HCQ/Macrolide/Brorsons/Donta - Kate/

[Guest guest]

Kate:

Brorson's paper is detailing the HCQ dose in vitro

to damage new Lyme cysts and Old cysts.

The dose to damage young cyst is within the oral safe dose range

of HCQ, but to damage an old cyst, the dose is over double the safe

oral dose.

I think I have the full paper somewhere- but as I understand the

paper, they weren't adressing the PH change within the cell at all

and not were they mixing any other abx with HCQ.

As far as who Donta takes on as patients and who he doesn't, I've

read on LymeNet posts which challenge the statements that he doesn't

take anyone suspected of co-infections. He wasn't extremely excited

to take on a patient like me with several autoimmune dx's prior to

Lyme- stating my case was extremely complicated. It was my decision

not to take the long drive to Boston to see him. I had read his

theorys though.. and when I read Brorson's , it made alot of sense to

me and I combined the two with my own therapy - and the outcome was

very sucessfull for me.

There are a few really good papers out there now, independant of

Donta's theory ( but I think they support it) about the PH bacteria

and fungi like to live in.. including papers on the sensitivities of

bacteria to various abx at several PH values.. so there is info

emerging that's very very intersting on that topic.

HCQ is a very interesting drug, with alot of various mechanisms

when it gets into the body. It potentiates fluconazole, so that

yeast strains normally resistant to fluconazole alone are suseptible

when HCQ is present.

IMO..the best info on drugs comes from reading the Anitmicrobial

Chemotherapy Journal papers.

Barb

_________________________________________________________________

" Hodologica " <usenethod@y...>

Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:26 pm

Subject: Re: HCQ/Macrolide/Brorsons/Donta - Nelly

True.

Dontas experiment has a control: he says HCQ does not add anything

to tetracycline therapy. But he doesnt give the data.

Nelly reports having heard Donta only takes " classic " cases in which

there isnt cause to suspect co-infections - any more info on that,

Nelly? I wonder if that may apply to his studies, which apparently

were done in his clinic, but dont mention those inclusion criteria?

An interesting question is whether HCQ action on cysts shows O2

dependance as tini does:

http://www.im.microbios.org/26June04/09 Brorson.pdf

And whether those O2 dependances are relevant over physiological

concentrations....

And whether one of the two is superiorly active at achievable

doses...

And which can traverse BBB better...

I think I want to take one of these drugs soon so I'll be shakin

these questions.

Its interesting to consider Donta theory in light of the lyme TEM.

Almost all TEM authors agree that very few borrelia can be found. I

cannot speak to the true nitty gritty of whether reliance on

techniques like needle biopsy, etc, may limit success in finding the

organism. But - if there IS a " missing biomass " , and it were inside

a vacuole, in whatever form, it should be alot easier to see, as far

as I know, than if it were free in cytoplasm. What I'm driving at is

that if there are in fact alot of borrelia present in lyme, and they

were largely envacuolated, I would sorta expect them to have been

discovered, but I definitely cant say I understand everything that

might be relevant to making that judgement.

I do know, firmly, that small variants in cytoplasm can be virtually

impossible to positively identify visually even with excellent TEM.

Im talkin about the Wirostko/ uveitis L-forms here. You

cannot confidently pick them out of a lineup of innocent eucaryote

organelles like mitochondria and leukocyte granules. Its the

occasional associated severe cytopathy and walled forms - but even

moreso the excellent supporting experiments executed by that group -

that showed what they had were bacteria for certain. I have the

impression that a TEM observer lacking certain knowledge could have

totally missed what that group found.