Researchers Find Missing Link Between the Brain and Immune System
neurosciencenews.com
neurosciencenews.com
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...
Dural sinuses, not nasal sinuses.
It follows that we also rip them out when we open the skull to perform surgeries! Quite possibly, they don't grow back.
I hypothesize that some brain injuries due to impact could tear them too.
It potentially makes the link between the brain and the body chemically study-able. Up to now there's always been the assumption of a brain/blood barrier stopping much of the chemical transfers. Now it appears there's a mechanism that might bypass that.
Again, this is just what I gather from reading. I have no special expertise.
Think of the lymphatic system as a kind of a superhighway for your immune system. It doesn't carry blood.
Remember that most of the interesting stuff in biology is invisible to the naked eye. Also, despite a few hundred years of poking around in corpses, we're still pretty crude in terms of what we can see and understand anatomically. The assumption that we have this stuff "mostly figured out" strikes me more as wishful thinking than fact.
It's interesting to find a new tube lurking around, but then, it sounds like a pretty small tube. Animals are messy on the inside. Also, dark.
In terms of mostly figured out I think we are still below 1% of what we may know in 2100 about the body.
Michael Murphy wrote a very interesting book "The History of the Body" in 1993 http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Body-Explorations-Evolution... curating a number of observations on the potential extent of our capabilities.
While I'm not in any way qualified to assess this, it seems the fact that there's essentially a new piece of human anatomy that we've discovered is game changing. Potentially on the level of things that cause entire fields of medicine to re-evaluate what they thought they knew.
I wonder what this means for other things we've taken for granted about neurochemistry. Any qualified individuals care to speculate on the possibilities?
I'd be shocked if a concept so widely believed in like that had not gone under insane scrutiny by Western practitioners.
In later and current periods of Chinese history it's usually considered to mean air or breath, but also vital energy or life force, this latter sense being the sense in which it is deployed for traditional medicinal techniques such as 'Qigong' - 氣功 （traditional) or 气功 (simplified) - which is literally '[getting positive results from] [the energy]'. However, not many people are aware that initially it was used to refer to 'sickening vapors that rise from a corpse' (an early concept for bacterial/airborne illness, a concept later repurposed in premodern Chinese medicinal thinking to describe the acquisition of malaria and similar illnesses in tropical areas).
Qi today is basically a catch-all word for energy flowing (possibly 'in a manner roughly like vapor') and could be reasonably roughly seen, from a medical perspective, to refer to the combined effect of circulatory, lymphatic and respiratory systems.
Being such a vague term, approaching it from a western perspective seems difficult. You would perhaps get further looking for western studies of the health benefits of Qigong practice.
The interaction of the CNS and the immune system has been more recently studied over the past 10 years. This field is known as neuroimmunology. The most recent and obvious clinical application of neuroimmunology are vagal nerve implants, where stimulation of the vagus nerve can help improve vagal tone and reduce inflammation. Meditation is another well known method of improving vagal tone; however, we live in a society of quick fixes.
I'm not taking a position on that question, as I haven't studied it sufficiently (though acupuncture, for example, seems more compelling that reiki).
The issue I've had with Eastern medicine along with other folk remedies is the methodology and fact that they are not truly applying the scientific method in the way Western medicine does.
That said, I would not at all be surprised to find that many things in medicine, Eastern, Western, folk medicine, etc. that were previously unproven (by Western medicine standards) suddenly start having testable, verifiable reasons for why they work.
I have read that some points of acupuncture have been shown to have the effect they claim, and how it works can be explained. Some other points have been shown to have no measurable effect. And some point have been shown to have effects, but cannot be explained.
CRISPR would be an example of something that we really didn't know about popping out of research into other questions. Those kinds of discoveries are the really interesting ones, IMO: you aren't even looking for it, and suddenly, you've discovered a pathway that changes your understanding of bacterial genomics, and provides a crazy new tool for molecular biology.
I don't know if the authors of this set out to find a lymphatic duct connecting to the brain, but the existence of one was not completely unpredictable.
BTW, I don't think I agree with everything she writes, but It's a really interesting book.
In case you didn't see it earlier (a week or two ago, perhaps in a comment somewhere?) http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/january2015/01122015reset... Apparently reseting the immune system can halt MS to a certain degree. And that's what I think our real progress will be: by degrees, because those things are complex.
Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
Sorry don't mean to rant.
For me, these silent migraines seem to occur after I eat a meal high in histamine. (A salad with balsamic vinegar produces a reliable, strong effect within a few hours.) There is some recent research coming out of Europe that suggests that histamine intolerance is very real, but doctors and researchers in the US haven't caught up to this yet.
Overview of the research on histamine intolerance can be found here: http://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf/103/51/a3477e.pdf
Histamine has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390810...
Anyway, if you ever want to chat about this stuff (even if it's just to commiserate!), feel free to contact me using the email in my profile.
If you check out just about any 'alternate' modality, you'll have a very good chance of finding it claims high success on MS. In comparison, most modalities don't tend to claim success rates on amputations. Though both involve the destruction of tissues.
It's a great case study in science based medicine.
"what do you have to lose?" - in general time, often money, and a demonstrated reduced likelihood of pursuing scientifically valid treatments. The more claims of beneficial treatments adding to therapeutic noise, the harder it is for individuals to assess treatments properly. On aggregate, we're worse off for the claims of well meaning (and hucksterish) folks.
"it would be worth the inconvenience of trying it out for a few months even if the odds of success are very small." - isn't that the sales pitch of every snake oil salesman or true believer?
FWIW: I have PPMS, and I've heard literally hundreds of claims, ranging from many different (and contradictory) diets, through 'eastern medicine' to revival prayer meetings. The details of the method change, but the structure of the claims, and the way they use evidence, are remarkably similar.
That comparison deliberately wipes out the actual differences between immune disease and amputation which give rise to the idea that the immune system can be affected by diet in ways amputation cannot. If you want to be scientific, use reason.
> "it would be worth the inconvenience of trying it out for a few months even if the odds of success are very small." - isn't that the sales pitch of every snake oil salesman or true believer?
That is an invalid answer to that pitch. There are many times that pitch is completely valid, too; when a small inconvenience is worth trying even if the odds of success are very small (such as this article's study itself!).
I still can't understand why there's so much anti-reason surrounding "defense" of "science-based" medicine. If it's an overreaction to quackery, then it's an ineffective one.
Pascal's wager works the same way. And it would be a reasonable argument if you forget to multiply by the number of such claims.
Because you should be downvoted for this.
People who have long-standing health conditions, that they have perhaps battled their whole lives, don't need people on the Internet arm-chair quarterbacking their treatment. They have medical professionals that they've worked with for years and trust, they have almost certainly done more research than you or I about their condition, and they have heard the latest fad cure-all from everyone, everyday, for years. They get it on their facebook wall, they get it from well-meaning (but poorly informed) friends and family, and they get it from strangers on the Internet.
Don't be that stranger on the Internet. Your intentions are positive and laudable, your actions are not.
In short: Unless someone has asked for advice about treatment options for their chronic condition, it is probably impolite to offer it.
Source: Conversations with friends with MS, CP, disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, and various trainings in how to provide safer spaces for people with a variety of conditions.
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/07/40497653...
The fact is that doctors are often NOT that helpful for people with complicated neurological conditions (no one knows this better than I do!), so some of us are left to fend for ourselves. Given that that's the case, I don't see what's so terrible about asking someone whether they have tried a treatment that some people have found to be effective. My perspective is that an elimination diet is worth a try for anyone with an autoimmune or difficult-to-diagnose neurological condition. That opinion is based on a lot more knowledge and personal experience than you have assumed it is, but it's true that I didn't make that clear in my comment.
The only reason I even responded to MyBunny was that he said that he was having "a hard time finding hope." I thought that if there was even a sliver of a chance that my suggestion could help him find hope, then it was worth getting downvoted to oblivion. But if my voice is merely one of a chorus that have suggested the same worthless idea to him, then for that I am sorry.
Ultimately, I do see your point, and thank you for your perspective, but I don't think that I can entirely agree with you.
Though I still think the advice to only offer treatment suggestions when asked is always sound. The Internet seems to exacerbate the problem of overwhelming amounts of unsolicited advice, which can breed its own sort of despair.
Research into ketogenic diets is pretty new, (and as far as I am aware, has been shown to have positive effects on neurodegenerative diseases in rat studies). There is a possibility that it may help.
Certainly there may be gems of valuable input that may come from strangers on the internet, but with no other signals indicating quality, it is just more noise in an already complicated topic.
Again: In conversations with someone who has a chronic condition, unless the person has asked for advice (in some way) about their treatment, it is generally rude to offer your thoughts on the matter. Just as I wouldn't suggest you go on a diet if I think you're a little overweight or that I think you should be on antipsychotic drugs because I saw you get angry one time, your knowledge of a strangers situation is too low to be helpful. And, they hear it all the time, and most of the time the advice they get is bullshit.
It has helped him deal with things.
The problem is that basic research really is crucial to understanding many diseases, but you can't get it funded because it's not sexy enough (or really, because funding has been cut so much in most countries). So on one hand, the claims that you see are definitely blown out of proportion, but it doesn't mean that something useful wasn't learned. You'd have to read the paper to really know.
> The vessels were detected after Louveau developed a method to mount a mouse’s meninges – the membranes covering the brain – on a single slide so that they could be examined as a whole. “It was fairly easy, actually,” he said. “There was one trick: We fixed the meninges within the skullcap, so that the tissue is secured in its physiological condition, and then we dissected it."
Can someone explain what it means to fix the meninges to the skullcap? Do they mean they attached it to the skull bone? How then do they mount a curved bone to a slide?
They're referring to fixation [0], or preservation of the tissue, and not to affixation, the attachment of something.
So, basically, they fixed the tissue prior to removing it from the skull, causing it to keep form. Whereas, if they removed the tissue from the skull and then chemically fixed it, the tissue would have already lost form and the lymph would be undetectable (no longer be in original form).
Think about a cake in a pan. Baking = fixing. Remove the cake before "fixing" it, and it's a plot of mess. "Fix" it first, and you have a free-standing cake, it'll hold shape. Bad analogy, sorry. :)
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(histology)
Edit: forgot reference.
[0] Sometimes I think that the perceived complexity of the universe says more about the mind than the universe itself.
It has very significant implications for diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease (aka Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS), multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, etc.
It upsets me that the author keep referring autism as a disease. A high functioning autistic would be very offended if you say that their way of thinking is a disease.
Note to the downvoters: A developmental range of disorders is not a disease. If you don't agree you are invited to comment.
Ableism and this article comes to mind http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avo...
(that their* way of thinking)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorder
It jumps you to an anchor on the Disease page.
So: even if it offends you, it is not incorrect usage.
I did not downvote you.
>"The term disorder is often considered more value-neutral and less stigmatizing than the terms disease or illness, and therefore is a preferred terminology in some circumstances"
Also, regarding mental disorders the link says:
"In mental health, the term mental disorder is used as a way of acknowledging the complex interaction of biological, social, and psychological factors in psychiatric conditions."
And the wikipedia entry even touch the point I was referring to:
"On the other hand, by emphasizing the medical nature of the condition, this term (disease) is sometimes rejected, such as by proponents of the autism rights movement."
Finally the link starts the section with this phrase:
"In many cases, terms such as disease, disorder, morbidity and illness are used interchangeably.[3] ##There are situations however when specific terms are considered preferable.##" (emphasis is mine)
The diagram of the "new" human lymphatic system is in the press release not the research paper.
I do recognise the value of animal models in research, and this is intriguing, but with tempering with a little caution.
The anti-vaxers are going to have a field day with all this gray area to sow misinformation into.
"In a [stunning|amazing] discovery that overturns [years|decades|centuries] of [textbook teaching|beliefs|research] [researchers|scientists] at the <XYZ Lab> have discovered that the <PQR premise> holds false."
(Article has an index of 0.14 -- not BS)
edit to add: Not mine, just a site I used to know about that fit this description.
I'm not sure who's self-promoting; this is a news article about a big discovery.
> But I would caution some skepticism, especially when the discoverer trumpets the extraordinary significance of the discovery.
The linked article is from a news organization.
Further, the data for the article are published in a high-profile journal; these are fairly credible findings.
I find your comment offending.
You can ascribe God to dark matter and placebo effects, but you just have a God of the Gaps.
Does it mean that brain can control your immune system?
I don't think so. It looks like immune system protects your brain though. Also I am not medical scientist and it would be nice to hear others opinions.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/happiness-stress-h...
Whether that's due to this, or just the fact that the brain controls the release of stress hormones into the bloodstream is a different question.