as i have repeatedly stated. the theory "that all cases of AS are caused by klebsiella via molecular mimicry."
This is not a
theory; it is the observation that every case thus far studied has been caused by a single pathogen (albeit the confusion will remain because AS can be ‘triggered’ by myriad different agents and agencies). As Ebringer suggests in other situations, if You want to try and find a vegetarian tiger, You are fully welcome to faithfully pet them all. I try and live in the real world, one that William of Ockham once also inhabited.
absolutely it does. science has shown us that many anecdotally successful treatments are based on faulty premises e.g. the blood-type diet, homeopathy etc.
This “science” You speak of…OH, it must be a wonderful thing!
Can You provide even one “aspect” of AS that is not explained by the process of molecular mimicry?Well, sorry to say, this was not a trick question, and You cannot so easily lie Your way out of it, despite Your keenest efforts:
why it occurs more often in males than females, why some patients have raised CRP and ESR and others don't, why ERAP1 is involved in disease susceptibility, why some patients have iritis and some don't, why some people fuse and some people don't, variation in sites of disease activity etc
Molecular mimicry fully explains the gender differences both in frequency as well as presentation, and also why some patients experience iritis while others do not, which is the same question as variation in sites of disease activity. It also offers the best explanation as to why some individuals fuse and others do not.
It does not explain sporadic lack of inflammatory markers any better (and absolutely no worse) than the two other competitive theories I am familiar with.
Molecular mimicry also explains the epiphenomenon of ERAP 1, which alone cannot in fact explain
any of Your challenges.
Your letter grade:
FDemonstrating, once again, that You are guilty of exactly what You have accused me of—You are just not paying attention. And with every statement, You crawl farther out on the limb You are sawing off.
you might want to tell Ebringer that as his diet study doesn't even attempt to account for any of the numerous variables that are potentially changed by his diet protocol i.e. total caloric intake, amount of fruit and vegetables, amount of junk food consumed etc
NONSENSE! You might want to re-read the study and pay attention this time. There may be a quiz at the end. Hint: It is still the “Etiopathogenesis…” paper.
once gain you demonstrate a failure to read any of the relevant literature and understand the complex interactions of host and bacteria in the pathogenesis of disease. in the case of peptic ulcers it is the combination of the presence of h pylori (which is present in 70-90% of cases) and also other environmental factors of which psychological stress is a well known contributor - "An expert panel convened by the Academy of Behavioral Medicine Research concluded that ulcers are not purely an infectious disease and that psychological factors do play a significant role.[1] Researchers are examining how stress might promote H. pylori infection. For example, Helicobacter pylori thrives in an acidic environment, and stress has been demonstrated to cause the production of excess stomach acid. This was supported by a study on mice showing that both long-term water-immersion-restraint stress and H. pylori infection were independently associated with the development of peptic ulcers.[13]"
did you account for the fact that klebsiella shares antibiotic resistance characteristics with many other species of enterobacteriaceae? - "All Klebsiella spp. were naturally resistant or intermediate to amoxicillin, ticarcillin and to antibiotics to which other Enterobacteriaceae are also intrinsically resistant."
No, although I was aware of this fact, it is not relevant to the primary question: Do bowel or even other germs cause AS? I resolved to my own satisfaction that a) A Gram negative germ is involved and b) That pathogen is most likely one that has already been suspected and c) Hijacks (monopolizes) the secondary immune systems of all AS patients ("all" thus far studied).
and yet you don't even bother to read the 'evidence' because you say that it is not within your 'field of interest' and that your curiosity into the pathogenesis of AS is satisfied by level of understanding attained by 1982.
, the theory You are challenging is not within Your field of interest, either, as You are very deeply so unfamiliar with it. It would otherwise be shameful; if You possessed that particular personality characteristic.
i will make more of an effort to share some of it in upcoming posts.
I am holding my breath!
and yet you facetiously claim that it is me who is "THE lone voice".
But You have taken this statement so far from its original context that it must at least be speciously true...for You alone.
:
Ebringer stated he is willing to consume a decent cut of steak from any certified "Mad Cow;" I will be right there with him.
are you sure that you haven't already? it would explain quite a lot.
Boy-HOWDY, am I glad I edited my original response to You!
why does that not surprise me. the scientific community doesn't take any of his hypotheses seriously any more so he writes a book so now his audience is not trained in scientific method, only presented with half the story, and are unable to spot his mistakes and call his bluff. he doesn't need to worry about being caught out cherry picking the studies he cites in his book or omitting the huge body of evidence that contradicts his theory as the content only has to make it past an editor and not a peer-review panel.
The scientific community agrees with Ebringer about three-to-one (based upon pre-election polling); it is the medical industry that ‘conveniently ignores’ Ebringer. They would otherwise have a lot of explaining to do (some legal liabilities, but hey, it only harms their patients now, and later not their pocketbooks).
Ebringer’s book is written FOR SCIENTISTS and he fully expects to be examined by real experts. It will either stand up to this level of scrutiny or it will not. I am taking bets now—care to make a donation, er I mean
wager?!
that should set off major alarm bells. that doesn't sound like they were trying to objectively test their hypothesis. it sounds like they were trying to manipulate the results to confirm their hypothesis. that would make sense considering that subsequent investigations by other researchers without a vested interest in the hypothesis were not able to reproduce their results. nowadays researchers are trained to be aware of cognitive biases such as expectation bias, confirmation bias etc. it sounds like the Ebringer's could have benefited from such training.
I don’t know how familiar You are with basic scientific methods, but Your alarm bells are duly noted.
There was something said once about the “author” Patience Worth. To paraphrase it goes something like this: If this is a HOAX—then You can go and do it, too!
So far all You have contributed is an obvious hoax, easily exposed; You shall have no pie.
