Author: Pages2 (---.vnnyca.adelphia.net)
Date: 07-02-02 10:53
I have always felt that the cause and cure for Sarcoidosis will be found at the cellular level. That most likely will be within the Granuloma. This is where the following questions are based.
For instance 252 particles of “Man Made Materials” (MMM), was identified within my Granulomas yet my illness is still by the doctors who I have seen called Sarcoidosis - unknown cause.
Was this because I also had empty Granulomas?
Hope you understand that it seems so simple yet is so confusing.
Can you tell me a physician who will say that bacterial inside the Granuloma caused Sarcoidosis? If there is an article that says that rickettsiae “Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, (RMSF)?
or other bacterial causes Sarcoidosis? This was found on Autopsy, which was very unfortunate for these dear Sarcoidosis Buddies. Autopsies seem to be the area by which most is learned about Sarcoidosis. There are so many articles that have reported finding of Sarcoidosis as rare that have since had to change and update due to Autopsies proving the information incorrect. For instance an article about Sarcoidosis may state that Sarcoidosis of the heart effects a small percentage of those who have Sarcoidosis then the Autopsies may prove the information incorrect and that the percentage is higher than first thought.
After identifying the bacterial DNA within the Granuloma from Sarcoidosis patients are these doctors saying that a bacterium causes Sarcoidosis or will they say that the bacteria were just there? Will the doctors say that they do not know which came first the bacteria or the Sarcoidosis? Will the doctor say that person had Sarcoidosis first and then that person also was exposed to the bacteria?
Would bacterium die within a short time once a specimen is taken? Could this be part of the problem?
Can you understand that this is what I was up against when I went to the NJ, The doctors did not respond to the fact that there was a large amount of “Man Made Materials” (MMM), that was not suppose to be inside of my body. It did not seem to mater how the materials had gotten there. The interest seemed to be that my husband did not think that I had been exposed to the materials that he works with and that he has worked with over the last 30 years. He still works at this location and would not want to jeopardize his job. Also from my own research regarding “Man Made Materials” (MMM), and based on what the lab person said who did my biopsy analysis, my exposure most likely was a first occupational exposure meaning from my job. Actually my exposure in my opinion was a mixed exposure. This all points to truth tell laws, which may be the whole point of our unknown disease. Could it be that we are afraid and unwilling to admit that there are substances in our line of work that may be killing us?
Look at the Materials Data Sheets at your business. Remember that you will not find Sarcoidosis listed due to the fact that the cause of Sarcoidosis is unknown. What you will find is that many products that many people work with are known to cause Respiratory problems and Cancers. It is not that there are not enough numbers of people with Sarcoidosis it may be that numbers are not counted when it comes to Sarcoidosis. Could it be that Sarcoidosis is not viewed as serious enough disease? Often times Sarcoidosis is a misdiagnosis. Could this fact that a diagnosis of Sarcoidosis instead of a known Respiratory disease due to MMM be protecting dusty industries?
This discussion can not only focus on bacteria due to “The Chicken and the Egg” issues of which came first the bacteria/ “Man Made Materials” (MMM), within the Granuloma.
It all came down to “The Chicken and the Egg” children’s story. That is how my medical condition was handled. Which came first the “Man Made Materials” (MMM), or the Granuloma? Some Granulomas were empty. How could my Granulomas continue to hold on to so many particles of “Man Made Materials” (MMM)? Could the question also be asked it the Granulomas got tired of holding metals and let go? Some of my tissue was necroses or dying. The fact that my tissue is dying did not seem to cause any concern.
Another way to explain what my system had done was to tell me that my lymph nodes were the garbage pails of the body and that it was good that the “Man Made Materials” (MMM), were in my lymph nodes. That meant that my body was acting, as it should. To me that was not an adequate answer. If the “Man Made Materials” (MMM), were not Sarcoidosis but Lymphoma the fact that I had lymphoma would have gotten a much different reaction in my opinion. What do you think? Even the Cardiologist, who did my Mediasteinoscopy, discussed the question with me prior to my surgery, “Will removing my lymph nodes from behind my lungs and my heart cause Lymphoma to spread if this is in fact cancer?” His answer was that he would try to keep the lymph nodes in tack although that would be difficult, as they are not a hard in cased tissue as I had thought.
From what I understand of the immune system is that my system when I had the exposure to the metals worked properly by surrounding and encompassing the materials. My immune system was not made to engulf and digest metals and after a period of time the immune cells died and let go of the “Man Made Materials” (MMM), spilling them out into the system again. Also the report from my analysis reported scattered fine birefringent particulates. Could it be that the birefringent particles were sharp “Man Made Materials” (MMM), and cut their way out of the granulomas?
When I left the NJH running up more than 7,000 dollars what I had learned was that I had “The Chicken and the Egg” scenario, sleep apnea, and diagnosis with concentration problems.
But the one thing that I mostly went to NJH for was the environmental exposure issue. That was explained by using the analogy of “The Chicken or the Egg, which came first, was the bases of why I would still carry the diagnosis of Sarcoidosis an unknown cause disease.
One of the other ways that this may be looked at is that Beryllium disease at NJ is diagnosed based on a Beryllium lymphocyte test. I did have this test once here and one at NJH both times negative. My analysis did not include Beryllium. Could someone have a Beryllium exposure and disease resulting and yet be negative? So this question is not based on me but may be important regarding others.
So to relate this to the bacteria theory of “Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever” virus then according to the NJH would the person with Sarcoidosis have tested positive for “Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, (RMSF)?
If a person with Sarcoidosis were to die and have an autopsy that showed bacterial DNA. The DNA for rickettsiae or “TUBERCULOSIS” within a Granuloma would the doctor’s say that the rickettsiae or “TUBERCULOSIS” caused the Granuloma if it were known that this person had had a rickettsiae or “TUBERCULOSIS” skin test that was negative? Would a person after an autopsy that showed “TUBERCULOSIS” within some Granuloma would the diagnosis of rickettsiae or “TUBERCULOSIS” or would the person be given the diagnosis of Sarcoidosis if not all of the Granulomas show rickettsiae or “TUBERCULOSIS”?
SS
|
|
