Custom CMS block displayed at the left sidebar on the Catalog Page. Put your own content here: text, html, images, media... or whatever you like.
There are many similar sample content placeholders across the store. All editable from admin panel.
Does Strep Actually Cause Illness?
byDr. Steph
30 May 2024
Unraveling the Myths and Realities of Strep
The prevalence of Strep infections often prompts questions about its true impact. Are cases on the rise, and should we be alarmed? Can it truly “spread” to the heart, necessitating antibiotics for strep throat to prevent rheumatic fever?
Is Strep the dire threat we’ve been led to believe? Are cases skyrocketing, and should we be on high alert?
While many seek a quick fix, the truth is, a surface-level exploration won’t cut it. We need to recalibrate our understanding of the body and its interactions with microbes for a more informed approach.
This series will extensively cover the collection of symptoms we call strep. Our understanding of the Body and microbes is misguided, we must investigate this thoroughly.
Real science involves deliberately challenging itself, identifying gaps, and rigorously testing hypotheses. The accepted germ theory of disease, rooted in the discovery and quantification of microbes on the body, raises a crucial question: does the mere presence of microbes prove they are the cause of disease?
Contrary to common belief, Strep exists ubiquitously, even in healthy, asymptomatic individuals, given our body’s bacterial abundance.
Renowned physicist Richard Feynman emphasized the need for scientific integrity, urging scientists to scrutinize and question their own findings:
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. This is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.” (1)
Decoding Research Claims
Reading a research paper extends beyond skimming titles, introductions, or conclusions. Bold statements demand robust scientific backing—a demand often unmet in the search for causation proof.
Despite numerous claims associating Strep with diseases, the literature reveals a lack of a comprehensive model for S. pyogenes infection.
A review underscores this point:
“In considering these models, it is important to note that there is no single comprehensive model of S. pyogenes infection. In fact, there is no single model that can accurately reproduce the authentic pathogenesis of any specific S. pyogenes disease.” (2)
Challenging the Notion of Strep as a Disease-Causing Agent
The belief that bacteria, especially Strep, causes disease has been ingrained in our collective memory. Google searches easily yield statements about Group A Streptococcus being a major human-specific bacterial pathogen. Yet, the pursuit of original studies providing concrete evidence for these claims often results in a fruitless quest.
We’ve been told since we can remember that this is true. We see people get sick, we’ve our kids get sick. We assume that the microbe is the cause and that it was caught from someone else.
When we google Strep we will easily find:
“Group A Streptococcus is a major human-specific bacterial pathogen that causes a wide array of manifestations ranging from mild localized infections to life-threatening invasive infections. Ineffective treatment of S. pyogenes infections can result in the post-infectious sequela acute rheumatic fever and post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis.”
We can find hundreds of articles with that very statement, so it must be true right?
When one wants to track down the original studies that claim to prove or provide clear evidence of the causative agent of a named infectious disease, it’s a goose chase.
To establish transmission evidence, studies must demonstrate the microbe’s isolation and its ability to cause disease in healthy subjects.
Traditional methods attribute Strep A transmission to respiratory droplets, but these studies merely quantify and count bacteria presence, lacking conclusive evidence of causation.
Let’s see what a 2021 comprehensive systematic review says.
“Traditionally, transmission of Strep A has been primarily attributed to large respiratory droplets based on studies that used one of two methods:
1. evaluating the saliva of patients who had sore throat and scarlet fever
2. environmental epidemiology which involved measuring the quantity of Strep A discharged into the air in a controlled room through coughing, sneezing and talking.” (3)
As you can see if you caught it, the way all these studies on bacteria are done is by simply measuring and quantifying the presence and number of bacteria in a person or fluids. That’s no different than evaluating the number of firefighters at the scene of a fire, they call it evaluating environmental epidemiology.
This is likewise no different than evaluating the number of white blood cells at the site of an injury or the number of antibodies of a person. None of these provide any evidence of what caused the increase in the number of firefighters, or the increase of white blood cells or the cause of increase of antibodies. This is the most critical thing to understand.
It’s a direct nod to the phrase you’ve likely heard before: correlation doesn’t equal causation.
This means just because something is associated with something doesn’t mean it caused it. More specifically just because bacteria can be counted in a fluid doesn’t mean it is the cause of the issue. That would need to be tested and controlled for in transmission studies.
When you go through all the original research that all future studies are built on regarding strep they merely measure the quantity of strep on the skin, nasal passage, or air, in dust, bedding, food, and count the number of organisms in normal people and so called carriers.
In this 2021 systematic review, these are their references for evidence that Strep is a transmissible disease. However, closer inspection reveals these references (the highlighted citations in the photo below) merely count bacteria in fluids, lacking the necessary proof of causation. (4, 5, 6, 7,8, 9)
This is the place you’d expect to find some scientific backing for how they’ve come to understand how Strep Is indeed contagious and transmissible between people. When you read each cited study the reference they never do.
As already pointed out, that do not provide proof of causation. Most people simply trust that sentence without cross referencing it, but that is not scientifically sound.
In modern times they simply do sequencing of genomes or count antibody responses in fluids. This also provides no evidence for transmission or causation.
Conclusion: A Call for Rigorous Scrutiny
In a world grappling with Strep-related concerns, it’s imperative to question established narratives.
As we explore the intricate world of Strep, let’s heed Feynman’s words: the pursuit of truth requires challenging assumptions and seeking genuine scientific integrity.
Mere bacterial counts in fluids don’t establish causation. Original studies on Strep often focus on quantifying bacteria without providing concrete evidence of transmission or disease causation.
Praesent vestibulum congue tellus at fringilla. Curabitur vitae semper sem, eu convallis est. Cras felis nunc commodo eu convallis vitae interdum non nisl. Maecenas ac est sit amet augue pharetra convallis.
Sample Paragraph Text
Praesent vestibulum congue tellus at fringilla. Curabitur vitae semper sem, eu convallis est. Cras felis nunc commodo eu convallis vitae interdum non nisl. Maecenas ac est sit amet augue pharetra convallis nec danos dui. Cras suscipit quam et turpis eleifend vitae malesuada magna congue. Damus id ullamcorper neque. Sed vitae mi a mi pretium aliquet ac sed elitos. Pellentesque nulla eros accumsan quis justo at tincidunt lobortis deli denimes, suspendisse vestibulum lectus in lectus volutpate.