Re: Your conclusions about Sriram study are incorrect

[Guest guest]

Wow, cpnhelp.org has some interesting stuff goin on.

My only conclusion about the study was that I wished it, itself, had

been more positive - not much of a conclusion really, I was mainly

just noting the studys existence.

Why wasnt flagyl in the study? Is it antiinflammatory?

I like their protocols as well as any. Its combo tx, I like heavy

treatment - and boy do I ever like nitroimidazoles, tho I have to

keep reminding myself that there are multiple people like Joyce

Waterhouse whove used them alot, in combos, to little/no avail. Using

them with protein synth inhibitors does seem to be the outstandingly

logical combo, to the best of my knowledge.

I'm also excited to see other physicians getting interested in their

work.

My only reservation is to bear in mind Mikossy, Alan Mac, the

Brorsons, etc: borrelia. And a dozen other organisms. Look at sarc,

Propionibacterium seems to be the outstanding organism by qPCR so

far, and to me thats something special because qPCR unlike many

investigations might detect (putative) suboptical intracellular

organisms, and can assess whether a given organism is present merely

in a benign paucity. Other contenders like Rickettsia or the

Wirostko/ bacterium havent been qPCR'd yet in sarc. But the

Japanese group found Propionibacterium to be as dense in the sarc

lung as M. tuberculosis is in the TB lung. One is tempted to say " we

have a winner! " there but its still not time for that yet, just take

a look at the hx of sarc microbiology, its all over the damn map.

Anyway, each of these (and more) organisms is conceviably crucial to

any given persons disease, IMO.

Cpn sure is a heavywegiht tho - not benign - in Alzheimers, according

to the recent qPCR study.

Ultimately I think one has to be empirical-minded with treatment

because there is waaay too much uncertainty. You just have to try

what seems best, and if that doesnt yield, be ready to try what seems

next-best, etc.

>

> -

> Your conclusions about the recent Sriram study are

> incorrect. This study was not done with the full

> Vanderbilt protocol, which includes pulses of flagyl

> and other antibiotics. It was specifically done to

> answer critics that the regular protocol (which uses

> doxy) has it's effect because of the anti-inflammatory

> effects of the abx used, not the antibiotic effects.

>

> So, in this study they specifically used only two

> antibiotics which do not have anti-inflam effects, and

> they in fact still found reduction of lesions,

> although not to the degree one would expect from the

> full protocol. This study is widely misunderstood as

> proving that Sriram's protocol is not very effective,

> when in fact it is not the full protocol actually

> being used in practice, which is working beautifully

> for many.

>

> There is a good discussion of this at:

> http://www.thisisms.com/modules.php?

name=Forums & file=viewtopic & t=1252 & start=0

>

> You might also look through the www.cpnhelp.org for

> some excellent updates on the protocols, including

> comments on the protocols from Stratton and Wheldon.

>

> Jim

>

> Message: 6

> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:23:45 -0000

> From: " " <usenethod@y...>

> Subject: Re: interesting article on Sriram

>

> Yes, old article. Yes, Stratton and Sriram have

> published together

> several times, both are at Vanderbilt. Unfortunately,

> one or both of

> them did a 6-month combo abx trial for MS, published

> last summer,

> where reductions in new lesion growth werent

> statistically significant

> (tho some other disease measure did achieve

> significance). I think

> part of their problem achieving statistical

> significance re the

> lesions was the small size (4 in treatment group, 4 in

> control group).

> No one wants to be in a long-term MS study where they

> may be recieving

> placebo.

>

[Guest guest]

I just noticed 2 things. One, rifampin and zith were used in this

study. Isnt rifampin one of the most immunotropic of all abx? Perhaps

that is an empty dogma... I dont have time to chase it down just now.

Two, rifampin is inactive against all spirochetes. Insofar as evidence

stands today, spiros are as important in MS as Cpn is, and I think

dual infection could be the rule. With respect to any spirochetal

contribution to their illnesses, these subjects were on azithromycin

monotherapy. It would have been preferable to use two drugs active

against borrelia, if possible.

[Guest guest]

On Sunday, November 6, 2005, at 10:08 PM, wrote:

> I just noticed 2 things. One, rifampin and zith were used in this

> study. Isnt rifampin one of the most immunotropic of all abx?

Okay, I did try to look it up. What does immunotropic mean?

- Kate

[Guest guest]

[trop] is a greek root for " turn, " ie change or be changed.

Hence " pleotropic " ( " multiple effects " ) etc. What I really meant

by " immunotropic " (possibly not a real word) was " antiinflammatory. "

> On Sunday, November 6, 2005, at 10:08 PM, wrote:

>

> > I just noticed 2 things. One, rifampin and zith were used in this

> > study. Isnt rifampin one of the most immunotropic of all abx?

>

> Okay, I did try to look it up. What does immunotropic mean?

>

> - Kate

>

[Guest guest]

Hah!

Yes it's a real word - see my previous post.

Medical words just kill me... it's like another language.

Kind of like immunomodulatory - which also means just about the

same thing as immunotropic.......

Barb

> >

> > > I just noticed 2 things. One, rifampin and zith were used in

this

> > > study. Isnt rifampin one of the most immunotropic of all abx?

> >

> > Okay, I did try to look it up. What does immunotropic mean?

> >

> > - Kate

> >

>