What If You Left Your Fever As Is?

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
If you had an infection, and you had a fever, and you didn't take any medicine such as paracetamol, or any antibiotics, but just rested and taken some supplements such as Vitamin C, what is the worst that can happen to you? Would your body heal itself? Under what circumstances would this approach work? And not work?

I ask because as far as I know, an increased body temperature is our body's reaction to an infection, with the increased temperature providing a condition that will not be favorable for the pathogen, resulting in the neutralization of the effect of the pathogen. It used to be when I was little, that my mom would just wrap me in a blanket, and let me sweat it out underneath the blanket. She would keep me hydrated with 7-Up, which is easier to drink that water, which would taste very bland in fever conditions. I'm not sure what else I took. Oh yes, I remember that our pediatrician would have his own pharmacy that blends syrupy medicine and I would take them. They're red and sweet and cherry-like in flavor. I'm not sure if I took any antibiotics.

I wanted to ask because there is this fear I have, that has been instilled in me through many years of reinforcement, that a runaway fever would be very dangerous, and would make me delirious, which I've seen happen. Perhaps worse things could still happen.

But let's say you were stranded in an island, and you had no access to drugs, but you had food, water, shelter, and clothing. Would the fever just simply run its course, and you'll heal?
 

marsaday

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
481
It makes sense to me in terms of the heat killing off the invader, but lowering temp may be needed if things get out of control or become uncomfortable.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
I just drink milk and take some caffeine, never lose appetite. If it gets too hot I keep it steady with aspirin and cyproheptadine. You want it as high as possible while staying under the limit for damage to the body.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
As long as the fever stays under 106F (41C), it shouldn't be problematic, as long as it goes away in a few days. It's apparently outside heat combined with the fever that can cause you to go above that.
 

kayumochi

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2015
Messages
376
Some years back I read a book with accounts of spontaneous remissions of all kinds of cancer in which the authors asserted that these sorts of remissions were becoming rarer because fevers were not allowed to run their course. It seems most of those documented spontaneous remissions had an acute infection with a fever prior to the remission.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Some years back I read a book with accounts of spontaneous remissions of all kinds of cancer in which the authors asserted that these sorts of remissions were becoming rarer because fevers were not allowed to run their course. It seems most of those documented spontaneous remissions had an acute infection with a fever prior to the remission.
That's really interesting.

The reason I posted is because I'm becoming even more skeptical of common beliefs in the medical establishment. Their view of carbon dioxide as bad, their view of childhood measles as bad and needing vaccination, and now, nothing is off limits to my questioning of many tenets of medical practices. On a higher level, the medical system's belief in a cell membrane and pumps for transport, and how far removed they are from Gilbert Ling's description of the active transport system.

In the hospital, with fevers that go higher than 37.8 C, patients are given paracetamol to lower the temperature. I'm glad they didn't set it any lower. Still, I don't understand their use of 37.8 C as a limit. Is there any science to that? What's the history behind that? @tankasnowgod, do you have some links to why you practice 41C as being your limit in a fever?

Given my experience with hospitals, each visit my mom has keeps building up my belief that their practices have the intent of driving the patient more and more into a downward spiral of a chronic disease state. Instead of the previous goal of instant relief by covering up symptoms, which we know is also not good, at least I didn't doubt the doctors just want us to spend the least time in a hospital. You're off and back to the rat race, so to speak. But it seems the goal now, at least in the Philippine setting, the doctors seem to want to let you stay longer, by giving you more drugs whose intent seemingly is to cause side effects to prolong your stay. When I told the doctor that my mom was having stuffy nose and mucus on her throat, which was a side effect of nebulization with duavent, a mix of ipratropium and salbutamol, I felt she should have stopped the nebulization because those were known side effects. Still, she persisted, even when there was no basis for their use, as these were for patients with asthma and COPD, and my mom had none of those conditions. It was either that my mom was old, and that was "standard treatment" for old people, maybe to prevent occurrence of COPD, or maybe it was because the nebulization with a drug was like the requirement of being in a bar- you had to hold a drink while at a bar, or you're not to stay there.

So, back to the topic of fever, I now ask whether there is much good wisdom in lowering fevers, just because the medical establishment teaches us that fevers are bad. They would use fear of something untoward happening to us. Perhaps there are instances where such occurrences have happened, even if the probability is a mere 0.01 percent. It's just like the requirement of giving our pet cats rabies vaccination, when the chances of cats getting rabies is just so infinitesimally small that you wonder. If the probability is that low and you needed to be covered, and if you applied that sort of thinking to our daily life, we would just be walking on eggshells. We'd be even afraid to breathe.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
From wikipedia:
"
  • 44 °C (111.2 °F) or more – Almost certainly death will occur; however, people have been known to survive up to 46.5 °C (115.7 °F).[17]
  • 43 °C (109.4 °F) – Normally death, or there may be serious brain damage, continuous convulsions and shock. Cardio-respiratory collapse will likely occur.
  • 42 °C (107.6 °F) – Subject may turn pale or remain flushed and red. They may become comatose, be in severe delirium, vomiting, and convulsions can occur. Blood pressure may be high or low and heart rate will be very fast.
  • 41 °C (105.8 °F) – (Medical emergency) – Fainting, vomiting, severe headache, dizziness, confusion, hallucinations, delirium and drowsiness can occur. There may also be palpitations and breathlessness.
  • 40 °C (104.0 °F) – Fainting, dehydration, weakness, vomiting, headache, breathlessness and dizziness may occur as well as profuse sweating. Starts to be life-threatening.
  • 39 °C (102.2 °F) – Severe sweating, flushed and red. Fast heart rate and breathlessness. There may be exhaustion accompanying this. Children and people with epilepsy may be very likely to get convulsions at this point.
  • 38 °C (100.4 °F) – (this is classed as hyperthermia if not caused by a fever) Feeling hot, sweating, feeling thirsty, feeling very uncomfortable, slightly hungry. If this is caused by fever, there may also be chills."
Human body temperature - Wikipedia

I keep my kids home if they throw a fever over 38, take steps to limit fever when it gets over 39, and would consider taking them to dr if it goes above 40 for long and I can't easily get it down myself.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
From wikipedia:
"
  • 44 °C (111.2 °F) or more – Almost certainly death will occur; however, people have been known to survive up to 46.5 °C (115.7 °F).[17]
  • 43 °C (109.4 °F) – Normally death, or there may be serious brain damage, continuous convulsions and shock. Cardio-respiratory collapse will likely occur.
  • 42 °C (107.6 °F) – Subject may turn pale or remain flushed and red. They may become comatose, be in severe delirium, vomiting, and convulsions can occur. Blood pressure may be high or low and heart rate will be very fast.
  • 41 °C (105.8 °F) – (Medical emergency) – Fainting, vomiting, severe headache, dizziness, confusion, hallucinations, delirium and drowsiness can occur. There may also be palpitations and breathlessness.
  • 40 °C (104.0 °F) – Fainting, dehydration, weakness, vomiting, headache, breathlessness and dizziness may occur as well as profuse sweating. Starts to be life-threatening.
  • 39 °C (102.2 °F) – Severe sweating, flushed and red. Fast heart rate and breathlessness. There may be exhaustion accompanying this. Children and people with epilepsy may be very likely to get convulsions at this point.
  • 38 °C (100.4 °F) – (this is classed as hyperthermia if not caused by a fever) Feeling hot, sweating, feeling thirsty, feeling very uncomfortable, slightly hungry. If this is caused by fever, there may also be chills."
Human body temperature - Wikipedia

I keep my kids home if they throw a fever over 38, take steps to limit fever when it gets over 39, and would consider taking them to dr if it goes above 40 for long and I can't easily get it down myself.
Thanks Tara. I was thinking that the fact the body can raise its temperature accounts for something.

The flipside of this is the body not being able to raise its temperature. I observed this in my dying cat. The day before he died, he would not be content staying by me where there was warmth, even when I felt he was very cold. He would keep going to the bathroom, where the floor is cooler. I think the same phenomenom was recounted to me by a friend, this time with what she observed with her dying brother.

We tend to look at one side with fear, and the other side without. Carbon dioxide, cholesterol, temperature - all saying too high is bad, but never any mention of the danger of "too low."
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I have to say the same thing about sugar. Diabetes - bad because there's too much blood sugar. Hypoglycemia - many don't even know what it is. When I was looking at the side effects of a parenteral nutrition product, it mentioned hyperglycemia, but not hypoglycemia; where one leads to the other, as hyperglycemia will lead to an insulin response that leads to hypoglycemia. It's just as if the medical narrative is only about the danger high blood sugar, and not about low blood sugar.

I'm sure there are more examples of such bias. I mentioned only four.

I have to admit that I look at the wikipedia entry with a lot of skepticism, given the stranglehold the mainstream has on editing it. I understand that there is a strong fear in us, to run counter to the mainstream because it's not easy to find alternate views that we can feel comfortable applying on ourselves, either because it is so counterculture, or because there is too much noise in the alternative area that to gain clarity is difficult.

We may have to resort to old truths that don't show up in our google searches, and have to rummage through old medical textbooks written in the days where the propaganda machine has not been fully revved up. Books like McGavack;s "Thyroid" is an example, which Peat has mentioned.
 
J

James IV

Guest
I have to say the same thing about sugar. Diabetes - bad because there's too much blood sugar. Hypoglycemia - many don't even know what it is. When I was looking at the side effects of a parenteral nutrition product, it mentioned hyperglycemia, but not hypoglycemia; where one leads to the other, as hyperglycemia will lead to an insulin response that leads to hypoglycemia. It's just as if the medical narrative is only about the danger high blood sugar, and not about low blood sugar.

I'm sure there are more examples of such bias. I mentioned only four.

I have to admit that I look at the wikipedia entry with a lot of skepticism, given the stranglehold the mainstream has on editing it. I understand that there is a strong fear in us, to run counter to the mainstream because it's not easy to find alternate views that we can feel comfortable applying on ourselves, either because it is so counterculture, or because there is too much noise in the alternative area that to gain clarity is difficult.

We may have to resort to old truths that don't show up in our google searches, and have to rummage through old medical textbooks written in the days where the propaganda machine has not been fully revved up. Books like McGavack;s "Thyroid" is an example, which Peat has mentioned.

True Low blood sugar is really rare, and not a danger for the majority of people. We have tons of mechanisms to keep blood sugar up, and none to bring it down. Insulin can lower it, but it's a secondary effect.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
True Low blood sugar is really rare, and not a danger for the majority of people. We have tons of mechanisms to keep blood sugar up, and none to bring it down. Insulin can lower it, but it's a secondary effect.
I would have to disagree with you on low blood sugar being rare. Rare would be something like having hemophilia. Low blood sugar lowers immunity significantly. It also easily leads to death of nerve cells when combined with the effects of excitotoxic substances such as some antibiotics.

I was he constantly having flu as much as twice a year since childhood. Nothing I did ever came close to fixing my susceptibility to it. It afeted my test scores in school, as low sugar makes it difficult to think.

When I finally found out hypoglycemia to be the culprit, fixing it gave me a newfound enjoyment of life. I believe many people could really benefit from doctors properly diagnosing hypoglycemia.

Yet, I had to plead with my primary doctor to authorize my GTT (glucose tolerance test) and he relented. Still, he pronounced me normal. I was better interpreting the results and I went ahead fixing my hypoglycemia.

It's the same thing with hypothyroid. Doctors get it wrong using an incomplete set of endocrine tests. Many people remain sick because of poor diagnosis.

What you're saying seems to be giving license to doctors to give short shrift to conditions that are not identified as a top concern, but you forget that it is not the expectation of patients that doctors trivialize their condition because it is outside the top tier.
 
J

James IV

Guest
I would have to disagree with you on low blood sugar being rare. Rare would be something like having hemophilia. Low blood sugar lowers immunity significantly. It also easily leads to death of nerve cells when combined with the effects of excitotoxic substances such as some antibiotics.

I was he constantly having flu as much as twice a year since childhood. Nothing I did ever came close to fixing my susceptibility to it. It afeted my test scores in school, as low sugar makes it difficult to think.

When I finally found out hypoglycemia to be the culprit, fixing it gave me a newfound enjoyment of life. I believe many people could really benefit from doctors properly diagnosing hypoglycemia.

Yet, I had to plead with my primary doctor to authorize my GTT (glucose tolerance test) and he relented. Still, he pronounced me normal. I was better interpreting the results and I went ahead fixing my hypoglycemia.

It's the same thing with hypothyroid. Doctors get it wrong using an incomplete set of endocrine tests. Many people remain sick because of poor diagnosis.

What you're saying seems to be giving license to doctors to give short shrift to conditions that are not identified as a top concern, but you forget that it is not the expectation of patients that doctors trivialize their condition because it is outside the top tier.

If your blood sugars were normal, why do you say you had hypoglycemia?
I have all my clients monitor blood sugar for a week when they come to me. For some reason everyone thinks they have hypoglycemia, simply because eating makes them feel better. Almost all the folks I talk to claim to have hypoglycemia, and only one of them ever has, and he was eating less than 1000 calories a day for many years. In fact, most of them have hyperglycemia, and experience hypo symptoms when their sugars drop to normal levels, likely due to insulin resistance.

This is my experience. Obviously I'm not stating this as universal truth. But our physiology is definitely designed to keep sufficient glucose in our blood in many different ways.
 

dfspcc20

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
633
Some years back I read a book with accounts of spontaneous remissions of all kinds of cancer in which the authors asserted that these sorts of remissions were becoming rarer because fevers were not allowed to run their course. It seems most of those documented spontaneous remissions had an acute infection with a fever prior to the remission.

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.
 
OP
yerrag

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
If your blood sugars were normal, why do you say you had hypoglycemia
My doctor said I am 'normal' and not hypoglycemic. I disagree. Like I said earlier, the 5hr glucose curve indicates hypoglycemia.

You may be inferring that my doctor was right. I had not had a flu for 17 years after I fixed my hypoglycemia. Not that my body wasn't anymore going to be free from being low on sugar, it's that I could prevent that condition by a lifestyle change. Considering that I was having flu twice a year to not having it for a long time, it made a very good impact on me.

Over the years, I've made improvements on the blood sugar regulation front. From being low on sugar 3 hours after a meal, I could now fast all day and not be low on sugar. Yet, this balance can easily be thrown out of whack when I eat glucose such as candy or bread or rice without protein, but it would not happen when I drink fruit juice or honey by itself.
 
J

James IV

Guest
My doctor said I am 'normal' and not hypoglycemic. I disagree. Like I said earlier, the 5hr glucose curve indicates hypoglycemia.

You may be inferring that my doctor was right. I had not had a flu for 17 years after I fixed my hypoglycemia. Not that my body wasn't anymore going to be free from being low on sugar, it's that I could prevent that condition by a lifestyle change. Considering that I was having flu twice a year to not having it for a long time, it made a very good impact on me.

Over the years, I've made improvements on the blood sugar regulation front. From being low on sugar 3 hours after a meal, I could now fast all day and not be low on sugar. Yet, this balance can easily be thrown out of whack when I eat glucose such as candy or bread or rice without protein, but it would not happen when I drink fruit juice or honey by itself.

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom