Arthritis Book: The Road Back

This is not medical advice, I am not a doctor. I am not affiliated (had to buy the book second hand, it is old). Always consult your medical doctor, this is just my shallow view on very complex interactions in a very complex system, the human body.

I am trying to understand more about the human body and its diseases that influence our well-being. Sharing this information could be interesting to other people or other people might have interesting info to share with me. This book is quite old (nineties) but has a quite interesting take on several conditions, rheumatoid arthritis but also other conditions like spondylitis.

Also read the very small wikipedia article dedicated to Dr McPherson Brown, MD. He is very niche and has lost out to the "established science".

Story

The story of the book is what most people experience when you have a condition that isn't the common sniffles. Medicine and the medical world have come a long way and a lot of diseases that were life threatening can now be cured. But still, there are problems that we seek help for that seem to fall through the cracks of the medical system. Sometimes it is because it is more interesting to treat the symptoms and not the root cause. Because the root cause is complicated. Or other factors play a role. The reason is not irrelevant, we need to understand it so we can act accordingly. But for the solution, the reason is irrelevant, we just want to dig deeper. Do our research and spend the hours needed to better understand the human body and its complicated eco-system. Because, we have to be blunt here, there is no Dr House for regular people. It is economically not viable to spend days or weeks of the smartest medical doctors in the world to find a root cause of an issue. And, let's go all in, a cure for the root cause as well.

Strabism

Moreover, this book is also similar to other stories where the established science isn't open to re-evaluate the assumptions they made. Professor Susan Barry is a perfect example where the science was established. "Stereo Sue" was told that it was highly unlikely (read impossible) to acquire stereo vision in adult life. Strabism is a condition of the eyes where the two eyes see (slightly) different images. The brain is not able to fuse them together and develop binocular or stereo vision. The common standpoint of the medical world was that after the age of 12 years, it was quickly going to be impossible to acquire true binocular vision. But prof. Barry suffered of the condition herself and proved in her fifties that it is possible to develop stereo vision. Because she was extremely motivated (because of her own condition) to find out for sure. Humanity was lucky that she was a biology professor and had the credentials to publish something that went against the current and established science. People with the same motivation, having the condition, but another filed of expertise (or no expertise at all) would see much more resistance and ridicule when challenging established science. Even when they are right. That is unfortunately the way things go in today's society. If you are motivated enough, possess the right brain power and spend a huge amount of time on the topic, it is possible to change the world. Chances are slim in most cases, but what is the alternative?

Note: prof. Barry proved that adults with various eye issues that prevent development of stereo vision can still train their brain (it is not an eye issue, it is a brain issue) to develop it in adult life. That doesn't mean that everyone that was never able to develop stereo vision can develop it. There are many things that could make it impossible to acquire it. The most important contribution she made to science is proof that what we can improve science. Even overthrow established knowledge.

Inflammation

It strikes me that quite a few conditions that deteriorate human lives can potentially be linked to inflammation. Often, serious conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, hypothyroidism and spondylitis go hand in hand with depression. Reading about the latest science related to depression, the link with gut bacteria and inflammation seems interesting. Because, once we are in the realm of psychiatry, we treat the symptoms with medication. But what if depression is actually the symptom of another underlying condition? Shouldn't we find the underlying condition and treat it? Often the underlying disease is already there but hasn't been diagnosed. But we see the resulting depression and treat it as such. It doesn't help that every branch of medicine has its own practitioners that are specializing in a topic. We are missing the big picture in almost all cases. For example, people with hypothyroidism experience all symptoms even though the blood analysis shows all thyroid related markers as within the acceptable range. The endocrinologist will simply refer to a psychiatrist for the depression symptoms related to hypothyroidism. Like the Susan Barry story, multiple books have been written about how people had "normal" blood work and still they were suffering from hypo- or hyperthyroidism with proof. But those people were not professors in biology or endocrinology, they were not even doctors. The problem here is that you get stood up by the traditional medical world. For whatever reason, they do not question their understanding of their own field. Their experience is that in most cases, normal thyroid values means not a thyroid problem, so they refer to other fields of expertise. And people go to other doctors that also do not find something in their area of expertise. They eventually end up without a solution to their problems. Or with medication that is targeting one or more symptoms without actually treating the underlying condition. And inflammation in past or present, seems to pop up in quite a few areas in the medical world as a potential root cause for other conditions. Therefor, I take an interest in reading about various diseases and conditions. Read a book about it, take notes and then find another interesting book to read about another topic. It is really interesting to find similarities like this.

Conclusion

The book gave a few clues about bacteria, mycoplasma's and allergic reactions. So, the next step is to find out more about the Arthritis institute he mentions in his book. Has his research been continued? Is the current treatment still problematic or have they found a cure? Were his finding genuine but suppressed by other factors in play? Right or wrong, it is fascinating what he describes in his book and I want to find out more.

If there are people out there, researching complex medical conditions that might or might not touch longevity, inflammation, spondylitis, arthritis and all symptoms that relate to it, please feel free to suggest articles, research, books and/or documentaries.