Statistics

[Guest guest]

Hi Pam,

.........how about this explanation for your doctor's stats....

The first 40% of his patients never came back because they realized that

rheumy didn't know what he was talking about.

The next 40% were also taking supplements, antibiotics and doing very well,

but didn't tell him.

The last 20% took his " secondary drugs " and now have serious problems, from

the drugs!

I don't know, but I couldn't resist :-)

You are right, Pam to do your research and question your doctor. If he has

a problem with that, find another one. More and more doctors are willing to

learn about using antibiotics with the rheumatic diseases. You are on the

right track. Too many times a doctor will say one of two things to a

patient: " Your disease is such a mild case so you don't need the

antibiotics. " OR " Your disease is far to severe for the antibiotics to

work. " Wrong on both counts.

There are several people in this group who have started the AP the very

first thing after being diagnosed. They have responded very well and didn't

have to use any secondary drugs. I hope the same for you.

Welcome to the group :-)

Connie

rheumatic Statistics

> From: zendt@...

>

> I was just diagnosed with RA three weeks ago and am learning. My

rheumatologist said my case, at this point, is early and mild. I've seen him

3 times in three weeks (you might say I am nervous and he won't answer phone

nor e-mail messages so I have to make an appt. and go in and see him.)

>

> Anyway, he told my husband and me this stats at each of our visits. He

says:

>

> 40% of people with RA never even have to see a doc their symptoms are so

mild;

> 40% of other people with RA see a doc. but don't need more than Motrin and

equivalents;

> the other 20% have problems and need, what he calls secondary drugs, and

have serious problems.

>

> Has anyone else heard these stats? From all I am reading, it seems like RA

almost always progresses and causes more and more pain for almost all who

have it. I'd appreciate your thoughts, information.

>

> Thanks, Pam

>

> ---------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi Pam,

You are already half way on the road to recovery :-) It is great that you

have done your research. Just in case you were wondering, " Can this all be

for real? Are the people in this internet group for real? " The answer to

both is YES! I was so very doubtful in the beginning, afterall, could I

trust the internet? Well, at the time I first became aware of the AP and

this website, there was a patient's conference in LA hosted by Dr. Franco.

I worked up the courage to go and am thankful every minute that I went! Not

only did I gain lots of information, but I was able to meet (and hug) lots

of the members of this group, including our founder and walking

encyclopedia, Ethel Snooks! These people are definitely for real :-))

Here are three names of doctors in Georgia who prescribe the AP, hopefully

this will help:

B. Edelson, MD

Environmental and Preventative Health Center of Atlanta

3833 Roswell Rd.

Atlanta, GA 30342

404-841-0088

Oliver Gunter, MD PC (is a General Practitioner, which works just fine for

this treatment)

24 N. Ellis St

Camilla, GA

912-336-7343

V. Machado, MD PC (internal medicine)

2750 A. Felton Dr.

East Point, GA 30344

404-762-5541

The 50mg of Minocin sounds just about right to start. There are some in the

group who are on the daily dose of Minocin and others who are on the MWF

routine. I, myself, am on the pulsed pattern, as per Dr. Franco's orders.

As he stresses, each case is considered on an individual basis. Maybe you

could get established with your new doctor and ask for his recommendation.

There are also many suggestions in the website at www.rheumatic.org which I

am sure that you have read, too. As you have already found out, the initial

fatigue associated with these diseases can be extreme. It will definiately

get better :-)

good luck to you, keep us posted and take care,

Connie

Re: rheumatic Statistics

> Thanks for responding. Yes, I am going to change doctors. And yes, I read

> about AP right away on the Internet and bought the book. I asked the

doctor

> to put me on it and he unenthusiatically agreed. So now I am taking 50 mg

of

> Minicon a day and 1600 mg. of Motrin a day. Do you think that's o.k. to

> start with? He says I'll go up to 100 mg. of Minicon in a month.

>

> I don't have too much pain nor swelling. My ANA was positive and my RA is

41

> so I guess I do have it although I tend to be in denial about 50% of the

> time. My main symptoms for the past year has been fatigue. Despite that, I

> ran a lot (ran a marathon in 98 and in Oct. 99). I always thought the

> fatigue was from running and if I ever had a sore foot or something, I

> assumed it was a running injury.

>

> Any more thoughts would be helpful. I'm in Atlanta...haven't found a

decent

> doc. yet.

>

> Pam

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Pam,

Try not to worry too much about your prognosis because everyone is

different. I don't see how he can lump the whole population of Ra'ers into

these categories anyway. You can only deal with your own case. When I

was first diagnosed in 1994 I was like you and terrified listening and

reading all the literature and not knowing what or who to believe. There

are so many conflicting theories on how to treat us it boggles the mind. I

have come to the conlusion that AP is the route to go for me and I take

Minocin and an anti inflammatory, plus a multi vitamin, and that's about it.

I haven't deteriorated much in 6 years, maybe a few more joints affected,

but not much and my only beef is morning stiffness, which is lessening.

After you are here on the list for awhile you will find we are all at

different stages in the treatment with some of us in remission, some almost

in remission and others standing still.

By the way, my gp has told me a third of us will go into remission, a third

will stay the same and feel flu like and miserable, and a third will get

worse. But then, Gabe Mirkin has said on his radio show Minocin will CURE

us.

I am putting my faith in AP and it may take some time, but I'm not doing

anything else right now anyway, and I do feel I have improved.

When I was first diagnosed I couldn't hold a tea kettle or turn the knobs on

my washer, but now I can carry a 50 lb feed bag with one hand, so I'm not

complaining.

If you want to post me, please don't hesitate. I'd be glad to answer any

questions you have, if I can. :>)

Bev

>

> I was just diagnosed with RA three weeks ago and am learning. My

rheumatologist said my case, at this point, is early and mild. I've seen him

3 times in three weeks (you might say I am nervous and he won't answer phone

nor e-mail messages so I have to make an appt. and go in and see him.)

>

> Anyway, he told my husband and me this stats at each of our visits. He

says:

>

> 40% of people with RA never even have to see a doc their symptoms are so

mild;

> 40% of other people with RA see a doc. but don't need more than Motrin and

equivalents;

> the other 20% have problems and need, what he calls secondary drugs, and

have serious problems.

>

> Has anyone else heard these stats? From all I am reading, it seems like RA

almost always progresses and causes more and more pain for almost all who

have it. I'd appreciate your thoughts, information.

>

> Thanks, Pam

>

>

[Guest guest]

Good point, . I guess he is psychic. LOL He knows all those

possible patients that are out there that won't come and see him.

Bev

>

> And how does he know about the 40% who never see a doctor, if they never

> see a doctor. The best time for antibiotic treatment is when you first

> get the disease. If he wont go along with it find a doctor who will. GPs

> often are more open to it. Your rheumy sounds about like the jerks so

> many others of us have had experience with.

>

> --

[Guest guest]

Ha ha ha, Pam.....Loved your twist on the statistics....I totally agree with

you.....I've had to see at least 3 doctors before finding the one that was

knowledgeable enough and willing to put me on the AP.......Ana (RA 03-99, AP

10/99)

rheumatic Statistics

>

>

> > From: zendt@...

> >

> > I was just diagnosed with RA three weeks ago and am learning. My

> rheumatologist said my case, at this point, is early and mild. I've seen

him

> 3 times in three weeks (you might say I am nervous and he won't answer

phone

> nor e-mail messages so I have to make an appt. and go in and see him.)

> >

> > Anyway, he told my husband and me this stats at each of our visits. He

> says:

> >

> > 40% of people with RA never even have to see a doc their symptoms are so

> mild;

> > 40% of other people with RA see a doc. but don't need more than Motrin

and

> equivalents;

> > the other 20% have problems and need, what he calls secondary drugs, and

> have serious problems.

> >

> > Has anyone else heard these stats? From all I am reading, it seems like

RA

> almost always progresses and causes more and more pain for almost all who

> have it. I'd appreciate your thoughts, information.

> >

> > Thanks, Pam

> >

> > ---------------------------

[Guest guest]

what is RASPes? susan C.

[Guest guest]

Hang in there , most of my improvements came in the last few months

and I have been on the AP for 2 years. I also have added RASpes to it and

that helped tremendously.

Skippy

rheumatic statistics

> ,

>

> Why would anyone take offense with these questions. They are the right

ones

> to ask!

>

> I think I remember the NIH studies had, over the course of one year, an

> improvement rate of around 60-70%, but I could be too high. I do remember

> though that the placebo rate for RA is 4%, (normal placebos are around

35%).

> You can figure anything over 35% improvement is not placebo and therefore

> has validity.

>

> Dr. Franco told me that over the course of 5 years, 40% go into remission

> and 80% improve. That seemed pretty good to me. I've been on this

therapy

> for almost 1 year and haven't seen anything like improvement. In fact I

> think my disease has been stimulated by the antibiotics and sometimes I

> worry that I'm one of those odd balls in the 20%, since I've never

> experienced remissions nor had any types of natural therapies help me.

But,

> if all that be true, then what are my alternatives--cortisone,

methotrexate,

> enbrel, etc. Doesn't seem good to me. I'd rather give the AP a good try

> before making any judgements.

>

> Good luck to you,

>

>

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe, email: rheumatic-unsubscribeegroups

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sorry about that last post . I meant to say none of my improvements

came (the major ones) until the last few months.

Skip

rheumatic statistics

> ,

>

> Why would anyone take offense with these questions. They are the right

ones

> to ask!

>

> I think I remember the NIH studies had, over the course of one year, an

> improvement rate of around 60-70%, but I could be too high. I do remember

> though that the placebo rate for RA is 4%, (normal placebos are around

35%).

> You can figure anything over 35% improvement is not placebo and therefore

> has validity.

>

> Dr. Franco told me that over the course of 5 years, 40% go into remission

> and 80% improve. That seemed pretty good to me. I've been on this

therapy

> for almost 1 year and haven't seen anything like improvement. In fact I

> think my disease has been stimulated by the antibiotics and sometimes I

> worry that I'm one of those odd balls in the 20%, since I've never

> experienced remissions nor had any types of natural therapies help me.

But,

> if all that be true, then what are my alternatives--cortisone,

methotrexate,

> enbrel, etc. Doesn't seem good to me. I'd rather give the AP a good try

> before making any judgements.

>

> Good luck to you,

>

>

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe, email: rheumatic-unsubscribeegroups

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I also see Dr. Franco, and I wanted to tell you that I was at my WORST

physically from about 1 to 2 years into minocin therapy. No lie--I dreamed

and fantasized of death often. I understand your feelings......I too

wondered if I was in that " 20% " . But I think that the antibiotics have only

stirred things up for you. It's probably a good (although painful!) sign.

Hang in there. I'm been on the treatment 3 years now, and I'm feeling

terrific.

In fact, I just got back from a Franco visit last night. My blood work was

greatly improved once again. :-) CRP was down from 30 to 5.8. And RF was

down from 190 to 48. Dr. Franco was please.....as am I.

As a side note, poor Dr. Franco had a birthday yesterday while I was there.

I saw " poor " because he had an awful day. First, is car broke down during

his 30-mile a.m. commute. Second, the rental car agency refused to rent him

a car because (being his birthday) his driver's license expired yesterday and

the new one hadn't arrived in the mail yet. And third, just after I arrived

for my 2:30 appointment, he and his new doctor/employee became trapped in the

elevator!! He finally got out around 4. WHAT a birthday......but he's such

a great guy. Kept his sense of humor.

That's all here. By the way, everybody, thanks for your input concerning my

recent mosquito incident. I think the meat tenderizer paste helped the most.

Hang in there, .

(moving like a normal person)

[Guest guest]

Lierre,

> it's not " absurd " to call statutory rape what it is--rape.

What's absurd is making a definitional statement that does not account for

varying maturities and intelligences for a given age.

> Our society as a whole has decided that there has to be a cut-off

> point for when children are children and hence don't have enough

> power or information to make consent meaningful.

It hasn't done it as a whole-- different states have different consent laws.

So clearly the cutoff is arbitrary, and reflects vague averages and guesses

rather than any concrete reality.

Yes, there will

> always be some people who mature more quickly, but the powerless have

> to be protected. That's why it's illegal for men in their twenties to

> have sex with 15 year old girls. The term " teen pregnancy " general

> refers to girls under 18--not legal adults 18 and over.

This isn't a question about law; it's a question about definitions. You said

that someone in their 20s having sex with someone in their teens-- and now

I'll assume you mean under 18 by " teens " -- is " by definition " rape. It's not.

At all.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of " rape " is:

rape1

n.

The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual

intercourse.

The dictionary.com definition of " force " is:

To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession.

And the corresponding definition of " force " as a noun is:

The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession

obtained by force.

Thus, a 20-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old is not rape unless either

of them use physical power or violence to compel or restrain the person in

order to obtain the sex. In fact, dictionary.com's definition of " rape " has

nothing to do with consent. Sex is not rape to the extent it does not involve

force, not to the extent it involves consent. So if you make a claim that the

17-year-old is not emotionally mature, it simply has no bearing on whether or

not

the transaction constitutes " rape. "

That's part of the reason we call " statutory rape " " statutory " -- because it's

only " rape " by a legal construction, and it otherwise could not be " rape, "

since it does not fit the definition of " rape. "

But let's just say that if we use the word " rape " somewhat loosely we can

accomodate certain instances into the definition where physical force is not

used, but where one party took advantage of another's impaired judgment. For

example, using a date rape drug is rape by that means, although you could argue

that using the drug is a form of physical violence.

You could also say that if one person was unable to make decisions-- mentally

retarded, on drugs, mental problems, etc-- and that one party knew this and

took advantage of it, that could be accomodated into the definition of rape.

But while capacity for judgment tends to increase with age in a given person,

there is no clear relationship between a specific age and a specific capacity

for judgment. The claim that someone over 20 having sex with someone under

18 " by definition " constitutes rape requires that someone under 18 " by

definition " has insufficient capacity for judgment and that someone over 20 " by

definition " has sufficient capacity for judgment, when it is quite clear that

both

are utterly false.

Furthermore, what constitutes sufficient capacity for judgment is necessarily

arbitrary, because it is unquantifiable. No one has perfect capacity for

judgment, so any two people of any age having sex are using judgments with

varying degrees of imperfection. The translation of judgment capacity to age

takes

an arbitrary measure and randomizes it by connecting it to an objective

standard with which it has no clear correlation.

You say that " some " will mature emotionally more quickly, and imply that the

rest are " powerless, " but there's a continuum of emotional maturity, and it's

distribution for a given age is probably a bell curve.

Thus, it's impossible to make a *definitional* statement about sex between

people of two given ages in this manner, because there is no *definitional*

capacity for judgment associated with a given age.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Statistics are often used in the experiments that we show presented in papers.

A

quite good introduction to statistics, is:

http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm

In my opinion, important often is more important and significant is

insignificant.

An experiment with a billion E. coli cells may have great significance of no

importance. Human cells are closer to being important, but far from human

organs,

human organ systems and humans. Comparisons of diets and outcomes of various

human

populations may be highly statistically significant and be used to support

tenuous

suggestions. Prospective studies fare better. Double-blind randomized control

trials are most reliable, in my way of thinking. However, in all experiments,

judicious selection and corrections for confounders are important, and

significant

in the reliability of the statistics and the likely outcome of the analysis.

There

are more than three types of statistics, besides lies, disparagingly described

lies

and politicians. Statistics can be works of art in the studies of the

appropriate

scientist.

For importance, tests of the import of studies to actual human health may be in

question also. If A means B and B means C, does this mean A means C?

Still, for generating hypotheses, many types of study may be worthy of

consideration.

This said, I have no statistical credentials of merit.

-- Al Pater, alpater@...

__________________________________________________