Re: What a true Herx is.......Tony question

[Guest guest]

Tony, what constitutes the bad reaction then if underdosing? I'm

confused. Why would you get sicker if underdosing (ie killing some but

not all).

I tend to think there is a range of experiences called a " herx " and

some is just drug toxicity (healthy postal workers taking preventive

cipro during the anthrax scare often felt quite sick from side

effects), which varies according to the individual and the drug; die

off in the case of certain organsims that shed neurotoxins or

lipoproteins as they degrade; and maybe what you're saying too, except

I'm confused as to the mechanism. If you kill some shouldn't you feel

somewhat better but not fully better? Why would you feel worse? TIA.

[Guest guest]

They know from experience that you never ever undermedicate a heart

infection and you don't use bacteriostatic antibiotics.When you do the

doxy or mino and respond it's just the bacteria being annoyed or the

genetics of the bacteria responding to the chemical agent, even

responding to a high CO2 environment. Allergies herxes all that stuff

is a response. I took away my response by killing off a hell of a lot

of bugs and I no longer respond.If your work environment is making you

sick and no-one else, there's something your harbouring that's

creating the problem. Allergy means nothing, it's a term that also

gets you knowhere.

Just experiencing things and working thru them is also a way of

understanding that it's all pathogen related- this whole puzzle.

Another thing is going into musky places no longer gives me an

allergic response. I don't flare, and even if I did I know how to get

out of it.These are at the heart of autoimmune diseases and I just

don't care for them- they are completely wrong, basically because this

line of thinking is also the catalyst for a lifetime of ill

health.That last quote is probably why I really went to town on what

is happening.By the way there's this thing called antimicrobial

resistance that has a mechanism for degrading antibiotics as they try

to kill bacteria. This chemical agent is genetically coded into

bacteria and needs to be understood before any attempt at

understanding what makes you herx is undertaken. If I have a trillion

resistant bacteria I'm expecting all sorts of party tricks whenever

anything around me changes let alone taking antibiotics and chemicals

even herbs and weeds could meet some requirement for the ball to start

rolling.

> Tony, what constitutes the bad reaction then if underdosing? I'm

> confused. Why would you get sicker if underdosing (ie killing some

but

> not all).

> I tend to think there is a range of experiences called a " herx " and

> some is just drug toxicity (healthy postal workers taking preventive

> cipro during the anthrax scare often felt quite sick from side

> effects), which varies according to the individual and the drug; die

> off in the case of certain organsims that shed neurotoxins or

> lipoproteins as they degrade; and maybe what you're saying too,

except

> I'm confused as to the mechanism. If you kill some shouldn't you

feel

> somewhat better but not fully better? Why would you feel worse? TIA.

[Guest guest]

Doing antibiotics wrong means you can end up with a bigger infection

than you started out with.I think you'll notice on many forums people

bitch about just that, the drugs actually made them worse.

tony

> Tony, what constitutes the bad reaction then if underdosing? I'm

> confused. Why would you get sicker if underdosing (ie killing some

but

> not all).

> I tend to think there is a range of experiences called a " herx " and

> some is just drug toxicity (healthy postal workers taking preventive

> cipro during the anthrax scare often felt quite sick from side

> effects), which varies according to the individual and the drug; die

> off in the case of certain organsims that shed neurotoxins or

> lipoproteins as they degrade; and maybe what you're saying too,

except

> I'm confused as to the mechanism. If you kill some shouldn't you

feel

> somewhat better but not fully better? Why would you feel worse? TIA.

[Guest guest]

Tony,

My experience has been that Zithromax always made me better but not

completely well. I always relapsed off it, but then again it seemed

to work just as well later at the same dose. Over time I had less and

less problem with fungal infections. I think whatever the Z. was

controling was an infection that was knocking down my natural immune

system ability to fight infection.

My ONLY experience of harm from antibiotics was from quinolones. I

continue to suspect that quinolones are extremely dangerous

antibiotics, especially for people who are low in magnesium which is

most of us. I have never been so sick as since taking a couple of

months of Levaquin and Avalox. I developed symptoms on these which I

NEVER had before, and they continue now for over two years. I am now

taking high doses of magnesium asporotate. That is the first thing

that has even touched the tendon pain. I am not sure anything will

relieve the anxiety attacks.

As for dose level, I remain convinced that low dose, pulsed

minocycline and Zithromax are both safe and effective against stealth

infections or intracellular infections - whatever you want to call

what we have.

a Carnes

> > Tony, what constitutes the bad reaction then if underdosing? I'm

> > confused. Why would you get sicker if underdosing (ie killing

some

> but

> > not all).

> > I tend to think there is a range of experiences called a " herx "

and

> > some is just drug toxicity (healthy postal workers taking

preventive

> > cipro during the anthrax scare often felt quite sick from side

> > effects), which varies according to the individual and the drug;

die

> > off in the case of certain organsims that shed neurotoxins or

> > lipoproteins as they degrade; and maybe what you're saying too,

> except

> > I'm confused as to the mechanism. If you kill some shouldn't you

> feel

> > somewhat better but not fully better? Why would you feel worse?

TIA.

[Guest guest]

Jill asked:

" If you kill some shouldn't you feel somewhat better but not fully

better? Why would you feel worse? TIA. "

scha replies:

I'm going to give a fairly Lyme specific answer, but there are plenty

of other gram neg bacteria that this might apply to.

Antibiotics do us the fine service of killing some number of the

spirochetes. That's fine, now we need to get the bugs and their toxins

out of our bodies.

If you kill a lot of bugs at once, the immune system gets a big wake

up call, and sends in a hazmat crew of phagocytes to clean up the

mess. That becomes it's priority task. And when people talk about the

classic version of JHS, that's really what they're describing - a die-

off large enough to trigger this systemic immune reaction that is self-

resolving, lasts only 4 days or so because what needs to happen -

clearance of the dead bugs and their endotoxins - DOES happen.

When you take low doses and achieve low levels of die off, the hazmat

crew may well never get the message. After all the immune system is

busy about many things, and a number of antibiotics actually slow it

down, and also increase its workload by depopulating the intestinal

and mucosal flora of friendly organisms, giving lurking unfriendly

microbes a wider field to cause mischief.

So the endotoxins, which in Lyme do much of the damage, attracted as

they are to the fatty tissues surrounding nerve cells, simply

accumulate in greater quantities and cause greater distress. Let that

proceed long enough and we have very good evidence that Lyme can

become a demyelinating disease - virtually impossible to distinguish

in terms of symptoms and objective pathologies from conditions like

MS, ALS, etc.

I believe this is why a review of Lyme treatment strategies in a

recent Lyme Times notes that 'one very attractive approach would be to

BEGIN treatment with IV antibiotics and then follow up with IM or oral

administration.' (I'm quoting from memory, but that's definitely the

gist of it).

As it is now, in the normal course of things IV treatment is too often

the last resort, administered only when a patient is either a)

obviously deteriorating after prolonged courses of oral antibiotics or

crippled by athritic and neurological symptoms.

This is nothing like a global description of what goes on in the

diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. I differ a bit with Tony on

this subject, because it is more obvious to me than it is to him that

the primary cause of treatment failure and chronic/progressive disease

is late diagnosis and absurd insurance co./HMO guidelines that offer

only truncated treatment. Remedy those two problems and virtually all

treatment strategies will have much higher success rates.

I'm just focusing in on the question Jill asked, and suggesting one

key mechanism that can make cautious, graded oral antibiotic treatment

a recipe for progression rather than improvement: the failure to kill

enough bugs at once to mobilize the immune system's cleanup crew and

make clearance of bugs and their toxins a priority mission.

There are other possibilities, less well documented but well worth

considering:

Lyme spirochetes have a mechanism, as do certain other bacterial

pathogens, called " quorum sensing " that they use to communicate to

each other about changes in the host environment.

Killing bugs a few at a time allows this mechanism to function

optimally, so that each course of antibiotics sets off a flurry of

intra-pathogen communications directing the bugs to migrate deeper

into poorly perfused tissues, where the inflammatory effects of their

surface proteins will generate increased inflammation that might

easily be confused with " herx. "

Recent studies have made it clear that the outer surface proteins

(OSPs) on Lyme spirochetes act directly on macrophages, triggering

secretion of Th1 cytokines like IL-12 that in turn force naive T cells

into the Th1 phenotype. This has two effects: inflammation increases,

and formation of effective antibodies, which requires the presence of

Th2 cells, is blocked.

This is what one needs to picture happening every time these highly

motile organisms burrow into some new haven in the body. The process

has no natural resolution, and it is this which makes high-dose

antibiotic treatment, administered for maximum penetration of poorly

perfused tissues, a necessity if most Lyme patients are going to

recover.

I use the word " most " deliberately - a disease with this degree of

variation does not support global generalizations.

There may be patients who really can and should proceed with pulsed

oral antibiotics, using the intervals between courses to detoxify by

whatever methods seem most effective in their particular cases.

What I'm fairly certain is true, though, is this:

There are far more patients would benefit from sustained, high-dose IV

treatment than are now receiving it, and along with all the other

obstacles to such treatment, misconceptions surrounding the

word " herx " contribute to this problem.

S.

> Tony, what constitutes the bad reaction then if underdosing? I'm

> confused. Why would you get sicker if underdosing (ie killing some

but

> not all).

> I tend to think there is a range of experiences called a " herx " and

> some is just drug toxicity (healthy postal workers taking preventive

> cipro during the anthrax scare often felt quite sick from side

> effects), which varies according to the individual and the drug; die

> off in the case of certain organsims that shed neurotoxins or

> lipoproteins as they degrade; and maybe what you're saying too,

except

> I'm confused as to the mechanism. If you kill some shouldn't you

feel

> somewhat better but not fully better? Why would you feel worse? TIA.

[Guest guest]

I don't agree with most of this.

First of all, Tony is talking about all bacteria not just lyme.

Secondly, its speculative that borrelia will " migrate " to poorly

perfused tissues as a response to " low dose " antibiotic, or medium

dose or whatever. Just as the idea that antibiotics create cysts, I

think is pretty speculative.

Thirdly, you can give high dose orals.

I think you should use orals unless there are obvious CNS

manifestations (which you've obviously had, and reading btw the

lines, are finally improving on IV). IV should not be used routinely

in early lyme, as uncomplicated cases of early lyme usually do

resolve with orals. Maybe oral doses should be higher and longer than

recommended, but IV carries lots of risks, sepsis in the picc line,

and expense of infusing, etc.

Knowing now that the mitigating factor in the last 5 years for me is

babesia, I'm beginning to wonder how many bad lyme cases have both.

I finally did just read Krause's study and in BLock Island,

coastal Connecticut and othe rplaces the two are equally epidemic.

Well I got bit in coastal Connecticut.

I've heard too many cases where treating the coinfections, most of

all babesia, secondarily bartonella, wasthe key to clearing up what

we call " lyme. "

A woman who has her own hyperbaric chamber now--she and hubby were

landscaping in NJ and both got lyme/bartonella and both got horribly

ill and both were put on IV rocephin for 3 months, which did help but

was not curative and so its hyperbaric that she feels did the trick

for them (longterm, in the home). She notes that in her new home--in

a different suburb of NJ than where they got lyme/bartonella--one

neighbor got lyme and a month of doxy cleared it up, the other

neighbor on the other side got lyme with bells palsy. I forget what

he did but his also cleared up.

I said to her, the lyme you and hubby got--your old neighborhood had

bartonella as a coinfection; the nieghborhood you're in now probably

doesn't. That's why your neighbors got well much faster than you or

hubby, and were not nearly as sick. She thought that was a good

theory.

Also--are we sure a herxheimer is identifiable as the response of the

cleanup crew?

I'm sorry but most of what you speculate on in this post does not

really make good sense to me.

> > Tony, what constitutes the bad reaction then if underdosing? I'm

> > confused. Why would you get sicker if underdosing (ie killing

some

> but

> > not all).

> > I tend to think there is a range of experiences called a " herx "

and

> > some is just drug toxicity (healthy postal workers taking

preventive

> > cipro during the anthrax scare often felt quite sick from side

> > effects), which varies according to the individual and the drug;

die

> > off in the case of certain organsims that shed neurotoxins or

> > lipoproteins as they degrade; and maybe what you're saying too,

> except

> > I'm confused as to the mechanism. If you kill some shouldn't you

> feel

> > somewhat better but not fully better? Why would you feel worse?

TIA.

[Guest guest]

a

There's this strange vascular collapse that seems to occur with

cipro. I basically think cipro and quinolones in general kill

massive amounts of bacteria but they also kill them a strange way

and as soon as the bacteria learn to beat the drug they tend to

bring back to life the billions killed but somehow incompletely

killed by these drugs.

It's like you improve dramatically with quinolones but the key

target in bacteria is somehow recoverable? or something like

that...Just my experineces.. I also notice that when treating

serious infections the doctors at the front lines don't value

quinolones as a good succesfull drug most opting for early simple

drugs that have the score on the board.

So quinolones are sort of USELESS in real medicine they are just a

trumpet drug for big pharmacy.I did notice them using them in

bacterial meningitis in an african breakout on a documentary and the

few that survived have bad knees and other problems which don't seem

to bother the rest of the population that took the simple drugs and

survived the epidemic.

> > > Tony, what constitutes the bad reaction then if underdosing?

I'm

> > > confused. Why would you get sicker if underdosing (ie killing

> some

> > but

> > > not all).

> > > I tend to think there is a range of experiences called

a " herx "

> and

> > > some is just drug toxicity (healthy postal workers taking

> preventive

> > > cipro during the anthrax scare often felt quite sick from side

> > > effects), which varies according to the individual and the

drug;

> die

> > > off in the case of certain organsims that shed neurotoxins or

> > > lipoproteins as they degrade; and maybe what you're saying

too,

> > except

> > > I'm confused as to the mechanism. If you kill some shouldn't

you

> > feel

> > > somewhat better but not fully better? Why would you feel

worse?

> TIA.

[Guest guest]

Some of what you write is good. The thing with you lymies and toxins

is that you should get your lyme friendly labs to start supplying

toxin detection kits. You see us sinus ilnesss and sinus bacteria

types have the ability to grow and observe all the toxins making us

sick.They have these unfortunately expensive toxin detection kits

out of japan that are capable of hunting down our toxins. The other

thing is that most autoimmune patients are capable of testing

positive on toxic shock toxins and that is not even the bad one in

the scheme of things.

As far as herx reaction when you do the simple drugs at the right

doses there's never any reactions unless the drugs themselves are

highly toxic to the body as well as the bacteria.There's also the

irony of the mess that is frequently discovered in the female

reproduction system that is being overlooked.When you have an

infection that causes endometreosis it makes one hell of a mess down

there that harbours many pockets of infection that are walled off

and basically interfering with it would make you sick -HERX..

There's a lot more to infections and killing them than a simple

herx. Most on these forums have hidden abscesses, cysts. I saw an

interesting medical doco on just children in the hospital ER and

what they actually got diagnosed with. There was one infant

diagnosed with asthma at six mmonths of age, being violently ill his

mother took him to the ER and on closer examination he had a cyst

that was drained in his lung and on follow up six months later this

kid just glowed.I think the seriousness of his presentation at the

ER made them search hard and this discovery possably in an adult

would go undetected.

tony

> > Tony, what constitutes the bad reaction then if underdosing? I'm

> > confused. Why would you get sicker if underdosing (ie killing

some

> but

> > not all).

> > I tend to think there is a range of experiences called a " herx "

and

> > some is just drug toxicity (healthy postal workers taking

preventive

> > cipro during the anthrax scare often felt quite sick from side

> > effects), which varies according to the individual and the drug;

die

> > off in the case of certain organsims that shed neurotoxins or

> > lipoproteins as they degrade; and maybe what you're saying too,

> except

> > I'm confused as to the mechanism. If you kill some shouldn't you

> feel

> > somewhat better but not fully better? Why would you feel worse?

TIA.

[Guest guest]

Jill

Rocephin is generally a crap drug.I know many doctors that are

treating serious infections of the bone and joints never ever have

rocephin in there mix.

> > > Tony, what constitutes the bad reaction then if underdosing?

I'm

> > > confused. Why would you get sicker if underdosing (ie killing

> some

> > but

> > > not all).

> > > I tend to think there is a range of experiences called

a " herx "

> and

> > > some is just drug toxicity (healthy postal workers taking

> preventive

> > > cipro during the anthrax scare often felt quite sick from side

> > > effects), which varies according to the individual and the

drug;

> die

> > > off in the case of certain organsims that shed neurotoxins or

> > > lipoproteins as they degrade; and maybe what you're saying

too,

> > except

> > > I'm confused as to the mechanism. If you kill some shouldn't

you

> > feel

> > > somewhat better but not fully better? Why would you feel

worse?

> TIA.

[Guest guest]

> They have these unfortunately expensive toxin detection kits

> out of japan that are capable of hunting down our toxins.

Hi Tony,

Do you know who makes the kits? How to get them? Any leads?

Sue ,

Upstate New York

[Guest guest]

Sue

These are special orders thru oxoid, but specifically look for common

stuff.

The stuff you guys generally chase no one can help you with because

they basically don't exist in the mainstream.You can look for

clostridia toxins, e-coli toxins and the nine staph toxins that I know

of, some strep toxins as well.

How can this help the lyme minded?

I just recall my lab friend getting some info from her friendly oxoid

sales rep.

tony

> > They have these unfortunately expensive toxin detection kits

> > out of japan that are capable of hunting down our toxins.

>

> Hi Tony,

>

> Do you know who makes the kits? How to get them? Any leads?

>

> Sue ,

> Upstate New York

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Doing antibiotics wrong means you can end up with a bigger infection

> than you started out with.I think you'll notice on many forums people

> bitch about just that, the drugs actually made them worse.

> tony

>

I've read that you can think of the analogy of a " flora/fauna

ecosystem " in your body. Narrow that to a " pathogen ecosystem " .

There is a " hierarchy of expression " in the pathogens. Say you have

7 pathogens, #1 is most predominant down to # 7, least

predominant/expressive.

These pathogens have interrelationships - #1 may suppress the numbers,

reproductive rate, pathogenicity, whatever - of some of the others.

You take an antibiotic that knocks out or lessens # 1, 4, 5 - this

might make some of the others actually increase in number,

pathogenicity, drug resistance.

You got rid of some of your pathogens and their effects, but now you've

created a new 'pathogen ecosystem' with some resistant ones, increasing

rates of growth of others and maybe now conditions are right for even

more pathogens to take hold.

When I tried to learn about antibiotic therapy for complex infections,

I was pretty daunted at what a Pandora's box it seems to be.

Its tough when government policies limit access to testing, treatment,

and the funds that could provide them privately.

Jo

[Guest guest]

Frau Vogel

The thing about the cfs community that you don't have to worry about

is- there bowel flora is absolutely screwed. The fact that people

even talk about it when taking antibiotics is completely rediculous.

You have filled up your intestinal tract with alpha haemolytic

streptococci, enterococcus overgrowth, pseudonomads aeuriganosa

overgrowths. These are found dripping with slime down your throat,

your slime is a toxic mess and every effort should be made to

elimenate it.

So to even vaguely believe you've got something to hang onto is

rediculous. The irony is that many people actually feed these

monsters with bad beliefs.High levels of salts don't favour these

things to flourish, you can see that the high salt /c is the leading

protocol.The problem though is they can still tolerate and live thru

a salt attack- they just don't grow the double the size colonies

they could have.

\

> > Doing antibiotics wrong means you can end up with a bigger

infection

> > than you started out with.I think you'll notice on many forums

people

> > bitch about just that, the drugs actually made them worse.

> > tony

> >

>

> I've read that you can think of the analogy of a " flora/fauna

> ecosystem " in your body. Narrow that to a " pathogen ecosystem " .

>

> There is a " hierarchy of expression " in the pathogens. Say you

have

> 7 pathogens, #1 is most predominant down to # 7, least

> predominant/expressive.

>

> These pathogens have interrelationships - #1 may suppress the

numbers,

> reproductive rate, pathogenicity, whatever - of some of the others.

> You take an antibiotic that knocks out or lessens # 1, 4, 5 - this

> might make some of the others actually increase in number,

> pathogenicity, drug resistance.

>

> You got rid of some of your pathogens and their effects, but now

you've

> created a new 'pathogen ecosystem' with some resistant ones,

increasing

> rates of growth of others and maybe now conditions are right for

even

> more pathogens to take hold.

>

> When I tried to learn about antibiotic therapy for complex

infections,

> I was pretty daunted at what a Pandora's box it seems to be.

>

> Its tough when government policies limit access to testing,

treatment,

> and the funds that could provide them privately.

>

> Jo

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your comments. If I understand you correctly, we are

in agreement.

I wasn't referring to " beneficial " bowel flora/fauna - I was talking

solely about the collection of pathogens that someone with a complex

infection may have.

It is my current understanding that one should aim for a reasonable

effort to try and identify, C & S your pathogens,and then target the

antibiotic therapy to what you find. Repeat as necessary.

Otherwise, if you just ingest the " wrong " antibiotics in the wrong

concentrations, you run the risk of mucking up your infections worse.

So, you don't think that the Salt/C protocol has long-tern

potential? I haven't investigated that. At least it is cheap and

available.

Jo

> Frau Vogel

> The thing about the cfs community that you don't have to worry

about

> is- there bowel flora is absolutely screwed. The fact that people

> even talk about it when taking antibiotics is completely

rediculous.

> You have filled up your intestinal tract with alpha haemolytic

> streptococci, enterococcus overgrowth, pseudonomads aeuriganosa

> overgrowths. These are found dripping with slime down your throat,

> your slime is a toxic mess and every effort should be made to

> elimenate it.

> So to even vaguely believe you've got something to hang onto is

> rediculous. The irony is that many people actually feed these

> monsters with bad beliefs.High levels of salts don't favour these

> things to flourish, you can see that the high salt /c is the

leading

> protocol.The problem though is they can still tolerate and live

thru

> a salt attack- they just don't grow the double the size colonies

> they could have.

[Guest guest]

Jo

People that know me know I was telling them to do 'HIGH LEVELS OF

SALT' before anyone came out with a salt/c approach.I would use the

observation of pathogenic bacteria don't thrive in salt and for many

years people would salt there meat to stop it going off due to

bacterial invasion.(before refrigeration)

The rest of the observation is the same as yourself, yet I don't

agree with people trying to hang on to what they no little about.

most on trhese forums have some pretty screwed up bowel flora.

And I have given people nausea by telling them to culture and attack

correctly with therapy.I actually just about had my eye poked out by

nelly for this in a few different forums.

> > Frau Vogel

> > The thing about the cfs community that you don't have to worry

> about

> > is- there bowel flora is absolutely screwed. The fact that

people

> > even talk about it when taking antibiotics is completely

> rediculous.

> > You have filled up your intestinal tract with alpha haemolytic

> > streptococci, enterococcus overgrowth, pseudonomads aeuriganosa

> > overgrowths. These are found dripping with slime down your

throat,

> > your slime is a toxic mess and every effort should be made to

> > elimenate it.

> > So to even vaguely believe you've got something to hang onto is

> > rediculous. The irony is that many people actually feed these

> > monsters with bad beliefs.High levels of salts don't favour

these

> > things to flourish, you can see that the high salt /c is the

> leading

> > protocol.The problem though is they can still tolerate and live

> thru

> > a salt attack- they just don't grow the double the size colonies

> > they could have.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jo,

I am new member. I wanted to ask what you meant by this:

" Its tough when government policies limit access

to testing, treatment,

and the funds that could provide them privately. "

I have had trouble with getting doctors to test me and would like to

understand why.

Thanks, Barb B

>

> Its tough when government policies limit access to testing,

treatment,

> and the funds that could provide them privately.

>

> Jo