GDD is more of a physiological disease rather than a histological disease. What does this mean?
In reviewing my blog on theories for mechanism of disease, the reader should realize that most of these elements involve Gd substituting in for Ca (also other cations like sodium) in physiological processes: such as nerve conduction, muscle contraction, and TRPV1 activation. These dynamic physiologic processes do not involve histologic changes. At times, after prolonged presence, some of these processes may be accompanied by fibrosis. The reality is, people can be very sick from pure physiologic chemical reaction perturbations.
Does this mean if there is no hard evidence of histology of fibrosis, or some similar defined histologic process- then the disease does not exist?
Not at all. Looking at large disease categories, depression is very similar, but still, even to the present time, much less clearly defined physiologically. Depression can be thought quite often as too much dopamine or too little dopamine and in various locations. Much, much less clear cut than GDD. There is absolutely no histology to depression, unlike GDD which does have mild histologic findings (mild in comparison to NSF). So does depression exist then? What about headaches, also a physiological perturbation condition - do head-aches not exist then? GDD is very similar to other heavy metal toxicities which also do not have appreciable histologic changes most often. Do they exist? Obviously my point is that it reflects a general lack of broad knowledge about medicine if one focuses on: no hard consistent histology = no disease. That concept is foolish and ignores many common diseases.
Having said that, I believe our team may be on to the irrefutable features of GDD. We will have to wait and see. That is the thing about honest science - novel findings based on solid background data, may work out, should work out, but maybe won't.
Richard Semelka MD Consulting
Stay tuned on the latest advancements:
Like my page on Facebook and Subscribe to my Blog