Interesting observation Drareg. "....she can't take substances that may shift her paradigm away from the rigid meaning...."
Too painful for the ego? Haul it off to the dump.
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
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.
Wooo's "Progesterone, The Master Hormone Myth"
- Thread starter Hitoshi
- Start date
Too painful for the ego? Haul it off to the dump.
Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
Right,she is locked into a meaning but knows something is wrong,Peat mentioned this in Mind and Tissue,the resistance to change,what she has experienced in life is her "meaning". She builds expectations of reality around said meaning,expectations are not met.
Peat has mentioned many times some damage cannot be undone,layers and layers of meaning over decades cannot be unraveled with our current understanding,some might say many humans temporarily go into this state,look at soldiers and the lengths they went to during war,invasions in particular,I currently don't agree with this,not every soldier expected what they got in war,that's the trick of the establishment,the army attracts many pathological types and some were primed for a certain environment to bring it out,look into Peats points on certain culture being psychopathological in nature as an example of priming.
Not everyone in the Army are "ok" with what they have done,a realisation through "experience",this experience becomes their meaning and they can get locked into it,we see this with PTSD, some go back for more and thrive on it for years but eventually they too fall on ill health in many cases.
The complexity of layers built up is stifling the flow of energy through these people,everything has to go through their personal window of meaning,through their lense,this is done in spite of knowing the lense is not right hence the complaints of depression at some point or medicating to dampen the aspect of conciousness highlighting the behaviour,"medicating bias".
The energy to act influences the actions and behaviour,this gives experience and then adds to meaning,a reinforcing loop that gets worse with age as the actions don't change,their is still potential to change though while young,if life was longer maybe all could change.
In some hardcore cases it's full blown savagery and unfortunately mild cases even have this potential under certain circumstances,think genocides.
We need to try undertand what consciousness is and where it is coming from,if it's pattern formation with natural fractal like simple drives underneath then this could point to a more coherent way to act,(natures fractals are much more dynamic than computer generation) having a structure that handle more flow should allow you to experience more reality,will we have grown an additional part of the brain 10,000 years from now for example?
The flow animates structure,what holds it in place? What holds it in place may not be divided as things appear here with your heart looking different to the liver etc.
To unlock this Peat mentions substances that can help shift your view for a period,the rest then is up to you to get experience of another meaning which requires acting in the environment and energy to do so,initially you may need a touch more energy but with time the flow requires less energy because the structure is more set through experience,still changeable.
Acting socially is key which is why his recent interviews and advice are inclined that way,he is picking up on a vibe from emails imo.
Regardless of how much progesterone you take personal windows of meaning are still influencing your structure.
Not being able to see and act on this reinforcing loop is not intelligent,what is intelligent is a former soldier getting help,empathising with his victims and moving forward with understanding,the opposite is present with rigid types who attempt to show faux intelligence through the lenses of rigid meaning,reinforcing the loop,hamster on a verbal and vague wheel.
Peat has mentioned many times some damage cannot be undone,layers and layers of meaning over decades cannot be unraveled with our current understanding,some might say many humans temporarily go into this state,look at soldiers and the lengths they went to during war,invasions in particular,I currently don't agree with this,not every soldier expected what they got in war,that's the trick of the establishment,the army attracts many pathological types and some were primed for a certain environment to bring it out,look into Peats points on certain culture being psychopathological in nature as an example of priming.
Not everyone in the Army are "ok" with what they have done,a realisation through "experience",this experience becomes their meaning and they can get locked into it,we see this with PTSD, some go back for more and thrive on it for years but eventually they too fall on ill health in many cases.
The complexity of layers built up is stifling the flow of energy through these people,everything has to go through their personal window of meaning,through their lense,this is done in spite of knowing the lense is not right hence the complaints of depression at some point or medicating to dampen the aspect of conciousness highlighting the behaviour,"medicating bias".
The energy to act influences the actions and behaviour,this gives experience and then adds to meaning,a reinforcing loop that gets worse with age as the actions don't change,their is still potential to change though while young,if life was longer maybe all could change.
In some hardcore cases it's full blown savagery and unfortunately mild cases even have this potential under certain circumstances,think genocides.
We need to try undertand what consciousness is and where it is coming from,if it's pattern formation with natural fractal like simple drives underneath then this could point to a more coherent way to act,(natures fractals are much more dynamic than computer generation) having a structure that handle more flow should allow you to experience more reality,will we have grown an additional part of the brain 10,000 years from now for example?
The flow animates structure,what holds it in place? What holds it in place may not be divided as things appear here with your heart looking different to the liver etc.
To unlock this Peat mentions substances that can help shift your view for a period,the rest then is up to you to get experience of another meaning which requires acting in the environment and energy to do so,initially you may need a touch more energy but with time the flow requires less energy because the structure is more set through experience,still changeable.
Acting socially is key which is why his recent interviews and advice are inclined that way,he is picking up on a vibe from emails imo.
Regardless of how much progesterone you take personal windows of meaning are still influencing your structure.
Not being able to see and act on this reinforcing loop is not intelligent,what is intelligent is a former soldier getting help,empathising with his victims and moving forward with understanding,the opposite is present with rigid types who attempt to show faux intelligence through the lenses of rigid meaning,reinforcing the loop,hamster on a verbal and vague wheel.
whodathunkit
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 777
*Never mind*. Life's too short. :)
Phew. Excellent discourse Drareg!! Thanks for this furtive food for thought.
Mjhl85
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Messages
- 119
and what about your rigidity?
There are studies showing progesterone has direct anti-viral effects. As I mentioned in another post, one of the main protective effects of progesterone is simply by its opposition to cortisol and estrogen and the immunodeficiency they cause.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC416348/pdf/iai00287-0019.pdf
But again, direct anti-viral effects are known for a large number of viruses including the herpes family and the potentially lethal orthopox family.
Influence of Progesterone on Orthopox Viruses in vitro and in vivo
"...The influence of progesterone on virus-host-interactions was investigated for orthopox viruses in vitro and in vivo. Virus induced cytopathogenic effects in Vero cells were markedly reduced in presence of the hormone. Dose dependent restriction of viral replication was evaluated by infectivity titration and immunological antigen determination. Progesterone concentrations of 5μg/ml tissue culture medium depressed the production of new viral particles nearly totally. The results obtained by the two different methods indicate that probably later stages of viral synthesis are affected when lower dosages of progesterone are used. The protective activity of progesterone against pathogenic actions of orthopox viruses in vivo was confirmed by using rabbits for intradermal infections."
Protection against Genital Herpes Infection in Mice Immunized under Different Hormonal Conditions Correlates with Induction of Vagina-Associated Lymphoid Tissue
"...Ovariectomized mice were administered saline (S; control), estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), or a combination of estradiol and progesterone (E+P) and immunized intravaginally (IVAG) with HSV-2 TK−. Three weeks later, the immunized mice were challenged IVAG with wild-type HSV-2. Mice that were immunized following E treatment were not protected, whereas complete protection against the challenge was seen in mice from the S- and P4-treated groups."
I am not disputing that progesterone can modulate the immune response. But to call it immunosuppressive in the same way that cortisol and estrogen are is at best misleading. Same line of thought with that recent post calling vitamin D a "powerful immunosuppressant". What was the point of that discussion? Anything that blocks TLR4 (as vitamin D and progesterone do) can be called an "immunosuppressant" but does that reveal anything about the physiological effects of the chemical? The point is if the chemical is systemically beneficial or not. Progesterone is a much better steroids to control inflammation than cortisol precisely because it does not result in thymus and spleen destruction which cortisol can do in a matter of days. When there is plenty of progesterone around the adrenals do not have to pump out as much cortisol to control inflammation. You can think of cortisol as the emergency hormone that gets released when progesterone is lacking.
I am really not sure what is the point of this discussion. If it is to point out that progesterone can dampen inflammation and the excessive/inappropriate immune response to a virus (usually through the TLR4 receptor) then of course the answer is yes it can do that.
But if the point is to raise FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and convince people that using progesterone will make them somehow more susceptible to infection or worsen their outcome if there is an already existing one - then the answer is flatly NO. And the whole discussion trying to lump progestins with progesterone into the same group is very suspicious. Testosterone is also an agonist of the progesterone receptor, and the synthetic progestins were developed based on T derivative - 19-nortestosterone. So, testosterone is technically a progestin too because it has significant agonist activity on the progesterone receptor and CAN maintain pregnancy in an emergency but not nearly as well as progesterone. The same discussion about T being somehow an "immunosuppressive" steroid was raging about 10 years ago to explain why males were getting the "flu" more often than females. And then it turned out that males in the last 30 years have become more susceptible to viral infections because their T levels are lower than they were 30 years ago. So, high T (and/or DHT) is protective against viral infections despite (or maybe precisely because of) the strong progestogen effect of T.
People with critical illness, including infection, are characterized by overactivation of the HPA and suppression of the HPG. Lethality from ANY condition requiring hospitalization is almost perfectly correlated with HPA and inversely correlated with HPG.
Serum cortisol levels in patients admitted to the department of medicine: Prognostic correlations and effects of age, infection, and comorbidity. - PubMed - NCBI
"...RESULTS: The mean serum cortisol level (541 +/- 268 nmol/L) was within the normal range. Only one patient had a low serum cortisol level of 72 nmol/L, whereas the majority of patients had either normal (80%) or increased (19%) serum cortisol levels. Older age, sepsis, prolonged duration of fever, higher comorbidity score, and higher serum creatinine level were each associated with significantly higher serum cortisol level. In addition, a higher serum cortisol level was significantly related to longer hospitalization and higher in-hospital mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: Serum cortisol level positively correlated with age, disease severity, and outcome. All admitted patients, except one, had normal to high serum cortisol. Whether this increased cortisol level is an adequate HPA response or less than required for the disease-induced stress should be investigated in further studies."
Cortisol and estrogen are driven by HPA while progesterone/testosterone by the HPG. When you find evidence that administration of biodentical progesterone (or even testosterone) worsened outcome from a viral or bacterial infection then we have a discussion point. Until then, this discussion is mostly FUD.
Oh, btw even cholesterol is protective from viral infections and when I asked Peat about it he said it is because of its conversion to progesterone (which I have very little reason to doubt).
Higher levels of cholesterol in cells block viral infection
Last edited:
Such_Saturation
Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 7,370
/thread
Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
As usual an "intelligent" and sincerely informative post that inspires action and experiment.
What does it say when the bodies natural levels of progesterone are higher in some women in environments more susceptible to infection in your opinion?
Isn't the cycling issue Peat mentioned in a recent interview relevant here even for men,the body seemingly excretes through the liver the progesterone if taken for longer than 3 weeks,this could cause a bounce back of other hormones. He doesn't mention receptors here.
I think when most resources are devoted to protecting the fetus the host (mother) can become more vulnerable to infection. The "morphostasis theory" of immunity says this is one of the expected outcomes of dedicating the organism to maintaining structural integrity in a very important organ (e.g. fetus). Progesterone actually protects from the lethality of infections in pregnant women despite their (sometimes) increased vulnerability to infection. In women with low progesterone, a viral infection has a much higher chance of killing the mother or causing "spontaneous abortion".
The cycling of most steroids is probably warranted simply because of negative feedback mechanism that occur with long term use. Pregnenolone and progesterone are some of the least offending steroids from that respect, but progesterone is known to inhibit 17,20-lyase and in some cases even 117b-HSD3, so in the long run it can downregulate the androgenic pathway or at east DHEA synthesis (which is important for both women and men).
But I don't know of any actual pathology that can be induced even by high doses of progesterone. The only conditions that can result in high levels of progesterone are usually tumors in the ovaries or adrenals, but those are rare compared to the ones secreting DHEA, cortisol, or estrogen. Nonetheless, unlike pathologies that can be induced by giving high doses DHEA, cortisol, estrogen, and even testosterone I don't know of an actual condition/disease that can be induced by giving high doses pregnenolone or progesterone, which I think says something about whether the organism treats these steroids as desirable or potentially dangerous.
Last edited:
Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
Thanks!
Do they account for this cycling in most research? It always difficult to tell.
It makes sense then that men who took this and got a good effect but it didn't last would need to look at cycling as with all hormones,they could have just had a stress hormone spike as the liver cleared out progesterone in some cases.
L
lollipop
Guest
Explains why Peat suggests even for women in menopause to not use continuously. IIRC he has mentioned both take 5 days off and take 14 days off like in a normal cycle. Excuse me if I am wrong.
The only studies where I saw the authors accounting for cycling was in women with pre-eclampsia or so-called "threatened abortion", so maybe not the best case studies. But in those studies, progesterone was administered in cycles - I think it was 4 weeks on, and 1 week off. So, clearly they had something in mind when doing it.
How is 5 days off like a normal cycle? Or was that suggestion in a specific context?
L
lollipop
Guest
Not at all like a normal cycle
BUT I remember somewhere in an interview where he mentioned it. I will have to look. I can be wrong here, but it is nagging me. Maybe it was in a case of high problematic cases. I will search and see if I can find it.
L
lollipop
Guest
After searching on L-I-G-H-T - I did not find the 5 day comment. That must have come from my other research sources. Peat mentions either the 14 day cycling OR continual use for certain cases - for instance:
"It helps to restore normal functioning of the thyroid and other glands. If her ovaries have been removed, progesterone should be taken consistently to replace the lost supply."
"It helps to restore normal functioning of the thyroid and other glands. If her ovaries have been removed, progesterone should be taken consistently to replace the lost supply."
@haidut
I'm sorry, but you have not provided any kind of proof that progesterone's immunossuppressive actions are false. First, do you know what an immunosuppressant is? Perhaps you have some confusion there? - I am saying this with kindness-. It goes way beyond TLR4 inhibition. As an example, these are just two properties: 1) Progesterone blocks/interferes with the induction of key antimicrobial T helper cells and 2) Progesterone is a powerful inducer of T regulatory cells (a.k.a "Suppressor T cells" -this name says it all, these cells act to suppress immune responses.-). If you can't prove that properties such as 1), 2), etc.., are false, then you are not giving any reason not to call progesterone a immunosuppressant. Until then, yes, progesterone is a immunosuppressant. Fact.
I thought this would be a good proof to be considered (the rest of your post has no relevancy and you don't offer any proof). I have no bias. But I read the study, and this study is done on ***Ovariectomized mice***. This study then tries to simulate how the physiological levels of progesterone and/or estradiol would affect the response to viral challenge. Haidut, this is not any sort of "proof" that progesterone is not a immunosuppressant. It quite shows the opposite....
"Estradiol treatment prior to immunization caused the vaginal epithelium to become resistant to TK− HSV-2. " and "the attenuated virus caused a productive infection in progesterone-treated and saline control groups; protection from viral challenge was observed in these mice 3 weeks later. This outcome correlates with previous results from our studies, where E2-treated mice were resistant to primary genital infection with wild-type HSV-2, whereas non-hormone-treated and progesterone-treated groups were highly susceptible"
In fact your study acts to contradict what you're claiming, because they found out that progesterone without estrogen made the mice "highly susceptible" to herpes. What they call "protective" is in reference to the immunization they are trying to study. In other words, the immunization is useless without progesterone (assuming normal estrogen status) since the herpes virus can't infect the cell to begin with; conversely, progesterone treated ones allow the virus to infect the cell (i.e progesterone induces susceptibility): thus the infection takes place and the immunization can work according to authors.
I choose to think that you indeed read the study and somehow missed all those details, didn't understand the study, or you just read the abstract. I don't believe you're being intentionally dishonest.
Haidut, I have personally NOT called progesterone as an equal to cortisol/estrogen. You've misrepresented me. Please, to make our exchange more clear and honest, stick to what I have said/not said. I in fact mentioned that progesterone has some very interesting caveats that may, in my opinion -and experience-, make it a much better/safer/benign immunosuppresant than say corticosteroids (we absolutely agree here).
If you read the thread from the beginning, you'll see the point of the discussion is to learn about the effects of progesterone on the immune system, with a special interest in its immunosuppressive effects. At least the original poster @Hitoshi seemed to be willing to exchange information on that, as I was.
How is getting informed on the different immunological effects of progesterone (mind you, REAL progesterone), is raising "fear, uncertainty, and doubt"? Perhaps the real fear should come when a person uses a hormone or other supplement without having a decent picture of its relevant pharmacological profile on the bodily systems, about dosages, interactions, and side effects, and then getting problems from a lack of understanding.
I would SO appreciate you tried to add to the conversation instead of avoiding it with accusing people who want to get informed and educated to be "fear mongerers", all the meanwhile not offering any kind of proof that progesterone immunosuppresive effects are false research (again, I'm sticking to natural progesterone).
And yes, if a person using progesterone uses enough of it to cause it to exert powerful immunosuppression such that key antimicrobial immune cells/functions are suppressed enough, yes, they are probably going to be more susceptible to infection and/or worse outcomes. But it's not on me to make people believe that, I am not trying to "convince" anyone, as you accuse me.
We agree on this. Let's not throw progesterone and progestins together. I never have, so why do you bring this up? Your whole paragraph about progestins is not called for, I never lump them together, you're rebutting something I haven't even said.
Direct antiviral effects of progesterone is not directly relevant to the main discussion here, i.e progesterone immunosuppressive actions. That's not a proof of falsity of progesterone's immunosuppressive actions. Almost totally irrelevant to the discussion. In fact, you can readily find other studies showing that natural progesterone increases viral replication Effects of Female Sex Hormones on Susceptibility to HSV-2 in Vaginal Cells Grown in Air-Liquid Interface
.
"Cells grown under ALI conditions were exposed to HSV-2-green fluorescent protein (GFP) and the highest infection and replication was observed in the presence of P4."
"...under these conditions P4 was found to confer higher susceptibility to HSV-2 infection in vaginal cells."
"HSV-2/GFP Infection in Vk2 Cells Cultured in Progesterone [P4] Is Higher Than in Estradiol"
"Progesterone Increases Viral Replication in Vk2 Cells in Both ALI and LLI Cultures"
"...shedding was higher in both P4 and MPA under LLI conditions, P4 showed significantly higher viral replication in ALI cultures."
"suggest that P4 levels can play a significant role in altering the female’s susceptibility to STIs. Although the mechanism of enhanced viral replication in P4-treated cultures is not clear, ALI conditions could trigger changes such as enhanced HSV-2 receptor expression or downregulation of certain antiviral innate responses."
"...under these conditions P4 was found to confer higher susceptibility to HSV-2 infection in vaginal cells."
"HSV-2/GFP Infection in Vk2 Cells Cultured in Progesterone [P4] Is Higher Than in Estradiol"
"Progesterone Increases Viral Replication in Vk2 Cells in Both ALI and LLI Cultures"
"...shedding was higher in both P4 and MPA under LLI conditions, P4 showed significantly higher viral replication in ALI cultures."
"suggest that P4 levels can play a significant role in altering the female’s susceptibility to STIs. Although the mechanism of enhanced viral replication in P4-treated cultures is not clear, ALI conditions could trigger changes such as enhanced HSV-2 receptor expression or downregulation of certain antiviral innate responses."
(Note: Irrelevant to the discussion, but isn't it interesting that Natural Progesterone led to worse outcomes than the progestin MPA and than Estradiol? I'm mentioning since you brought progestins and estrogen to the table. But I maintain, this is just a side note. Also, there are studies showing some anti-viral effects of corticosteroids, and such findings don't negate the fact that corticorsteroids can exert imunosuppression.)
The study of yours that I considered at first goes on to show that even physiological levels of progesterone goes on to give high susceptibility to viral colonization. But of course, I wouldn't use that study to prove what I have tried to focus on, that is, supra physiological levels of progesterone being a immunosuppressant. But if even progesterone at physiological doses made the animals "highly susceptible" ("progesterone-treated groups were highly susceptible"), I can't but wonder if supra physiological would make more than highly susceptible. Probably so, not only from this study, but from all the already known immunosuppressive effects progesterone can exert.
Anyone interested in learning about the immunological effects of progesterone (natural one, "P4") can find info on science databases. I can also share some of the information that I have so far if you ask me to (so far no one has asked).
Finally, not relevant to the main discussion, but since you mentioned that TLR4 inhibition can dampen "inappropriate" immune/inflammation responses, I'll share with you that administration of immunosuppressants/TLR4 antagonists to sepsis patients not only has *not* improved the outcomes, but has also INCREASED mortality in the clinics. Actually, many researchers are calling for the use of immune-enhancing (i.e pro-inflammatory) agents, including "TLR4 agonists" at strategic points in time. Since progesterone is a TLR4 antagonist, that should make one pause before using it mindlessly in case of facing infection. These decisions are person, pathogen, and circumstance-dependent. One supporting paper here: Immunosuppression in sepsis: a novel understanding of the disorder and a new therapeutic approach
I'm sorry if sharing information on the immune actions of progesterone induces fear/FUD -as you call it- in you @haidut or in anyone else. I wasn't aware that could be the case. I personally think by learning, people who deal with complex health problems can make better decisions. In truth there's freedom. One of my main areas of interest is the immune system/infectious diseases (as a person who has suffered from such problems herself), so I probably don't have much to contribute to the forum anymore if there's fear/disdain/censorship/mockery to learn a more complete picture about it, specially in regards to supplement effects.
I hope the best for everybody.
Last edited:
Yes your are correct lisa. He says that supplying progesterone to the body results in a positive feedback loop. Progesterone encourages the body to produce more progesterone.
Peat advocates the use of progesterone in inflammatory conditions. Alternative health love their omega-3s and unsaturated oils for the very same reason. I often wonder how the industry would cope without the immunosuppressive actions of omega-3 fish oils. Inflammation is the driver of all diseases. So stopping inflammation takes care of many conditions, regardless of their deleterious actions. The push for omega-3s has ramped up after positive results seen in the Alzeihemer's trials.
Orthordox medicine use corticosteriodal meds but know that these have undesirable outcomes and also look to omega-3 oils to suppress inflammation.
We have been taught that inflammation is the body's call for arms to fight invaders or to repair injury. However, there can be much collateral damage in an aggressive immune response.
We have certain immune privileged sites in the body along with the pregnancy state, where an inflammatory immune response would be catastrophic to the organism. In pregnancy, it is the abortion of the fetus.
Other sites are cornea, testes and placenta. Yes, we use to think this was the case in the brain but recent research has shown this is not correct. Immune privilege enables the successful transplant of foreign cornea without high rate of rejection. There is no need to find a compatible donor. An immune inflammatory response would result in scarring and loss of cells that are not replaced beyond the epithelial layer, thus loss of function/sight.
Immune privilege - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_privilege
So using progesterone, gelatin etc., are more benign than the alternatives. Inflammation drives tumour progression and suppression of inflammation would be a beneficial strategy.
Peat often refers to tissue regeneration without scarring in fetus and new newborn. A time when the immune system has not yet developed.
So the aim is to prevent loss of function and this is only possible if cells develops tolerance to the pathogen and not over react. This means we have to stop thinking about being at war with these pathogens and allow them residency???
A sufficiently energised cell with plenty of thyroid hormone, stabilising factors, oxidising glucose, perhaps does not permit residency. Weakened, starving cells, inflammation attract viruses and pathogens in the same manner microbes attack decaying and decomposing compost heap - they are part of the clean-up crew.
Gershom Zajicek, proposes that cell + virus are the basic unit. If the cell harbours a benefical virus (plant virus) then pathogenic viruses are not permitted.
So basically as I understand it, Peat is saying that healing takes place in the absence of inflammation and when allowed to heal in this manner, prevents the loss of function compared to permitting inflammation and risking scar tissue, thus loss of function.
All of Peat's recommendations focus on the reduction of inflammation and increasing tolerance to antigens.
Peat recalls progesterone applied by syringe into the knees of a gentleman. This man was able to go years (can't remember how many) without aching knees. Progesterone was only applied to facilitate the repair. This man did not continue progesterone after the initial application.
tyw
Member
@PakPik thanks for the great response.
As an aside, I liked this review of pregnancy related hormones and infection risks (both viral and bacteria) -- Pregnancy and pregnancy-associated hormones alter immune responses and disease pathogenesis
There is a clear increase in infection risk and mortality rate as pregnancy progresses, which coincides with the natural and very significant rise in Progesterone, and also a massive rise in the Progesterone-to-Estradiol ratio. The paper rightfully points out that Estriol is the primary estrogen that rises during pregnancy, and that it has very different effects to Estradiol.
There is a clear shift away from innate immune system, as well as away from the Th1-dominant cell-mediated adaptive immune response, while increasing the more Th2-dominant / humoral immune function. This change in the immune system is likely what makes bringing a baby to term possible, but definitely predisposes the mother to a much higher infection risk.
In all likelihood, this shift is due to Progesterone, and we have quite a fair bit of data suggesting that it is specifically Progesterone that does this.
This shift seems to be necessary for Pregnancy, and there are many routes of speculation that we can take regarding this thinking:
Natural Progesterone supplementation seems to be able to produce the above effects, which are of course, dose dependent. Whether or not such intervention is good depends on the context, which I will touch on below.
----
Regarding inflammation, I agree with your point that:
Inflammation is clearly a natural response by the body aimed at fixing itself. Also, without any "inflammatory cytokines", we'd basically have no T-cell immunity.
As an aside, my rant against the proponents of high Omega-3 (n3) fatty acid consumption was also against this effect. They would claim that n3's are anti-inflammatory, and thus are "good".
The case of sepsis was also tackled here, to which it is apparent that n3 suppression of inflammatory response in LPS-poisoned mice actually led to onset of sepsis and infection of other organ systems -- Fish Oil Attenuates Omega-6 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid-Induced Dysbiosis and Infectious Colitis but Impairs LPS Dephosphorylation Activity Causing Sepsis
LPS + n6 caused colitis. LPS + n6 + n3 fixed colitis, but led to sepsis and much worse complications. The state of colitis was an inflammatory state that was induced as a protective measure against LPS, which also kept the pathogenic LPS isolated to the gut.
So yes, inflammation is a natural mechanism used in the healing process. However, it also uses up resources that could be used for other tasks, and is not guaranteed to be accurate (especially in people with a long history of chronic illness). Sometimes, if we know how to intervene in order to produce better outcomes, that is what we want to do.
I will raise an example of a case of a patient that I am aware of, who has acute and extreme reactions to mold toxicity. There are many factors at play here that caused the susceptibility to mold (including some identified genetic ones), but the fact is that their sensitivity is very bad, to the extent of having airways close up and needing immediate assistance.
The patient was female, sick for decades, very complicated disease history, and this was a case where supplemental progesterone proved very useful in dealing with such flares. Her immune system was reacting with a very strong inflammatory response to what was a very strong toxin to her body. In such cases, using a strong but natural immunosuppressant like Progesterone, and then immediately treating for Mold Toxicity, is what provided better recovery times and eventual outcomes. Note of course, that the treatment of mold toxicity needed to be done in conjunction with immunosuppression, else they might cause even worse effects.
In this sense, use of anti-inflammatories must be considered strictly beneficial only when we know how to use other means to deal with the stressor causing the inflammation. Use of progesterone for such purposes should be controlled.
----
Outside of such anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive uses, I am still a believer in balancing progesterone to optimal levels that would be present normally in the body. This is where I do not have enough experience, and if PakPik could provide info regarding the various nuances of either natural progesterone cycling or exogenous use, that would be helpful :)
Example: I never know how one would measure relative progesterone levels during various stages in the menstrual cycle, and how supplementation at various stages would have different effects on the immune system (or other effects).
....
As an aside, I liked this review of pregnancy related hormones and infection risks (both viral and bacteria) -- Pregnancy and pregnancy-associated hormones alter immune responses and disease pathogenesis
There is a clear increase in infection risk and mortality rate as pregnancy progresses, which coincides with the natural and very significant rise in Progesterone, and also a massive rise in the Progesterone-to-Estradiol ratio. The paper rightfully points out that Estriol is the primary estrogen that rises during pregnancy, and that it has very different effects to Estradiol.
There is a clear shift away from innate immune system, as well as away from the Th1-dominant cell-mediated adaptive immune response, while increasing the more Th2-dominant / humoral immune function. This change in the immune system is likely what makes bringing a baby to term possible, but definitely predisposes the mother to a much higher infection risk.
In all likelihood, this shift is due to Progesterone, and we have quite a fair bit of data suggesting that it is specifically Progesterone that does this.
This shift seems to be necessary for Pregnancy, and there are many routes of speculation that we can take regarding this thinking:
For example, we may speculate that it is the interest of the body to create a strong immune system for the child, at the expense of transient infection of the mother. This immune shift may allow for both infection of more external microorganisms, and production of antibodies against those microorganisms, and then subsequent transfer of antibodies to the baby. Such a scenario is best conducted under a suppressed immune state.
We can speculate about what may seem like "gut biome dysregulation" / accumulation of more foreign microbes in the gut of the mother, is actually leading to "immunity diversification" for the child. This topic of mother-to-child gut flora transfer is still not adequately explored by science. All we know is that it is important (eg: from the differing outcomes of natural vs C-section births)
Another fact is discussed in the paper is that the more pregnancies a mother has, the lower the rate of infection mortality decreases, which seems to imply an ongoing immune memory accumulation effect that happens especially strongly during pregnancy. Again, we can speculate that this is aimed at creating a stronger child, despite the risks that it may have to the mother -- the evolutionary process will permit 1 out of 10 mothers die because of this immune shift, if it means getting 9 stronger babies.
We can speculate about the lysogenic accumulation of viral DNA that is permitted by the decreased inflammatory response, which no only improves immunity down the line, but could possibly also lead to novel protein expression (aka: evolution).
We can speculate about what may seem like "gut biome dysregulation" / accumulation of more foreign microbes in the gut of the mother, is actually leading to "immunity diversification" for the child. This topic of mother-to-child gut flora transfer is still not adequately explored by science. All we know is that it is important (eg: from the differing outcomes of natural vs C-section births)
Another fact is discussed in the paper is that the more pregnancies a mother has, the lower the rate of infection mortality decreases, which seems to imply an ongoing immune memory accumulation effect that happens especially strongly during pregnancy. Again, we can speculate that this is aimed at creating a stronger child, despite the risks that it may have to the mother -- the evolutionary process will permit 1 out of 10 mothers die because of this immune shift, if it means getting 9 stronger babies.
We can speculate about the lysogenic accumulation of viral DNA that is permitted by the decreased inflammatory response, which no only improves immunity down the line, but could possibly also lead to novel protein expression (aka: evolution).
Natural Progesterone supplementation seems to be able to produce the above effects, which are of course, dose dependent. Whether or not such intervention is good depends on the context, which I will touch on below.
----
Regarding inflammation, I agree with your point that:
Inflammation is clearly a natural response by the body aimed at fixing itself. Also, without any "inflammatory cytokines", we'd basically have no T-cell immunity.
As an aside, my rant against the proponents of high Omega-3 (n3) fatty acid consumption was also against this effect. They would claim that n3's are anti-inflammatory, and thus are "good".
The case of sepsis was also tackled here, to which it is apparent that n3 suppression of inflammatory response in LPS-poisoned mice actually led to onset of sepsis and infection of other organ systems -- Fish Oil Attenuates Omega-6 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid-Induced Dysbiosis and Infectious Colitis but Impairs LPS Dephosphorylation Activity Causing Sepsis
LPS + n6 caused colitis. LPS + n6 + n3 fixed colitis, but led to sepsis and much worse complications. The state of colitis was an inflammatory state that was induced as a protective measure against LPS, which also kept the pathogenic LPS isolated to the gut.
SIDENOTE: this applies to the generic notion of fibrosis as well. There is a view that fibrosis is an adaptive mechanism, intended to isolate pathogenic substances away from healthy tissue. (doesn't matter if the pathogen is a bacteria, or a good chunk of heavy metals)
I agree with this view, and fibrosis should be viewed as a good first measure to deal with a pathogenic threat, to quarantine it, and hopefully in the future, to get rid of it. The presence of fibrosis should not be said to be causative of disease, but rather, the ideal response of the body to it. Accumulative fibrosis can lead to compromise of tissue function, but it is not fibrosis for fibrosis sake -- that is a pathogen driving fibrosis, at a rate beyond what the body can get rid of said fibrosis.
Some (like Zajicek) would argue that neoplastic tumours obey the same principle. I tend to agree.
I agree with this view, and fibrosis should be viewed as a good first measure to deal with a pathogenic threat, to quarantine it, and hopefully in the future, to get rid of it. The presence of fibrosis should not be said to be causative of disease, but rather, the ideal response of the body to it. Accumulative fibrosis can lead to compromise of tissue function, but it is not fibrosis for fibrosis sake -- that is a pathogen driving fibrosis, at a rate beyond what the body can get rid of said fibrosis.
Some (like Zajicek) would argue that neoplastic tumours obey the same principle. I tend to agree.
So yes, inflammation is a natural mechanism used in the healing process. However, it also uses up resources that could be used for other tasks, and is not guaranteed to be accurate (especially in people with a long history of chronic illness). Sometimes, if we know how to intervene in order to produce better outcomes, that is what we want to do.
I will raise an example of a case of a patient that I am aware of, who has acute and extreme reactions to mold toxicity. There are many factors at play here that caused the susceptibility to mold (including some identified genetic ones), but the fact is that their sensitivity is very bad, to the extent of having airways close up and needing immediate assistance.
The patient was female, sick for decades, very complicated disease history, and this was a case where supplemental progesterone proved very useful in dealing with such flares. Her immune system was reacting with a very strong inflammatory response to what was a very strong toxin to her body. In such cases, using a strong but natural immunosuppressant like Progesterone, and then immediately treating for Mold Toxicity, is what provided better recovery times and eventual outcomes. Note of course, that the treatment of mold toxicity needed to be done in conjunction with immunosuppression, else they might cause even worse effects.
In this sense, use of anti-inflammatories must be considered strictly beneficial only when we know how to use other means to deal with the stressor causing the inflammation. Use of progesterone for such purposes should be controlled.
----
Outside of such anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive uses, I am still a believer in balancing progesterone to optimal levels that would be present normally in the body. This is where I do not have enough experience, and if PakPik could provide info regarding the various nuances of either natural progesterone cycling or exogenous use, that would be helpful :)
Example: I never know how one would measure relative progesterone levels during various stages in the menstrual cycle, and how supplementation at various stages would have different effects on the immune system (or other effects).
....
Last edited:
+1.
I very much appreciate your well-researched contributions @PakPik.
The body is enormously complex, and however useful it is to have some simplifying principles, it doesn't make sense to me to assume that this tells us all there is to know about it.
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
