Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 This is a summary of a Cochrane Study, a very reputable group who ultimately tests different scientific conclusions. It was after I read this in the fall of 2004 that I went off of Copaxone. I cut some of the technical info out, because it wasn't really necessary here. But if you want more info, I can direct you to the site where I found it. I also have the full text which is very very long. These people, as I said are extremely reputable and they have reported recieving many angry letters because of their findings... I wonder who could have written such letters? The members of the group are not affiliated with the pharma company, so they have no reason to sugar coat things... just thought you might be interested. Let me know your thoughts! BACKGROUND: Some clinical data have shown that glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), a synthetic amino acid polymer empirically found to suppress experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE), an animal model of MS, might help improve the outcome of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVES: We performed a Cochrane review of all randomised, placebo-controlled trials of glatiramer acetate in MS, whatever the disease course. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Glatiramer acetate did not show any beneficial effect on the main outcome measures in MS, i.e. disease progression, and it does not substantially affect the risk of clinical relapses. Therefore its routine use in clinical practice is not currently supported. More investigations are needed. Further research should also develop more reliable measures of patient disability over time and include quality of life among primary outcomes. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 To all those ms'eres who can help. My name is Charlie and a fellow ms'er. I am working on a masters in public health at Northern Illinois University. I am working on a statistic project to show how this copaxone is statistically insignificant at fighting this disease. I should know I went from relapsing remitting to chronic progressive while on it for 3 years. Now I need the data to show what I already, and many of us know. The @%$ & *( stuff doesn't work. I present my work in may, but I need to start this soon b/c ms fatigue and I type with one hand. Takes me longer. I want to put a face on this. Thank you, Charlie --- Jana Wells wrote: > This is a summary of a Cochrane Study, a very reputable group who ultimately tests different > scientific conclusions. It was after I read this in the fall of 2004 that I went off of > Copaxone. I cut some of the technical info out, because it wasn't really necessary here. But if > you want more info, I can direct you to the site where I found it. I also have the full text > which is very very long. These people, as I said are extremely reputable and they have reported > recieving many angry letters because of their findings... I wonder who could have written such > letters? The members of the group are not affiliated with the pharma company, so they have no > reason to sugar coat things... just thought you might be interested. Let me know your thoughts! > > BACKGROUND: Some clinical data have shown that glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), a synthetic > amino acid polymer empirically found to suppress experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE), > an animal model of MS, might help improve the outcome of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). > OBJECTIVES: We performed a Cochrane review of all randomised, placebo-controlled trials of > glatiramer acetate in MS, whatever the disease course. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Glatiramer > acetate did not show any beneficial effect on the main outcome measures in MS, i.e. disease > progression, and it does not substantially affect the risk of clinical relapses. Therefore its > routine use in clinical practice is not currently supported. More investigations are needed. > Further research should also develop more reliable measures of patient disability over time and > include quality of life among primary outcomes. > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Mail > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 > The @%$ & *( stuff doesn't work. I present my work in > may, but I need to start this soon b/c ms fatigue and I type with one hand. Takes me longer. I > want to put a face on this. Thank you, > Hey Charlie As I interpret the data, it is impossible to say whether Copaxone is effective. It's not supposed to make you better, it is supposed to make you get worse more slowly than you would have if you took nothing. Hard to test! But I sympathize... I was on Copax for 2.5 years and I (also?) quit because I took a significant downturn while on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 > I have read that before and it's not well documented at all. It's simply a review of other Copaxone trials and they evidently didn't include the important ones, because the University of land has been following the people on Copaxone for many years. The good effects of Copaxone are cumulative also, which most people don't know or understand. I have lots of good research to attest to the benefits of Copaxone. I have studied it for years. I wouldn't have taken it, if I hadn't learned more about it than anyone else I know and even any doctor I know. I really question what's behind this study. There is no reason for them to be against Copaxone, because it has been proven over and over again to be safe and the most effective MS drug on the market. It stops 'black holes', which no other MS drug can do. It's far superior to the interferons. There is no other drug I will take, (not even aspirin), but I took Copaxone, because I have so thoroughly researched it, know exactly what it contains and how harmless it is. I wish the people who keep downing it would do the work I have and knew what I know about it, because, if they did, they would be applauding it instead. Carol PS, I just wish I could still take it. > This is a summary of a Cochrane Study, a very reputable group who ultimately tests different scientific conclusions. It was after I read this in the fall of 2004 that I went off of Copaxone. I cut some of the technical info out, because it wasn't really necessary here. But if you want more info, I can direct you to the site where I found it. I also have the full text which is very very long. These people, as I said are extremely reputable and they have reported recieving many angry letters because of their findings... I wonder who could have written such letters? The members of the group are not affiliated with the pharma company, so they have no reason to sugar coat things... just thought you might be interested. Let me know your thoughts! > > BACKGROUND: Some clinical data have shown that glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), a synthetic amino acid polymer empirically found to suppress experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE), an animal model of MS, might help improve the outcome of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVES: We performed a Cochrane review of all randomised, placebo-controlled trials of glatiramer acetate in MS, whatever the disease course. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Glatiramer acetate did not show any beneficial effect on the main outcome measures in MS, i.e. disease progression, and it does not substantially affect the risk of clinical relapses. Therefore its routine use in clinical practice is not currently supported. More investigations are needed. Further research should also develop more reliable measures of patient disability over time and include quality of life among primary outcomes. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Sorry, Charlie, all I have is documentation that it DOES work to slow progression, AND it works better than any other MS drug. I think you will have trouble finding valid, well documented information to say it doesn't work. People think it doesn't work, because it doesn't improve their symptoms right away. It was never meant to do that. It slows progression, which means that, if you would have gone to an EDSS of 5 in two years, with Copaxone you would only go to 3.5. Carol > > To all those ms'eres who can help. My name is Charlie and a fellow ms'er. I am working on a > masters in public health at Northern Illinois University. I am working on a statistic project to > show how this copaxone is statistically insignificant at fighting this disease. I should know I > went from relapsing remitting to chronic progressive while on it for 3 years. Now I need the data > to show what I already, and many of us know. The @%$ & *( stuff doesn't work. I present my work in > may, but I need to start this soon b/c ms fatigue and I type with one hand. Takes me longer. I > want to put a face on this. Thank you, > > Charlie >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Some Friends of mine who are on it would disagree with the info-they have improved a lot while on Copaxone (after Mitox). However, like anything else in MS, and as I've seen, some things work for some and not others (inc. drugs, supplements, diets etc); everyone is different. Cheers, Adam > > This is a summary of a Cochrane Study, a very reputable group who ultimately tests different scientific conclusions. It was after I read this in the fall of 2004 that I went off of Copaxone. I cut some of the technical info out, because it wasn't really necessary here. But if you want more info, I can direct you to the site where I found it. I also have the full text which is very very long. These people, as I said are extremely reputable and they have reported recieving many angry letters because of their findings... I wonder who could have written such letters? The members of the group are not affiliated with the pharma company, so they have no reason to sugar coat things... just thought you might be interested. Let me know your thoughts! > > BACKGROUND: Some clinical data have shown that glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), a synthetic amino acid polymer empirically found to suppress experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE), an animal model of MS, might help improve the outcome of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVES: We performed a Cochrane review of all randomised, placebo-controlled trials of glatiramer acetate in MS, whatever the disease course. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Glatiramer acetate did not show any beneficial effect on the main outcome measures in MS, i.e. disease progression, and it does not substantially affect the risk of clinical relapses. Therefore its routine use in clinical practice is not currently supported. More investigations are needed. Further research should also develop more reliable measures of patient disability over time and include quality of life among primary outcomes. > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Mail > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 The people in this group who down this drug (or any other drug) have usually had a bad experience with it. Why did you stop taking it? LDN also halts progression of symptoms. There is no other drug I will take, (not even aspirin), but I took Copaxone, because I have so thoroughly researched it, know exactly what it contains and how harmless it is. I wish the people who keep downing it would do the work I have and knew what I know about it, because, if they did, they would be applauding it instead. Carol PS, I just wish I could still take it. Web Sites http://www.ms-diet.org/ http://ourworld.cs.com/cah819 http://www.ms-selfhelp.org http://CureZone.com/diseases/ms/ http://www.naturalms.com http://CureZone.com/dental/ http://www.btinternet.com/~mscentre.oxford http://www.sensiblehealth.com/ http://WaterCure2.com http://i.webring.com/hub?ring=multiplescleros1 Success Stories: http://www.curezone.com/Dangerously_Healthy/ http://www.wendys-ms-site.com/ http://home.san.rr.com/iamshouse/ http://www.megahits.com/healthy/page2.htm http://www.direct-ms.org/roger.html http://www.direct-ms.org/roger2.html Have a nice day ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Could you please post the source of this article. I would like to view it in its entirety with all the technical info. Thanks, Roe > > This is a summary of a Cochrane Study, a very reputable group who ultimately tests different scientific conclusions. It was after I read this in the fall of 2004 that I went off of Copaxone. I cut some of the technical info out, because it wasn't really necessary here. But if you want more info, I can direct you to the site where I found it. I also have the full text which is very very long. These people, as I said are extremely reputable and they have reported recieving many angry letters because of their findings... I wonder who could have written such letters? The members of the group are not affiliated with the pharma company, so they have no reason to sugar coat things... just thought you might be interested. Let me know your thoughts! > > BACKGROUND: Some clinical data have shown that glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), a synthetic amino acid polymer empirically found to suppress experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE), an animal model of MS, might help improve the outcome of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVES: We performed a Cochrane review of all randomised, placebo-controlled trials of glatiramer acetate in MS, whatever the disease course. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Glatiramer acetate did not show any beneficial effect on the main outcome measures in MS, i.e. disease progression, and it does not substantially affect the risk of clinical relapses. Therefore its routine use in clinical practice is not currently supported. More investigations are needed. Further research should also develop more reliable measures of patient disability over time and include quality of life among primary outcomes. > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Mail > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 > > The people in this group who down this drug (or any other drug) have usually had a bad experience with it. Why did you stop taking it? LDN also halts progression of symptoms. > ~~~From my past experience, the reason most people down Copaxone is because they expected it to remove their symptoms and it didn't/doesn't do that. I can't tell you how many times I've 'heard' people say they quit taking it because it didn't help. They don't have their facts straight about what it is supposed to do, so they give it negative marks for not doing something it was never designed to do. It's not a symptoms reliever, it simply SLOWS THE PROGRESSION of the disease. Everyone will have different results, because we all progress at different rates. People will progress with Copaxone, yes, but they may have progressed faster without it. I stopped after several years, because I started having reactions to it. It was probably an allergy to one of the ingredients that built up over time, as many allergies do. I'm not interested in taking any other drugs at this time. I'm doing other natural things as treatment. I decided against LDN, not only because of what it is, but because I know too many people whose spacticity became so much worse right after starting it and never receded again. Spasticity is one of my symptoms, so I'm just not interested in risking it. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Doug, Just remember that there is a HUGE difference between Copaxone and the other CRABS. They shouldn't be lumped together. (Well the others should be lumped together, because they're all interferons, but Copaxone is not an interferon, not even close.) I have documentation that shows Copaxone to have a 39% difference from placebo, in the first couple of years, and that rate increases with time on the drug. Don't accept the Cochrane etal report without further investigation. When I looked into that report, I saw no reason to believe it at all. It's simply something written by people who claim to have read all the research on Copaxone and then drawn their own conclusions. I also have read all the research and my conclusion are in direct opposition to theirs. Carol > > After feeling horrible trying Rebif for two months, I then said no > way on Avonex.. My Neuro is still pushing me to try Copax. Seeing > more info like this helps justify my thoughts not to try Copax... > > The effectivness in preventing increased disability after two years > in the CRAB drugs vs the placebo groups is very small; this in and of > itself makes it very difficult to justify taking these very powerful > drugs. For Avonex I believe there is only a 13% difference in > effectiveness between taking the drug vs the placebo group as it > relates to increased disability. > > Doug > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Carol, thanks for the feedback, I do realize Copax is different than the interferons, can you provide the link for the data your talking about. I'm primarily focused (rightly or wrongly) on the progression of disability stats, I've included the link for the Copax data I found, data is broken down into three studies. I was more focused on the larger study group #2 http://www.copaxone.com/ContentRoot/miscellaneous/pdfs/0102Gweb.pdf thanks again for your thoughts Doug > > > > After feeling horrible trying Rebif for two months, I then said no > > way on Avonex.. My Neuro is still pushing me to try Copax. Seeing > > more info like this helps justify my thoughts not to try Copax... > > > > The effectivness in preventing increased disability after two years > > in the CRAB drugs vs the placebo groups is very small; this in and > of > > itself makes it very difficult to justify taking these very powerful > > drugs. For Avonex I believe there is only a 13% difference in > > effectiveness between taking the drug vs the placebo group as it > > relates to increased disability. > > > > Doug > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Doug, I don't see a study at that link you provide. It appears to be a PDF of the insert that comes with Copaxone. Maybe you meant to link to the study that was posted here the other day? (The one about the people who analyzed the previous studies and somehow came to the conclusion that it didn't work?) If so I saw that when it first came out and when you pick it apart, it has little merit. The studies I have are on my hard drive, so I would have to send them to you as attachments. If you give me your email address, I'd be happy to do that. (I don't save links to these things, because so often the links don't work some months after the article first airs. So I just save the articles themselves.) If you'd rather not post your email address, mine is: cah@.... You can send your address directly to me. Carol > > Carol, thanks for the feedback, I do realize Copax is different than > the interferons, can you provide the link for the data your talking > about. I'm primarily focused (rightly or wrongly) on the progression > of disability stats, I've included the link for the Copax data I > found, data is broken down into three studies. I was more focused on > the larger study group #2 > > http://www.copaxone.com/ContentRoot/miscellaneous/pdfs/0102Gweb.pdf > > thanks again for your thoughts > Doug > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I would like to point out that saying Copaxone STOPPED progression in 3% of people is frankly fantastic, and better than I thought! Copaxone does not pretend to STOP progression. It SLOWS progression by 39%. (Or more in people who have been on it longer.) When compared to all other MS drugs, I'd say a reduction in progression of 39% is far ahead of any other! I was taken it simply as additional insurance. I figured that, put together with my MS diet, I might improve my situation by 60% or more. And, I DID stop the progression and even reverse some of the progression for the years I was on Copaxone, with my diet. THAT is good enough for me, given the alternatives. Carol > Hi Doug... > > You are right that the efficacy of any MS drug is not very good.... I wish I could say that there was good reason to be on medication, and I would be the first one to step up if I personally believed that the drugs' efficacy would make any difference in my progression. Every one is entitled to their own opinions, though. And that having been said, Copaxone woould seem to do the least amount of harm of any drugs out there right now. Rebif and Avonex are essentially the same drug, just different dosing and delivery... but if you had trouble with one, you would probably have trouble with another. It is up to you to decide what you want to do... take a daily drug to lessen your chance of progression by 3% after 2 years (Copaxone had 78% progression-free patients opposed to 75% on placebo) and the number of enhancing lesions were 11 on Copaxone and 17 on placebo. THe study dealing with lesions had some major flaws, however. BUT, if this is enough for you or anybody else, I certainly > encourage you to embrace it. Some people say " Hey! 3 percent is really something, and that matters to me! " And that is perfectly understandable, and you should do it if you are one of those people. However, I have worked for more than one pharmaceutical company working to get drugs approved by the FDA.... and the data on this drug is not good. Maybe not harmful, but not really good. But if not really good is good enough for you, then go for it. I hate the inability to convey tone in an e-mail, because what I am writing may seem kinda sarcastic, but it is not meant that way at all... I am being very sincere. Having been on both interferons and Copaxone, I can say for me that neither worked... I had very aggressive disease and the only thing that put the brakes on it was diet and supplements and exercise. Exercise actually has some good data, belive it or not. Anyway, the interferons were very bad for me, and the Copaxone did not slow down my disease at all. Even the neurologists who > were taking care of me while I was on it attested to that fact. But, you may have a different experience... whatever you decide to do, please alter your diet in some way for the better (Swank for starters) and take some supplements and get some exercise if you can. Sincerely best wishes and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. > > Kind regards, Jana > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 , Well, think about this: If you suddenly became allergic to broccoli, would you tell everyone broccoli had no merit? Carol > > Carol, If you quit taking it because of the reaction you had, why are you so positive the studies have no merit? Wasn't the experience you had enough to convince you it isn't perfectly safe? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say. I was only answering your question about MY experience. I am one of those who research ALL sides of ALL stories. My whole point from the beginning was to point out the other side of the story to those who only want to hear the negatives. Carol > > No, and I'm not saying that copaxone has no merit, though I don't advocate drug therapies. I'm saying there are possible side effects and the studies might pertain to those reactions and others. The studies have merit to those who are researching all sides of the story. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Jana, I will always correct errors in things I see posted, and/or ask for documentation for things I don't believe to be correct, or question. That's because misinformation may hurt people. When it comes to that case, I believe my time is well spent. I just feel that, when people come to forums for advice and information, they deserve information that is correct, and if it takes this kind of exchange to divide the chaff from the wheat, so to speak, to get valid information to people, then it's worth doing......and there really isn't any way to better spend our time. In no way was I angry, nor am I now. I use capital letters to stress words that I fear will be missed otherwise. Italics are not available here at the site, where I read and write. How else can we stress certain words in a sentence? I see other people do it, why not me? If you received benefit from something wouldn't you be trying to tell people about it, so they could possibly be helped too? Wouldn't you try to counter the nay-sayers? That's all I'm doing - correcting misinformation, and showing the other side. There is PLENTY of negative input about Copaxone on this site. Why do you protest so vehemently because this one person tries to tell the other side? You have misunderstood and improperly quoted me, to say that I improved 39%. The 39% has nothing to do with me. And I never said that. The studies at the University of land say that Copaxone slowed progression by 39%, not 2%. I have no idea where you're getting your figures. Could you please provide documentation for them? I have not been talking about studies financed by drug companies. I'm surprised you make so many assumptions about me and what I'm saying, without getting more information first. When you state this: " Copaxone had 78% progression-free patients opposed to 75% on placebo " What is " progression-free " if not no progression, or stopped progression? I would also like to see the documentation for that, because nothing I have read about Copaxone even comes close to saying PWMS are progression free on Copaxone. Maybe you should read a little more about the claims of Copaxone. It claims to SLOW progression by 39%, and it has been shown to do that. The Cochrane study is not science, in my opinion. Just people reading various research and drawing their own conclusions, right or wrong. That's not what I think of when I hear the word science. You have misunderstood me, what I have said, and my intent from one end to the other, I'm afraid. Carol > Carol, > > I want to preface this e-mail that I am not meaning to be contrary, there just seems to be some confusion and I don't want anybody to feel they have been intentionally spited. I just want this matter resolved, and this will be my last posting about it, becuase I think our time is better spent talking about better things. I just want people to be informed and not have any ill will. My tone in writing this is thoughtful and concerned, not embittered, so please take no offense. > > No, in my e-mail I did not say copaxone " STOPPED progression > in 3% of people " as you claimed in your reply. I do not know why you seem to be so defensive about copaxone, and why you seem angry (the CAPITAL letters lead me to think so, perhaps you are not). And to claim that it slows progression by 39% is well... to say you slowed it, you must know how fast it was going to begin with and where it was going, which in MS is an impossible task. The Cochrane study has merit, it takes the data from already published trials that have sound scientific merit and throws out the trials that do not. The folks at Cochrane are not affiliated with the company that makes copaxone, so the analysis is not biased, as many of the existing trials are. You do realize that pharmaceutical companies pay for research to be done, and that research can be skewed in favor of the client. It does happen. When you put people down as a reference for a job interview or a loan, do you put people down who neither like nor hate you yet know a lot about you, or do you bargain on > finding the person who will say the best things about you. I don't know about you, but most people find someone who will say super things. : ) The pharma companies are no different. Not bad, just not different. But the folks at Cochrane are impartial, yet very well informed. They have no 'beef' with copaxone, they don't want to take it 'down'. They did not say it was a horrible drug, and neither have I. They just said it did not show any significant effect on disease progression, or that its routine use in clinical practice was not currently supported. Anyway,also, that is why there are no 'huge trials' of diet and MS... there is no money in it like there is for meds. > > Anyway, I am very glad that you are doing well, and I hope you re-read my last post to Doug saying " It is up to you to decide what you want to do... take a daily drug to lessen your chance of progression by 3% after 2 years (Copaxone had 78% progression-free patients opposed to 75% on placebo) and the number of enhancing lesions were 11 on Copaxone and 17 on placebo. THe study dealing with lesions had some major flaws, however. BUT, if this is enough for you or anybody else, I certainly encourage you to embrace it. Some people say " Hey! 3 percent is really something, and that matters to me! " And that is perfectly understandable, and you should do it if you are one of those people. > However, I have worked for more than one pharmaceutical company working to get drugs approved by the FDA.... and the data on this drug is not good. Maybe not harmful, but not really good. But if not really good is good enough for you, then go for it. > > Kindest regards, Jana > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 , You're correct - I AM recommending a drug that I can't take because I've had a reaction to it! If I hadn't had a reaction, I'd still be on it myself, because I believe it's one of the few really good drugs, and I believe it may have helped a lot. (There is no way to know how bad off we may have been without anything, even alternative treatments, of course.) I just don't see why that is confusing. Let me try to make it more clear. I have been allergic to several foods in the past, which I also recommended at that time. They were good foods, so why would I suddenly negate them just because I couldn't eat them? I wouldn't consider myself a very valid person, if I wasn't 'big' enough to recommend something even though I personally couldn't take it, if I knew it was a good thing. You would probably find me very odd all around, I guess. I'm the least prejudiced person you've ever met, I'm sure. I'm open to anything that is good and/or works, no matter what name it goes by. I just won't be cubby-holed into something, simply because it's the norm, the trend or the way to be in this or that group. (I don't usually belong to groups, because of that. Often they're too restrictive and liable to ignore the truth about things, not being able to see the truth because of the group psyche, which is often clouded, as we're seeing here....being swayed by general feeling, rather than fact.) Truth just isn't that easy to categorize. Very little is ALL bad, and that applies even to drugs. For instance, Copaxone is very close to natural....probably closer to natural than lots of supplements, because it is more pure, having less additives than most supplements.....and, as I've said, all it is is 4 amino acids and mannitol. To classify it as a drug and throw it out SIMPLY because it is made by a company known as a drug company, would not be very discriminating. Saying it's no good because people have had reactions, is like saying niacin is no good because people have had reactions. There is nothing bad in niacin, and there is nothing bad in the amino acids in Copaxone either. (If you don't know, those amino acids in Copaxone can be purchased at health food stores, which I mentioned before too. They're simply joined in a particular scientific protein chain.) How could something we find in foods be classified as bad, just because some people have a reaction? I just don't understand the thinking on this at all. I take the good where I can find it. I took Copaxone for 6 years and during that time I did very well. I feel that I did MUCH better than I would have without it. Why should I ignore that fact and deprive everyone else of Copaxones benefits, simply because it's called a drug, drugs aren't recommended on an alternative healing site, and I eventually developed a reaction?! (And not a permanent reaction or damaging reaction either....just a reaction, just like people might get a reaction to niacin, which is another nutrient, just like Copaxone is nutrients.) I'm sorry, but what you're saying makes no sense to me. And, obviously I make no sense to you, so I guess we should drop it as senseless to go on with it. Carol > > Carol, it sounds like you're recommending a drug that you are unable to take because of an allergic reaction you had to it, and that seems confusing to me. This is an alternative treatment site. It shouldn't surprise you that we're skeptical of drug therapy here. Many of the MSCured members have also had negative reactions from Copaxone as well as other MS drugs. Studies don't replace anecdotal evidence. I find it odd that's all. I'm glad you're finding relief from diet. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.