A bit out of my depth, but if no one else will mention "oral
tolerance", I will. Apparently one can (not only in infancy?)
introduce substances through the oral route which thereby induce
tolerance (even to subsequenty administration via other routes???)
Ther, you see the limits of my knowledge of this. Hope someone
knowledgeable speaks up re oral tolerance.
And maybe say why this fails in some cases--possibly related to the
"dangerous" (rather than traditional "non-self") concept of immune
reactions. Sorry: do not recall the name of the woman who has
developed and presented this concept (featured in NY Times sicence
section last week???)
In <alouka-3006981151340001 at rhpc100.uio.no> alouka at writeme.com (Andrew
S. Louka) writes:
>>At 01:41 +0100 30-06-98, Robin Barclay wrote:
>>>> They (the normally "non-pathogenic") become pathogenic when they (or
their
>> products) translocate across the gut wall - e.g. endotoxins in
septic shock
>>But my point is, how does the immune system recognise what should be
seen
>as non-self (or danger), and what should not. Translocation of
endotoxins
>across the gut wall is well documented and easy to understand, but I
am
>more interested in how milk proteins, for example, are not regarded as
a
>serious threat in a newborn child, despite the overwhelming quantities
>that are consumed. The milk proteins could not have been presented as
>self during T cell selection in the thymus.
