Are All Diseases Of A Reactionary Nature

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Are All Diseases Of A Reactionary Nature

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

boagie
 
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2008 08:26 am
Hi Everyone,Smile

This is more of a quest on my part, for I am unsure of the answer to the above question. Any health professionals out there, or just someone with an insight into the said question. The floor is wide open, please give us your slant on this.----thanks!
 
urangutan
 
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2008 04:18 am
@boagie,
Yeah, G'day Boagie. I like believing that many afflictions are simple disorientations of the senses and awareness. Take cerebral palsy for example. I hope that if any one feels they should take offence to this, they first look at it through what I believe.


Just like accupuncture can cause reaction to the nervous system through pressure points, I belive that certain pressures placed under the feet while standing, will cause a reaction between synapses.


I am by no means a specialist and do not claim that this is the cure, I just believe it is. I hope this is an answer to your question, because I think now that I didn't understand it at all.
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2008 08:28 am
@urangutan,
G' day to Yourself urangutan,Smile

:)Interesting post, but, perhaps it would be more to the point if people could state an example of a disease which is indeed, NOT, a reaction in one form or another.Wink It is my belief at present, that all diseases are reactionary. Now, it does seem self-evident that those diseases caused by bacteria, viruses, germs of every discription are reactionary either to the foreign organism itself, or to the waste products of that organism or both. The point being that reaction is key to understanding behaviours across the board, weather reaction understood as disease or reaction understood as a political movement, their nature are the same. Remember the nature of the term, dis-eased, not then, at ease.

:)Correlational dis-ease, correlational dis-order, correlational degreneration of the organism---------what do you say folks, you must be a healthy bunch!!Wink


Think context illness!
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 10:01 am
@boagie,
Smile
There is a doctor or two here, I am sure some medical professionals ect..,. surely you must have an opinion, even if it is to completely dismiss the premise of reaction as the cause of all illnesses.:disappointed: with the exclusion perhaps of old age.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 10:06 am
@boagie,
These reaction threads are interesting, boagie, I'm just not entirely sure where to go with them. I guess the underlying question in this thread, as with the others is what is 'reactionary'?

Quote:
It is my belief at present, that all diseases are reactionary.


What is it for a disease to be 'reactionary'?
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 10:26 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
These reaction threads are interesting, boagie, I'm just not entirely sure where to go with them. I guess the underlying question in this thread, as with the others is what is 'reactionary'?
What is it for a disease to be 'reactionary'?


Didymos Thomas,Smile

I think reactionary would mean the source of the difficulty is not of the healthy constitution of an individual working against itself, though one might consider the problems of age, and thus correlated breakdown to be the source of some health difficulties. It is a bit like the business of an object in space traveling in direction, to change said direction requires interference, something to react to. An individuals constitution in a void would not be unlike the object in space traveling in direction, and difficulties that were not attributed to age, would of necessity have to involve reaction to another source, another object, a source interfering with the normal course of the body's direction/health. In other words dis-ease is not the act of a healthy body, it is a reaction to a foreign object and/or substance, which changes the course of one's constitution in health.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:48 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
In other words dis-ease is not the act of a healthy body, it is a reaction to a foreign object and/or substance, which changes the course of one's constitution in health.
Speaking as a well-entrenched insider in the medical profession, I think you've got it half right. There are both intrinsic and extrinsic things that can affect a given disease.

Take pneumonia. Pneumonia is an infection of the lungs (typically a bacterial infection). The bacteria that most often produce pneumonia have toxins that cause tissue injury, that provoke inflammation, and that ultimately produce symptoms. So here it seems that the bacteria is a foreign object or substance, right? And you're correct that much of the damage caused by pneumonia is caused by the body's inflammatory response.

But now consider that there are intrinsic host factors that affect susceptibility to pneumonia and risk of complications with it. The elderly are FAR more susceptible to pneumonia than people who are young and healthy. People with cystic fibrosis (which is a genetic disease) have pulmonary infections all the time. These are unmodifiable risk factors. There are many other extrinsic things that will alter a host's intrinsic susceptibility -- for instance smoking (extrinsic) will lead to a host who is intrinsically more susceptible to infection by pneumonia pathogens. If someone develops cancer (sometimes intrinsic, sometimes extrinsic), the chemotherapy (extrinsic) will lead to a host with an intrinsically weak immune system that is more susceptible.

So diseases can't cleanly be thought of as intrinsic or extrinsic. But to be sure, very often there are external factors that either cause injury or that provoke an injurious response by the body, and there are tons of examples.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 04:00 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Speaking as a well-entrenched insider in the medical profession, I think you've got it half right. There are both intrinsic and extrinsic things that can affect a given disease.

Take pneumonia. Pneumonia is an infection of the lungs (typically a bacterial infection). The bacteria that most often produce pneumonia have toxins that cause tissue injury, that provoke inflammation, and that ultimately produce symptoms. So here it seems that the bacteria is a foreign object or substance, right? And you're correct that much of the damage caused by pneumonia is caused by the body's inflammatory response.

But now consider that there are intrinsic host factors that affect susceptibility to pneumonia and risk of complications with it. The elderly are FAR more susceptible to pneumonia than people who are young andhealthy. People with cystic fibrosis (which is a genetic disease) have pulmonary infections all the time. These are unmodifiable risk factors. There are many other extrinsic things that will alter a host's intrinsic susceptibility -- for instance smoking (extrinsic) will lead to a host who is intrinsically more susceptible to infection by pneumonia pathogens. If someone develops cancer (sometimes intrinsic, sometimes extrinsic), the chemotherapy (extrinsic) will lead to a host with an intrinsically weak immune system that is more susceptible.

So diseases can't cleanly be thought of as intrinsic or extrinsic. But to be sure, very often there are external factors that either cause injury or that provoke an injurious response by the body, and there are tons of examples.



Aedes;Smile

From your outline the one thing that jumps out at me is this genetic disease, this is truely intrinsic, it is something amiss from the outset effecting the constitution, or in effect being the constitution of that individual. I would think that would warrent a catagory of its own. I do not think the fact the an individual is weakened by say a bacterial infection and left more susceptible negates the premise that most diseases are reactionary in nature. Once the constitution is compromised it is further compromised by foreign organisms and their by products, the seige is on so to speak.

No a change in the degree of susceptibility due to previous infection does not negate the premise. The example of smoking increasing susceptibility is due to the bodies reaction to this foreign substance. It may well be naive of me but, with the acception of genetic disorder, it still sounds like the major cause of disease is of a reactionary in nature. Risk factors or susceptibility do not change the nature of the premise or negate it. I am missing something I take it? Perhaps if with each assault upon the constitution, it is considers its new state, still the individuals constitution, and still vulnerable to attack by the same said agents--- sorry doc, I've got a hard head.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 07:45 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
From your outline the one thing that jumps out at me is this genetic disease, this is truely intrinsic
Perhaps, but you could even make the case that there are extrinsic influences on genetics. For instance, a genetic error takes place at some stage in the genetic history of a family lineage -- and whether it only affects the offspring in question, or it's an inherited gene from generations past, it is still something with influences that are extrinsic to itself (though not necessarily the outside world).

That said, there are many many other disease processes that I'd argue are intrinsically derived. Take autoimmune diseases, like rheumatoid arthritis or Crohn's disease or scleroderma or lupus. These result from an intrinsic dysregulation of the immune system by which it inflicts damage on the host. Normally the immune system is intrinsically conditioned to ignore the host and only attack foreign invaders (i.e. microbes).

And don't forget that many extrinsic things only exert their influence because someone is intrinsically predisposed. For instance UV light can lead to malignant melanoma. But people with very dark skin are far less likely to get melanoma given the same sun exposure.

Quote:
I do not think the fact the an individual is weakened by say a bacterial infection and left more susceptible negates the premise that most diseases are reactionary in nature. Once the constitution is compromised it is further compromised by foreign organisms and their by products, the seige is on so to speak.
Fair enough, but there is no way to separate ourselves from the world we live in. Our bodies depend on the physics of our world, we are covered inside and out with bacteria, we depend on food with all its macronutrients and micronutrients, we depend on social contact to some degree, etc. There is no such thing as the human organism in isolation.

So when you talk about something being reactionary, what you're really referring to is a chain of causality that has some agent that is biologically external to the disease in question. But if you look hard enough, that will be true in every case, if for no other reason because who we are as hosts depends on our entire genealogy.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 10:01 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes,Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by boagie http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
From your outline the one thing that jumps out at me is this genetic disease, this is truely intrinsic

"Perhaps, but you could even make the case that there are extrinsic influences on genetics. For instance, a genetic error takes place at some stage in the genetic history of a family lineage -- and whether it only affects the offspring in question, or it's an inherited gene from generations past, it is still something with influences that are extrinsic to itself (though not necessarily the outside world)." quote

:)First you will have to give me that, I am not just trying to be difficult. The above seems to me a matter of perspective, granted perhaps an unusual one. Genetic history could be said to be the constitution of said individual as well as his ancestors, a recessed gene, not activated, is still a part of the individuals contstitution is it not. I am thinking of Arlo Guthrie he could not be sure he would not come down with huntingtons until he was fifty. At anyrate this is the constitution of a given individual, the orginal source of the genetic mistake or its cause would not be descernable.

"That said, there are many many other disease processes that I'd argue are intrinsically derived. Take autoimmune diseases, like rheumatoid arthritis or Crohn's disease or scleroderma or lupus. These result from an intrinsic dysregulation of the immune system by which it inflicts damage on the host. Normally the immune system is intrinsically conditioned to ignore the host and only attack foreign invaders (i.e. microbes)"

:)The above diseases the cause of which are dysregulation of the immune system, either this is genetic or there is a infectional cause is there not? A perfectly healthy individual's immune system does not suddenly turn on itself. What has caused this disfunction and/or reaction, it is unknown is it not. Aids of course is attributed to a virus is it not.

"And don't forget that many extrinsic things only exert their influence because someone is intrinsically predisposed. For instance UV light can lead to malignant melanoma. But people with very dark skin are far less likely to get melanoma given the same sun exposure.

:)Yes I have no difficult with weak or healthy constitutions coming down with something, it is reasonable that a weak constitution is a vulnerable one. That certain aspects of the constitution of the less vulnerable are not as susceptible to the same risks due to their difference in constitution is understandable.


Quote:
I do not think the fact the an individual is weakened by say a bacterial infection and left more susceptible negates the premise that most diseases are reactionary in nature. Once the constitution is compromised it is further compromised by foreign organisms and their by products, the seige is on so to speak.

"Fair enough, but there is no way to separate ourselves from the world we live in. Our bodies depend on the physics of our world, we are covered inside and out with bacteria, we depend on food with all its macronutrients and micronutrients, we depend on social contact to some degree, etc. There is no such thing as the human organism in isolation." quote

:)The very basis of my premise is based on the inclusiveness of a fully relational world, reaction being the bases of all transformations, including the transformation into a diseased state. One aspect you have brought to the fore though that I did not think of, was, reaction to the need unfulfilled, we are indeed inseparable from the physical world, and most any need we have is out there to be had, so when the body lacks there is reaction in the form of perhaps a chemical change. Lonelyness is quite a reality in this society, and it is one of these needs unfulfilled.

"So when you talk about something being reactionary, what you're really referring to is a chain of causality that has some agent that is biologically external to the disease in question. But if you look hard enough, that will be true in every case, if for no other reason because who we are as hosts depends on our entire genealogy." quote

:)Geneology determines the form and constitution, the real assurance of the premise is in the belief that the world is entirely relational. If this is established, the premise does not seem outrageous at all. It in fact could be no other way. Sorry doc, this must sound terriably cheeky, particularly coming from a layman.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 10:58 am
@boagie,
Sorry, I'm on service at the hospital this weekend taking care of a variety of diseases, most of which you'd describe as of a reactionary nature (except for one genetic disease patient) Wink -- so I've been too busy to log on...

boagie wrote:
Genetic history could be said to be the constitution of said individual as well as his ancestors, a recessed gene, not activated, is still a part of the individuals contstitution is it not. I am thinking of Arlo Guthrie he could not be sure he would not come down with huntingtons until he was fifty. At anyrate this is the constitution of a given individual, the orginal source of the genetic mistake or its cause would not be descernable.
Huntington's disease, despite being hereditary (and detectable with genetic screening), actually is more severe in every successive generation. It's caused by genetic repeats of a CAG sequence in the affected gene, and you get more and more CAG repeats with each successive generation of carriers. So these are acquired genetic errors. Interesting, eh?

Quote:
The above diseases the cause of which are dysregulation of the immune system, either this is genetic or there is a infectional cause is there not?
Or both. Someone can be intrinsically predisposed to having a dysregulated immune system after a particular extrinsic event.

Quote:
A perfectly healthy individual's immune system does not suddenly turn on itself.
No one is perfectly resistant to all things, though. Look up acute rheumatic fever, which is an autoimmune reaction that happens after strep throat. Advanced genetic techniques are starting to discern if there really are susceptible subpopulations of people, but ARF affects a LOT of perfectly healthy people.

Quote:
AIDS of course is attributed to a virus is it not.
It is indeed caused by a virus, but there are genetic factors in the host that can modulate the level of virus and the rate of progression of the disease. Look up what happens with AIDS patients who have the CCR5-delta 32 mutation -- some of them become long-term nonprogressors with very long, healthy survival! On the other hand, CCR5 mutations are associated with increased severity in West Nile encephalitis!


Quote:
Geneology determines the form and constitution, the real assurance of the premise is in the belief that the world is entirely relational. If this is established, the premise does not seem outrageous at all. It in fact could be no other way.
It just depends where you believe that intrinsic ends and extrinsic begins.
 
boagie
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 09:12 am
@Aedes,
Aedes,Smile

:)No need to apologize the demands upon your time would be much more than my own and even I am not always available, Huntington's, no I did not realize that the odds of getting it creases with each sucessesive carrier, what a terriable reality to have hanging over your head.


SmileI have just discovered my insight is not so new, it has a fairly long history, though it is not the common perspective in Europe and North America. The concept of cause and effect is basically a European way of understanding the world and though useful has some profound limitations, The relational world view or the relational perspective is closer to the reality of our situtation, many variables are both cause and effect and within a functioning complex system it would be difficult to recongnize this linear cause and effect. I have some reading to do now, it is at once a delight and a disappointment discovering that ones insight is old hat.


" It just depends where you believe that intrinsic ends and extrinsic begins.[/quote]

:)That is it doc, there are no ends to intrinsic and extrinsic, with both the organism and the environment being open systems there is at best a seige and a defense. If indeed the organism was not an open system, there never would have been a need to develop an immune system.

:)This bussiness of, "rheumatic fever, which is an autoimmune reaction that happens after strep throat." It would seem the immune systems reaction after this strep throat is to be disfunctional, my point would be that any affliction of the constitution is do to some foreign organism, its by products or substance/s, also the constitution can be weakened by the physical needs of the constitution not being met. The mutation of say a virus, is it really any different than the mutations which occur in the world at large to all organisms. With foreign conditons being introduced is not mutation then an adaptive reactionary response? I know most mutations are deadly to the subject organism and few benefit to pass on their genes, but is the process really accidental or is it trial and error, which is the proven methodology of reaction and time tested.




Smile "That which exists will imperatively continue to do so until obliged not to by an outside force." Relational Studies



Relational constructionism - Participatory world views


Relational Studies - Theses


Relational quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Understanding the Relational Worldview in Indian Families



"General Systems Theory, a related modern concept [to holism], says that each variable in any system interacts with the other variables so thoroughly that cause and effect cannot be separated. A simple variable can be both cause and effect. Reality will not be still. And it cannot be taken apart! You cannot understand a cell, a rat, a brain structure, a family, a culture if you isolate it from its context. Relationship is everything."
- Marilyn Ferguson
The Aquarian Conspiracy
 
socrato
 
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 05:31 pm
@boagie,
I am not a medical professional or a phychiatrist but if you consider a social anxiety disorder for example to be a disease(it is actually classified as one but not everyone looks at it that way) then that person might look at a social situation a lot differently than someone else would. They would see it as a frightening experience. This is because of an overactive amygdala which is a part of the brain that controls emotion. When it is overactive it gets harder for someone to control there emotions. So if you were to consider this disease to be reactionary I would have to say only to a certain extent because they cannot actually always control their emotions as easily someone else could.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 05:57 pm
@socrato,
socrato wrote:
I am not a medical professional or a phychiatrist but if you consider a social anxiety disorder for example to be a disease(it is actually classified as one but not everyone looks at it that way) then that person might look at a social situation a lot differently than someone else would. They would see it as a frightening experience. This is because of an overactive amygdala which is a part of the brain that controls emotion. When it is overactive it gets harder for someone to control there emotions. So if you were to consider this disease to be reactionary I would have to say only to a certain extent because they cannot actually always control their emotions as easily someone else could.


Socrato,Smile

Well, the intial term is dis-ease, and with an anxiety disorder --really out of my depth here but, I try to understand things of late in a relational way, not knowing the context in which this anxiety disorder manifested itself we are really at a loss. That said assuming that the context, lack of a proper relational foundation perhaps the nervous system as a result gets over sensitized, anxiety I have experienced myself, and I am reasonably sure that its foundation is a sense of inadequacy. Ones own family can do this to one, particularly if they in fact suffer from the same affiction. There is no doubt in my mind however that it is a reaction to ones belief system about ones self, the belief system may have been established by the parents before the subject had the power of reason to defend himself from a negative framework in which he was placed. There is something to which this anxiety, this nervous system reacts to, avoidence of the social situtation and thus avoidence of an anxiety attact might be said to be proof of this. I do not know if this was the least of help, but yes, I would say this is a reactionary disease, in many cases a learned behaviour.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 06:21 pm
@boagie,
Psychiatric diseases (which are defined as disease based on their interference in someone's ability to live a reasonably normal life) have biological properties and external influences. But without a doubt there are both genetic and acquired influences on their biology. Psychiatric diseases run in families, even among monozygotic (identical) twins who are raised in different households. But the biological effects, like neurotransmitter levels and functional brain imaging studies, clearly show that the biology changes in response to experience. That's why intensive therapy for depression produces the same biological end-effect on the brain as do pharmacological antidepressants.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 07:48 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes,Smile

Interesting, anything that is said to effect a response reaction to ones biology could be thought of as an experience, even drug therapy, taken a step further it could also be considered the introduction of new information could it not? I don't know where I going with this. Just curious what kind of experiences could be introduced to someone seriously depressed that would change their chemistry and thus change their outlook on life?
 
socrato
 
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 09:49 pm
@boagie,
Could cognitive behavioural therapy actually help to treat deppression and social anxiety disorder
 
socrato
 
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 09:52 pm
@socrato,
Where are all of the psychiatrists here this should be a hot topic. The question the boagie had.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 09:57 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
But the biological effects, like neurotransmitter levels and functional brain imaging studies, clearly show that the biology changes in response to experience.


This is useful to know. Is experience more of an effect to the biology as the life progresses or due to memory failing would it lack? What percentage would you give the overall effect the original genetic material has?:perplexed:
 
socrato
 
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 10:07 pm
@Holiday20310401,
I suppose in a sense genes have to adapt in order for us to adapt to change otherwise it becomes harder for us to control our emotions
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Are All Diseases Of A Reactionary Nature
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:24:19