Saturday, August 06, 2011

Mayo Clinic "revelation" intended to suppress awareness of lufenuron?

The Mayo Clinic's supposed discovery that chronic sinusitis is a fungal infection is reported in Mayo Clinic Study Implicates Fungus As Cause Of Chronic Sinusitis.

The Mayo Clinic's report was released in 1999, a few years after lufenuron's 1995 introduction (mentioned here) Intriguingly, I have been unable to find the history of lufenuron's development. I've read that its effects on fungal infections were discovered as a result of giving it to dogs to eliminate fleas.

I suspect that the Mayo Clinic's study and report were intended to head off a threat to the pharmaceutical industry's profits, by giving the impression that the researchers are on our side, and that they knew for a fact that there were no effective treatments at the time, although it's likely that lufenuron's effectiveness against fungal infections was just starting to gain recognition. (Note that the article doesn't mention lufenuron, although it does state that Mayo was working with the pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs to treat fungal sinus infections. I suppose these would be patentable forms of lufenuron.) Not even lufenuron's manufacturers tout its usefulness as a candida treatment, although according to Sara Vaughter, a member of Novartis' manufacturing staff said he recommends it to his family and friends for fungal infections, or at least candida infections.

The Mayo report also stated that sinusitis is the result of "an immune system response" to fungal infections, as if we'd be better off without any immune system. The problem is that the immune system, although sufficient to keep it within certain limits (at least at first), is inadequate to eliminate the infection completely. Even with the assistance of lufenuron, eliminating candida isn't easy for it.

Candida can become life-threatening if not eliminated, although it typically takes years for it to get to this stage. However, I suppose it might progress to this stage more rapidly, so it might be a mistake to assume that you can delay treatment. It's also more painful to treat it in a more advanced stage. If caught early (as I apparently have), treating it causes no pain, although I have noticed that lufenuron seems to cause intense fatigue at times, and lethargy and a lack of focus on a more continuous basis. (I've noticed that my writing, if I can call it that, has suffered as a result.) This effect (lethargy, not bad writing) is reported here.