Re: Re: chlamydia, ReA - an interesting one

[Guest guest]

Chlamydia pneumonia is not sexually transmitted. You

probably know that but I just wanted to clarify that

we are talking about two different things. I am

guessing they make two different antibiodies.

Marie

--- Hodologica <usenethod@...> wrote:

> It seems chlamydial ReA is well-accepted by (at

> least) many mainstream

> rheumatologists as being an infectious disease. So

> obviously it is very

> interesting to dig thru the various ideas (pretty

> thin so far) about

> why abx fail to eradicate.

>

> " [...] an increasing number of investigations have

> confirmed the

> presence of chlamydial antigens, nucleic acid, and

> Chlamydia-like

> particles in arthritic joints, which has led to the

> present view of an

> intraarticular inapparent infection with viable,

> nonculturable or

> difficult-to-culture Chlamydia. Therefore, the term

> Chlamydia-induced

> arthritis (CIA), instead of Reiter syndrome or

> sexually acquired

> reactive arthritis, has been accepted to describe

> the rheumatologic

> manifestations after urogenital chlamydial

> infections with C.

> trachomatis serotypes D to K [1]. "

>

> PMID: 15201601 (not a free text)

>

>

>

>

____________________________________________________

Start your day with - make it your home page

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

Judging from my reaction to Flagyl I am sure I have

Cpn in my knees and fingers. I have wondered the same

thing as I have read that most people test positive by

the time they are adults. My Doc uses antibodie tests

plus symptoms to diagnose.

--- Hodologica <usenethod@...> wrote:

> <msmabrry@y...> wrote:

> > Chlamydia pneumonia is not sexually transmitted.

> You

> > probably know that but I just wanted to clarify

> that

> > we are talking about two different things. I am

> > guessing they make two different antibiodies.

> > Marie

>

> That same paper (see upthread) notes that Cpn as

> well as C.

> trachomatis has been associated with arthritis, by

> some of the same

> investigative techniques. It also explores the

> possibility of

> transmission of Cpn by other means than respiratory

> fluids, such as

> blood transfusion. I dont recall whether it

> addressed sex (I am home

> now away from the full text).

>

> (Unrelatedly), the one thing I'm not satisfied with

> yet regarding

> this disease model is the establishment of a clear

> difference from

> healthy controls. It seems some control synovia are

> positive for both

> of these chlamydial species by PCR, but clearly if

> the healthies have

> 800x fewer organisms, that would explain why they

> are not ill. I

> havent found *quantitative* case v control data yet.

>

>

> If some healthies have loads similar to those of

> sickies, then that

> will be another mind-wrencher right along the lines

> of the rare

> LYMErix vaccine-induced illnesses. We know very

> little about

> asymptomatic infections (which seem to be present in

> all humans and

> mice, if not all mammals), or what may govern

> toleration of them.

>

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

be interested to here your forth coming results.

bleu

On 21 Aug 2005, at 23:07, Sue wrote:

> One researcher, Dr Y Omura has found that arthritis is usually

> EITHER chlamydia or Borrelia.

> I have arthritis pretty bad in my hands and feet. I also had a very

> wicked chlamydia infection that was treated with Omura's techniques

> and I have now tested clean of chlamydia for over six months yet I

> still react to antibiotics.

> Had a lyme test (Igenex) last week, results Weds. but having been a

> year on-off Doxy, will probably test negative anyway.

> *S*

>

>

>

> > > > Chlamydia pneumonia is not sexually transmitted.

> > > You

> > > > probably know that but I just wanted to clarify

> > > that

> > > > we are talking about two different things. I am

> > > > guessing they make two different antibiodies.

> > > > Marie

> > >

> > > That same paper (see upthread) notes that Cpn as

> > > well as C.

> > > trachomatis has been associated with arthritis, by

> > > some of the same

> > > investigative techniques. It also explores the

> > > possibility of

> > > transmission of Cpn by other means than respiratory

> > > fluids, such as

> > > blood transfusion. I dont recall whether it

> > > addressed sex (I am home

> > > now away from the full text).

> > >

> > > (Unrelatedly), the one thing I'm not satisfied with

> > > yet regarding

> > > this disease model is the establishment of a clear

> > > difference from

> > > healthy controls. It seems some control synovia are

> > > positive for both

> > > of these chlamydial species by PCR, but clearly if

> > > the healthies have

> > > 800x fewer organisms, that would explain why they

> > > are not ill. I

> > > havent found *quantitative* case v control data yet.

> > >

> > >

> > > If some healthies have loads similar to those of

> > > sickies, then that

> > > will be another mind-wrencher right along the lines

> > > of the rare

> > > LYMErix vaccine-induced illnesses. We know very

> > > little about

> > > asymptomatic infections (which seem to be present in

> > > all humans and

> > > mice, if not all mammals), or what may govern

> > > toleration of them.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear

The phenomenon to which you refer is known in classical microbiology as inoculum potential. This will vary from organism to organism. Not only this but also within organisms, from strain to strain, from host to host and from time to time. A very complex interaction which placebo controlled , double blind trials are designed to overcome by eliminating such fine differences from the final analysis.

My feeling is that without initial information on population homogeneity ( or lack thereof, otherwise known as subsets or subtypes) we will be struggling to make sense of the classically presented analyses of clinical trials. What we can do, in some circumstances , is to go back to raw data, reanalyse in terms of subsets and then draw vastly different conclusions.

In the CFS literature, rarely is any reference made to the temporal component. That is, at what stage is the patient in relation to the progression of the disease. Early onset stable, remission, flare,reactivation after remission or long term progressive decline?

These criticisms are not new and nor are mine alone. There are multiple references to the problems of subtypes.

Regards

Windsor

[infections] Re: chlamydia, ReA - an interesting one

> Heck, a *huge* chunk of the worlds population, I think something like > 1/3, is infected with M. tuberculosis in the lungs - but only a scant > percentage of those will ever develop disease. Most will live and die > with a few harmless colonies. In that case its the numbers of > organisms that make all the difference, [...]Actually I dont know for certain that the numbers make all the difference in that case - its just that I'm pretty sure no ones ever said otherwise.

[Guest guest]

Well, now you have put me on the spot. I will try to

find the source. If I can't I will eat my words.

Marie

--- penny <pennyhoule@...> wrote:

> <msmabrry@y...> wrote:

> I have read that most people test positive by the

> time they are

> adults.

>

>

> Hmmm, where did you read this? If everyone tests

> positive then

> there's no big point in getting tested. I mean I

> guess you can try

> the drugs known to be effective against it, and get

> retested later

> to see if it's gone, but it's kind of an iffy

> proposition if every

> one tests positive. That's why tests that aren't

> really clear cut

> and visible under a microscope or in the petri dish

> are kind of a

> waste of time in my eyes. We're all carrying bugs.

> That's no real

> proof of which ones are making us sick unless we get

> some indication

> from how they respond to abx discs. Might as well

> stick with the

> therapeutic probes and see what happens from there.

>

> I'm fortunate (if you can call it that) in that I

> got bone biopsies

> showing bugs where most people do NOT have them, and

> where they

> definitely are NOT supposed to be. This way, I know

> better how to

> plan my attack. The only problem with that is

> finding someone to do

> more bone biopsies (or needle aspirations) since the

> doctor who did

> mine died.

>

> penny

>

>

>

>

____________________________________________________

Start your day with - make it your home page

http://www./r/hs