What If You Left Your Fever As Is?

[Dessert_All_Day]

An infection? It depends on what kind. You'll heal in time from most infections without the need for modern medicine. But if it's bad, why risk it?

 

[Such_Saturation]

An infection? It depends on what kind. You'll heal in time from most infections without the need for modern medicine. But if it's bad, why risk it?

True... in my case I was referring to the flu, if you have wounds or food poisoning it's a bit different...

 

[yerrag]

Im not saying your doctor was correct, I guess I'm just not following why you and your doctor had different views? You either have clinically low blood sugar, or you don't. Reactive hypoglycemia is different than fasting hypoglycemia. Fasting hypoglycemia is pretty rare, like I said. Even keto dieters don't usually get fasting hypoglycemia, so it's not a lack of dietary carbs. And as I stated, reactive hypoglycemia isn't usually hypoglycemia at all in my observations, it's more falling glycemic numbers that cause the symptoms, without actually ever becoming truly hypoglycemic.
If you get hypoglycemia symptoms from glucose heavy foods without protein to stimulate more insulin , and do not with fructose heavy foods, that's a sign of insulin resistance, not hypoglycemia. If it was hypoglycemia the glucose foods would help.
It sounds to me like you have insulin resistance, leading to lack of energy in the cells, not in the bloodstream.
May I ask if you are lean in your midsection, visible abs?

Now I'm getting confused myself. I thought I understood insulin resistance and hypoglycemia pretty well, until now.

Insulin resistance is the condition where the body keeps producing insulin even when blood sugar levels are not considered high enough (in the normal sense) to stimulate an insulin response, correct? And hypoglycemia is the condition where blood sugar gets low. Right? So technically, one can be both insulin resistant and hypoglycemic? It doesn't have to be one or the other, does it? But one can be hypoglycemic without being insulin resistant as well, correct? But you seem to be saying that one can be insulin resistant without being hypoglycemic. Or am I misinterpreting you here?

I consider myself to not be insulin resistant. Taking foods with glucose easily raise my blood sugar to high levels, and high blood sugar levels would elicit a strong insulin response. This strong response causes my blood sugar to drop, not to normal levels, but to low blood sugar levels. That is why I am hypoglycemic, and not insulin resistant.

At a condition with low blood sugar, my immunity goes down. I get a sore throat, or get hiccups, and I would start to sneeze, and have runny nose. I would then have a fever, and flu. It's gotten better these days, as all I get is allergic rhinitis. I also get sleepy, with a lack of energy. Or get hungry. Or I would get easily irritated. On long drives, I start to shake at the 3 hour mark. If I weren't hypoglycemic, I wouldn't have such low blood sugar to bring about these problems.

I'm not insulin resistant though. I would be having problems such as obesity and overweight. I've never had these problems.

That is how I came about on thinking about my blood sugar condition.

To answer your question, my midsection is lean, no problem with my abs bulging. But it might have bulged, if I would just graze all day, which meant to eat every 3 hours. Then, I would eat brown rice and meat, and I wouldn't need to eat so often. And avoid sweets and bread in between meals. But I think after being off PUFAs for so long, even longer than 4 years, I'm making a comeback eating regular white rice, and I'm taking it well, but I last longer it seems eating brown rice. I would not feel hunger at all with brown rice, but with white rice I can feel it still.

 

[tara]

Fevers don't kill you, whatever is causing the fever kills you.

Depends how high it gets. Normal fevers under 40-41 C are usually self-limiting and seldom cause long term harm. Occasionally they get out of control and get higher, and yes, they can kill.

 

[yerrag]

Depends how high it gets. Normal fevers under 40-41 C are usually self-limiting and seldom cause long term harm. Occasionally they get out of control and get higher, and yes, they can kill.

In what way will the fever kill you? I had to pose this question as we don't usually see death by high fever. It's usually arrested by medication.

On the other hand, I've seen death at low temperatures, just that the low temperature could just be the symptom of failing organs already.

I suppose suppressing the temperature of fevers isn't likely to be a cause of death, but would it cause an illness to be prolonged? Is it possible that it could also make recovery take longer than if the fever were allowed to run its course. But it's scary because letting a fever run its course is associated with the idea of being passive and allowing the body to deteriorate to a point of no return. I'd rather be wrong erring on the side of caution of lowering body temps than erring on the side of recklessness allowing the body to heat up further?

 

[tara]

In what way will the fever kill you? I had to pose this question as we don't usually see death by high fever. It's usually arrested by medication.

On the other hand, I've seen death at low temperatures, just that the low temperature could just be the symptom of failing organs already.

My not-very-detailed lay understanding of it is that an awful lot of complex biochemical reactions needed to sustain life can only occur at a life-sustaining rate withing a suitable temperature range. Too low or too high for too long and they can't all work together adequately in a synchronised way. But what exactly the critical mechanism is for over-heating death I don't know. Along the way, there's the potential for blood pressure to get out of range, convulsions, cardio-respiratory collapse, brain damage. I wonder if it has something to do with the bcells having difficulty maintaining their structure (and therefore their function) when the temps get too high?
I absolutely agree that hypothermia can kill too.

I suppose suppressing the temperature of fevers isn't likely to be a cause of death, but would it cause an illness to be prolonged? Is it possible that it could also make recovery take longer than if the fever were allowed to run its course. But it's scary because letting a fever run its course is associated with the idea of being passive and allowing the body to deteriorate to a point of no return. I'd rather be wrong erring on the side of caution of lowering body temps than erring on the side of recklessness allowing the body to heat up further?

Yes, I think temperature can suppress the body's ability to fight an infection, and sometimes that can prolong an illness.
My approach would be to not treat it as a yes/no question, but as a matter of degree. Letting a fever happen - up to a point - but not letting it get high enough to get too distressing or dangerous.

 

[yerrag]

It's a tricky subject, isn't it? At least for us. On one hand I don't want to diss mainstream ideas just because they're mainstream, but on the other hand I still want to ask questions about inconsistencies between theory and practice. We're left to choosing between established rule of thumbs and at best our gut feel.

Take the case of pneumonia, as this is one respiratory infection that has claimed many lives. Many a few lives would have been saved if temperatures were allowed to go higher, who knows? What if you were in a deserted island and there were no medicine to control your temperature? Would you survive the ordeal? I guess that would also depend on how strong your body is to begin with, such that your body on its own could find a way to recover from pneumonia. Unfortunately, someone has to blog about this ordeal and live or die to tell such a story. And it would still remain anecdotal no matter what happens.

 

[tara]

Take the case of pneumonia, as this is one respiratory infection that has claimed many lives. Many a few lives would have been saved if temperatures were allowed to go higher, who knows? What if you were in a deserted island and there was no medicine to control your temperature? Would you survive the ordeal? I guess that would also depend on how strong your body is to begin with, such that your body on its own could find a way to recover from pneumonia.

I don't know how pneumonia is usually treated, other than antibiotics.
I know pneumonia is common amongst elders. Is it common for fever-suppressing drugs to be used for pneumonia when fever is not very high?

 

[yerrag]

I don't know how pneumonia is usually treated, other than antibiotics.
I know pneumonia is common amongst elders. Is it common for fever-suppressing drugs to be used for pneumonia when fever is not very high?

Yes. Any temperature above 37.8 C and paracetamol comes to the rescue. And certainly, antibiotics.

The antibiotics seems like a necessary evil. The evil there is that some of them would cause nerve problems, and when these problems affect the sensorium, it makes a person's eating difficult, as the sensorium somehow becomes unresponsive, and makes swallowing difficult, if not impossible. It also raises the risk of aspiration, which would lead to another bout with pneumonia. So I had to make sure my mom takes plenty of magnesium and niacinamide, sugar and coconut oil, as these are nerve protective. But for those who don't know, the patients face a future where she cannot swallow, and end up on feeding tubes. Perhaps there is an alternative to antibiotics. Perhaps there is none.

Still, the need to tap the body's abilities to fight infection shouldn't be ignored. Telling the body to stop increasing temperature to fight infection seems to me one of the many ways modern medicine makes our body less resilient.

 

[James IV]

Now I'm getting confused myself. I thought I understood insulin resistance and hypoglycemia pretty well, until now.

Insulin resistance is the condition where the body keeps producing insulin even when blood sugar levels are not considered high enough (in the normal sense) to stimulate an insulin response, correct? And hypoglycemia is the condition where blood sugar gets low. Right? So technically, one can be both insulin resistant and hypoglycemic? It doesn't have to be one or the other, does it? But one can be hypoglycemic without being insulin resistant as well, correct? But you seem to be saying that one can be insulin resistant without being hypoglycemic. Or am I misinterpreting you here?

I consider myself to not be insulin resistant. Taking foods with glucose easily raise my blood sugar to high levels, and high blood sugar levels would elicit a strong insulin response. This strong response causes my blood sugar to drop, not to normal levels, but to low blood sugar levels. That is why I am hypoglycemic, and not insulin resistant.

At a condition with low blood sugar, my immunity goes down. I get a sore throat, or get hiccups, and I would start to sneeze, and have runny nose. I would then have a fever, and flu. It's gotten better these days, as all I get is allergic rhinitis. I also get sleepy, with a lack of energy. Or get hungry. Or I would get easily irritated. On long drives, I start to shake at the 3 hour mark. If I weren't hypoglycemic, I wouldn't have such low blood sugar to bring about these problems.

I'm not insulin resistant though. I would be having problems such as obesity and overweight. I've never had these problems.

That is how I came about on thinking about my blood sugar condition.

To answer your question, my midsection is lean, no problem with my abs bulging. But it might have bulged, if I would just graze all day, which meant to eat every 3 hours. Then, I would eat brown rice and meat, and I wouldn't need to eat so often. And avoid sweets and bread in between meals. But I think after being off PUFAs for so long, even longer than 4 years, I'm making a comeback eating regular white rice, and I'm taking it well, but I last longer it seems eating brown rice. I would not feel hunger at all with brown rice, but with white rice I can feel it still.

Ok. Well I hope you continue to improve your health!

 

[James IV]

Depends how high it gets. Normal fevers under 40-41 C are usually self-limiting and seldom cause long term harm. Occasionally they get out of control and get higher, and yes, they can kill.

Maybe. But I still don't think it's the fever itself, I think it's the chemical environment creating the fever that can kill... semantics.

 

[tara]

Maybe. But I still don't think it's the fever itself, I think it's the chemical environment creating the fever that can kill... semantics.

Cooking denatures cells if they get hot enough, whatever chemicals are around.

 

[James IV]

Cooking denatures cells if they get hot enough, whatever chemicals are around.

But why would the body cook itself?

 

[tara]

But why would the body cook itself?

It doesn't usually - the control systems mostly work quite well. It's the rare exception when the control systems get messed up.

 

[yerrag]

It doesn't usually - the control systems mostly work quite well. It's the rare exception when the control systems get messed up.

How does the control system get messed up? I think this comes down to the doctor knowing the context of his patient. Knowing that context, doctor would be on the lookout for areas where the body is deficient on. While providing the support for recovery, he would be making special emphasis on these weak areas. For example, if the person is hypothyroid, he would probably make sure he provides enough carbon dioxide. Breathing carbogen or bag breathing or wearing surgical , drinking water with baking soda, or taking IV of a baking soda solution would ensure the blood has enough carbon dioxide to ensure adequate oxygenation of the tissues. This will ensure there is no oxygen deficit in the tissues, as oxygen requirements are increased during a fever, as a higher metabolism enables the body to increase its temperature. Not running into a deficit of oxygen keeps the metabolism as efficient as possible, on the respiratory oxidative route, instead of other pathways that produce lactic acid and less CO2, and brings about stressful responses that get in the way of recovery.

Ensuring the right environment for recovery for the body will enable phagocytes, for example to destroy foreign cells that are causing the infection. Once the infection is under control, the body can down-regulate and lower its temperature.

Aside from ensuring proper oxygenation, during this time, the body needs to be supported by adequate sugar (IV), minerals (salt especially), protective hormones, and even thyroid. The brain needs to be protected from excitotoxic effects and the use of magnesium, niacinamide, and coconut oil would help. If the body is not well nourished prior to sickness, it may not have enough stores of macronutrients and vitamins and minerals and needs to be supplemented. The use of red light would also help support and boost mitochondrial activity, so that energy production would not be impaired so much as to limit the body's ability to heal.

This means the patient has to be outside the hospital setting, so that the use of specialized drugs are minimized and in their place substances of more general use (called "dirty" by the mainstream medical people) can be used instead. Access to tests should still be available through independent third-party providers.

The only viable place to do this is home, as there are no alternative hospitals available. The state may make alternative hospitals illegal, but they can't make homes illegal. And you can't sue yourself.

 

[tara]

How does the control system get messed up?

Dunno. There are some common patterns to how people's systems malfunction, but when things get damaged, it can be in different ways.
What we know is that:
- People often get fevers when they are fighting infections. They can usually recover without medication.
- Sometimes people get harmful infections that they can't throw off themselves, and they benefit from antibiotics to help get the infection under control.
- Occasionally people get fevers that go too high, and if they go really, really high, they can get brain damage or die. But that's not usually the case under 40C.

Maybe someone who is already weak, or very estrogen dominant, or prone to epilepsy, or some other conditions, might have a lower threshold of tolerance for fever, and a lower temperature limit would be reasonable? But that's beyond my knowledge.

minerals (salt especially)

I would guess that electrolytes including sodium would be checked if someone is having acute difficulties?

 

[yerrag]

Dunno. There are some common patterns to how people's systems malfunction, but when things get damaged, it can be in different ways.
What we know is that:
- People often get fevers when they are fighting infections. They can usually recover without medication.
- Sometimes people get harmful infections that they can't throw off themselves, and they benefit from antibiotics to help get the infection under control.
- Occasionally people get fevers that go too high, and if they go really, really high, they can get brain damage or die. But that's not usually the case under 40C.

Maybe someone who is already weak, or very estrogen dominant, or prone to epilepsy, or some other conditions, might have a lower threshold of tolerance for fever, and a lower temperature limit would be reasonable? But that's beyond my knowledge.


I would guess that electrolytes including sodium would be checked if someone is having acute difficulties?

I wonder how doctors during war conditions cope when they run out of supplies. Would they know how to these days? I remember that coconut water was used for IV in the Philippines. The coco water is isotonic, and is clean as long as it doesn't get contaminated while removing the water from the nut. I tried it on my cat and the cat took it, but it wasn't for long because he had a hopeless kidney condition.

 

[kayumochi]

Was it related to William Coley and "Coley's Toxins"?

Coley's toxins - Wikipedia

Basically he got sarcomas to go into remission my forcing a high fever.

Spontaneous Remission: An Annotated Bibliography: Brendan O'Regan, Caryle Hirshberg: 9780943951171: Amazon.com: Books

 

[yerrag]

Spontaneous Remission: An Annotated Bibliography: Brendan O'Regan, Caryle Hirshberg: 9780943951171: Amazon.com: Books

Thanks Kayumochi!

One reviewer (Patricia Andersen) states:

"The rare but spectacular remission of cancer persists in the annals of medicine...no one doubts the validity of the observation..." Lewis Thomas, M.D., Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital.
This book, written by experts in the mind-body connections, gives 1574 citations of cases of malignant tumors that either completely disappeared or partially disappeared. The sp;endid documentation of this book helps bolster your spirit when you or a loved one has been diagnosed with cancer. How does a complete remission happen? Special herbs? Chemo? Or is it all just a hoax?
The authors do note that a majority of the folks that have a spontaneous remission have had an acute infection with a fever prior to the remission, The theory is that the antibodies are just working "overtime" as it were, to defeat the tumor as well as the infection. This news is not particularly soothing however. Chemotherapy and radiation decreases the body's immune system, so high fever or an acute infection would be treated very aggressively in a cancer patient.
The authors also believe that spontaneous remissions are decreasing in frequency. They feel that this is in part to the use of antibiotics. Again, if a high fever would start the immune system into overdrive, an antibiotic would prevent that action.
There is much to be learned about spontaneous remission and this book is a very good place to start. It's well researched and documented and you don't need to be a M.D. or an oncology nurse to understand the information that is presented. I recommend this book highly for those of you interested in spontaneous remission case studies.

[boldfaced by me]

Ordered a used book.

 

[kayumochi]

Thanks Kayumochi!

One reviewer (Patricia Andersen) states:

"The rare but spectacular remission of cancer persists in the annals of medicine...no one doubts the validity of the observation..." Lewis Thomas, M.D., Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital.
This book, written by experts in the mind-body connections, gives 1574 citations of cases of malignant tumors that either completely disappeared or partially disappeared. The sp;endid documentation of this book helps bolster your spirit when you or a loved one has been diagnosed with cancer. How does a complete remission happen? Special herbs? Chemo? Or is it all just a hoax?
The authors do note that a majority of the folks that have a spontaneous remission have had an acute infection with a fever prior to the remission, The theory is that the antibodies are just working "overtime" as it were, to defeat the tumor as well as the infection. This news is not particularly soothing however. Chemotherapy and radiation decreases the body's immune system, so high fever or an acute infection would be treated very aggressively in a cancer patient.
The authors also believe that spontaneous remissions are decreasing in frequency. They feel that this is in part to the use of antibiotics. Again, if a high fever would start the immune system into overdrive, an antibiotic would prevent that action.
There is much to be learned about spontaneous remission and this book is a very good place to start. It's well researched and documented and you don't need to be a M.D. or an oncology nurse to understand the information that is presented. I recommend this book highly for those of you interested in spontaneous remission case studies.

[boldfaced by me]

Ordered a used book.

It is worth a read. I had a copy a few years ago but I think I gave it to Goodwill ... or the trash can.