Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
I can only talk about things from an intellectual perspective. In terms of actual treatment, that is a lot more complicated, and seems o depends on the particular individual's context.
The attached paper gives a brief overview of the topic. An easier explanation would be:
- Helminths don't want to get killed by their host.
- Helminths are very ancient, and have evolved ways to not get killed by their host, without killing the host; They want the host to survive, while taking its nutrients.
- The areas which they reside in humans are tightly couple to the human immune system (eg: GI tract).
- They seem to modulate the immune system to prevent themselves from being killed.
- The happy side effect for humans is more controlled immune regulation toward foreign substances in the gut.
- It could be argued that humans evolved in the context of chronic low-grade helminth infection; they are "natural immune regulators".
Note of course that too many worms are obviously "bad", from the perspective that they take over too much of the immune response to gut-borne substances. This is the case when you see infections numbering in the thousands of worms. For reference, I derived all the benefit from just a total of 25 hookworms and whipworms.
The absence of chronic helminth infection today is likely due to the wearing of shoes, and the better sanitation conditions. We are no longer exposed to the shallow latrines, damp conditions, and barefoot infection pathways necessary for their infection.
Actual treatment seems complicated, since it is a constant interaction between the parasite and one's immune system. People who are already sick, and don't have the ability to regulate their own immune system in the first place, don't seem to do well with further modulation by helminths.
Legality of such treatment is also a hurdle to cross. I acquired mine from some grey zone supplier whom a friend my mine knew, and whom manages to cultivate the worms in Mexico.
As usual, I don't have any treatment recommendations.
----
Yes, I will disagree with Peat. @Amazoniac roughly described Peat's perspective, and I would agree with that regarding the more virulent, acute infections (which are usually tropical pathogens).
But for chronic infections, from what I've seen in real-world scenarios in today's world, that is false. (emphasis on "Today's World", see sidenote indent block below)
Strong metabolism begets cell intelligence, which then begets a strong metabolism -- see Guenther Albretch-Buehller's work on cell intelligence and genomic expression, which explains how light communication signals generated via metabolism, are the source of cell communication and hence better decision making over time (ie: intelligence).
This is a "closed circuit" in many ways, and unless compromised by a side channel, should not fail. IMO, this explains why "naturally strong" individuals never seem to be compromised despite the stressors put on them. I use "strong" here to refer to the ability for mitochondria to maintain their function, despite external stressors.
As a sidenote (without any proof whatsoever): people have been becoming innately weaker over time across the globe, and there is not much one can do about the "innate potential" you'd been given at birth (by your maternal mitochondrial line).
A compromised mother will always pass a "weakened mitochondrial line" down to their children, who will then be weaker again when they pass their genes to their children. This leads to a downward spiral.
We can speculate on the causes, though I am personally less interested in the exact details of these consistent environmental stressors over time. I remain more interested in how to cope despite being a "weaker" person.
NOTE: it is my opinion then, that many of the things that strong people can get away with apply to weaker people. Peat himself was born decently robust. He can benefit from seemingly miraculous Pregnenolone or DHEA treatment recoveries, because his cells are already strong enough to know how to deal with the signal of these youth hormones.
Hormones are just a signal to the cell. Hormones do not do the actual work to "re-establish youth". All they do is tell the body that "it is OK to turn on the youth programs now". Clinically speaking, we are interested in Hormone Response, and weak people do not respond as robustly to hormones (just ask the people on 200mg of progesterone a day, and seeing little effects).
BOOK: I think that 'Human Longevity' by Dave Valentine is one of the best summaries of mitochondrial function and its relation to health and longevity. It makes the strong case for avoidance of PUFA, and I still see methodologies like "PUFA depletion" as being complementary to infection eradication.
Therefore why I posed the question, "Why is Metabolism screwed in the first place?". Something has to come in and screw up metabolism at a very basic level, and through entire systems of the body, sabotaging metabolism at the intra-cellular pathway in which it depends on for production.
A small stressor is not enough -- intelligent cells will just clean it up, and that includes stuff like PUFA stress, to which a "smart" cell can decide not incorporate into membranes (which is in fact, what many of the centenarians with FOXO mutations do -- lower mitochondrial PUFA per unit PUFA intake as compared to people without that "good mutation").
Ancient invasive organisms have that capacity to work through covert means and hijack the entire system, while keeping the organism alive, albeit in a chronically compromised state. It is in their best interest for the host to remain alive.
Personally, I do not want to ignore an attack vector like that.
....
Yep, from the attached paper:
