slayadragon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,122
- Location
- twitpic.com/photos/SlayaDragon
PEM and C4a
I've been puzzling over the topic of C4a and thought I'd put some comments here.
First, Dr. Shoemaker's beliefs (which, to my understanding, have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet).
Dr. S says that C3a and C4a tend to be correlated with acute toxic mold exposures in non-CFS patients. If you can get these patients out of a moldy environment, their C3a and C4a (complement) levels go down to normal.
In CFS patients, that doesn't happen. He states in Mold Warriors that C3a remains stubbornly up. (That seems to be the case for C4a, which he doesn't discuss in MW. It seems to be much more correlated with toxic mold exposures than C3a though, he says now.)
Dr. S makes it seem in MW that C3a (and presumably C4a) are staying elevated for no apparent reason. That would be consistent with the idea that all kinds of things are causing inflammation in the CFS patient, not just mold.
HOWEVER, this is where my little trip down the rabbit hole has the potential of providing useful testable information.
Some of us pursuing extreme mold avoidance have found that insofar as we keep our exposures low, we are able to get those complement measures down to normal. (What I need to do is to arrange to get a draw before and then after a small exposure, to show that only a small amount of exposure indeed is needed to cause the elevation.)
It thus seems that in our case, C4a is not being driven by "general inflammation" or the system doing things randomly. It's in response to tiny bits of mold exposures.
This is hardly an unprecedented concept. It's exactly what happens in (say) peanut allergies, which is the metaphor that Erik's been using ever since 1998 when he first proposed the "extreme avoidance" concept to Dr. Peterson.
Similarly, those exercise studies (above) make it seem like CFSers are just generally inflamed. They observe C4a going up after exercise and staying up, and attribute the post-exertional malaise to it.
That's not our experience though. We experience the PEM not from exercise alone, but from exercise in combination with toxic mold. We've yet to find any other substance or any other variable that causes PEM, if toxic mold is taken out of the equation.
And as the authors suggest, there doesn't have to be any exercise in order to cause the problem (Erik's "no-exertional malaise" concept). They report C4a being elevated to begin with; it just gets worse with exercise.
I'd like to be able to say, "Yes, there are all kinds of things that cause inflammation in CFS, and mold is just one." That doesn't seem to be what's happening though. Underlying Lyme infections or XMRV infections or herpes virus infections or emotional stress or other sorts of chemicals don't, in our experience, interfere with the ability to exercise without PEM. Just the mold.
Moreover, the ability to exercise without PEM seems to occur almost immediately after getting free of the mold. Most of the improvements from mold avoidance take time. But with the PEM, it happens almost immediately. Based on our experience, if a CFSer can really get clear, it's possible for the ability to exercise to come back within a day or two, sometimes even within a couple of hours. Depending on the overall weakened state of the body and decreased muscle capabilities, exercise ABILITY may still be limited. But in that case, it's not inflammation driven and the PEM concept won't apply.
It's very hard for people to get that free of mold toxicity though. But the fact that some CFSers can engage in a perplexingly large amount of exercise at odd times without negative effects is consistent with this.
Going back to the title of this thread....I heard recently that stem cell patients in Cheney's studies had a certain inflammatory marker (that will remain unnamed but that is relevant to this post) go down. Dr. C apparently attributes this to general inflammation going down. Insofar as all his patients are like me, I would attribute it to their being able to "hold their mold" better.
Maybe this seems a small distinction, but I'm not so sure. If their C4a was initially really high because they were in a moldy environment and the stem cell made them more able to handle the moldy environment and all other mold exposures permanently, that would be great.
But our observations and Shoemaker's hypotheses suggest that the longer that normal people stay in moldy environments, the worse their health gets. If that's the case, wouldn't you expect a stem cell patient who went back to a really moldy house to eventually relapse?
In that case, wouldn't it make sense to take a look at the house and at least do some basic remediation so that the place isn't a Sick Building?
Certainly, remediation isn't cheap. It might even cost more than the $20k stem cell transplant.
But even if the stem cell transplants have the potential of allowing people's systems to withstand this crap, getting multiple transplants done seems like it would have the potential to really add up.
Maybe a stem cell transplant plus moderate avoidance (meaning simply not living in a really moldy place) would equal full wellness, not just the ten or twenty point improvements on the Karnofsky Performance Status index that Cheney's patients are reporting.
I asked Jen on another thread to give speculate on how exactly the stem cells might be influencing C4a or other issues of relevance to CFSers. Maybe she or others will do so here.
Thoughts please? This feels to me like maybe it's an important issue for us.
Best, Lisa
I've been puzzling over the topic of C4a and thought I'd put some comments here.
First, Dr. Shoemaker's beliefs (which, to my understanding, have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet).
Dr. S says that C3a and C4a tend to be correlated with acute toxic mold exposures in non-CFS patients. If you can get these patients out of a moldy environment, their C3a and C4a (complement) levels go down to normal.
In CFS patients, that doesn't happen. He states in Mold Warriors that C3a remains stubbornly up. (That seems to be the case for C4a, which he doesn't discuss in MW. It seems to be much more correlated with toxic mold exposures than C3a though, he says now.)
Dr. S makes it seem in MW that C3a (and presumably C4a) are staying elevated for no apparent reason. That would be consistent with the idea that all kinds of things are causing inflammation in the CFS patient, not just mold.
HOWEVER, this is where my little trip down the rabbit hole has the potential of providing useful testable information.
Some of us pursuing extreme mold avoidance have found that insofar as we keep our exposures low, we are able to get those complement measures down to normal. (What I need to do is to arrange to get a draw before and then after a small exposure, to show that only a small amount of exposure indeed is needed to cause the elevation.)
It thus seems that in our case, C4a is not being driven by "general inflammation" or the system doing things randomly. It's in response to tiny bits of mold exposures.
This is hardly an unprecedented concept. It's exactly what happens in (say) peanut allergies, which is the metaphor that Erik's been using ever since 1998 when he first proposed the "extreme avoidance" concept to Dr. Peterson.
Similarly, those exercise studies (above) make it seem like CFSers are just generally inflamed. They observe C4a going up after exercise and staying up, and attribute the post-exertional malaise to it.
That's not our experience though. We experience the PEM not from exercise alone, but from exercise in combination with toxic mold. We've yet to find any other substance or any other variable that causes PEM, if toxic mold is taken out of the equation.
And as the authors suggest, there doesn't have to be any exercise in order to cause the problem (Erik's "no-exertional malaise" concept). They report C4a being elevated to begin with; it just gets worse with exercise.
I'd like to be able to say, "Yes, there are all kinds of things that cause inflammation in CFS, and mold is just one." That doesn't seem to be what's happening though. Underlying Lyme infections or XMRV infections or herpes virus infections or emotional stress or other sorts of chemicals don't, in our experience, interfere with the ability to exercise without PEM. Just the mold.
Moreover, the ability to exercise without PEM seems to occur almost immediately after getting free of the mold. Most of the improvements from mold avoidance take time. But with the PEM, it happens almost immediately. Based on our experience, if a CFSer can really get clear, it's possible for the ability to exercise to come back within a day or two, sometimes even within a couple of hours. Depending on the overall weakened state of the body and decreased muscle capabilities, exercise ABILITY may still be limited. But in that case, it's not inflammation driven and the PEM concept won't apply.
It's very hard for people to get that free of mold toxicity though. But the fact that some CFSers can engage in a perplexingly large amount of exercise at odd times without negative effects is consistent with this.
Going back to the title of this thread....I heard recently that stem cell patients in Cheney's studies had a certain inflammatory marker (that will remain unnamed but that is relevant to this post) go down. Dr. C apparently attributes this to general inflammation going down. Insofar as all his patients are like me, I would attribute it to their being able to "hold their mold" better.
Maybe this seems a small distinction, but I'm not so sure. If their C4a was initially really high because they were in a moldy environment and the stem cell made them more able to handle the moldy environment and all other mold exposures permanently, that would be great.
But our observations and Shoemaker's hypotheses suggest that the longer that normal people stay in moldy environments, the worse their health gets. If that's the case, wouldn't you expect a stem cell patient who went back to a really moldy house to eventually relapse?
In that case, wouldn't it make sense to take a look at the house and at least do some basic remediation so that the place isn't a Sick Building?
Certainly, remediation isn't cheap. It might even cost more than the $20k stem cell transplant.
But even if the stem cell transplants have the potential of allowing people's systems to withstand this crap, getting multiple transplants done seems like it would have the potential to really add up.
Maybe a stem cell transplant plus moderate avoidance (meaning simply not living in a really moldy place) would equal full wellness, not just the ten or twenty point improvements on the Karnofsky Performance Status index that Cheney's patients are reporting.
I asked Jen on another thread to give speculate on how exactly the stem cells might be influencing C4a or other issues of relevance to CFSers. Maybe she or others will do so here.
Thoughts please? This feels to me like maybe it's an important issue for us.
Best, Lisa