L
lollipop
Guest
Helpful post @Ella - thanks for taking the time.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
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.