Cipher
Administrator
- Messages
- 1,233
for example live blood taken from a vein is simply re-injected under the skin in sheep autovaccination and was proven effective in the studies discussed earlier in this thread. That would also have had v low counts of bacteria in it - or the animal would have been dead already from acute bacteraemia.
I don't remember seeing that study, could you link it? Autovaccines used in veterinary medicine are normally produced in a lab in a similar fashion to human autovaccines.
also, since the patients with CFS/ME are already exposed to antigens at some level from the biofilm colonies inside them ( if Markov is correct ) - adding more antigens - no matter if its a small amount more - is unlikely to cause immunotolerance as it will be moving in the other direction.
The bacteria may not even exist at the oral tolerance induction sites in the GI-tract (e.g. Peyer's patches), so I still think that ingesting antigens in small amounts that aren't immunostimulatory seems risky in theory. I can't see how it could be effective anyway.
Re oral tolerance:
Oral tolerance is described as a physiological phenomenon that contributes to prevent pathological conditions to food protein and commensal microbiota, inhibiting responses that could cause damage such as hypersensitivity reactions, lymphocyte proliferation, and antibody formation [1]. Most of all, tolerance induced to these natural antigens that reach the intestinal lumen seems to be an analog of tolerance to self-components. Since microbiota and dietary antigens are part of our physiological interface with the external environment, tolerogenic mechanisms in the mucosal surfaces must have evolved to treat these antigens as complementary or quasi-self.