Medical Forum / General / Alternative / January 2008
Re: Troublesome Appendix Has Function
|
|
Thread rating:  |
rpautrey2 - 22 Jan 2008 09:58 GMT ** ** rpautrey2
Vindication! Troublesome appendix has function Researchers think organ produces, protects good germs Associated Press Saturday, October 6, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.
That's the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week.
For generations the appendix has been dismissed as superfluous. Doctors figured it had no function. Surgeons removed them routinely. People ive fine without them.
And when infected the appendix can turn deadly. It gets inflamed quickly and some people die if it isn't removed in time. Two years ago, 321,000 Americans were hospitalized with appendicitis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. There are more bacteria than human cells in the typical body. Most of it is good and helps digest food.
But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix's job is to reboot the digestive system in that case.
The appendix "acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker, a study co-author. Its location -- just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine in a sort of gut cul-de-sac -- helps support the theory, he said.
Also, the worm-shaped organ outgrowth acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs, Parker said.
That use is not needed in a modern industrialized society, Parker said. If a person's gut flora dies, they can usually repopulate it easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn't as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy.
In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S., other studies have shown, Parker said.
He said the appendix may be another case of an overly hygienic society triggering an overreaction by the body's immune system.
Even though the appendix seems to have a function, people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because it could turn deadly, Parker said. About 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year, according to the CDC.
Five scientists not connected with the research said that the Duke theory makes sense and raises interesting questions.
The idea "seems by far the most likely" explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. "It makes evolutionary sense."
**The theory led Gary Huffnagle, a University of Michigan internal medicine and microbiology professor, to wonder about the value of another body part that is often yanked: "I'll bet eventually we'll find the same sort of thing with the tonsils."**
(c) 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co.
Kevysmom - 22 Jan 2008 12:40 GMT > ** ** rpautrey2 > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > (c) 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. This is interesting...
I feel like God gave us every body part and organ for a reason.
> He said the appendix may be another case of an overly hygienic society > triggering an overreaction by the body's immune system. Yeah, those cleaning chemicals will do a number on your immune system.
drceephd@insightbb.com - 22 Jan 2008 15:15 GMT > ** ** rpautrey2 > > Vindication! Troublesome appendix has function > Researchers think organ produces, protects good germs > Associated Press > Saturday, October 6, 2007 Well duh! I'll wager that 9 times out of 10 the patients do not have appendicitis. Yet the allopaths will remove the healthy appendix anyway. Anyone got the stats on how many healthy appendixes are routinely removed?
The Orthopaths would not automatically do surgery. If the appendix became inflamed, they knew how to care for the patient so that it did not rupture. Only if the appendix had ruptured was surgery necessay to avoid peritinitis.
> **The theory led Gary Huffnagle, a University of Michigan internal > medicine and microbiology professor, to wonder about the value of > another body part that is often yanked: "I'll bet eventually we'll > find the same sort of thing with the tonsils."** > > (c) 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. I thought we already had determined that the tonsils were important and should not be routinely excised. The greater problem was when the ignorant allopath is his zeal to "get it all" would use X-rays on the area. We now have many vicitms of X-ray induced thyroid cancer as a example of this ignorant excess.
DrCee Not a pharma shill ( I am not here to lie to you or deceive you )
D. C. Sessions - 22 Jan 2008 15:33 GMT > Well duh! I'll wager that 9 times out of 10 the patients do not have > appendicitis. Yet the allopaths will remove the healthy appendix > anyway. Anyone got the stats on how many healthy appendixes are > routinely removed? Would you believe them if they disagreed with your (quoted above) admittedly ignorant opinion?
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Peter Moran - 22 Jan 2008 20:27 GMT On Jan 22, 4:58 am, rpautrey2 <rpautr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ** ** rpautrey2 > > Vindication! Troublesome appendix has function > Researchers think organ produces, protects good germs > Associated Press > Saturday, October 6, 2007
>Well duh! I'll wager that 9 times out of 10 the patients do not have >appendicitis. Yet the allopaths will remove the healthy appendix >anyway. Anyone got the stats on how many healthy appendixes are >routinely removed?
>The Orthopaths would not automatically do surgery. If the appendix >became inflamed, they knew how to care for the patient so that it did >not rupture. Only if the appendix had ruptured was surgery necessay >to avoid peritinitis. Dr Cee, appendictis had a 25% mortality rate early last century while medicine was still dragging itself out of the old superstitions like vitalism and orthopathy. People will get very ill and some will die if they believe your nonsense, or if they delay, hoping they can cure any persistent abdominal pain by themselves.
The proposed hypothesis is shaky .The normal appendix has a trivial surface area compared to that of the rest of the colon, so that it seems unlikely to me that its bacterial/mucus film is going to be very significant in repopulating the colon after diarrhoeal illness.
The researchers themselves conclude that the appendix has no function in today's highly sanitised society, and they also support the policy of removing inflamed appendixes. The l.ifetime risk of appendicitis for Americans is 15-20%, decreasing with age, so that routine removal of the appendix when it is easily accessible at operation can also be argued to be a good thing for many patients. It is something that surgeons themselves argue about.
PM
D. C. Sessions - 22 Jan 2008 20:54 GMT > Dr Cee, appendictis had a 25% mortality rate early last century while > medicine was still dragging itself out of the old superstitions like > vitalism and orthopathy. People will get very ill and some will die if > they believe your nonsense, or if they delay, hoping they can cure any > persistent abdominal pain by themselves. To put this in perspective, what is the distribution of delay from first symptoms to rupture? I know in my own case that it was less than 48 hours from first symptoms to what my surgeon likened to handling a live grenade. I also know that in some cases (including a scandalous local one a while back) patients go the better part of a week between the two endpoints.
So: how long does Cee have for his supposedly infallible interventions to do their magic?
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Peter Moran - 22 Jan 2008 21:33 GMT >> Dr Cee, appendictis had a 25% mortality rate early last century while >> medicine was still dragging itself out of the old superstitions like [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So: how long does Cee have for his supposedly infallible > interventions to do their magic? As with most illnesses, appendicitis pursues a very variable course. Milder cases can even resolve by themselves. I doubt if the appendix can perforate and produce peritonitis in under 48-72 hours, but some patients seem to present with generallised peritonitis without much in the way of premonitory symptoms. . In other cases the perforation is minor and walled off by adhesions to produce an abscess. Appendiceal abscesses also have a variable progress ranging from early death from septicemia, to spontaneous resolution , through rupture into the bowel or vagina.
PM
D. C. Sessions - 22 Jan 2008 22:11 GMT >>> Dr Cee, appendictis had a 25% mortality rate early last century while >>> medicine was still dragging itself out of the old superstitions like [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > have a variable progress ranging from early death from septicemia, to > spontaneous resolution , through rupture into the bowel or vagina. Sorry, PM -- I used a term of art (not your own) on you. "Distribution" refers to the quantitative relationship between two nondeterministic variables -- in other words, "N% in 1-2 days, M% in 2-3 days, etc."
I know that some are quite fast (mine) and others slow-to-self-limiting. The real question is how many in each bucket so as to get a rough idea of the consequences of delay and how many patients he's writing off by trying to push a "cure" through the alimentary track.
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Kevysmom - 22 Jan 2008 22:41 GMT What about prevention? Now that we know what causes it, How many lives can we save by getting rid of all these chemicals in the home!
> In message <13pco9elg0no...@corp.supernews.com>, Peter Moran wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - D. C. Sessions - 22 Jan 2008 23:04 GMT (Regarding appendicitis:)
> What about prevention? Now that we know what causes it, How many lives > can we save by getting rid of all these chemicals in the home! We (meaning Evil Organized Medicine) have known what causes it for a long time: bacteria going wild in a relatively benign environment. (I won't pretend to speak for the orthopaths, homeopaths, cell-salt-sellers-by-the-sea-shore, Hulda Clark, etc.)
What to do about it? All of the conceivable preventive measures do more harm than good. Appendicitis has been with us from ancient times. It used to be just one of those "well, you live or you die" things that life was full of. Now we have a much higher survival rate.
As for chemicals in the home? Do you agree that they are increasing?
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Richard Schultz - 23 Jan 2008 05:32 GMT : What about prevention? Now that we know what causes it, How many lives : can we save by getting rid of all these chemicals in the home! Why don't you start with H2O, NaCl, C12H22O11, and proteins? From there you can move on to, say, O2.
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Peter Moran - 22 Jan 2008 22:59 GMT >>>> Dr Cee, appendictis had a 25% mortality rate early last century while >>>> medicine was still dragging itself out of the old superstitions like [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > idea of the consequences of delay and how many patients he's writing > off by trying to push a "cure" through the alimentary track. I don't posses such figures, but I can tell you that the overall mortality of acute appendicitis is now about 0.08% (in 4950 cases -- Hale et Al Ann Surg 225:252-261, 1997) meaning that even more advanced cases can mostly be salvaged in these days of modern anesthesia, intensive care and antibiotics. It is now very unusual to have a death from appendicitis, and it is usually only when the diagnosis has been missed.
The main risk of delay (assuming the patient eventually sees a proper doctor) is a long drawn-out and life-sapping illness with multiple complications --abscesses, fistulae etc. But it will be too late to save a few if they wait too long.
I am not saying all of alternative medicine is bad or without usefulness for some, but elements of it like DRCee are definitely trying to take us back to the dark ages. We are now seeing some awful cases of advanced local breast cancer from women being led to believe that breast cancer is another of those trivial medical annoyances that can be fixed up with a few supplements and a different diet (see http://www.vci.org/breastcancer1.htm for examples).
Of course, warning people against ineffective methods doesn't mean that they will then choose effective methods. All we can do is try and get the available information looked at.
PM
www.cancerwatcher.com
D. C. Sessions - 22 Jan 2008 23:25 GMT > I don't posses such figures, but I can tell you that the overall mortality > of acute appendicitis is now about 0.08% (in 4950 cases -- Hale et Al Ann > Surg 225:252-261, 1997) meaning that even more advanced cases can mostly be > salvaged in these days of modern anesthesia, intensive care and antibiotics. > It is now very unusual to have a death from appendicitis, and it is usually > only when the diagnosis has been missed. Which is what happened here a couple of years ago.
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Richard Schultz - 23 Jan 2008 05:34 GMT :> It is now very unusual to have a death from appendicitis, and it is usually :> only when the diagnosis has been missed.
: Which is what happened here a couple of years ago. Just to play devil's advocate -- my father's FMF was misdiagnosed as appendicitis some 40 years ago. What are the risks of "appendicitis" when we include people who are diagnosed with it even thoughthey don't have it?
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
Peter Moran - 23 Jan 2008 06:57 GMT > :> It is now very unusual to have a death from appendicitis, and it is > usually [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > appendicitis some 40 years ago. What are the risks of "appendicitis" when > we include people who are diagnosed with it even thoughthey don't have it? FMF?
That used to be very common -- even 10-20 per cent in inexperienced hands. Acute abdominal pain is very common, especially in children, and sorting out those who needed surgery from those who didn't required great clinical skill, with little help from any investigations. Fortunately the risks of negative exploratory surgery are very low. Nowadays it aslo safe to use a period of observation when in doubt, high resolution CT scans can help in making the diagnosis, and diagnostic laparoscopy can be a final step when still not sure.
PM
D. C. Sessions - 23 Jan 2008 13:55 GMT > Nowadays it aslo safe to use a > period of observation when in doubt, high resolution CT scans can help in > making the diagnosis, and diagnostic laparoscopy can be a final step when > still not sure. I'm mildly curious about when CT got good enough to be useful, since they didn't use it on me ten years ago.
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Peter Moran - 23 Jan 2008 20:07 GMT >> Nowadays it aslo safe to use a >> period of observation when in doubt, high resolution CT scans can help in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm mildly curious about when CT got good enough to be useful, > since they didn't use it on me ten years ago. It is only practical with modern high speed machines using high resolution and fine cuts. It is in increasing use, but I think the final appraisal of its place and it usefulness will take time.
PM
> | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | > | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | > | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+ drceephd@insightbb.com - 23 Jan 2008 20:10 GMT > > I'm mildly curious about when CT got good enough to be useful, > > since they didn't use it on me ten years ago. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > PM Your comments have what to do with alternative medicine? Your comments would be better served on sci.med, hocuspocus.med, or payoutyourass.med.
DrCee Not a pharma shill ( I am not here to promote the allopathic medical lies and deceit)
D. C. Sessions - 23 Jan 2008 20:40 GMT > Your comments have what to do with alternative medicine? > Your comments would be better served on sci.med, hocuspocus.med, or > payoutyourass.med. D-- old bird, 90% and more of the posts on this board have nothing to do with alternative medicine. This board is about two things, and those two only (in order of volume): 1) Jan Drew 2) Attacks on science-based medicine
Of course, we're in no danger of you netcopping most of the traffic, so just go along and do whatever it is you do in between appearances here.
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Richard Schultz - 23 Jan 2008 17:32 GMT :> Just to play devil's advocate -- my father's FMF was misdiagnosed as :> appendicitis some 40 years ago. What are the risks of "appendicitis" when :> we include people who are diagnosed with it even thoughthey don't have it? : FMF? Familial Mediterranean Fever. My father is one of the few Ashkenazic Jews who suffer from it. Interestingly enough, the only doctor he had who came up with the correct diagnosis without a *lot* of prompting was of Sephardic extraction.
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "I've lost my harmonica, Albert."
D. C. Sessions - 23 Jan 2008 13:52 GMT > Just to play devil's advocate -- my father's FMF was misdiagnosed as > appendicitis some 40 years ago. What are the risks of "appendicitis" when > we include people who are diagnosed with it even thoughthey don't have it? I can identify.
Ten years ago, I had a case of lower-right-quadrant abdominal pain that kept the ER troops dithering all morning. X-ray, bloodwork, the usual manual examination, you name it. All inconclusive.
So, with Mayo across the street, they pulled in an abdominal surgeon to take a look. As he put it, they didn't have enough information to do anything noninvasive, and it *might* have been an appendix, so one way or another the Mark One eyeball was indicated.
(This was apparently before CT was accepted as a reliable tool for abdominal soft-tissue diagnostics.)
So in went the general and a few hours later I'm in recovery with staples in my belly.
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. | +--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
Peter Bowditch - 23 Jan 2008 00:31 GMT >>> Dr Cee, appendictis had a 25% mortality rate early last century while >>> medicine was still dragging itself out of the old superstitions like [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >PM Why would the orthopaths so beloved by "Dr" Cee care about peritonitis or septicemia? Surely infection and germs can't hurt anyone.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
rpautrey2 - 24 Jan 2008 01:23 GMT Why do research? Just ask PM. PA
> <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >anyway. Anyone got the stats on how many healthy appendixes are > >routinely removed?
> Dr Cee, appendictis had a 25% mortality rate early last century while > medicine was still dragging itself out of the old superstitions like [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > today's highly sanitised society, and they also support the policy of > removing inflamed appendixes.**
> The l.ifetime risk of appendicitis for > Americans is 15-20%, decreasing with age, so that routine removal of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PM
|
|
|