JLR
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Chem G?
Aug 10, 2005 10:09:16 GMT -5
Post by JLR on Aug 10, 2005 10:09:16 GMT -5
I havent been reading every post but noticed that Chem isn't around anymore, anyone know what happend? Think maybe his protocol worked and no longer needs the board?
|
|
|
Chem G?
Aug 11, 2005 22:01:11 GMT -5
Post by Me on Aug 11, 2005 22:01:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Chem G?
Aug 12, 2005 6:08:39 GMT -5
Post by Orion*** on Aug 12, 2005 6:08:39 GMT -5
Me Guest: A great link-thanks--will make a hard copy for me and my MD. I have a hunch that I am one of those hard ball cases,,,Important info for me.
|
|
|
Chem G?
Aug 12, 2005 6:11:41 GMT -5
Post by Orion*** on Aug 12, 2005 6:11:41 GMT -5
Yes--ChemG --I miss your input--Real meat & potatoes stuff.
|
|
|
Chem G?
Aug 12, 2005 13:22:03 GMT -5
Post by adapted on Aug 12, 2005 13:22:03 GMT -5
Yes, because what I derived from Me's link, was that at the time of this article, the understanding of the human immune response to B. burgdorferi infection was (and still may be, as far as I'm aware at least), imperfect. It states how the antibody response, although strong and invariable in some Lyme victims, waxes and wanes over time. I know that I have read that the higher the number, the better off you are, because that shows your body's fighting it.
But that waxing and waning makes the diagnostic serologic titers undetectable in some patients for reasons that just aren't clearly understood. Therefore, the very patients who are unable to generate detectable levels of those free antibodies, who are quite likely to have the infection, and who may actually even present with THE MORE SERIOUS ILLNESS AMONG THOSE WITH LYME DISEASE, ARE THE LEAST LIKELY TO BE OFFERED TREATMENT.
They're saying that the Western immunoblot serologic test as a "gold standard" for the confirmation of Lyme may not be as accurate as an antigen-capture assay developed by the Rocky Mountain Laboratory of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, and they go on to cite the outcomes of a test group demonstrating the shedding of B. burgdorferi-specific antigen in the urine of many patients who were suspected of having Lyme disease but who were seronegative with usual antibody tests.
It says that the availability of such direct antigen detection methods, the polymerase chain reaction, and other approaches which directly demonstrate the presence of the pathogen, once clinically validated, will foster more rational pharmacotherapy for Lyme disease. Results of such assays will promote recognition of that which astute clinicians have long inferred from the careful study of their patients, that seronegativity is a real phenomenon in Lyme disease, occurring in both early and late stages.
Acceptance of the possibility of seronegative disease makes empirical treatment for patients in whom Lyme disease is clinically suspected imperative, even if serologic tests are negative. Obviously, such commitment to therapy should occur only after thorough but expeditious efforts have failed to identify another cause for the symptoms.
They're saying that the early occurrence of irreversible neurologic injury, although rare, (yeah, sure), may be avoided by prompt and specific therapy for such patients. Also, they say that aside from prevention of the illness in the first place, methods achieving a sure cure for those already infected must be developed.
The article is saying that antibiotics may not be the answer. Rather, application of new techniques of molecular biology to interfere irreversibly with key metabolic or reproductive processes of the bacterium wherever it may be found in the body, including intracellular sites, may provide more effective targeted therapy in the future.
So, the pee test sounds like the real way to go, if you need to find out if you've got Lyme disease, and until they come up with better treatment, antibiotics are pretty much it for now. But they say, in the early part of the article, that they don't really do much. It says they're intensively working on finding out why.
Did anyone else get this take? Because I know that perception is a real tricky thing, and I may be wrong in what I basically got from this. Although I have read about some of it before, in the past, I'm certainly not well versed on the topic of Lyme disease.
|
|
|
Chem G?
Aug 12, 2005 16:48:35 GMT -5
Post by bugged1 on Aug 12, 2005 16:48:35 GMT -5
Not true - I think you were reading a post from a "Greg" and confusing with me??? I've never used Avelox and am doing great (and yes, that's partly why I've been away). As for the post, me is... well, me and basically the article validates what I've been trying to tell you all for some time now: That there may be genetic implications causing poor response to short-term antibiotic therapy in SOME patients. Since that article was written, we NOW know that the HLA-DR4 gene marker IS common to most chronic lyme patients and they NEED to be cycling and dieting on the Marshall protocol or something very similar IF they want to be totally CURED. I know I'll take some heat for this but here goes anyway because I think it can save a life or two: I've seen some of Dr. Savely's recommendations and, while I commend her on recognizing Morgs, I think her antibiotic swapping (trying a bunch for her patients until the individual responds) isn't gonna cut it for some of those patients. If patients like BB and her family were tested for the HLA-DR4 marker, I can almost assure you they'll find it. Those individuals NEED to then work closely with a Lyme specialist and get on something like a Marshall Protocol and quit fooling around with stuff like cumanda if they want to save their lives. Do yourself a favor if you have chronic lyme and check for that gene marker peeps! IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW!!! And Hope, as for the aloe, D-Mannose, glyconutrient thing, YES they can all help BUT they won't be a total cure - they need to be incorporated into the overall plan. Also aloe juice apparently has a lot of calcium so don't take with antibiotics - wait a couple hours or you'll negate the effects of some drugs like cipro or tetracycline. Be well peeps, CHEM G
|
|