but it has led you way down the garden
>path and was my biggest mistake to even bring it up.
I *don't* try to correlate psoriasis with other diseases. *You*, on the
other hand, *constantly* bring up the correlations between psoriasis,
obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. as "proof" that psoriasis is a
disease of IR.
Okay, not "proof." You gave up on that about 11 months ago, if I
remember correctly. I congratulate you on being able to see that much
reason.
>Focus on one thing only : is there an increase in insulin
>(hyperinsulinism, hyperinsulinemia) in psoriatics ? The answer is: YES
>YES and YES. ie psoriatics are IR. Get all the other stuff out of
>your head. It confuses you.
No, it doesn't. Why do you think that I don't believe that psoriatics
*tend* (not 100% of them are) to be IR? I've seen your studies, I don't
dispute it.
My current viewpoint is that psoriasis is caused by a bunch of genes,
*most* of which are found in those who are diabetic, prone to heart
disease, etc.. There are *extra* genes required for psoriasis, and
therefore, the IR is a concomitant disease with psoriasis, and probably
not a *cause*. Is this difficult to understand? I believe that this theory
explains all the data very well - *including* the Native Americans and
Eskimos (they simply rarely get the extra required genes). There is no
reason to think, based on the evidence out there today, that psoriasis
*must* be a disease of insulin resistance.
>Now you find ONE study that says there is a decreased resistance to
>insulin in psoriatics:
Well, that's the standard you've held yourself to on several occassions:
one study stating the contrary should be enough to shut Dave W. up.
Why shouldn't it work both ways?
Plus, it was *more* than one study. Another siggested that they found
no connection between IR and psoriasis. Plus, Reaven stated that he
doesn't think there's a connection. I'm sure I could find more data, but
once again... *That is not the point*.
The point is, once again, that any good theory will explain *why* the
contradictory evidence is to be ignored, or why it actually fits in with
the theory. Claiming that one study had a typo in its abstract is a good
start, but it ain't enough with the other things floating around.
A good theory explains *all* of the evidence, not just the "good"
evidence.
>I saw this study years ago and remarked on it then.
Did you actually read the whole study, or just the abstract? The article
itself might explain whether or not it's a typo.
>We are going back down the yellow brick road and it sucks.
Gee, I wasn't around "years ago" to have received your wisdom on this
particular matter. When will you be putting up a Web site so that you
won't have to answer the same questions over and over again? Seems
like you could save yourself a lot of annoyance by being able to just
pump out URLs. Hell, I'll even give you free Web space at
http://members.aol.com/psorsite/evetsm to say almost anything you
want. Honest. I will *gladly* 'publish' things that contradict my own
ideas, just to get the "yellow brick road" off your mind. Really, anything
goes, as long as it doesn't violate my TOS or run me out of Web space.
If you don't know HTML, I'll even help with that. I am not your enemy.
Email me if you're interested, I'll give you more details.
JRStern
>> Hmm? I should hold my breath? Drink a lot of seltzer?
>
>dermatosis has disappeared without any other specific intervention. This
>is worth a try. Drink 10 glasses of carbonated water every day. Take 1
>teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) 1/2 hour after meals.
>Should see results within a few days.
Or, just drink a lot of club soda, kill two birds w one stone?
Heck, I should pour it in the tub, rinse off scales with the stuff,
too. Worth a shot, I suppose, tho I'm purty durn skeptical going in.
>I posted the "rationale" in a previous response. Apparantly the thyroid
>is responsible for CO2 production and so hypothyroidism may caused low
>CO2. Whatever, give it a go.
Hmm. Y'know, under the category of "speculation", I sometimes wonder
why I did NOT suffer from p as a kid. I used to swim a lot, holding
my breath a lot, also the water on the skin, salt and/or pool
chlorine, sun, too, ...
J.
JRStern
...
>http://www.accessnable.com.au/handbook/anxiety.htm
"Recent evidence suggest that inhibition of thromboxane synthesis with
ginger or carbon dioxide inhalation increases prostacyclin levels,
which attenuates noradrenaline neurotransmission by decreasing its
release. As anxiety has been linked to noradrenergic hyperfunction,
ginger or any thromboxane antagonist (e.g., diazepam) may be effective
in this condition."
I have been experimenting with these thromboxane and leukotriene
antagonist herbs and whatnot, with some mild success, all in the
spirit of metabolism downstream from the EFA's in my beloved primrose
oil.
I occassionally eat tons of ginger, it has no beneficial effects on
me, sadly. Not on p, anyway, it works *wonders* on nausea when you
have the flu!
I used to drink more carbonated beverages, recently have drunk mostly
carbonated water with fruit flavorings, but no sugar. If anything, I
think that as Fenris says, they aggravate the p more than help it.
J.
K O'Brien
to do & what's the rationale (or, where's the 'white paper' on the topic)?
kob
eve...@rocketmail.com
Two articles grabbed my attention on CO2(first 2 below). It probably
works best for the allergic type rather than the psoriatic, but who
knows ? I stumbled upon it reading about how excess histamine is
produced and the action of mast cells. That led to reading about cell
drought, which led to reading about electrolyte imbalances, which led to
acid-alkaline balance which are all a factors in cell
homeostasis(optimal equilibrium environment). Without cell homeostasis,
enzymatic and other chemical processes are impaired.
I am still 100% seb derm free just from taking baking soda and
carbonated water to raise my serum CO2. I am not qualified to say
definitively why this has worked but it all points to the CO2. (before
someone crucifies me for not making the connection with the "anxiety"
extract, it is the mast cell and histamine aspect, common to all
allergies that interests me)
"SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Hyperventilation causes CO2 levels to drop in the blood. Decreased CO2
stimulates nerve cells,
which prime the body for action. Muscle tension is increased and
sensitivity and perception
heightened, the pain threshold lowered and adrenalin released in the
blood.
As CO2 drops even further, cells begin to produce lactic acid to reduce
alkalinity and metabolism
begins to suffer. Fatigue, exhaustion, numbness, tingling and
anaesthesia and possible convulsions
can result.
Low CO2 stimulates the smooth muscle to contract thus constricting blood
vessels, particularly to
the heart and brain giving rise to palpitations. Furthermore, low CO2
causes mast cells to release
histamine and other mediators causing further blood vessel constriction.
CO2 helps maintain blood
pH at 7.4. As CO2 falls in the blood, CO2 diffuses from cells, causing
intracellular alkalosis which
further spurs cells into frantic activity, particularly the production
of more lactic acid to combat this
alkalinity. The kidney also increases the excretion of Bicarbonate
(HCO3). The negatively charged
HCO3 ion is balanced with the positively charged Magnesium (Mg) in the
urine. Deficiency of Mg
causes the kidney cells to produce H+ ions to balance the HCO3. The end
result is intracellular
acidity, extracellular alkalinity which pushes the body to
hyperventilation. This is a vicious circle.
BIOCHEMICAL INTERVENTION
Recent evidence suggest that inhibition of thromboxane synthesis with
ginger or carbon dioxide
inhalation increases prostacyclin levels, which attenuates noradrenaline
neurotransmission by
decreasing its release. As anxiety has been linked to noradrenergic
hyperfunction, ginger or any
thromboxane antagonist (e.g., diazepam) may be effective in this
condition. It is important to note
that the lactate ion stimulates thromboxane synthesis. Thus impairment
of the enzyme Co A or
deficiency of vitamin B3 or magnesium or alcohol intoxication which
raises lactate levels may be
associated with hyper-anxiety state. "
http://www.accessnable.com.au/handbook/anxiety.htm
http://www.wt.com.au/~pkolb/peat5.htm
http://www.wt.com.au/~pkolb/peat_ind.htm
http://home.columbus.rr.com/allen/acid_base_disorders.htm
eve...@rocketmail.com
metabolism :
http://www.wt.com.au/~pkolb/henders.htm
And here is a CO2 link to psoriasis ie Butyeko claims CO2 therapy
(breath therapy) helps psoriasis (absolutely no detail why) :
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~cdrake/
Disclaimer : I have no clue how this all fits together. I put it out
only for those who might be interested. I don't want to attract a whole
war over this. It is helping me enormously with seb derm and quite
honestly I don't care why. Take or leave it.
"When you tug on a piece of nature you discover it is attached to the
rest of the world" - John Muir.
Steve.
Harry the Skinflint
>From: de...@my-deja.com
>Date: 8/16/00 7:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8ne79q$p35$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>Dave,
>
>You are an idiot.
>
>
>
>Disease concomitance in psoriasis.
>Henseler T, Christophers E
>
>Department of Dermatology ,Speaker of Duck Languages, University of Kiel,
Germany
>
duck sewage snipped
another data miner that thinks he is a statistician as well as a physician
Carving Washer Irvington
eve...@rocketmail.com
Another content free , non-contribution from an inane blowhard
Grover Washington Jr.
eve...@rocketmail.com
JRS...@gte.net (JRStern) wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:26:11 GMT, eve...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> >> Hmm? I should hold my breath? Drink a lot of seltzer?
> >
> >I am having fantastic results boosting my CO2 levels. Seb
Derm/allergic
> >dermatosis has disappeared without any other specific intervention.
This
> >is worth a try. Drink 10 glasses of carbonated water every day. Take
1
> >teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) 1/2 hour after meals.
> >Should see results within a few days.
I am still 100% clear on this regime. I have tested going off
and then back on the baking soda and sure enough the allergic seb derm
comes back soon after I stop and disappears soon(within 1 day) after I
resume. However, the real action may be an antifungal one rather than
the effect of increased CO2 and histamine. Who knows ? I don't care,
I'll take it
(antifungal action of baking soda on plants)
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/bakingsoda.html
(Alka-selzer Gold has a balance of potassium and sodium bicarb. May be
even better than plain baking soda)
Steve.