On a 24 hour antibiotic.

Could be serious.

 

 

Not sure what's up.

Sounds like staff infection, career/life threatening.

Wow, keep us updated Willie.

I'll see what I can do as they just had 1 breaking report on the ESPN Wednesday night game.

Stark has a blurb on ESPN.com saying he is totally immobilized. Really makes you put all the mistrust and anger aside for a second and puts things into perspective. Get well soon Barry.

barry get better and then please tell espn to f*** off.

What's going on?? Life-threatening??

Link

 

Sounds like he has been hiding this from the media for two weeks now.

Staph infection is getting real bad these days. Sports Illustrated had an article about it a few months back. The Staph is becoming more resistant to antibiotics

 

scary

the baseball gods are telling us something...

 

but also get well soon - i dont like you but i dont want you to die either...

OK, so I have a question. Theoretically, would long periods of steroids reduce the bodies ability to fight infections? I know that the kidneys and liver can be taxed by steroids, and often times ex-users suffer shutdowns of those organs, right? And the ability to fight off this stuff is a function of the kidneys and liver somewhat, right?

 

Sorry if I am off here, but my biology knowledge is lacking here...

OK, so I have a question.  Theoretically, would long periods of steroids reduce the bodies ability to fight infections?  I know that the kidneys and liver can be taxed by steroids, and often times ex-users suffer shutdowns of those organs, right?  And the ability to fight off this stuff is a function of the kidneys and liver somewhat, right?

 

Sorry if I am off here, but my biology knowledge is lacking here...

Hm, isn't your wife a bio teacher? I bet she would know.......

Hm, isn't your wife a bio teacher? I bet she would know.......

 

Yeah, but she is at work right now

So, both Bonds and Sammy have staff infections right now?

Yeah, but she is at work right now

Poor lady.....

Get well Barry....then retire and go away.

OK, so I have a question.  Theoretically, would long periods of steroids reduce the bodies ability to fight infections?  I know that the kidneys and liver can be taxed by steroids, and often times ex-users suffer shutdowns of those organs, right?  And the ability to fight off this stuff is a function of the kidneys and liver somewhat, right?

 

Sorry if I am off here, but my biology knowledge is lacking here...

 

Uhm, let's see... where can we find a biologist around here....? Uhm... wait, oh yeah, how about... ME!?!

 

[Not that I feel slighted, of course...]

 

SouthSider, I think you're actually asking a backwards version of the question, and this is possibly being borne out in the woefully small sample (n=2 = useless for all but idle speculation, but what the hell) of the currently infected Barry and Sammy.

 

Some good research dating back a good 15 years, actually suggested a possible up-modulation in immune response in athletes taking anabolic steroids versus an unjuiced control group. The issue with the putative 'Roid Boyz right now (and here comes the idle speculation) is that being off of steroids now after presumably many years of use has severely compromised immune systems that had been artificially revved up by the anabolic steroids.

 

The abstract of the paper that came to mind can be found here on PubMed. My interpretation follows. Your wife can help you translate the bio-babble, but the interesting part is that the steroid users in that study had significantly higher ability to proliferate B lymphocytes (the cells putting out antibodies in a cellular immune response) in response to exposure to SAC, which is a strain of (dum dum dumm!!) Staphylococcus. Juicers also had enhanced NK cell activity, but that would correspond to enhanced ability of these cells to seek and destroy cancerous cells or those infected by viruses. While not directly playing a role in fighting a staph infection, if NK effectiveness is compromised and the immune system is therefore overtaxed and stressed, it can certainly open up a person to a secondary bacterial infection like staph.

 

A finding that seemed at first unusual to me (with rudimentary working knowledge of immunology but no expertise by any stretch) was the elevated immunoglobulin (=antibodies) levels in the unjuiced control group. In thinking about it though, that seems to make good sense as these circulating antibodies would be indicative of ongoing low grade cell-specific infections that a substantial portion of the control group is currently fighting. In contrast, the juicers don't have a lot of circulating antibodies because they are currently not fighting infection. If they became infected, their T cell-modulated scaling up of B cell numbers would be expected to be rapid and the infection quickly brought under control. The response would, of course rely on antibody proliferation, so if the juicers were sampled at the time of an incipient infection the immunoglobulin numbers would be extremely high.

 

I'm not up on the follow-on research, but it's easily searchable on PubMed if you are interested. I encourage Soxy and Hurt and any other bio-geek types to offer their own assenting/dissenting interpretations of the research and add anything else they have.

 

Also bear in mind something that has already been posted by Benchwarmerjim (pleased to meet you, btw), and that is that staph infections are becoming more tenacious and harder to fight with antibiotics, presumably yet another indication that our years and years of antibiotic overuse as a prophylaxis was a very bad idea and we've inadvertently selected for lots of superbugs. So, add that knowledge to the preceding for perhaps a clearer picture of the 'insult-to-injury' scenario being seen now.

Edited May 19, 200520 yr by FlaSoxxJim

After reading that, my head hurts. Thanks Jim, now I just need to find my bio-babble to Hoosier dictionary to translate it.

 

So, both Bonds and Sammy have staff infections right now?

 

 

FWIU.. they are going around and several locker rooms have come up positive for them. These two are newsworthly though.

Uhm, let's see... where can we find a biologist around here....?  Uhm... wait, oh yeah, how about... ME!?!

 

[Not that I feel slighted, of course...]  

 

SouthSider, I think you're actually asking a backwards version of the question, and this is possibly being borne out in the woefully small sample (n=2 = useless for all but idle speculation, but what the hell) of the currently infected Barry and Sammy.

 

Some good research dating back a good 15 years, actually suggested a possible up-modulation in immune response in athletes taking anabolic steroids versus an unjuiced control group.  The issue with the putative 'Roid Boyz right now (and here comes the idle speculation) is that being off of steroids now after presumably many years of use has severely compromised immune systems that had been artificially revved up by the anabolic steroids.

 

The abstract of the paper that came to mind can be found here on PubMed.  My interpretation follows.  Your wife can help you translate the bio-babble, but the interesting part is that the steroid users in that study had significantly higher ability to proliferate B lymphocytes (the cells putting out antibodies in a cellular immune response) in response to exposure to SAC, which is a strain of (dum dum dumm!!) Staphylococcus.  Juicers also had enhanced NK cell activity, but that would correspond to enhanced ability of these cells to seek and destroy cancerous cells or those infected by viruses.  While not directly playing a role in fighting a staph infection, if NK effectiveness is compromised and the immune system is therefore overtaxed and stressed, it can certainly open up a person to a secondary bacterial infection like staph.

 

A finding that seemed at first unusual to me (with rudimentary working knowledge of immunology but no expertise by any stretch) was the elevated immunoglobulin (=antibodies) levels in the unjuiced control group.  In thinking about it though, that seems to make good sense as these circulating antibodies would be indicative of ongoing low grade cell-specific infections that a substantial portion of the control group is currently fighting.  In contrast, the juicers don't have a lot of circulating antibodies because they are currently not fighting infection.  If they became infected, their T cell-modulated scaling up of B cell numbers would be expected to be rapid and the infection quickly brought under control.  The response would, of course rely on antibody proliferation, so if the juicers were sampled at the time of an incipient infection the immunoglobulin numbers would be extremely high.

 

I'm not up on the follow-on research, but it's easily searchable on PubMed if you are interested.  I encourage Soxy and Hurt and any other bio-geek types to offer their own assenting/dissenting interpretations of the research and add anything else they have.

 

Also bear in mind something that has already been posted by Benchwarmerjim (pleased to meet you, btw), and that is that staph infections are becoming more tenacious and harder to fight with antibiotics, presumably yet another indication that our years and years of antibiotic overuse as a prophylaxis was a very bad idea and we've inadvertently selected for lots of superbugs.  So, add that knowledge to the preceding for perhaps a clearer picture of the 'insult-to-injury' scenario being seen now.

Oh, PLEASE, you just TOTALLY made that s*** up......

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, PLEASE, you just TOTALLY made that s*** up......

 

 

 

It's really interesting to note that the poll on the site with that Bonds story has most respondents now thinking he's done:

 

 

I admit that 'never' was my gut reaction to the question as well. But if it is at all possible that he can come back for maybe two more seasons would his ego let him take a pass when he's so close to passing Hank?

FWIU.. they are going around and several locker rooms have come up positive for them. These two are newsworthly though.

 

Time to bleach the shower stalls maybe.

Uhm, let's see... where can we find a biologist around here....?  Uhm... wait, oh yeah, how about... ME!?!

 

[Not that I feel slighted, of course...]  

 

SouthSider, I think you're actually asking a backwards version of the question, and this is possibly being borne out in the woefully small sample (n=2 = useless for all but idle speculation, but what the hell) of the currently infected Barry and Sammy.

 

Some good research dating back a good 15 years, actually suggested a possible up-modulation in immune response in athletes taking anabolic steroids versus an unjuiced control group.  The issue with the putative 'Roid Boyz right now (and here comes the idle speculation) is that being off of steroids now after presumably many years of use has severely compromised immune systems that had been artificially revved up by the anabolic steroids.

 

The abstract of the paper that came to mind can be found here on PubMed.  My interpretation follows.  Your wife can help you translate the bio-babble, but the interesting part is that the steroid users in that study had significantly higher ability to proliferate B lymphocytes (the cells putting out antibodies in a cellular immune response) in response to exposure to SAC, which is a strain of (dum dum dumm!!) Staphylococcus.  Juicers also had enhanced NK cell activity, but that would correspond to enhanced ability of these cells to seek and destroy cancerous cells or those infected by viruses.  While not directly playing a role in fighting a staph infection, if NK effectiveness is compromised and the immune system is therefore overtaxed and stressed, it can certainly open up a person to a secondary bacterial infection like staph.

 

A finding that seemed at first unusual to me (with rudimentary working knowledge of immunology but no expertise by any stretch) was the elevated immunoglobulin (=antibodies) levels in the unjuiced control group.  In thinking about it though, that seems to make good sense as these circulating antibodies would be indicative of ongoing low grade cell-specific infections that a substantial portion of the control group is currently fighting.  In contrast, the juicers don't have a lot of circulating antibodies because they are currently not fighting infection.  If they became infected, their T cell-modulated scaling up of B cell numbers would be expected to be rapid and the infection quickly brought under control.  The response would, of course rely on antibody proliferation, so if the juicers were sampled at the time of an incipient infection the immunoglobulin numbers would be extremely high.

 

I'm not up on the follow-on research, but it's easily searchable on PubMed if you are interested.  I encourage Soxy and Hurt and any other bio-geek types to offer their own assenting/dissenting interpretations of the research and add anything else they have.

 

Also bear in mind something that has already been posted by Benchwarmerjim (pleased to meet you, btw), and that is that staph infections are becoming more tenacious and harder to fight with antibiotics, presumably yet another indication that our years and years of antibiotic overuse as a prophylaxis was a very bad idea and we've inadvertently selected for lots of superbugs.  So, add that knowledge to the preceding for perhaps a clearer picture of the 'insult-to-injury' scenario being seen now.

and people say math is hard????

Get well Barry....then retire and go away.

 

yeah barry is really screwin with my fantasy team, dont know if i should drop him or not