Is ME/CFS modern disease?

[Hip]

Or has *something* about modern living (say the past 100 years or so) caused us to become more susceptible?

Two factors in modernity that likely plays a role in how pathogens evolve and mutate is urbanization and transportation: as we increasingly urbanize, human beings begin to live in closer and closer contact with each other, all of us spreading germs to each other (in offices, crowded public transport, shops, busy bars and nightclubs, etc), and modern transportation — ie, cars, trains and aeroplanes — allows pathogens to travel easily from one city or country to another.

Evolutionary biologist Paul Ewald argues that whereas infectious pathogens in rural environment (like much of Africa) tend to evolve to become more virulent and more lethal, in urban environments they do the opposite, and become less virulent and less lethal.

This is not because infectious pathogens are developing compassion and a soft spot for humanity, but simply because in crowded populated environments like cities, the pathogen's chances of transmission to a new host (another human) are greater if the pathogen does don't rapidly kill the human, because then that human can keep circulating among other humans, and the changes of transmission to lots of other humans is much higher.

So for this reason, in crowded urban environments, pathogens will tend to evolve into more benign, less virulent and less lethal from, argues Paul Ewald.

In primitive rural environments, where people live in villages of just a few hundred people, and where transport links are sparse and very slow, a pathogen does not have much opportunity to infect millions of people. So there is no advantage for the pathogen in keeping its host alive, because that infected person does not circulate among millions of people, only the few people of the village. Thus in rural environments, there are very few opportunities for the pathogen to jump into a new host.

Thus in order to maximize its chances of infecting as many other rural villagers as possible, the pathogen may evolve into a nasty virulent form, perhaps causing lots of nasty infected sores on the skin of the host which ooze out infected puss, and then killing the host so that the other villagers might be infected by the sores as they bury him.

Creating a nasty, bloody, puss-ridden rapid death is an excellent strategy for pathogen in a rural environment to maximize its chances of transmission.


So what are the consequences of pathogens evolving into less virulent forms in urban environments? Perhaps pathogen-associated chronic diseases like ME/CFS are the consequence. If pathogens no longer want to kill us outright, but prefer to keep us alive so that we can spread the pathogen to others in the city, we might see an increase in pathogen-associated chronic diseases. We can have a chronic disease, but as long as we are healthy enough to continue circulating among other humans, coughing and spluttering our germs over them, that benefits the pathogen.

 

[Marky90]

Two factors in modernity that likely plays a role in how pathogens evolve and mutate is urbanization and transportation: as we increasingly urbanize, human beings begin to live in closer and closer contact with each other, all of us spreading germs to each other (in offices, crowded public transport, shops, busy bars and nightclubs, etc), and modern transportation — ie, cars, trains and aeroplanes — allows pathogens to travel easily from one city or country to another.

Evolutionary biologist Paul Ewald argues that whereas infectious pathogens in rural environment (like much of Africa) tend to evolve to become more virulent and more lethal, in urban environments they do the opposite, and become less virulent and less lethal.

This is not because infectious pathogens are developing compassion and a soft spot for humanity, but simply because in crowded populated environments like cities, the pathogen's chances of transmission to a new host (another human) are greater if the pathogen does don't rapidly kill the human, because then that human can keep circulating among other humans, and the changes of transmission to lots of other humans is much higher.

So for this reason, in crowded urban environments, pathogens will tend to evolve into more benign, less virulent and less lethal from, argues Paul Ewald.

In primitive rural environments, where people live in villages of just a few hundred people, and where transport links are sparse and very slow, a pathogen does not have much opportunity to infect millions of people. So there is no advantage for the pathogen in keeping its host alive, because that infected person does not circulate among millions of people, only the few people of the village. Thus in rural environments, there are very few opportunities for the pathogen to jump into a new host.
,

Thus in order to maximize its chances of infecting as many other rural villagers as possible, the pathogen may evolve into a nasty virulent form, perhaps causing lots of nasty infected sores on the skin of the host which ooze out infected puss, and then killing the host so that the other villagers might be infected by the sores as they bury him.

Creating a nasty, bloody, puss-ridden rapid death is an excellent strategy for pathogen in a rural environment to maximize its chances of transmission.


So what are the consequences of pathogens evolving into less virulent forms in urban environments? Perhaps pathogen-associated chronic diseases like ME/CFS are the consequence. If pathogens no longer want to kill us outright, but prefer to keep us alive so that we can spread the pathogen to others in the city, we might see an increase in pathogen-associated chronic diseases. We can have a chronic disease, but as long as we are healthy enough to continue circulating among other humans, coughing and spluttering our germs over them, that benefits the pathogen.

OR, environmental factors helps to trigger autoimmunity/immune dysfunction.

 

[sarah darwins]

OR, environmental factors helps to trigger autoimmunity/immune dysfunction.

Or both?

 

[PennyIA]

Or both?

I'm a firm believer of a general concept of 'load bearing' when it relates to health.

Which means there's some level XYZ (unknown and can vary from person to person) where by as long as stress, environmental factors, viruses etc... all cumulatively stay below the level of XYZ - we can adapt to the negative factors and remain healthy.

BUT, it might be a virus that pushes you over your limit. Or there might be an excessive amount of mold exposure that pushes you over the level... or a different health condition. etc. etc.

Kind of like the load bearing wall that can handle a minor flood and can handle someone bumping it with a hammer; and can handle a little bit of termites or a little bit of dry rot. But pile all four on top, or make the minor flood more major; replace the hammer with a sledge hammer, etc... and suddenly the whole thing just can't bear the weight any longer.

 

[Hip]

I'm a firm believer of a general concept of 'load bearing' when it relates to health.

Microbial overload is something that I also think might play a role in the chronic diseases around us, and in the assumed increase autoimmune diseases.

We are now highly urbanized and globally interconnected, and this means that infectious pathogens from all areas of the planet can find "new markets" for themselves across the world. Just as we have lots of invasive plant and animal species appearing due to globalization, we may also have lots of invasive infectious microorganisms.

This may mean that the body load of viruses that the average person harbors will be increased, which conceivably may raise the chances of developing diseases such as autoimmune conditions, or mental health conditions like depression, anxiety, etc if the virus affects the brain.



So although I think there could well be some truth to the hygiene hypothesis (the idea that lack of early childhood exposure to bacteria due to living in modern clean cities may underpin the rise in autoimmune diseases), I also think a diametrically opposed concept might also be true:

The Microbial Overload Hypothesis — the possibility that we are more exposed to disease-causing pathogens (particularly viruses) than ever before in history, as a result of urbanization and globalization. Thus viral overload in our bodies might be the reason why we are apparently seeing a rise in so many chronic diseases and autoimmune diseases.

There are lots of newly discovered viruses that most people will not have even heard of, but which are found with close to 100% seropositivity in human populations around the globe.

Around two dozen new viruses that infect humans have been found in the last 20 years, and many are highly prevalent. For example:

Human metapneumovirus for example is a newly discovered virus found in nearly 100% of people.

Torque teno virus is another newly-discovered and ubiquitous virus: found in more than 90% of adults worldwide.

Saffold virus is newly-discovered and found in 90% of adults, and may help precipitate multiple sclerosis.

Aichivirus A is newly-discovered and found in around 90% of adults.


And there are dozens more newly-discovered viruses like this.