Is it possible that a virus we all carry is damaging our children’s and our own psychological health—especially that of Long Covid and ME/CFS patients?
I believe a lot of people are infected with these potentially lethal viruses that can cause immune deficiency, chronic fatigue, cancer, nervous system issues, brain issues, etc. They just don't know it. Unless you're very in tune with your body and symptoms, you may never realize that you've contracted something. I think that all individuals should have their immune systems checked as part of a yearly physical. This alone can identify issues going on within the body.
The speculative list of things that might be causing "what we have no clue about what causes it" is long, but there is one thing missing conspicuously: vaccines! (They couldn't possibly have anything to do with depression, anxiety, mental illness, autoimmune disease, chronic infections, post viral syndromes etc., right? Because they are "safe and effective"....)
A few comments. First, in the Mike Stone tradition I went and read this study from 2018 by Prusty referenced in note 3.
I don't understand most of that. It surprises me that throughout this Article, they say "patients" instead of "post-mortem brain tissue samples." Feels weird.
Second observation, though not a surprise: in one collection of samples, exactly 60 samples of cerebellum tissues (far away from the frontal lobes) were analyzed:
- 15 from dead patients labeled with schizophrenia
- 15 from dead patients labeled with major depressive disorder
- 15 from dead patients labeled with bipolar disorder
- 15 from dead patients labeled as non-psychiatric and non-neurological controls
And using a second collection of samples, they used "105 samples from 35 SCZ, 35 BPD and 35 non-psychiatric, non-neurological CON."
They then do a lot of hocus-pocus that made Harold Hillman roll over in his grave.
Then they say "The 164 cases we examined belonged to one of three psychiatric groups or comparison controls. We detected HHV-6A late protein more frequently in the cerebellum from patients with BPD and MDD relative to comparison controls. When protein and DNA data was combined, material from donors with either BPD or MDD contained higher HHV-6A and HHV-6B DNA and protein relative to controls. In contrast, there was clearly no association of the proteins or DNA of either virus with SCZ."
Before that, they say "A higher frequency of HHV-6A protein and DNA positive cases and HHV-6B protein and DNA positive cases was found amongst suicide completers compared to other forms of death (Fisher’s exact, p = 0.02 and 0.047 respectively), however when controls were excluded from the analysis this no longer reached statistical significance."
Then I go to the table to see the absolute numbers (how many of those 165 samples correspond to people who completed suicide, how many cerebellum samples were positive, etc.)
Table S2 says exactly 0 CON died from suicide, but BPD 24 MDD 7 and SCZ 11.
I don't know if that explains the sentence " however when controls were excluded from the analysis this no longer reached statistical significance."
Since I'm no statistician, I fail to see how substracting 0 from a dataset can alter the significance. But the cause of my confusion at this point is probably obvious for the experts at numbers.
Now I want to know how many of the 24/165, 7/165, 11/165 suicide completers' brain samples are positive for the HHV-6B protein test.
Table S4 in pdf offers mean values of virus load per million cells for HHV-6B for each cohort, separated, and for each group. I cannot deduce from those mean values how many samples were affected. Maybe all of them? If so, does that mean that there is a certain threshold of HHV-6B protein level in suicide completers that is not exceeded in the samples from the patients who died from "cardiac disease" or "drug overdose"?
Now I read table S5. Very confusing. It gives many numbers for each sample of each cohort. In cohort 1, the ratio of HHV-6B/10^6 cells is maximum in sample #43 at 15998.34 proteins (is this the unit at the numerator?) and minimum at sample #27 with 0,74 HHv-6B/10^6 cells. How do I know that #43 comes from a patient who completed suicide or didn't, and #27 does not?
This is getting difficult.
After a little bit of analysis, I discover that most of the samples with high values of HHv-B6 come from cohort 1, of only 60 samples. Which is "The Neuropathology Consortium collection" which happens to be from the year 2000, 18 years before this article was published.
For example, why a protein of virus? Why not a toxin? The second cohort contains less samples from patients who completed suicide. I can't find the date of the Array collection. But what were the changes of the trends in pharmacological treatment? If they removed a drug that was used before 2000, maybe that could account for the greater concentration.
This is predicated on the heretic notion that viruses appear as a result of tissue damage as cells break down, and are not causing damage to the cell.
I think this may be a case of tunnel vision.
I haven't found enough information on the nature of the origin of the samples of the two sample collections. For example, what if some brain of the Neuropathology Consortium collection dates from the 1980s? And what if the most recent brain of the Array collection is from 2010? A lot of pharmacological changes in those 30 years. And cultural changes. And family changes. And policy changes.
I'm skeptical. They really do all they can to say that there is something organic about mental disease. Looks like a smoke screen to me.
The circular reasoning is so tiresome, irresponsible and mind-blowingly illogical. Labelling proteins and sequences as "viral" based on zero scientific evidence and then speculating that "viruses" are the cause of psychological distress.
Hmm we were terrorized, traumatized, locked down, masked, isolated, fake-"sanitized" with toxic chemicals, etc etc but let's blame imaginary "viruses". I can't take such people seriously.
I realized. It's very tiresome as you say. And they invent words all the time. No one can't keep up.
But this idea of "herpes virus" infection as a cause of the so called "psychiatric disorders" is quite old and belongs to the super cynical tradition of "it's either genetic or a virus."
A millstone be tied around their necks and them drowned for what they are doing to the kids.
I believe a lot of people are infected with these potentially lethal viruses that can cause immune deficiency, chronic fatigue, cancer, nervous system issues, brain issues, etc. They just don't know it. Unless you're very in tune with your body and symptoms, you may never realize that you've contracted something. I think that all individuals should have their immune systems checked as part of a yearly physical. This alone can identify issues going on within the body.
The speculative list of things that might be causing "what we have no clue about what causes it" is long, but there is one thing missing conspicuously: vaccines! (They couldn't possibly have anything to do with depression, anxiety, mental illness, autoimmune disease, chronic infections, post viral syndromes etc., right? Because they are "safe and effective"....)
A few comments. First, in the Mike Stone tradition I went and read this study from 2018 by Prusty referenced in note 3.
I don't understand most of that. It surprises me that throughout this Article, they say "patients" instead of "post-mortem brain tissue samples." Feels weird.
Second observation, though not a surprise: in one collection of samples, exactly 60 samples of cerebellum tissues (far away from the frontal lobes) were analyzed:
- 15 from dead patients labeled with schizophrenia
- 15 from dead patients labeled with major depressive disorder
- 15 from dead patients labeled with bipolar disorder
- 15 from dead patients labeled as non-psychiatric and non-neurological controls
And using a second collection of samples, they used "105 samples from 35 SCZ, 35 BPD and 35 non-psychiatric, non-neurological CON."
They then do a lot of hocus-pocus that made Harold Hillman roll over in his grave.
Then they say "The 164 cases we examined belonged to one of three psychiatric groups or comparison controls. We detected HHV-6A late protein more frequently in the cerebellum from patients with BPD and MDD relative to comparison controls. When protein and DNA data was combined, material from donors with either BPD or MDD contained higher HHV-6A and HHV-6B DNA and protein relative to controls. In contrast, there was clearly no association of the proteins or DNA of either virus with SCZ."
Before that, they say "A higher frequency of HHV-6A protein and DNA positive cases and HHV-6B protein and DNA positive cases was found amongst suicide completers compared to other forms of death (Fisher’s exact, p = 0.02 and 0.047 respectively), however when controls were excluded from the analysis this no longer reached statistical significance."
Then I go to the table to see the absolute numbers (how many of those 165 samples correspond to people who completed suicide, how many cerebellum samples were positive, etc.)
No table in the HTML document. There are supplementary tables on pdf at this other url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6110891/.
Weird!
Table S2 says exactly 0 CON died from suicide, but BPD 24 MDD 7 and SCZ 11.
I don't know if that explains the sentence " however when controls were excluded from the analysis this no longer reached statistical significance."
Since I'm no statistician, I fail to see how substracting 0 from a dataset can alter the significance. But the cause of my confusion at this point is probably obvious for the experts at numbers.
Now I want to know how many of the 24/165, 7/165, 11/165 suicide completers' brain samples are positive for the HHV-6B protein test.
Table S4 in pdf offers mean values of virus load per million cells for HHV-6B for each cohort, separated, and for each group. I cannot deduce from those mean values how many samples were affected. Maybe all of them? If so, does that mean that there is a certain threshold of HHV-6B protein level in suicide completers that is not exceeded in the samples from the patients who died from "cardiac disease" or "drug overdose"?
Now I read table S5. Very confusing. It gives many numbers for each sample of each cohort. In cohort 1, the ratio of HHV-6B/10^6 cells is maximum in sample #43 at 15998.34 proteins (is this the unit at the numerator?) and minimum at sample #27 with 0,74 HHv-6B/10^6 cells. How do I know that #43 comes from a patient who completed suicide or didn't, and #27 does not?
This is getting difficult.
After a little bit of analysis, I discover that most of the samples with high values of HHv-B6 come from cohort 1, of only 60 samples. Which is "The Neuropathology Consortium collection" which happens to be from the year 2000, 18 years before this article was published.
For example, why a protein of virus? Why not a toxin? The second cohort contains less samples from patients who completed suicide. I can't find the date of the Array collection. But what were the changes of the trends in pharmacological treatment? If they removed a drug that was used before 2000, maybe that could account for the greater concentration.
This is predicated on the heretic notion that viruses appear as a result of tissue damage as cells break down, and are not causing damage to the cell.
I think this may be a case of tunnel vision.
I haven't found enough information on the nature of the origin of the samples of the two sample collections. For example, what if some brain of the Neuropathology Consortium collection dates from the 1980s? And what if the most recent brain of the Array collection is from 2010? A lot of pharmacological changes in those 30 years. And cultural changes. And family changes. And policy changes.
I'm skeptical. They really do all they can to say that there is something organic about mental disease. Looks like a smoke screen to me.
The circular reasoning is so tiresome, irresponsible and mind-blowingly illogical. Labelling proteins and sequences as "viral" based on zero scientific evidence and then speculating that "viruses" are the cause of psychological distress.
Hmm we were terrorized, traumatized, locked down, masked, isolated, fake-"sanitized" with toxic chemicals, etc etc but let's blame imaginary "viruses". I can't take such people seriously.
I realized. It's very tiresome as you say. And they invent words all the time. No one can't keep up.
But this idea of "herpes virus" infection as a cause of the so called "psychiatric disorders" is quite old and belongs to the super cynical tradition of "it's either genetic or a virus."
It's a total escape from reality.