Probably a stupid question
Ron Gorgichuk
explained to me by anyone who is well informed about psoriasis research.
For years the fact that some stomach ulcers are caused by a bacteria, was
unknown. When the discovery was made, the medical community looked pretty
stupid, for the way they had been treating stomach ulcers. Now, I am
wondering what are the chances that psoriasis is caused by some bacteria,
virus, or protovirus, or protobacteria (are those the right terms?), for
which some individuals lack a natural defense?
What I mean is, I read in the paper the other day that leprosy is difficult
to diagnose because the bacteria that causes it is very small compared to
other bacteria, and cannot be seen through a microscope. The bacteria is a
sort of protobacteria (again I am not sure of the correct term.) It is
genetically much less complex than more easily identified bacteria. It is
just too small to see, even with a microscope.
Now this is interesting because the new drug PVAC, currently in clinical
trials to treat psoriasis, was initially discovered by a researcher
attempting to find a vaccine for leprosy.
It sort of makes sense that psoriasis might be caused by a bacteria or
virus, since any individual lacking a natural defense could become infected
at any time in life at when they chance to come in contact. This might
account for the widely varying age of onset. I contracted psoriasis at a
very early age, but I recall that as a child I lived in a rooming house,
where there was a man who had psoriasis. All the roomers shared a bathroom.
Now others, the majority of the population, who have a natural defense might
never get the disease regardless of how much contact they have, and so
psoriasis appears not to be contagious, and so not caused by a virus or
bacteria.
We know that psoriasis is related to some sort of immune response. So, why
not an immune response to some invader with a very low visibility profile,
some sort of stealth virus or bacteria?
So, here is the question. Has a thorough investigation into possible viral
of bacterial causes been done for psoriasis, including thorough analysis
with electron microscopes, to locate possible stealthy viral or bacterial
causes?
Like I said, it is a sort of obvious thing, and so a sort of stupid
question, but, I have never heard any expert say, yes an exhaustive
investigation has been done, and nothing could be found.
Thanks, Ron
kob
What an interesting question!
I told my family doctor about the stomach ulcer thing (I had a reoccuring ulcer)
and he laughed at me (literally). Next time in he brought it up ... I guess he
hadn't bothered to mention the "ha ha ha" in his my file. (BTW: when he laughs
at me I don't get upset anymore, I just prepare more carefully the next time I
bring up the topic and alway begin by saying something like, "last time I
mentioned this, you didn't seem interested so I've done some more research and
I'd like you to look at <this> or <that>". It works. Doctors are so busy and
hear so many different things that just don't make any sense (like some of the
"cures" bantied around here) that it is easy for them to dismiss.
Anyway, I hope there's a good answer out there for your question.
Best,
Kevin
PS: The ulcer thing was caused by sugar and other high-glycemic foods. I've
eliminated, or seriously reduced, them (with occasional transgressions) and
haven't had any more trouble with my stomach.
(I think it would be reasonable for folks with bad heartburn, acid reflux, and
occasional ulcers to try one of the low-carb diets to see if it helps them. The
connection between sugar and acid reflux in me is so tight that two chocolates
(stolen from my VP's desk the other day) left me with heartburn for two days!)
Avagard
I was one of those with ulcers which were irritated by NSAIDs. I had a good
Gastroentrogist that immediately checked for H-Pylori and did an Endoscopy.
I had quite a bit of the bacteria and was successfully treated for it with a
couple of drugs. He said it was likely that I picked it up in Japan when I was
a little girl and my Dad was stationed there.
The question I have though is how does this theory take into account the
genetic component to Psoriasis?
I don't think it can be said that every member of a given family lives together
or even meets regularly, but it shows up in family members, some of whom have
died prior to even meeting another PS sufferer family member. In other words,
if my Grandfather had it and died before I was born, how would I have been
exposed.
Also, why wouldn't every family member who has been exposed present with
Psoriasis?
Perhaps you are speculating that the genetic component is an over-reaction or
allergic reaction to a more common bacteria that does not affect most people?
I will look forward to reading more on this topic!
Ava
Ranhub11
>explained to me by anyone who is well informed about psoriasis
Who has...and is...informed..?
There is a small, penny stock company named pathobiotek.com that is working on
a bacteria they called LUEY now H***, that they believe is responsible for
autoimmune disorders..like MS...so what the heck, maybe it is bacterial...and
oh yah....ten other co-factors...not to mention genetic...at the very least.
So, take a flyer on a few thousand shares of pathobiotek for a few bucks to
hedge your skin bet?>For years the fact that some stomach ulcers are caused by
a bacteria, was
>unknown. When the discovery was made, the medical community looked pretty
>stupid, for the way they had been treating stomach ulcers. Now,
go back less then a few years and the med community looked very
stupid...untill..logic came along...and some here want to throw that out the
window...>, or protovirus, or protobacteria (are those the right terms?), for
Proto bacteria....sounds like proto blood and LEXX the scifi series...kewl
ness... only, i am afraid the facts will be stranger then fiction...>at leprosy
is difficult
>to diagnose because the bacteria that causes it is very small compared
more kewlness...nano bacteria...just like them microplasms that caused the gulf
war syndrome?Like I said, it is a sort of obvious thing, and so a sort of
stupid
>question, but, I have never heard
a smart answer? heck, give me a few stupid answers, i'll bite....till logic
shoots that out the old pooper....along with all that evil ecoli and all them
other critters....nano and otherwise...that live there...Now, if the terrain in
the colon is acidic, how many bugs can live there? vs. alkaline..? a different
terrain increases the neighborhood for loads of undesirables....throw in a few
treatments of antibiotics over the years and eat some GH treated beef for a few
generations and the permutations are increased....so what? you gonna stop
eating beef? and be one of those healthy looking vegetarians? As for sugar,
doesn't that release serotonin in the brain?...and increase the acidity of the
terrain? sorry just funin....
kim...@mindspring.com
<ron_go...@cyberus.ca> wrote:
>This may seem like a stupid question, but you know I have never had this
>explained to me by anyone who is well informed about psoriasis research.
>
>For years the fact that some stomach ulcers are caused by a bacteria, was
>unknown. When the discovery was made, the medical community looked pretty
>stupid, for the way they had been treating stomach ulcers. Now, I am
>wondering what are the chances that psoriasis is caused by some bacteria,
>virus, or protovirus, or protobacteria (are those the right terms?), for
>which some individuals lack a natural defense?
Not a stupid question.. One of the hot ideas of about 2 years ago was
that mycobacteria may have a key role in triggering P from a genetic
proclivity to an active disease. Believe the idea was an outgrowth of
how some P is responsive to antibiotics/the fact that infections such
as strep are among the more universal triggers. I asked a derm I heard
speak on P about it and he clearly was a proponent, saying that he
thought there would be exciting news coming out within a year or so
because of active research on the subject, but that doesn't seem to
have happened. You might find some stuff of interest:
http://pinch.com/skinny?medline=psoriasis+mycobacterium
>Now this is interesting because the new drug PVAC, currently in clinical
>trials to treat psoriasis, was initially discovered by a researcher
>attempting to find a vaccine for leprosy.
Well actually it really started with the researchers looking for new
ways to boost the immune system to fight cancers, but the idea holds.
Although the initial claims for practically universal benefit from
PVAC are being shown to be exaggerations. But take this idea into the
more general theory of P as multiple diseases grouped together, with
one of the bases for identifying different ones the sorts of triggers
and exascerbators that seem to apply and certainly one of the forms
might be identified with a sensitivity to certain mycobacterium.
>It sort of makes sense that psoriasis might be caused by a bacteria or
>virus,
Although I still would differentiate between such things having an
involvement and their being actual causes for such reasons as the one
you point out about exposure by itself not being enough for most
people.
Kim.
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...
Ljm
L
Ron Gorgichuk
Avagard <ava...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010305165940...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
>
> The question I have though is how does this theory take into account the
> genetic component to Psoriasis?
>
> I don't think it can be said that every member of a given family lives
together
> or even meets regularly, but it shows up in family members, some of whom
have
> died prior to even meeting another PS sufferer family member. In other
words,
> if my Grandfather had it and died before I was born, how would I have been
> exposed.
>
Why do people get the flu when no one else in their family has it, or get a
cold. Family members are not the only people who have psoriasis. A person
might be exposed to someone else outside the family who has psoriasis and
contract it from them. No one I know of has psoriasis in my family, except
me. I was exposed to another person with psoriasis as a child, before I
contracted it. I know this for a fact. My parents and sister were also
exposed to the same person and myself, but have not expressed any symptoms.
I could be the only one lacking a natural immunity. I also met a guy I
worked with who started expressing psoriasis symtoms for the first time at
about 28 years old. I hate to think he might have contracted it from me.
> Also, why wouldn't every family member who has been exposed present with
> Psoriasis?
>
Actually every member of a family may have a different genetic makeup. My
mother had dark hair and I have dark hair, but my father had light hair and
my sister has light hair. Clearly my sister and I have some different genes.
Also, I share some of my father's features, and some of my mother's. Some
genes skip a generation for expression, or disappear altogether. The point
is that some of us in the same family may have a natural immunity, while
others do not.
>
> Perhaps you are speculating that the genetic component is an over-reaction
or
> allergic reaction to a more common bacteria that does not affect most
people?
>
I do not think it is an allergic reaction, since it does not exhibit the
characteristics of an allergic reaction, such as hives, trouble breathing,
etc. I am suggesting that it might be a bacteria similar to the leprosy
bacteria, which is too small to see with a microscope.
Another possibility is that everyone has some yeast or bacteria present in
their bodies. Could it be that certain yeast or bacteria, considered
harmless, is actually harmless to most people, but causes psoriasis in
others. Perhaps the agent causing psoriasis has been seen in the tissues but
was dismissed as a harmless symbiotic yeast or bacteria, that everyone has.
There seems to be a growing body of anecdotal evidence that anti-bacterial
agents reduce the expression of psoriasis symptoms in many individuals with
moderate to severe psoriasis. I have read many claims in this news group and
claims on WEB pages of tea tree oil, grapefruit seed extract, neem, noni
juice, etc, reducing the coverage of psoriasis plaques dramatically. These
are all antibacterial and/or antifungal agents. None of these has never
worked for me, but, I have less than 5% coverage. I did notice thought that
doxycycline once reduced the psoriasis symptoms I was experiencing when I
was sick for several months with some sort of lingering cold like symptoms.
I also notice that when I am sick with a flu or cold, psoriasis symptoms get
worse. And then there is PVAC. Why does it work? It is a vaccine that was
suppose to target leprosy bacteria.
There seems to be something related to infection. I am speculating that
psoriasis may be caused by some lingering long term infection that does not
respond to regular antibiotics. It gets worse when you get sick with other
infections because your body is in a weak state, and more vulnerable to the
lingering infection. Clear up the other sickness and psoriasis symptoms
subside to normal levels caused by that lingering infection.
Another interesting thing is that concentrated UV kills micro-organisms.
Could this be why UV is effective in treating psoriasis? It could also
explain why relief is only temporary, since if we sufferers have an
infection, killing the local concentrations of bacteria in the skin does not
rid the whole body and so symptoms manifest again after a few months. Also,
we are bound to have left traces of the micro-organism all around our
environment from the shedding we do, so we can easily contract it again,
because we lack immunity.
I read an interesting post on this news group just yesterday, about a doctor
in Mexico who claims that extracting a person's own blood and treating it,
then re-injecting in a course of injections lasting weeks, can clear up some
chronic diseases, including psoriasis. Perhaps, this procedure is just
creating a sort of vaccine, since that is more or less what you do to make a
vaccine. You take the bacteria or virus, kill it, and then inject the dead
bacteria or virus, so the immune system learns to attack it. By using whole
blood in this manner repeatedly over time, this method may be just doing
much the same thing. It is just a more long a drawn out procedure that takes
weeks using a watered down vaccine rather than a one shot concentrated
vaccination.
See the following link.
http://www.advancedmedical-int.com.mx/enfing.html
My original question was just to ask the obvious. I would have assumed that
the first thing researchers looked for was a bacterial, fungal, or viral
cause. I just wanted someone to confirm this, because it sure seems like an
infection could be the cause.
Ron
JRStern
>unknown. When the discovery was made, the medical community looked pretty
>stupid, for the way they had been treating stomach ulcers. Now, I am
>wondering what are the chances that psoriasis is caused by some bacteria,
>virus, or protovirus, or protobacteria (are those the right terms?), for
>which some individuals lack a natural defense?
Who knows? Maybe more so-called auto-immune diseases have external,
environmental triggers, bacteria or viruses or prions or chemicals or
radiation.
SOMETHING "tells" the p which spots to attack. Whatever the cause, it
frequently attacks symetrically, similar spots on both sides of the
body. How does your body even grow symetrically in the first place?
Whatever, suddenly your immune system recognizes and attacks symetric
spots. How could a bacteria or virus do that?
Nobody really has a good guess at much of any of these, afaik, so I'd
say the hypothesis of external causation of p is still open.
J.
Nann Bell
(in message <20010305165940...@ng-mf1.aol.com>):
>The question I have though is how does this theory take into account the
> genetic component to Psoriasis?
>
The whole auto-immune thing is so interesting! I'm really interested in what
they're going to uncover the next several years.
Everyone in my nuclear family has some auto-immune disease, but no
duplications amongst we five. But there is a family history for each of the
ailments. Maybe some glitch in the immune system but different exposures lead
to different illnessess? Who knows.........
Nann
DaveW
> This may seem like a stupid question, but you know I have
> never had this explained to me by anyone who is well
> informed about psoriasis research.
As others have already told you, it's not a stupid question.
Now, if you'll allow me, I'll give you some stupid answers. :)
> For years the fact that some stomach ulcers are caused by
> a bacteria, was unknown. When the discovery was made, the
> medical community looked pretty stupid, for the way they
> had been treating stomach ulcers.
Depends on who you ask, really. Is it stupid to learn
something new? I don't think so. "Oops, we were wrong."
Expecting doctors to know everything there is to know is
unreasonable. Many people have such expectations, though.
Look at the book John S. keep refering us to. Billions of
bucks spent on cancer research, and it's still a killer,
so therefore all that research must have been worthless.
That's a completely unreasonable idea. What *has* been
stupid, though, is anyone saying "we'll have a cure in 10
years." Such predictions are almost invariably wrong.
There were actually some serious predictions about 100 years
ago that everything about physics would be known within
twenty or so years. Quantum mechanics came along and messed
that all up. Heck, even non-quantum physics are still being
actively studied today.
Sciences are never-ending quests for new knowledge. If
anyone says that they know everything there is to know, they
are wrong.
I doubt that any serious doctor would ever have stated that
the medical community knew everything there was to know
about ulcers. Otherwise, H. pylorii would never have been
researched in conjunction with stomach problems. The fact
that the medical community now accepts H. pylorii as one of
the causes of ulcers should be praised, instead of focusing
on the lack of knowledge (simple ignorance - not stupidity)
that came beforehand.
> Now, I am wondering what are the chances that psoriasis is
> caused by some bacteria, virus, or protovirus, or
> protobacteria (are those the right terms?), for which some
> individuals lack a natural defense?
In my mind, the odds are pretty *low* that psoriasis is
caused by any microorganism against which we *lack* a natural
defense. The main thing that leads me to this conclusion is
that in psoriasis plaques, there is quite an active defense
being mounted. "Lacking a natural defense" would mean that
our immune systems either don't see such a bug as foreign, in
which case no defense would be mounted, or the bug is simply
too strong for our immune systems to beat, in which case our
bodies would be overrun with the microbes.
> What I mean is, I read in the paper the other day that
> leprosy is difficult to diagnose because the bacteria that
> causes it is very small compared to other bacteria, and
> cannot be seen through a microscope. The bacteria is a
> sort of protobacteria (again I am not sure of the correct
> term.) It is genetically much less complex than more easily
> identified bacteria. It is just too small to see, even with
> a microscope.
I don't believe that any of what you read is true. Armauer
Hansen (Hansen's disease = leprosy) discovered the bacteria,
Mycobacterium leprae, in 1873, an era lacking in anything but
fairly low-magnification, visible-light microscopes:
http://www.ilep.org.uk/faq.htm
> Now this is interesting because the new drug PVAC, currently
> in clinical trials to treat psoriasis, was initially
> discovered by a researcher attempting to find a vaccine for
> leprosy.
Well, yes and no. How does the vaccine for polio work? You
kill the bugs with heat, and inject them into the body. The
immune system "learns" what polio "looks like," and so can
mount a quick and deadly response if living polio bugs get
into the body at a later date. PVAC is heat-killed M. leprae,
or a derivative of dead M. leprae, injected in the hopes that
the immune system will learn what M. leprae "looks like" and
if you later catch leprosy, your immune system should be able
to kill it off quickly, before it has a chance to get a firm
grip on the body and do damage. That it made one person's
psoriasis vanish was incidental, really, because no one knows
*why* it kinda-sorta "works" on psoriasis:
http://members.aol.com/psorsite/docs/pvac.html
It could simply be because some chemical in M. leprae does
something interesting to the immune-system mechanics in
psoriasis.
On the other hand, if M. leprae were a *trigger* for psoriasis,
or worse yet, a cause, then PVAC should *induce* psoriasis, not
make it better.
> It sort of makes sense that psoriasis might be caused by a
> bacteria or virus, since any individual lacking a natural
> defense could become infected at any time in life at when
> they chance to come in contact. This might account for the
> widely varying age of onset...
Actually, if it were spread by contact, we'd see a vastly
different curve for age-of-onset. It'd be "flat", meaning
the odds of getting psoriasis at any particular age would
be the same as at any other age. But the truth is, you're
much more likely to first show symptoms between 15 and 35
than you are at any other time. Very few 90-year-olds
show their first psoriasis symptoms, as do very few babies.
Contrast this with, say, the common cold, which babies and
old people get quite often - *more* often than middle-aged
people, since neither group tends to have an optimally-
performing immune system.
> Now others, the majority of the population, who have a
> natural defense might never get the disease regardless of
> how much contact they have, and so psoriasis appears not
> to be contagious, and so not caused by a virus or bacteria.
>
> We know that psoriasis is related to some sort of immune
> response. So, why not an immune response to some invader
> with a very low visibility profile, some sort of stealth
> virus or bacteria?
To me, it's more likely that some common microbe would be
triggering psoriasis. Take strep and how it appears to
trigger guttate psoriasis, for example. It's a combination
of genetics and exposure.
Also, not all genes are "turned on" all the time (look at
the changes that occur at puberty), and so it may very well
be a combination of exposure to some microbe or other and
genetic *timing* (which could give us the age-of-onset peaks
that there are) that triggers psoriasis in susceptible people.
And due to the sometimes peculiar way the inflammatory
process works, the "invader" doesn't even have to stay in
the body afterwards to keep the psoriasis going, so there
doesn't even have to be a lack of some sort of natural
immunity for this hypothesis to work (lots of guttate
cases show up *after* a strep infection has been killed
off with antibiotics).
> So, here is the question. Has a thorough investigation
> into possible viral of bacterial causes been done for
> psoriasis, including thorough analysis with electron
> microscopes, to locate possible stealthy viral or
> bacterial causes?
>
> Like I said, it is a sort of obvious thing, and so a sort
> of stupid question, but, I have never heard any expert
> say, yes an exhaustive investigation has been done, and
> nothing could be found.
I think such an exhaustive investigation would be impossible.
It's sort of like looking for a needle in a haystack, except
you don't know what the needle looks like. And because of
the way the immune system works, a fungal infection of the
toenails could, theoretically, lead to scalp psoriasis.
People get attacked by foreign bugs all the time, and there
are *lots* of them. Mostly, our immune systems kill them and
we never even know it, because the attack didn't succeed well
enough to become an "infection." But, even these failed
attacks could, again theoretically, trigger psoriasis.
The genetics researchers on psoriasis are going at the
question from the opposite angle. They're trying to find
the genes we all might share. When that's done, they can
look at the proteins those genes code for, and maybe see
how they do whatever it is they're doing. Perhaps they'll
be able to say, "oh, well, this protein is shaped just like
this strep protein, and that's the problem!" Perhaps then
they'll be able to find other bugs that share the same
protein, and we'll get a nice long list of microbes to
try, somehow, to avoid.
In another post, you wrote:
> There seems to be a growing body of anecdotal evidence that
> anti-bacterial agents reduce the expression of psoriasis
> symptoms in many individuals with moderate to severe
> psoriasis.
I'm not sure how "growing" that body is, but more just below:
> I have read many claims in this news group and claims on
> WEB pages of tea tree oil, grapefruit seed extract, neem,
> noni juice, etc, reducing the coverage of psoriasis plaques
> dramatically. These are all antibacterial and/or antifungal
> agents.
The fact is, these things may be much more than *just*
antibiotics or antifungals. Heck, Neem is a contraceptive
and an insecticide, too. There tend to be *lots* of
different biologically-active chemicals in plant extracts.
Don't let yourself be fooled into thinking that because a
product is claimed to be an antibacterial, it can't also be
an antiinflammatory (which could be the *real* reason it's
effective, to some extent, for psoriasis).
> I did notice thought that doxycycline once reduced the
> psoriasis symptoms I was experiencing when I was sick for
> several months with some sort of lingering cold like symptoms.
> I also notice that when I am sick with a flu or cold, psoriasis
> symptoms get worse.
My guess would be that the psoriasis gets worse during infected
illness mostly because the immune system gets an overall boost
during this time to battle the infection. Since it is the immune
system which is responsible for the plaques themselves, it
shouldn't be surprising that boosting it would make the skin
worsen. Especially since immune system suppression clears up
psoriasis.
> And then there is PVAC. Why does it work? It is a vaccine
> that was suppose to target leprosy bacteria.
As above, it *is* leprosy bacteria. Dead ones. :)
> There seems to be something related to infection. I am
> speculating that psoriasis may be caused by some lingering
> long term infection that does not respond to regular
> antibiotics. It gets worse when you get sick with other
> infections because your body is in a weak state, and more
> vulnerable to the lingering infection. Clear up the other
> sickness and psoriasis symptoms subside to normal levels
> caused by that lingering infection.
More likely because the immune system goes back to normal,
"unboosted" levels.
> Another interesting thing is that concentrated UV kills
> micro-organisms. Could this be why UV is effective in
> treating psoriasis?
Like so many other psoriasis treatments, UV suppresses the
immune system locally in the skin. The amount of UV needed
to kill off bugs is far greater than I'd want to expose my
skin to. For example (and don't really try this), go sun
bathe until you're burnt to a crisp, and then check to see
how many of your normal skin bacteria are still alive. My
bet: no more dead bacteria than you would have seen spending
the same amount of time in a basement. In other words, the
amount of UV required to cause humans great discomfort is
much less than the amount required to sterilize stuff.
> It could also explain why relief is only temporary, since
> if we sufferers have an infection, killing the local
> concentrations of bacteria in the skin does not rid the
> whole body and so symptoms manifest again after a few
> months. Also, we are bound to have left traces of the
> micro-organism all around our environment from the
> shedding we do, so we can easily contract it again,
> because we lack immunity.
Relief from UV, like relief from steroids or Cyclosporin, is
probably temporary because after suppressing the immune
system (remission), it takes some time to get re-triggered,
or for the suppression to go away completely.
> I read an interesting post on this news group just yesterday,
> about a doctor in Mexico who claims that extracting a person's
> own blood and treating it, then re-injecting in a course of
> injections lasting weeks, can clear up some chronic diseases,
> including psoriasis. Perhaps, this procedure is just creating
> a sort of vaccine...
Perhaps the procedure doesn't work at all. They only seem to
have case reports, and no real clinical testing. Beyond that,
the only case reports we see on the Web page are for Multiple
Sclerosis, which *commonly* goes into remission by itself. The
doctor may be fooling himself, and then others, into thinking
that what he's doing has an effect. Even after 40 years of
research.
- Dave W.
http://members.aol.com/psorsite/
DaveW
>SOMETHING "tells" the p which spots to attack. Whatever the cause, it
>frequently attacks symetrically, similar spots on both sides of the
>body. How does your body even grow symetrically in the first place?
Read an interesting Scientific American article on this not too long ago.
Of course, the body isn't perfectly symmetric, and the *insides* are far
from symmetric (one three-lobed lung, one two-lobed; the liver squashed
off to the right; the heart pointing left; etc.). People are born internally
reversed remarkably often (I forget the exact number, but I remember
being astonished by it - I think it's greater than 1 in 1000).
>Whatever, suddenly your immune system recognizes and attacks symetric
>spots. How could a bacteria or virus do that?
The same way psoriasis does: elbow skin is, after all, slightly different
from other types of skin, but the two sets of "elbow skin" would be
similar to each other. So, if some microbe were attacking elbow skin
preferentially, it would seem likely that it's be a symmetric disease.
Likewise, skin all over the body would probably share more subtle
characteristics with symmetrically-opposed skin than with skin from
a drastically different part of the body.
>Nobody really has a good guess at much of any of these, afaik, so I'd
>say the hypothesis of external causation of p is still open.
Sure is. The above stuff about symmetrical skin is also fairly-wild
speculation.
But, with the genetics thrown in, it's probably more a hypothesis of
externally-*triggered* psoriasis, rather than caused, as Kim pointed
out.
Ed Anderson
have to have a blind eye when looking into much of the existing research.
There are many reports from clinicians who claim to have found specific
organisms responsible for different aspects of psoriasis. Good trials have
been lacking in that area, which casts doubt on some of the claims. Still,
it's interesting reading. An unknown superantigen that triggers the T-Cell
cycle in psoriasis has been hypothesized for years, but has yet to be
identified. Some researchers claim to be homing in on certain proteins
found in lesions that are also found in suspect organisms.
Just because antibiotics and antifungals are sometimes helpful in treating
psoriasis doesn't necessarily mean there is an unidentified organism
acting as a trigger. Consider the hyperproliferative nature of psoriasis,
and they way these drugs work by disrupting normal functioning. Many toxic
substances seem to be effective in treating psoriasis by direct effect on
the cells. It's not surprising that some drugs that are toxic to bacteria
and fungi will have an effect skin cell reproduction.
The PVAC "vaccine" PR has repeatedly been borderline hoax, in my opinion.
It isn't a vaccine for psoriasis, or a cure as claimed by New Zealand
papers after interviewing Genesis researchers. The initial reports weren't
all that compelling, and the latest trials were downright dismal if you
read between the lines. Despite the spin applied in an attempt to collect
the millions in milestone funding from partners, the actual results
haven't been publicly disclosed. They only say that they identified an
optimal 15 mg dose which didn't prove to be statistically significant over
placebo. To me, that means that any other dose they tried must have made
the P worse in more patients than it helped.
Opportunists aside, there may still be some valid scientific evidence for
a pathogen in psoriasis. I'm relucant to even discuss unverified findings
here after seeing how easily technical facts become distorted and
misapplied. So with a big disclaimer to not get any hopes too high, here
are a couple of links to some interesting findings regarding HPV (human
papilloma virus) in psoriasis:
http://archderm.ama-assn.org/issues/v137n2/ffull/dlt0201-3.html
http://pinch.com/skinny?medline=psoriasis+hpv
Genetic methods were used to detect the presence of some strains of HPV in
up to 90% of P lesions. They were also detected in blood serum of some 25%
of psoriatics vs 2-5% in other groups. Researchers are still debating the
cause and effect. The HPV may just have a preference for rapidly growing
skin. As far as I know, there's not much evidence for antivirals being
effective in treating psoriasis. Podophyllin (a toxic plant extract) is
used for HPV warts, and also gets cited as an antipsoriatic compound.
Again, that may not be due to any secondary antiviral effect, but the
primary disruptive effect of the toxin.
(Another article in that same journal on Stress is somewhat related:
http://archderm.ama-assn.org/issues/v137n1/ffull/ded0014.html
In case anyone else is a glutton for technical insights).
If you want to do more research on your own, try this bibliography. The
abstracts are useful, and the articles can be found at a medical library:
http://pinch.com/skinny?medline=psoriasis+microorganisms
Personally, I'm nearly in remission now using low strength anthralin in a
coconut butter base. Any doctor can have it made up by a compounding
pharmacist. Cheap, too. See my past posts on the topic for more details:
http://pinch.com/skinny?skin=anthralin
It's effective for me as a maintenance treatment everywhere I'm using it -
face, scalp, inverse areas, knees, elbows, feet, etc. Yipee!
Oops, how did that sneak into a dry technical report? Well, anthralin is a
synthetic extract of chrysarobin, a product of a tree resin which was used
as a ringworm treatment in China and India before it was introduced to
Europe, and discovered in the 1870's to be effective for psoriasis. It was
still one of the main treatments for many skin diseases until steroids
were discovered.
-- Ed "it's all a big conspiracy, I tell ya" Anderson
Ron Gorgichuk
Thank you for your very informative response, from which I gather some
research is being done surrounding the relationship between human
papillomavirus type 5 (HPV) and psoriasis.
It seems that this virus is present in just about all of us, but psoriatics
may have a genetic susptability to it, which is not shared by the general
population.
This just the sort of information I was looking for. I hope this research is
still active.
Ron
Ron Gorgichuk
references provided by Ed Anderson.
Microorganisms and psoriasis.
Rosenberg EW, Noah PW, Skinner RB
Department of Dermatology, University of Tennessee College of Medicine,
Memphis 38163.
It has been suggested previously that psoriasis is best explained as a
distinctive inflammatory response to a variety of microbial stimuli, all
acting primarily through activation of the alternative complement pathway.
For the past several years we have conducted a "Problem Psoriasis Clinic"
based on that premise. Patients are questioned, examined, and subjected to
microbiologic laboratory investigations in an attempt to identify possibly
relevant microorganisms, and then are treated with antibiotics. This article
lists the most commonly found microorganisms in psoriasis patients and
describes the usual treatment for each. Results obtained with this approach
compare favorably with those achieved with more usual anti-psoriasis
treatments. We recommend that a microbiologic investigation and a trial of
antimicrobial treatment should precede any plan to treat psoriasis patients
with anything more than the simplest topical agents.
The role of microorganisms in psoriasis.
Noah PW
Department of Medicine Dermatology, College of Medicine, University of
Tennessee, Memphis 38163.
The microflora of 297 psoriasis patients was extensively examined. Throat,
urine, and skin surfaces from scalp, ears, chest, face, axillary,
submammary, umbilical, upper back, inguinal crease, gluteal-fold,
perirectal, vaginal, pubis, penis, scrotal, leg, hands, feet, finger, and
toenail areas were cultured for aerobic bacteria, yeast, and dermatophytes.
Antibody levels to streptococcal enzymes were performed (streptolysin-O,
DNAse-B, hyaluronidase, STREPTOZYME). Giemsa smears and KOH preparations
were also used to determine yeast and dermatophyte presence.
Associated organisms thought to provoke a psoriatic attack were as follows:
streptococcal groups A, B, C, D, F, G, S viridans, S pneumoniae; Klebsiella
pneumoniae, oxytoca; Escherichia coli; Enterobacter loacae, E aerogenes, E
agglomerans; Proteus mirabilis, P vulgaris; Citrobacter freundii, C
diversus; Morganella morganii; Pseudomonas aeruginosa, P maltiphilia, P
putida; Serratia marcescens; Acinetobacter calbio aceticus, A luoffi;
Flavobacterium specie; CDC groups Ve-1, Ve-2, E-o2; Bacillus subtilis,
cereus; Staphylococcus aureus; Candida albicans, C parapsilosis; Torulopsis,
glabrata; Rhodotorula and dermatophytes.
One or more antistreptococal enzyme tests was positive in 50% of patients.
Titers to hepatitis E were elevated in one patient and to HIV in two
patients.
Ron Gorgichuk
I have found that for about three days after a good very hot prolonged
sauna, posriasis symptoms seem reduced. Check out the last two sentences of
the following paragraph.
The sauna, skin and skin diseases.
Hannuksela M, Vaananen A
Department of Dermatology, University of Oulu, Finland.
The aesthetic pleasure of the Finnish sauna may be disturbed by an intense
itch caused by sweating in a few people with atopic dermatitis. The heat of
the sauna may also initiate cholinergic urticaria. The sauna itself does not
cause drying of the skin although incorrect washing habits may lead to this.
The use of soap is adviced especially in the anogenital region and armpits,
but the use of a washing brush and sponge is not adviced. Sauna bathing
facilitates the removal of hyperkeratotic scales in psoriasis, and the use
of petrolatum, emollient creams or topical antipsoriatic regimens has been
found to be beneficial for many patients. Dermatophytes and other infective
microorganisms are easily killed by the heat of the sauna. The pleasing
sensations in the skin after sauna bathing are thus only very seldom
disturbed by itches or some other unpleasant consequence.
IRVCOMM
I was a patient of Drs. Rosenberg and Skinner several years ago in Memphis. I
went thru their entire inventory of methods pertaining to psoriasis. I was on
MASSIVE doses of antibiotic mixtures, none of which was even remotely
successful. As Dr. Rosenberg said to me, "I'm very dissapointed." So was
I!!!
My understanding of current research directions is that many researchers are
looking toward genetics.
Good luck,
Irv--->in Alabama
(and don't give up - ever)
DaveW
>...Sauna bathing
>facilitates the removal of hyperkeratotic scales in psoriasis, and the use
>of petrolatum, emollient creams or topical antipsoriatic regimens has been
What they're saying here is that (1) soaking in a hot tub of water makes
the scales easy to remove, and (2) using moisturizers or topical *drugs*
has been beneficial.
Beyond that, however, hot-water soaking has been known to be useful in
clearing psoriasis, but then again, so have *other* kinds of heat, including
ultrasonic and chemical heating pads:
http://members.aol.com/psorsite/docs/hyperthermia.html
I think in this particular thread, it's important to note that the "gist" of
the
1983 study in the report linked to above doesn't mention microbes of
any sort, but gives a completely different reason for why heating the
skin reduces psoriasis symptoms.
Trapper John
<snip>
> Everyone in my nuclear family has some auto-immune disease, but no
> duplications amongst we five. But there is a family history for each of
the
> ailments. Maybe some glitch in the immune system but different exposures
lead
> to different illnessess? Who knows.........
>
I'm curious. What are the different illnesses ?
--
Trapper John - nospamt...@nospambestweb.net (spam filter in use - remove
no spam twice)
A Guide to this newsgroup can be found at
http://www.pinch.com/skin/guide.html
The charter can be found at
http://www.pinch.com/skin/docs/newsgroup/ass-dp.newgroup
Trapper John
> Ron wrote:
> >...Sauna bathing
> >facilitates the removal of hyperkeratotic scales in psoriasis, and the
use
> >of petrolatum, emollient creams or topical antipsoriatic regimens has
been
> >found to be beneficial for many patients...
>
> What they're saying here is that (1) soaking in a hot tub of water makes
> the scales easy to remove, and (2) using moisturizers or topical *drugs*
> has been beneficial.
>
> Beyond that, however, hot-water soaking has been known to be useful in
> clearing psoriasis, but then again, so have *other* kinds of heat,
including
> ultrasonic and chemical heating pads:
>
> - Dave W.
I'm confused here. Aren't saunas and hot tubs two different things?
Ron Gorgichuk
news:20010308155818...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> Ron (and others),
>
> I was a patient of Drs. Rosenberg and Skinner several years ago in
Memphis. I
> went thru their entire inventory of methods pertaining to psoriasis. I
was on
> MASSIVE doses of antibiotic mixtures, none of which was even remotely
> successful. As Dr. Rosenberg said to me, "I'm very dissapointed." So
was
> I!!!
> My understanding of current research directions is that many researchers
are
> looking toward genetics.
>
Antibiotics may have done no good at all if the cause was viral (HPV) in
your case. Antibiotics are only effective against bacteria, and possibly
some yeast infections.
Ron
DaveW
>I'm confused here. Aren't saunas and hot tubs two different things?
You're not the confused one. I am. I constantly get saunas and hot
tubs confused. Toss in the term "steam room" and it just gets worse.
I think it must be congenital, because I don't like any of the other
explanations for my confusion. [grin]
Likewise, I know the abbreviations "i.e." and "e.g." mean two very
different things, but I cannot seem to keep them straight in my
head. Which is one reason I avoid using either one in my own
writings.
JRStern
>Likewise, I know the abbreviations "i.e." and "e.g." mean two very
>different things, but I cannot seem to keep them straight in my
>head. Which is one reason I avoid using either one in my own
>writings.
i.e. - id est (L, that is). or my English variation - in explanation.
e.g. - exampli gratia (L, for example (free example?)). or my English
variation - example given.
Psoriasis is a pain in the arse, i.e., a bother, e.g., I often smear
nasty topicals all over my pantaloons.
J.
Nann Bell
(in message <20010310023049...@ng-de1.aol.com>):
> Trapper wrote:
>> I'm confused here. Aren't saunas and hot tubs two different things?
>
> You're not the confused one. I am. I constantly get saunas and hot
> tubs confused. Toss in the term "steam room" and it just gets worse.
> I think it must be congenital, because I don't like any of the other
> explanations for my confusion. [grin]
To make it even worse, add whirlpools to the mix.........
Saunas are dry heat - picture rocks on a fire (old style) or on an electric
heating element (modern style).
Steam rooms are wet heat - picture a tropical rain forest, or Florida in
July/August! (speaking as a native Floridian). Great for clearing those
clogged sinuses.
Hot Tubs are just that, a tub full of hot water, but a size intended to hold
several people.
Whirlpools are hot tubs with jets added to give a massage effect. Jacuzzi is
the best known brand name though, according to my husband who used to sell
them, not the highest quality these days. Think of them as "bubbling ponds"
(my husband's name for the whirlpool where we worked out for years).
Thanks for giving me a chance to show off!
Nann
DaveW
>...Psoriasis is a pain in the arse, i.e., a bother, e.g., I often smear
>nasty topicals all over my pantaloons.
Thanks to both you and Nann for the explanations, for others' sakes.
As I said, I believe my confusion stems from a genetic defect. I've
seen both explanations before, many times, and I *still* cannot keep
either one straight.
Heck, about half the time I want to discuss fatty acids, I've gotta go
do a Medline search to remember whether it's omega-3s or omega-6s
which are supposedly good for psoriasis. It depends mostly on the
length of time since I last wrote about them.
On the other hand, the difference between 'affect' and 'effect' is quite
firmly entrenched in my head. Go figure.