This is a popular hypothesis. Emphasis on hypothesis. It has issues to overcome. Most such hypotheses fail. One or more hypotheses wont fail over time. Its too early to accept this as certain, or even highly likely, but I think its inadvisable to automatically dismiss it.
One of the dilemmas it will face eventually if the evidence of glia involvement grows is the question of whether its a primary cause or a secondary problem. If there is a general mechanism then it might impact the brain, and the brain is vulnerable to energy deficits and many other things.
As for remote physical symptoms being linked to such a brain dysfunction, the brain helps regulate a lot of autonomic and non-autonomic functions. So its in the range of possible, with current understanding, that it might alter peripheral function through direct and secondary mechanisms, including regulation of blood vessels. Such an explanation, while possible, is clearly just hypothetical and awaiting detailed demonstrable mechanisms. Otherwise the psychobabblers should be taken more seriously, as they have similar but less detailed arguments.
So cautious skepticism is warranted I think, but not extreme skepticism. There are a lot of unanswered questions, and lots that need to be validated and tested. However medical hypotheses may often be in this state, and pursuing them means we should be able to get the data that confirms or refutes the hypothesis given enough research over time.
There is no question, in my view, that something is going on in the brain, but we still do not know if its causal, co-causal or secondary.
One of the dilemmas it will face eventually if the evidence of glia involvement grows is the question of whether its a primary cause or a secondary problem. If there is a general mechanism then it might impact the brain, and the brain is vulnerable to energy deficits and many other things.
As for remote physical symptoms being linked to such a brain dysfunction, the brain helps regulate a lot of autonomic and non-autonomic functions. So its in the range of possible, with current understanding, that it might alter peripheral function through direct and secondary mechanisms, including regulation of blood vessels. Such an explanation, while possible, is clearly just hypothetical and awaiting detailed demonstrable mechanisms. Otherwise the psychobabblers should be taken more seriously, as they have similar but less detailed arguments.
So cautious skepticism is warranted I think, but not extreme skepticism. There are a lot of unanswered questions, and lots that need to be validated and tested. However medical hypotheses may often be in this state, and pursuing them means we should be able to get the data that confirms or refutes the hypothesis given enough research over time.
There is no question, in my view, that something is going on in the brain, but we still do not know if its causal, co-causal or secondary.
Last edited:
