From Microbes to Models: How Coping with Ear Infections Led to a New Paradigm

  • Alonzo H. Jones


After developing a natural, non-drug, method for preventing otitis in children, we were confronted with finding how it worked. That path led to the confirmation that our physiologic defenses have been wrongly seen as symptoms to be treated with drugs. That error is a result of our reductionist thinking in wanting to understand and describe human physiology and health in mechanical terms. The numerous elements in our physiology, their nonlinear connections, and above all our realization that they are adaptive, defy reductionist thinking. Our bothersome secondary defenses exemplify this problem. They are most apparent as they defend us where we are most vulnerable—at the openings to our bodies, primarily our GI and respiratory tracts. These are mostly washing defenses that translate into the GI tract’s nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, and the respiratory tract’s rhinorrhea. The homeostatic model sees these symptoms as bothersome and in need of treatment. The allostatic model acknowledges that temporary imbalances often occur in order to restore a homeostatic balance, but does not yet consider these physiologic defenses as within that model.



None of this would have happened without my wife, Jerry’s input. Trained in early child education, special ed, and play therapy, she understands children. It was her panic, based on her experience trying to teach kids who had early problems with ear infections, that prompted our experimenting with xylitol. And it was her understanding of how children adapt that confirmed the idea of the modes of evolution. Children are in fact the archetype of complex adaptive systems, and we should all pay a lot more attention to the experts in this area as we try to cope with our problems in all other areas of our lives.

I would also like to thank Joachim Sturmberg for his excellent illustrations of mucociliary function and Kontiokari’s adherence study.


  1. 1.
    Crater DD, Heise S, Perzanowski M, Herbert R, Morse CG, Hulsey TC, Platts-Mills T. Asthma hospitalization trends in Charleston, South Carolina, 1956 to 1997: twenty-fold increase among black children during a 30-year period. Pediatrics. 2001;108(6):E97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schappcrt SM. Office visits for otitis media: United States. 1975–90. Adv Data. 1992;8(214):1–19.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brindal E, Wittert G. The weight balancing act and allostasis: commentary on the homeostatic theory of obesity. Health Psychol Open. 2016;3(1):2055102916634363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arundel AV, Sterling EM, Biggin JH, Sterling TD. Indirect health effects of relative humidity in indoor environments. Environ Health Perspect. 1986;65:351–61.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Svensson C, Andersson M, Grieff L, Persson CG. Nasal mucosal endorgan hyperresponsiveness. Am J Rhinol. 1998;12(1):37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Water with sugar and salt. Lancet. 1978;2(8084):300–1.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meinild A, Klaerke DA, Loo DD, Wright EM, Zeuthen T. The human Na+-glucose cotransporter is a molecular water pump. J Physiol. 1998;508(Pt 1):15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scheinin A, Mäkinen KK, Ylitalo K, et al. Turku sugar studies. I. An intermediate report on the effect of sucrose, fructose and xylitol diets on the caries incidence in man. Acta Odontol Scand. 1974;32(6):383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scheinin A, Mäkinen KK. Turku sugar studies I-XXI. Acta Odontol Scand. 1975;33 Suppl 70:1–349.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Uhari M, Kontiokari T, Koskela M, Niemelä M. Xylitol chewing gum in prevention of otitis media. Br Med J. 1996; 313(7066):1180–84.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones AH. Intranasal xylitol, recurrent otitis media, and asthma: report of three cases. Clin Pract Altern Med. 2001;2(2):112–7. Available at
  12. 12.
    Kontiokari T, Uhari M, Koskela M. Antiadhesive effects of xylitol on otopathogenic bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1998;41(5):563–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knowles MR, Boucher R. Mucus clearance as a primary innate defense mechanism for mammalian airways. J Clin Invest. 2002;109(5):571–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ewald E. The evolution of infectious disease. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krašovec R, Belavkin RV, Aston JAD, Channon A, Aston E, Rash BM, Kadirvel M, Forbes S, Knight CG. Where antibiotic resistance mutations meet quorumsensing. Microb Cell. 2014;1(7):250–2.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones AH. The next step in infectious disease: taming bacteria. Med Hypotheses. 2003;60(2):171–4.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zimmer C. Taming pathogens: an elegant idea. But does it work? Science. 2003;300(5624):1362–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferreira AS, Silva-Paes-Leme AF, Raposo NR, da Silva SS. By passing microbial resistance: xylitol controls microorganisms growth by means of its anti-adherence property. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2015;16(1):35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sharon N, Halina L. Carbohydrates in cell recognition. Sci Am. 1993;268(1):82–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sharon N. Carbohydrates as future anti-adhesion drugs for infectious disease. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006;1760(4):527–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moore M. Washington Post, 2003 October 31. P.AO1. Ms. Moore is quoting Nahum Barnea, columnist for the Yedioth Aharonoth.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sepp K. Best practices in counterinsurgency. Mil Rev. 2005:8–12.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cole SW, Hawkley LC, Arevalo JM, Sung CY, Rose RM, Cacioppo JT. Social regulation of gene expression in human leukocytes. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Common Sense MedicinePlainviewUSA

Personalised recommendations