Chronic fatigue triggered by other illness

Sex, age or mental health have nothing to do with who gets chronic fatigue syndrome, researchers have found. The condition was most commonly triggered by an acute illness such as glandular fever, and it was the severity of that illness that determined whether patients developed chronic fatigue, scientists from the University of Sydney and the University of NSW (UNSW) found. "The sicker you are at the beginning of the infection, the more likely it is to result in a prolonged illness," said UNSW infectious diseases specialist Andrew Lloyd. "As far as we can see this is the only determinant of who is likely to get it."

The research team made its discovery by tracking the long-term health of individuals infected by three infections - the mosquito-borne Ross River virus, Q fever bacterial infection and Epstein-Barr virus in the NSW city of Dubbo. "These three different bugs trigger this fatigue in 10 per cent of people from moment one, of day one, of the acute infection," Prof Lloyd said. In these people, the acute infection had a 'hit and run' effect on the brain that took some time to repair.

After a year only 5 per cent had the condition, and about 99 per cent were better within two years without medical intervention. "While that's still not good, there's a notion in the community that people with chronic fatigue never get better," he said. The scientist said the research, published in the British Medical Journal, dispelled several myths about the condition. "We looked at age, sex, education, personality style, and psychiatric health and it turns out that none of those things predict the outcome," he said.

"It's commonly believed that more women get it than men and that these people are neurotic, obsessive and unduly focused on symptoms and this is their problem, not chronic fatigue. "We found no evidence to support any of this," Prof Lloyd said.

The syndrome was misunderstood because sufferers commonly delayed seeking help for a year, by which time several other secondary problems like weight gain, depression and marital difficulties had set in.

Source





BACTERIA CAUSE AT LEAST SOME OF IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME

And a helpful antibiotic has been found

Journal Abstract:

The Effect of a Nonabsorbed Oral Antibiotic (Rifaximin) on the Symptoms of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome

By Mark Pimentel et al.

Background: Alterations in gut flora may be important in the pathophysiology of the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Objective: To determine whether the nonabsorbed antibiotic rifaximin is more effective than placebo in reducing symptoms in adults with IBS.

Design: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Setting: 2 tertiary care medical centers.

Participants: 87 patients who met Rome I criteria for IBS and were enrolled from December 2003 to March 2005.

Interventions: Participants who met enrollment criteria were randomly assigned to receive 400 mg of rifaximin 3 times daily for 10 days (n = 43) or placebo (n = 44). Eighty participants completed rifaximin therapy or placebo, and follow-up data were available for at least 34 participants per study group at any time point thereafter.

Measurements: A questionnaire was administered before treatment and 7 days after treatment. The primary outcome was global improvement in IBS. Patients were then asked to keep a weekly symptom diary for 10 weeks.

Results: Over the 10 weeks of follow-up, rifaximin resulted in greater improvement in IBS symptoms (P = 0.020). In addition, rifaximin recipients had a lower bloating score after treatment.

Limitations: The major limitations of the study were its modest sample size and short duration and that most patients were from 1 center.

Conclusions: Rifaximin improves IBS symptoms for up to 10 weeks after the discontinuation of therapy.

****************

Just some problems with the "Obesity" war:

1). It tries to impose behavior change on everybody -- when most of those targeted are not obese and hence have no reason to change their behaviour. It is a form of punishing the innocent and the guilty alike. (It is also typical of Leftist thinking: Scorning the individual and capable of dealing with large groups only).

2). The longevity research all leads to the conclusion that it is people of MIDDLING weight who live longest -- not slim people. So the "epidemic" of obesity is in fact largely an "epidemic" of living longer.

3). It is total calorie intake that makes you fat -- not where you get your calories. Policies that attack only the source of the calories (e.g. "junk food") without addressing total calorie intake are hence pissing into the wind. People involuntarily deprived of their preferred calorie intake from one source are highly likely to seek and find their calories elsewhere.

4). So-called junk food is perfectly nutritious. A big Mac meal comprises meat, bread, salad and potatoes -- which is a mainstream Western diet. If that is bad then we are all in big trouble.

5). Food warriors demonize salt and fat. But we need a daily salt intake to counter salt-loss through perspiration and the research shows that people on salt-restricted diets die SOONER. And Eskimos eat huge amounts of fat with no apparent ill-effects. And the average home-cooked roast dinner has LOTS of fat. Will we ban roast dinners?

6). The foods restricted are often no more calorific than those permitted -- such as milk and fruit-juice drinks.

7). Tendency to weight is mostly genetic and is therefore not readily susceptible to voluntary behaviour change.

8). And when are we going to ban cheese? Cheese is a concentrated calorie bomb and has lots of that wicked animal fat in it too. Wouldn't we all be better off without it? And what about butter? It is just about pure fat. Surely it should be treated as contraband in kids' lunchboxes! [/sarcasm].

9). For a summary of the weak science behind the "trans-fat" hysteria, see here. Trans fats have only a temporary effect on blood chemistry and no lasting harm from them has ever been shown.

*********************