Is Osteoarthritis caused by antibodies? Also UC-II/bone soup

ship69

Hello

I am new here.

Have any of you seen this video?

Link deleted. This is advertising a product and is preying on the mind of people with arthritis. Moderator Yvonne

1. Is it true that OA is caused by antibodies attacking cartilage? (Or is that only true of RA)

2. Can eating cartilage Undenatured Type II Collagen in the diet help with OA?

3. Can eating chicken soup/bone broth help?

Thanks

J

stickywicket

This guy is a snake oil salesman ie eager to exploit anyone with an incurable disease. I checked him out. He apparently is a chiropracter who deals with arthritis and obesity. Yeah, sure. Try googling his name and reading the website dirtyscam which comes up. Beware. There are many like him about, happy to pretend they can relieve you of your disease but really looking only to relieve you of your money.

When researching on the net it's best to stick to reliable sites. The three links below are all reliable sites.

Here are the main causes of OA http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Osteoarthritis/Pages/Introduction.aspx#causes

In healthy individuals a trial of cartilage Undenatured Type II Collagen in the diet helped a little with knee extention. Note, this is in healthy individuals not those with arthritis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015808/

In trials of collagen for people with arthritis here are some results https://tinyurl.com/ybtg94qx
If chicken soup could sort us out do you really think we'd all be here?

Sorry to be so blunt, John, but, for me, it's all about living well with it. We can keep our joints as healthy and as functioning as possible by using all the advice on the dark grey menu above. It will all help and slow down the progress and the pain and that's a very good thing. But don't trust the charlatans who just want to exploit you.

barbara12

According to my consultant , they need much more research into OA..they use to think wear and tear, but its not always the case..

ship69

stickywicket wrote:

of collagen for people with arthritis here are some results https://tinyurl.com/ybtg94qx

Trial 1
"All three gelatine preparations were significantly better than the placebo in reducing pain at the end of the trial period"

Trial 2
"There was a beneficial effect in participants who had severe symptoms at the start of the study"

Trial 3
"Those who received collagen reported a greater reduction in pain."

Overall it sounds like the results were mixed, in some cases it definitely seems to have worked! Why are you being so gloomy & defeatist about collagen?

Moreover I very much doubt that the different sources of collagen used in the different trials were exactly 100% identical. So it may be that certain sources work better than others, as well as working better for certain people.

J

Regardless, it is clear that much more research is needed before we can even begin to think about using it either as a supplement or as a dispensed drug
Yvonne

stickywicket

ship69 wrote:

stickywicket wrote:

of collagen for people with arthritis here are some results https://tinyurl.com/ybtg94qx

Why are you being so gloomy & defeatist about collagen?

Because:

1. These were very study groups of participants and, statistically, would only be regarded as worthy of better, bigger studies not of having any true meaning in themselves.

2. I think you are an optimist (which is good) but you have selected only the positive conclusions and disregarded the negative ones.

3. I spent many of my early arthritic years chasing the rainbows of potential cures / magic pain-relief and finally came to the conclusion that false hope was far more disheartening, strength-sapping and time-consuming than no hope. I began to enjoy life with arthritis much more once I accepted that it was with me for life, as was the pain, and I simply prioritised the important (for me) stuff.

Slosh

My stock response to these people (who make me extremly angry) is to politely ask them for the "good quality" scientific research, including RCT trials, peer review, meta analysis etc which they are never able to do. When working as a SENCO in schools I saw the real harm these people can do by preying on the vulnerable.

I also have relatives who work in the field of medical research so know from them what a long process it is.

frogmorton

barbara12 wrote:

According to my consultant , they need much more research into OA..they use to think wear and tear, but its not always the case..

I totally agree with you Barbara. It is a neglected area in my opinion.



John it's so disappointing when we see things that sound so feasible. I hope more independent, but trustworthy research is done.

Love

Toni xx

daffy2

It is a neglected area in my opinion.

But one that needs addressing sooner rather than later. Given that the population profile of the country is changing towards greater numbers of older people and that the expectation is of continuing our working lives much longer, the degenerative conditions such as OA which increase in frequency with age are going to have a negative impact, further increasing the 'cost' of an ageing population.
I suspect part of the problem with lack of research is to do with mindset of the medical world - things which have most impact in the 'older' population are not as high priority. I have osteoporosis, and the perception of it as a disease of elderly women means that it really isn't taken as seriously as it should be and those who are not elderly women may struggle to get a diagnosis and treatment. The cost of broken hips alone to the NHS and social services surely justifies a bit more effort in preventing them happening in the first place. In the same way, more effort to understand and perhaps treat the OA disease process to enable continued independence and reduced public service demand would seem to be a reasonable objective. However,so long as it is seen as an inevitable part of getting old(and solely the result of wear and tear, if not associated with eg RA) the interest in doing things differently will be low.

stickywicket

All you write about an ageing population and the cost of disability is true, daffy but, unfortunately, those who fund the research are rarely those who find the money for social care so I think the chances of your very logical thoughts producing any actions is minimal.

One of the problems is that there is little funding for research except by the big pharmaceutical firms whom, one could argue, have a vested interest in more people needing their products. Austerity has had significant impact on research. Plus, as you say, arthritis and osteoporosis lack the 'glamour' of breast cancer (and I think I may write that as I've had breast cancer).

But, although I agree that OA is widely, and wrongly, regarded as just a disease of old age, I'm not sure a great deal more has been learned about RA during my 56 years of it. There has been the advent of biologics and more understanding of which genes are involved but the list of the latter is ever-increasing without any great understanding of how or why. Nor is the environmental factor understood at all. I was told by my consultant when I was in my early 20s that a cure was 'just around the corner'. As a very eminent Prof of a teaching university, I'm sure he believe that. But it's not happened.

Meanwhile we have learned that OA, in some cases, might have a genetic factor and, in some cases, arises due to former trauma, and in some cases might respond to DMARDS and that exercise is not only beneficial but essential.

It's not a lot, is it?

But, in all that time, which diseases have we learned to prevent or cure? Polio and smallpox come to mind. There is excitement about some successes with reversing Type 2 Diabetes by the starvation diet and people are living longer with many cancers. That's living with, not without.

(I think I've got my Cynics hat on again.)

Slosh

You and me are cynics both! There is no doubt that some health conditions get more attention/money/sympathy than others. The same is true in the field of SEN, just look at the huge dyslexia lobby which gets so much attention and publicity compared to others which don't have the celebrities who say they are dyslexic (I do wonder how many would still get that lebel with todays more research based approach to diagnosis).

Unfortunately arthritis of any type is not sexy or glamourous!

Maybe we need to change that and do a 2018 Arthritis Research calendar...after the style of the WI!

ship69

What you folks all makes perfect sense.

As ever it's hard to get a change in mind set. Leading medics have staked their professional opinion on OA being a disease of JUST wear plus ageing, and as ever there would be red faces to admit they have been wrong all this time.

Secondly, does anyone know if it is actually true that we ALL get OA if we live long enough? Anecdotally I suspect that this isn't true. And if not it's certainly not JUST about ageing, in fact it may not be caused directly by ageing at all.

[ASIDE: Talking of anecdotes, checkout this 80 year-old women's joints certainly seem to be just fine so far!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjHnWz3EyHs
Particularly checkout how she swings around guy's neck at 2:38mins!]

But I think you've hit the nail on the head about it not being "glamorous". I mean it's like trying to cure grey hair. Who's going to pay for that research?

Either way, nobody has yet given me a reasonable explanation of HOW or WHY exercise would help a disease that is supposedly caused by "wear".

J

frogmorton

I suppose if we don't exercise our muscles (other things too like maybe tendons???) will weaken and won't be able to support the joints as they should??

I also am convinced that exercise helps my back...if I can't walk daily after 2/3 days I am in trouble. Anecdotal again I know.

Best of luck

Toni x

ship69

frogmorton wrote:

I suppose if we don't exercise our muscles (other things too like maybe tendons???) will weaken and won't be able to support the joints as they should??

I also am convinced that exercise helps my back...if I can't walk daily after 2/3 days I am in trouble. Anecdotal again I know.

Best of luck

Toni x

Yes, from what I can see almost everyone seems to say that exercise DOES help. But "supporting the joints" seems to be only a part of it. My strong sense is that, for slightly mysterious reasons, joints do in fact "like" to be used.

e.g. A friend of mine took up tennis in her mid 50s. She had terrible problems with according to her physician "severe calcification" of her tendons (ligaments?) in her shoulders that meant she couldn't really play properly particularly the serve. The medics wanted to inject hormones, but she refused. She persisted with her gentle, persistent exercise and eventually he shoulders recovered and she says that they now work perfectly.

Yes, "anecdotal" obviously. But anecdotal is still of value!

Like I say, all science starts with anecdote. Anecdotes are not of zero value. They are instead of limited value. e.g. When Alexander Fleming discovered the penicillin fungus having an effect on staphylococci bacteria in a petri disk it was just one "anecdote". An anecdote is not "unscientific". It is not "weak" evidence either. And anecdote is just one small piece of evidence. But creating better evidence takes both time and money... (Not to mention great intelligence and insight and risk-taking to design the relevant experiments.)

Furthermore life is exceedingly complex. All of us humans (except identical twins) have unique genetics and a unique history of interactions with the environment, not to mention a unique microbiome of parasites and symbiotic organisms living within us. And for these reasons, what works well for some humans may not at all work for others.

And so, in the absence of any universal cures for OA, it is entirely rational that we should all pay great attention to things that only work well but for a small subset of people. i.e. It just might work well for YOU.

Furthermore in many cases the relevant full-blown research (double-blind, peer-reviewed, Randomised Controlled Trials etc etc etc) simply has not been done yet. i.e. If there is "no [strong] evidence" for something to work may simply mean that there is little or no evidence either way. OR it may be that it works brilliantly but only for certain types of patients.

The problem with cartilage (and I believe ligaments and tendons??) is that it has no blood supply and by repeatedly compressing the cartilage in the joints this will help circulate nutrients to help it repair itself.

All I am really saying is that the conventional view, as presented by my GP, that OA is JUST a wearing out of the joint is clearly incorrect.

J

stickywicket

Actually, I don't think leading medics do believe any longer that OA is a disease of old age but many GPs do just as they believe there are only two types of arthritis - OA and RA.

I checked the video and I reckon she does have some arthritis. What she does is pretty good for 79 but not beautiful to watch as her body isn't fluid. Bodies do wear out in all sorts of ways. Our eyesight declines, our hearing declines and our joints decline. Some will go much faster than others but much of it is either a lottery or genetic factors.

Maybe ARUK can explain why we need to exercise. http://tinyurl.com/yaqjt434

daffy2

Secondly, does anyone know if it is actually true that we ALL get OA if we live long enough?

For me, and I suspect many others, that question is of academic interest. Something that tends to be a recurring and more important theme is that it is not the presence of OA, nor indeed the clinical severity of that presence, but the effect on the individual. It is possible to have marked OA changes shown on Xrays and scans but for the person concerned to have few if any problems; the converse is also true. The medical profession is aware of this and it can make treatment difficult - pain is subjective and so dealing with it is not always straightforward, especially when the 'evidence' does not seem to correlate with what the patient is experiencing or reporting.
The 'wear and tear' view is the common and commonly accepted view and as such will be the one your GP is likely to present. The same would hold good for all sorts of other conditions, as being a General Practitioner means knowing a little about a lot. Where a GP has a particular area of interest you might find a more detailed view if your condition falls within that area, but otherwise the GP is in effect the gateway or filter for more detailed investigation by specialists. How you find and access those specialists is a whole other discussion!
I would agree that just because something has only been investigated in a limited way or only shows benefits for a few people is not a reason in itself not try it as you might be one of the lucky ones - although it does require a level of common sense to be applied to ensure you aren't making things worse by adverse interactions or reactions. However there can be a risk in chasing the 'cure' in that energy and attention is focused on that goal(which may not exist, or not in the way that the person searching would want or recognise) which could perhaps be better spent on living well with what one has. That doesn't mean a lesser life, just a different one.