Your conclusions about Sriram study are incorrect

[Guest guest]

-

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@...>

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.