Re: chlamydia, ReA - an interesting one

[Guest guest]

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)

[Guest guest]

<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]

<colourbleu@f...> wrote:

> " ReA is well-accepted by rheumatologists as being an infectious

> disease " - WRONG...

> Rheumatologists Do not readily accept ReA as infectious, despite

your

> one article.

Sorry, I was a lil unclear, what I meant was the paper-writin crowd;

not so much the entire set of clinicians. I have seen multiple

papers, not just that one, which accept the disease as an infection.

And I did say " (at least) many mainstream rheumatologists, " rather

than simply " rheumatologists. "

> In recent times (in the last 3 years) it is becoming more

> apparent that ReA is infectious. But the fact remains that to this

day

> the VAST majority of rheumatologists do not RX ABX for ReA.

Yeah, that same paper I quoted recommended against abx on the basis

of some clinical trials. These guys dont know about Stratton, ILADS,

etc (I'm guessing), so they are not aware that highly aggressive,

assiduously reasoned, possibly empirically-tailored regimes can

probably perform better than regimes used in the trials. They are

also glossing over the fact that some combo abx trials for ReA did

show a worthwhile degree of benefit. And they did at least express

some doubt about the prudence of anti-TNF treatment, tho perhaps not

quite enough.

Its interesting to me (tho certainly not gratifying) to know that

most clinicans arent doing abx for this dx.

> 7 years ago there was NOTHING (Very little one Russian paper)

> published suggesting ReA had an infectious link.

Actually Nanagara et al had definitive evidence in '94 and '95. Put

[nanagara chlamydia] in pubmed and check it out.

> it is unfortunately much the same as the H.-pylori and the ZANTAC

years.

I hear ya....

> you will NOT find Chlamydia in healthy subjects! Its a Killer.

Apparantly at least one group PCR'd Cpn in a few healthy synovia. And

its been seen by electon microscopy in atheriosclerosis veins. People

with the latter disease arent " healthy " but many of them dont have

arthritis or CFS or anything of the kind. I dont have a good grasp of

PCR personally, but I dont see why some people couldnt have very well-

controlled Cpn colonization of the joints, causing no joint disease

whatsoever. Remember, this was not a quantitative evaluation, so it

could be that there were only 10 Cpn per mL in the positive samples;

no one knows.

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, which may, or possibly may

not (important question) be the case in our sort of diseases.

[Guest guest]

> 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]

<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

[Guest guest]

" Hodologica " <usenethod@y...> wrote:

its been seen by electon microscopy in atheriosclerosis veins. "

Were these veins from a cadaver? If not, how can I get my veins looked

at under an electron microscope? :-) If we could see how large the

colonies are, that would certainly help us understand whether we need

to treat or not. This is why I still like the old fashioned culture

and sensitivity plates. You can see how agressive a colony is.

penny

[Guest guest]

Wow Blue,

Thanks so much for telling us your story. I know you've been on your

own out there, but didn't realize to what extent or why. Your post

also makes me feel much better about keeping this forum going, even

though it can be a trial at times. :-)

penny

> I got ill in 98 with ReA, I search for a long time, went to a

number (i

> forget how many) of Top (certainly charged enough) Profs, DRs,

> Researchers. Amongst whom, was A, Ebringer, (heavy weight in

Ankylosing

> spondilitis treating low starch diet and old abx (AS similar in

nature

> to ReA) he was quickly Pensioned off and a lone voice suggesting a

> treatment for AS), J H (Crohns specialist, first to suggest

> infectious nature for Crohns, and although was also pensioned off,

did

> set the ball rolling for The Australian trial. (That one used a

triad

> of abx, only one 'Biaxin' effective IMO). Since ReA is a VERY rare

> disease there were no specialists in that field at that time. At

that

> time Nichlosion was unknown (to me at least). were

not an

> entity, and specialist groups such as this one were also rare and

in

> the one case RISG obviously set up with an agenda. Just 7 years

ago it

> was a very different picture with regard to the infectious nature

of

> ReA. ALL and I really mean ALL of the text books (health) that

covered

> ReA had pretty much the same patter, i.e ReA = Auto-immune no

treatment

> other than TNF-blockers and other nonsense such as the infamous

Voixx

> like products. (I never touched any of that shit). The one

official

> support group online called RISG.org was controlled by big pharm.

IMO

> and they would accept no talk or discussion of ABX or an

infectious

> nature.

>

> When I started to do ABX I could not get a DR to RX and instead

bought

> them on the black market, took more than one chance and went

through

> about 10 different (did a lot for M. tuberculosis ABX before I got

to

> effective ones.) By trial and error and research into other

illnesses

> (infections) I realised that 6 week cycles were important. That

> combined abx were also effective. through research into Lyme I

found

> many answers. This is were I learned about Flaygl and cysts)

although I

> had experimented with Flyagl b4 that. At that time it was a very

lonely

> time, and I am very grateful now to have found this community.

Never b4

> this time had I the opportunity to discuss ABX and infections that

> caused such mysterious diseases.

>

> bleu

[Guest guest]

I also felt pretty dang lonely, tho it only lasted a short two months

in my case, and was only during the pre-treatment days, but it was

still pretty intense. I had a severe flu syndrome and was half crazy

with anxiety all the time, agony I could hardly believe, could only

cope with a few hours of existence at a time. I sat studying about

CFS on google as much as I could, and I swear I never came across a

single mention of any sort of infection for weeks. Dont think I ever

saw Kens pages, or anything of Jadins or Nicholsons. I didnt know how

I could ever understand the stuff in pubmed, so I didnt study any of

that, just webpages. Which is probably good, cause I would have

assumed that most everything in pubmed was true, LOL.

There probably ought to be more google-able webpages out there on

this stuff that are reachable when you dont know about the concepts

of lyme, chlamydial arthritis, etc - ones that cut straight to what

direct evidence there is. These forums are a little out of the way I

guess; they were for me. Maybe I'll work on it eventually, since I

already have some write-ups I've sent to patients I know, and to one

doctor. Finally learning about infection from people online so I

could get treatment certainly saved me from suicide. It was also good

to have family because obviously I couldnt take care of myself

whatsoever, I'd be completely finished for the day if I walked 100

yards.

Even today Janeways immunology textbook says chronic lyme

either is or almost certainly is (I forget) as simple as

autoimmunity! Unbelievable! And Janeway is WAY eminant, having pretty

much discovered toll-like receptors or something like that, which is

of vast, vast significance.

> I got ill in 98 with ReA, I search for a long time, went to a

number (i

> forget how many) of Top (certainly charged enough) Profs, DRs,

> Researchers. Amongst whom, was A, Ebringer, (heavy weight in

Ankylosing

> spondilitis treating low starch diet and old abx (AS similar in

nature

> to ReA) he was quickly Pensioned off and a lone voice suggesting a

> treatment for AS), J H (Crohns specialist, first to suggest

> infectious nature for Crohns, and although was also pensioned off,

did

> set the ball rolling for The Australian trial. (That one used a

triad

> of abx, only one 'Biaxin' effective IMO). Since ReA is a VERY rare

> disease there were no specialists in that field at that time. At

that

> time Nichlosion was unknown (to me at least). were not

an

> entity, and specialist groups such as this one were also rare and

in

> the one case RISG obviously set up with an agenda. Just 7 years ago

it

> was a very different picture with regard to the infectious nature

of

> ReA. ALL and I really mean ALL of the text books (health) that

covered

> ReA had pretty much the same patter, i.e ReA = Auto-immune no

treatment

> other than TNF-blockers and other nonsense such as the infamous

Voixx

> like products. (I never touched any of that shit). The one official

> support group online called RISG.org was controlled by big pharm.

IMO

> and they would accept no talk or discussion of ABX or an infectious

> nature.

>

> When I started to do ABX I could not get a DR to RX and instead

bought

> them on the black market, took more than one chance and went

through

> about 10 different (did a lot for M. tuberculosis ABX before I got

to

> effective ones.) By trial and error and research into other

illnesses

> (infections) I realised that 6 week cycles were important. That

> combined abx were also effective. through research into Lyme I

found

> many answers. This is were I learned about Flaygl and cysts)

although I

> had experimented with Flyagl b4 that. At that time it was a very

lonely

> time, and I am very grateful now to have found this community.

Never b4

> this time had I the opportunity to discuss ABX and infections that

> caused such mysterious diseases.

>

> bleu

[Guest guest]

> Even today Janeways immunology textbook says chronic lyme

> either is or almost certainly is (I forget) as simple as

> autoimmunity! Unbelievable! And Janeway is WAY eminant, having pretty

> much discovered toll-like receptors or something like that, which is

> of vast, vast significance.

Janeway (d. 2003) worked at Yale. I suspect his information on lyme was largely

from

his colleagues.

[Guest guest]

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.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>