On 2/9/07, Russell McMahon wrote: > > > As you fix the "easy" problems and turn to the hard ones you meet the > unrepresentative people, and if that happens to include 'you and > yours' you are not going to be at all happy with a statistical > treatment. > It's only statistical because we still have a poor understanding of the biology involved. This is rapidly improving, and has been over the long term. We're a long way ahead of the days of Galen, who thought that women had two wombs, one for male children and the other for female. The scientific method is key in determining how the body works, and as our understanding progresses healing the body becomes more and more analagous to repairing any other machine. > > Her immune system was apparently exceptionally effective and doing a > good job of attacking the giardia. > I honestly have to question this statement, though. If her immune system was being exceptionally effective, then why was she still suffering from it? I can't help but expect that if this is the case, a visit to the doctor wouldn't have been necessary. > The metrnidazol killed the > remaining giardia and her immune system, robbed of its enemy and with > its systems running on full blast, went on a rampage and attacked ALL > her major muscles. > I admit my knowledge of the biology is limited. I have heard similar notions mentioned before, including the idea that an antibiotic *kills* the immune system. I must confess that I have never understood how this is supposed to work. While the analogy on the surface seems sensible, what little I've read on the subject would seem to indicate that it doesn't bear scrutiny. I would very much appreciate comment from anyone on the list who has more insight. -- Paul Anderson VE3HOP wackyvorlon@gmail.com http://www.oldschoolhacker.com "May the electromotive force be with you." -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist