MECHANISMS OF ALLERGY
Information and Field Mechanism
Finally, we come to the newest and, if such a thing is possible,
most outrageous and contentious theory of allergy and intolerance.
That is not to say that it is unscientific, far from it; this
model carries the merit of the very latest scientific understanding.
That’s the problem: it is so far advanced that doctors still working
in the stone age and unable to grasp the majority of mechanisms
described above will have trouble coming to terms with this one.
We now believe that at least some activity we
call allergy or intolerance comes, not from the physical substance,
but its characteristic coded molecular “signature”. To explain
this, let me start by introducing a simple observation – startling,
maybe – but quite simple. I have observed it many times, so
have other alert open-minded physicians: occasionally a patient
may become sick, simply being near or in the presence of their
key allergen. This means they did not swallow it, breathe it
or touch it in any way whatsoever. It does not mean the patient
is neurotic and “afraid of their allergen” or reacting through
a Pavlovian conditioned response; it happens even if the patient
is unaware of being in the presence of their allergen.
That’s odd. It must mean that the substance is
transmitting some kind of signal. If so there would be an energy
field and modern physics thinks a lot about fields and their
properties. All fields are infinite in size; they may become
very faint but if the tomato you are allergic to has a field,
it extends to the ends of the universe! This field effect would
explain another frequent observation of the allergy doctor,
especially those engaged in skin or challenge testing: sometimes
the patient will get sick INSTANTLY before any of the substance
can have diffused or been transported to the body tissues.
And here is where the up-to-the-minute science
comes in, thanks to Professor Jacques Benveniste, the man who
set the scientific world alight by showing that diluting a substance
even beyond the point where even a single molecule is left,
does not stop it having a biological effect (predictably, he
was attacked as a fraud since “it couldn’t be true” and therefore
he must have cheated in some way). Davenas E, Benveniste J et
al. 'Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum
against IgE', NATURE, 1988, 333: 816-818). Fortunately, several
other laboratories have since confirmed what he found (Effects
of embryonic bursectomy and in ovo administration of highly
diluted bursin on adrenocorticotropic and immune response to
chickens. International Journal of Immunotherapy (IX:169-180)
1993, B.J. Youbicier-Simo, F. Boudard, M. Mekaouche, M. Bastide,
J.D. Baylé). But by then Benveniste had been hounded
out of his top scientific job.
What Benveniste had shown is that the traditional
model of biochemistry is flawed. If it doesn’t need the presence
of the substance to have an effect, it means the idea of molecule
reacting with molecule or the lock-and-key model for “receptor
sites” was not strictly correct. Since all of molecular biology
is based on these supposed truths and molecular biology at the
moment is regarded as the (only) path to the holy grail of understanding
nature, it is easy to see why Benveniste was howled out of office.
But his turn of fortune may have been lucky for science. He
went on to investigate the electromagnetic properties of substances
and discovered that each chemical had a unique identifying “signature”
that could be copied through a transducer and recorded on a
computer hard disc. This may sound weird but to prove his point,
Benveniste sent the chemical signals around the world on the
Internet, to different laboratories, including top universities.
When copied and decoded at the other end, the “digitized” substance
had exactly the same effect as the parent substance, though
none was present.
For example, acetyl choline was recorded through
the transducer and the file shipped off to a distant laboratory.
It did not matter if it was sent on a floppy disc or even as
an e-mail attachment. When the digital recording was “played
back” to guinea pig hearts thousands of miles away, they responded
just as they should if acetyl choline had been administered
as a physical substance. All this was done with controls and
digitized plain water for comparison, using verifiable standard
protocols by the way, and has been repeated with many different
chemical substances (J. Benveniste, P. Jurgens, J. Aïssa,
Digital recording/transmission of the cholinergic signal. Federation
of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal (10:A1479(abs),
1996). And in case you are wondering, these remarkable findings
too have been confirmed by other workers on many other substances
(P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, R. van Wijk, K. Waltl, H. Hilgers,
R. Brandmaier, Transmission of hormone information by non-molecular
means. FASEB Journal (8:A400(abs) 1995).
From these results Benveniste has constructed
a hypothesis which may help us further understand the allergy/intolerance
phenomenon. He calls it the “electromagnetic signalling” theory.
The key points are:
- it requires only a very weak field to have an effect
- direct contact between molecules is not
required
- range is not a problem
- the effect is instant over small distance
QASR
This stands in direct contrast to the standard
model, known as QASR for short (Quantitative Structure-Activity
Relationship), which requires that molecules come into contact
and thus there must be sufficient of the chemical present for
this to be likely, or even possible. The more is present, the
quicker the collisions occur and therefore the faster the chemical
reaction (hence: quantitative). This may be fine for chemistry
but how relevant is it, really, to biology, where only tiny
traces of a substance, such as an enzyme or a hormone, may in
fact be present?
Benveniste is quick to point out that this old-fashioned
theory requires frequent random collision on a trial-and-error
basis at a rate that is statistically virtually impossible.
Even the simplest biological event would require a very long
time.
|
Old-fashioned model:
CONTACT BETWEEN MOLECULES |
Newer view:
TRANSMITTED SIGNAL
|
Join Me |
