Re: Putative Antibacterial Mechanisms for ARB's

[Guest guest]

Okay, you're joking right? :-)

(not regarding the information, that may be valid, I don't know. I'm

talking about the source of the publication)

penny

>

> Wow " Bacterial Receptors with affinity for Angiotensin II " Back to

> basics, Looks like ARB's are essential in treating stealth

infections.

>

> http://www.joimr.org/phorum/read.php?f=2 & i=53 & t=53

>

[Guest guest]

You are saying that tounge in cheeh right?

joimr was created for the purpose of publishing

the writings of the creator of joimr.

B.

>

> Wow " Bacterial Receptors with affinity for Angiotensin II " Back to

> basics, Looks like ARB's are essential in treating stealth infections.

>

>

> http://www.joimr.org/phorum/read.php?f=2 & i=53 & t=53

>

> --

> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.5/68 - Release Date:

10/08/2005

[Guest guest]

Hey Barb , don't care who wrote it or who published it! thing is ...is it a credible hypothesis?? Its natural & right to have some cynicism, but can you knock the science , can you pull it apart?? is it too speculative??...

-----Original Message-----From: infections [mailto:infections ]On Behalf Of Barb PeckSent: 12 August 2005 19:10infections Subject: [infections] Re: Putative Antibacterial Mechanisms for ARB's

You are saying that tounge in cheeh right?joimr was created for the purpose of publishingthe writings of the creator of joimr.B.> > Wow "Bacterial Receptors with affinity for Angiotensin II" Back to> basics, Looks like ARB's are essential in treating stealth infections.> > > http://www.joimr.org/phorum/read.php?f=2 & i=53 & t=53> > --> No virus found in this outgoing message.> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.5/68 - Release Date: 10/08/2005

[Guest guest]

In this particular case, with this particular theory and that

particular author it does matter.

Because of prior lawsuits by the author for discussion he deems as

libel - it's NOT discussed here or anywhere...

You can't examine something (i.e pull it appart) if you can't talk

about it openly. I've talked about it plenty in the past anyway - I

was part of their group before they went public with the protocol site

then broke from it.

But there is a group dedicated to Olmesartan that

quite a few of that group post on- I'm sure someone here can give you

the group name.

I'll wait for the independant researchers that are now looking

into the theory - Those papers I'll discuss.

Barb

> >

> > Wow " Bacterial Receptors with affinity for Angiotensin II "

Back to

> > basics, Looks like ARB's are essential in treating stealth

infections.

> >

> >

> > http://www.joimr.org/phorum/read.php?f=2 & i=53 & t=53

> >

> > --

> > No virus found in this outgoing message.

> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

> > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.5/68 - Release Date:

> 10/08/2005

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Exactly, Barb! People are terrified to discuss the protocol or the

studies so they pull apart some aspect of it, i.e. Benicar.

I've received letters from people wanting to know my experience with

Benicar because they are also doing well on it, but are afraid to

share their experience or are worried that they may unknowingly be

harming themselves because of the bad rap it's gotten lately, --

probably a misdirected backlash due to the fear of speaking openly

about the-protocol-that-cannot-be-named.

In such a case, where free discussion is not allowed, giving such

studies any airtime is probably counterproductive.

It's kind of funny, my husband's a scientist, and these guys will

disagree and even try to disprove each others' work, but rarely will

they sue each other, let alone some regular person on the street who

doesn't agree. It's a kind of an unspoken code of ethics. They try

to work things out behind closed doors if it's a major problem.

Once, my husband had to go to Berlin, to try to work something out

with a collaborating scientist who had fudged his results to put out

a paper. My husband found the problem when trying to duplicate the

work. So he had to fly over there and come up with a solution that

would save the guy's face, while putting the correct info out there,

which they did. But there was no sueing involved, even though there

could have easily been.

We need studies coming out of legitmate institutions where they CAN

be argued openely, even ripped to shreds, and no one gets sued.

Otherwise, it can't be taken seriously, let alone considered legit.

Too bad. A lot of scientists have big egos, but they're smart and

experienced enough to know that disagreement is natural, and hope

the praises they receive for their work outweigh the criticisms.

penny

> In this particular case, with this particular theory and that

> particular author it does matter.

> Because of prior lawsuits by the author for discussion he deems

as

> libel - it's NOT discussed here or anywhere...

>

> You can't examine something (i.e pull it appart) if you can't talk

> about it openly. I've talked about it plenty in the past anyway -

I

> was part of their group before they went public with the protocol

site

> then broke from it.

>

> But there is a group dedicated to Olmesartan that

> quite a few of that group post on- I'm sure someone here can give

you

> the group name.

>

> I'll wait for the independant researchers that are now looking

> into the theory - Those papers I'll discuss.

>

> Barb

>

>

[Guest guest]

I dont see anything in this paper that shows, in any way, that ARBs

are antibacterial in any case. Nor do I see more than two species of

bacteria being demonstrated to directly interact with angiotensin

molecules. Given what we know about the antiinflammatory action of

ARBs, the observation that they make some sarc patients feel better is

by no means a clear demonstration of an antibacterial property.

[Guest guest]

Hi Penny,

I see what you're saying, but I think it's partly how people discuss

the protocol that tends to stir things up, rather than their

discussing it at all. There are sites where it's discussed rather

extensively but minus the resentment in much the same way other

treatments are discussed here.

True libel and slander is one thing, and a friendly intellectual

discussion another. I would say that accusing someone publicly of

impropriety or fraud or plagerism (or alluding to those charges

strongly enough to have an inhibiting effect) would qualify as

slander or libel, whereas I can't see why reading literature and then

discussing its strengths and weaknesses in an intellectual manner

should cause any problem as long as people are discussing it in a

mature, open-minded way, not trying to debunk it, but honestly

looking at what it has to offer and being willing to wait and see how

people do on it over time before passing judgment.

Your point about scientists talking things out behind the scenes is

very true. My father is a scientist and my mother an epidemiologist

so I know what you're saying about that is the norm. There is a sort

of unspoken understanding and mutual respect there (usually), but in

some cases someone will make their opinions about another's work a

little too public and that does cause problems. It's not looked upon

very highly by the field.

I think that scientists interacting with stakeholders (patients and

families) is a relatively new thing and that they often don't know

how to relate to them. In the case of alot of these guys who

themselves have one of these diseases they get confused about just

what their role should be. They wonder should they relate to them

with the same unspoken repect as they'd extend to another doctor or

Ph.D or relate to them more traditionally in the role of authority

figure. This is often why one of them will be quicker to correct a

patient than another M.D. or Ph.D.(or nurse); not that that's right,

but I think that is a significant contributing factor. The internet

has opened up a much more level playing field for patients to be on

an equal plane with M.D.s and Ph.Ds and I guess it will take some

getting used to before the professionals fully accept patients as

full colleagues. What was once " their " territory now must be shared

with a number of other interested parties. Many more patients these

days have become knowledgable and therefore a new paradigm must be

forged to take that into account.

Pippit

> > In this particular case, with this particular theory and that

> > particular author it does matter.

> > Because of prior lawsuits by the author for discussion he

deems

> as

> > libel - it's NOT discussed here or anywhere...

> >

> > You can't examine something (i.e pull it appart) if you can't

talk

> > about it openly. I've talked about it plenty in the past anyway -

> I

> > was part of their group before they went public with the protocol

> site

> > then broke from it.

> >

> > But there is a group dedicated to Olmesartan that

> > quite a few of that group post on- I'm sure someone here can give

> you

> > the group name.

> >

> > I'll wait for the independant researchers that are now looking

> > into the theory - Those papers I'll discuss.

> >

> > Barb

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Pippit,

> There are sites where it's [benicar & antibiotics & lifestyle changes]

> discussed rather extensively but minus the resentment in much the same

> way other treatments are discussed here.

Can you tell us the names of some of these sites?

Sue ,

Upstate New York