Re: a question about non-infectious theories

[Guest guest]

Hi

A great question which merits some thought. I'm afraid i'm too ignorant even

to hazard a guess but I hope someone can answer it.

Ken.

Carbone <sammiches42@...> wrote:

Sorry if this seems like a naive question, but it's something I've

been wondering about and haven't yet come across any good reasoning...

How do the traditional non-infectious theories about autoimmune diseases attempt

to explain the localized nature of many of them? If a person's immune system did

indeed decide (for whatever reason) that joint tissue itself was the enemy, why

would it choose to attack only certain joints and not others at any given time?

And how is it that inflamed areas can " spread " from place to place in/on the

body over time if there isn't some (thus far undiscovered) local causative

factor provoking the reaction? One would expect a truly haywire immune system to

see all connective tissue of a certain type as a threat and to attack it all

over the body at once, not just in certain places.

Any ideas or opinions?

---------------------------------

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

[Guest guest]

Because the mycoplasmas are an anerobic (aneriobic means an organism that lives

in an environment that has no oxygen), If they are exposed to oxygen, they die.

Micoplasmas are a cross between a virus and a bacteria and thrive best in the

synovia areas of the body where there is no oxygen. The synovia areas of the

body are the natural fluid sacs that protects the joints and keeps them

nourished, but when the micoplasma's settle in their favorite hiding place

there, they cause inflammation because the immune system sends white cells to

attack the mycoplasma. The mycoplasma remove the DNA out of the cells in the

synovial fluid and replace it with their own DNA so when the white cell attack

the mycoplasmas, the old school called it an autoimmune disorder thinking they

were attacking the normal synovial fluid cells, but they were really attacking

the new micoplasma cells that were disguised as our own cells. Every joint has

synovial fluid around it. The mycoplasmas can

freely get into the fluid. That is why sometimes one joint flares up as it is

defending itself and the another joint flares up and it can go around the body

flaring joints as each joint is attacked. These mycoplasmas are difficult to

get rid of. They take on a unique shape. That's why it takes large amounts of

antibiotics for long periods of time to get rid of and even then, the

mycoplasmas can hide and remain dormant for a long time undetected and then like

the tasmanian devil raise it's ugly head at an opportune time when the immune

system is weakened. That's why taking immune suppressants, like steroids,

methotrexate, Rumicade, Humira, Thalidomide, etc don't work in the long run.

They reduce the inflammation, but weaken the body and you finally die from

either the disease which has damaged so many organs or an infection that the

body cannot fight off because it has no fight left in it when the immune system

is knocked out. I hope this answers your question! This

is why getting on A/P at an early stage works. A/P has a more difficult time

getting at the mycoplasmas if the body has been on immune suppressants. The

longer the suppressants and the longer you have the disease w/o antibiotic

protocol, the harder it is to reverse and it takes longer. So, all of you who

haven't started on A/P yet, get going and stop dawdling. You're playing with

the grim reaper! ~~~~~~~Dolores

Ken Pearson <maputo95@...> wrote: Hi

A great question which merits some thought. I'm afraid i'm too ignorant even to

hazard a guess but I hope someone can answer it.

Ken.

Carbone wrote:

Sorry if this seems like a naive question, but it's something I've been

wondering about and haven't yet come across any good reasoning...

How do the traditional non-infectious theories about autoimmune diseases attempt

to explain the localized nature of many of them? If a person's immune system did

indeed decide (for whatever reason) that joint tissue itself was the enemy, why

would it choose to attack only certain joints and not others at any given time?

And how is it that inflamed areas can " spread " from place to place in/on the

body over time if there isn't some (thus far undiscovered) local causative

factor provoking the reaction? One would expect a truly haywire immune system to

see all connective tissue of a certain type as a threat and to attack it all

over the body at once, not just in certain places.

Any ideas or opinions?

---------------------------------

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

[Guest guest]

Hi Doleres

Thank you for this brillant explanation which increases my confidence in

Antibiotic Therapy. I'll read it several times to get a handle on it.

Ken.

mike rosner <martysfolks2004@...> wrote:

Because the mycoplasmas are an anerobic (aneriobic means an organism

that lives in an environment that has no oxygen), If they are exposed to oxygen,

they die. Micoplasmas are a cross between a virus and a bacteria and thrive best

in the synovia areas of the body where there is no oxygen. The synovia areas of

the body are the natural fluid sacs that protects the joints and keeps them

nourished, but when the micoplasma's settle in their favorite hiding place

there, they cause inflammation because the immune system sends white cells to

attack the mycoplasma. The mycoplasma remove the DNA out of the cells in the

synovial fluid and replace it with their own DNA so when the white cell attack

the mycoplasmas, the old school called it an autoimmune disorder thinking they

were attacking the normal synovial fluid cells, but they were really attacking

the new micoplasma cells that were disguised as our own cells. Every joint has

synovial fluid around it. The mycoplasmas can

freely get into the fluid. That is why sometimes one joint flares up as it is

defending itself and the another joint flares up and it can go around the body

flaring joints as each joint is attacked. These mycoplasmas are difficult to get

rid of. They take on a unique shape. That's why it takes large amounts of

antibiotics for long periods of time to get rid of and even then, the

mycoplasmas can hide and remain dormant for a long time undetected and then like

the tasmanian devil raise it's ugly head at an opportune time when the immune

system is weakened. That's why taking immune suppressants, like steroids,

methotrexate, Rumicade, Humira, Thalidomide, etc don't work in the long run.

They reduce the inflammation, but weaken the body and you finally die from

either the disease which has damaged so many organs or an infection that the

body cannot fight off because it has no fight left in it when the immune system

is knocked out. I hope this answers your question! This

is why getting on A/P at an early stage works. A/P has a more difficult time

getting at the mycoplasmas if the body has been on immune suppressants. The

longer the suppressants and the longer you have the disease w/o antibiotic

protocol, the harder it is to reverse and it takes longer. So, all of you who

haven't started on A/P yet, get going and stop dawdling. You're playing with the

grim reaper! ~~~~~~~Dolores

Ken Pearson <maputo95@...> wrote: Hi

A great question which merits some thought. I'm afraid i'm too ignorant even to

hazard a guess but I hope someone can answer it.

Ken.

Carbone wrote:

Sorry if this seems like a naive question, but it's something I've been

wondering about and haven't yet come across any good reasoning...

How do the traditional non-infectious theories about autoimmune diseases attempt

to explain the localized nature of many of them? If a person's immune system did

indeed decide (for whatever reason) that joint tissue itself was the enemy, why

would it choose to attack only certain joints and not others at any given time?

And how is it that inflamed areas can " spread " from place to place in/on the

body over time if there isn't some (thus far undiscovered) local causative

factor provoking the reaction? One would expect a truly haywire immune system to

see all connective tissue of a certain type as a threat and to attack it all

over the body at once, not just in certain places.

Any ideas or opinions?

---------------------------------

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

[Guest guest]

That is one of the reasons I felt the Antibiotic Protocol made sense. It

did not seem logical to me that if the immune system went " haywire " (my rheumys

definition) .... it should have attacked all joints...not specific ones. My

doc had no answer but refused to entertain notions of an infection. Thank

goodness I tried Minocin anyway.. sure did work. Another vote for the

infectious theory!!!! Martha

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike

Do you have ideas about dosages of Minocin? If so, pleease share them.

Ken.

Ken Pearson <maputo95@...> wrote:

Hi Doleres

Thank you for this brillant explanation which increases my confidence in

Antibiotic Therapy. I'll read it several times to get a handle on it.

Ken.

mike rosner <martysfolks2004@...> wrote:

Because the mycoplasmas are an anerobic (aneriobic means an organism that lives

in an environment that has no oxygen), If they are exposed to oxygen, they die.

Micoplasmas are a cross between a virus and a bacteria and thrive best in the

synovia areas of the body where there is no oxygen. The synovia areas of the

body are the natural fluid sacs that protects the joints and keeps them

nourished, but when the micoplasma's settle in their favorite hiding place

there, they cause inflammation because the immune system sends white cells to

attack the mycoplasma. The mycoplasma remove the DNA out of the cells in the

synovial fluid and replace it with their own DNA so when the white cell attack

the mycoplasmas, the old school called it an autoimmune disorder thinking they

were attacking the normal synovial fluid cells, but they were really attacking

the new micoplasma cells that were disguised as our own cells. Every joint has

synovial fluid around it. The mycoplasmas can

freely get into the fluid. That is why sometimes one joint flares up as it is

defending itself and the another joint flares up and it can go around the body

flaring joints as each joint is attacked. These mycoplasmas are difficult to get

rid of. They take on a unique shape. That's why it takes large amounts of

antibiotics for long periods of time to get rid of and even then, the

mycoplasmas can hide and remain dormant for a long time undetected and then like

the tasmanian devil raise it's ugly head at an opportune time when the immune

system is weakened. That's why taking immune suppressants, like steroids,

methotrexate, Rumicade, Humira, Thalidomide, etc don't work in the long run.

They reduce the inflammation, but weaken the body and you finally die from

either the disease which has damaged so many organs or an infection that the

body cannot fight off because it has no fight left in it when the immune system

is knocked out. I hope this answers your question! This

is why getting on A/P at an early stage works. A/P has a more difficult time

getting at the mycoplasmas if the body has been on immune suppressants. The

longer the suppressants and the longer you have the disease w/o antibiotic

protocol, the harder it is to reverse and it takes longer. So, all of you who

haven't started on A/P yet, get going and stop dawdling. You're playing with the

grim reaper! ~~~~~~~Dolores

Ken Pearson <maputo95@...> wrote: Hi

A great question which merits some thought. I'm afraid i'm too ignorant even to

hazard a guess but I hope someone can answer it.

Ken.

Carbone wrote:

Sorry if this seems like a naive question, but it's something I've been

wondering about and haven't yet come across any good reasoning...

How do the traditional non-infectious theories about autoimmune diseases attempt

to explain the localized nature of many of them? If a person's immune system did

indeed decide (for whatever reason) that joint tissue itself was the enemy, why

would it choose to attack only certain joints and not others at any given time?

And how is it that inflamed areas can " spread " from place to place in/on the

body over time if there isn't some (thus far undiscovered) local causative

factor provoking the reaction? One would expect a truly haywire immune system to

see all connective tissue of a certain type as a threat and to attack it all

over the body at once, not just in certain places.

Any ideas or opinions?

---------------------------------

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

[Guest guest]

>Your question is not naive, rather points out the irrational claims

>by the coventional rheumatologists.

You list a couple of pertinent points which all lime up to indicate

an infectious cause.

The calcified attitude of most rheumatologists can only be explained

by hurt pride or money.

There may be a pressure to follow the party line which is dictated

by the older members in the clan.

It is shameful that so many patients have to endure extreme pain to

satisfy a money scheme.

Good Luck,

>Sorry if this seems like a naive question, but it's something I've

>been wondering about and haven't yet come across any good

>reasoning...

>

>How do the traditional non-infectious theories about autoimmune

>diseases attempt to explain the localized nature of many of them?

>If a person's immune system did indeed decide (for whatever reason)

>that joint tissue itself was the enemy, why would it choose to

>attack only certain joints and not others at any given time? And

>how is it that inflamed areas can " spread " from place to place in/on

>the body over time if there isn't some (thus far undiscovered) local

>causative factor provoking the reaction? One would expect a truly

>haywire immune system to see all connective tissue of a certain type

>as a threat and to attack it all over the body at once, not just in

>certain places.

>

>Any ideas or opinions?

>

>

>

>

>---------------------------------

> Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ken,

Have you checked out www.rheumatic.org ? that site explains the protocol we

are following to some degree or other. There is also a good book that

explains the approach: " The new Arthritis Breakthrough " by Henry Scemmel .

Beware, if you search for the title on Amazon, they may show you another

Arthritis " cure " book, you have to scroll down to find Scemmel's.

Take care,

Ute

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that the 'disease' attacks the weakest joint (vice all of

them). For me it was initially my right knee; affected by aerobics and then

by a lot of yard work using a spade and my right leg....Glucosamine and not

jumping on a cement based floor took care of that. The next joint affected

was my right shoulder... I am right handed and use that side of my body

constantly and overexert/over use with yard work. Again glucosamine, MSM,

Wobenzyme, etc all helped. As did PT and strengthening exercises, but I

think the AP is getting to the route of the problem/disease. I have no

science to prove this; just a personal thought/observation. El

Re: rheumatic a question about non-infectious theories

>Your question is not naive, rather points out the irrational claims

>by the coventional rheumatologists.

You list a couple of pertinent points which all lime up to indicate

an infectious cause.

The calcified attitude of most rheumatologists can only be explained

by hurt pride or money.

There may be a pressure to follow the party line which is dictated

by the older members in the clan.

It is shameful that so many patients have to endure extreme pain to

satisfy a money scheme.

Good Luck,

>Sorry if this seems like a naive question, but it's something I've

>been wondering about and haven't yet come across any good

>reasoning...

>

>How do the traditional non-infectious theories about autoimmune

>diseases attempt to explain the localized nature of many of them?

>If a person's immune system did indeed decide (for whatever reason)

>that joint tissue itself was the enemy, why would it choose to

>attack only certain joints and not others at any given time? And

>how is it that inflamed areas can " spread " from place to place in/on

>the body over time if there isn't some (thus far undiscovered) local

>causative factor provoking the reaction? One would expect a truly

>haywire immune system to see all connective tissue of a certain type

>as a threat and to attack it all over the body at once, not just in

>certain places.

>

>Any ideas or opinions?

>

>

>

>

>---------------------------------

> Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dolores,

This is a great and easily understood explanation. Thanks.

Re: rheumatic a question about non-infectious theories

Because the mycoplasmas are an anerobic (aneriobic means an organism that

lives in an environment that has no oxygen), If they are exposed to oxygen, they

die. Micoplasmas are a cross between a virus and a bacteria and thrive best in

the synovia areas of the body where there is no oxygen. The synovia areas of the

body are the natural fluid sacs that protects the joints and keeps them

nourished, but when the micoplasma's settle in their favorite hiding place

there, they cause inflammation because the immune system sends white cells to

attack the mycoplasma. The mycoplasma remove the DNA out of the cells in the

synovial fluid and replace it with their own DNA so when the white cell attack

the mycoplasmas, the old school called it an autoimmune disorder thinking they

were attacking the normal synovial fluid cells, but they were really attacking

the new micoplasma cells that were disguised as our own cells. Every joint has

synovial fluid around it. The mycoplasmas can

freely get into the fluid. That is why sometimes one joint flares up as it is

defending itself and the another joint flares up and it can go around the body

flaring joints as each joint is attacked. These mycoplasmas are difficult to get

rid of. They take on a unique shape. That's why it takes large amounts of

antibiotics for long periods of time to get rid of and even then, the

mycoplasmas can hide and remain dormant for a long time undetected and then like

the tasmanian devil raise it's ugly head at an opportune time when the immune

system is weakened. That's why taking immune suppressants, like steroids,

methotrexate, Rumicade, Humira, Thalidomide, etc don't work in the long run.

They reduce the inflammation, but weaken the body and you finally die from

either the disease which has damaged so many organs or an infection that the

body cannot fight off because it has no fight left in it when the immune system

is knocked out. I hope this answers your question! This

is why getting on A/P at an early stage works. A/P has a more difficult time

getting at the mycoplasmas if the body has been on immune suppressants. The

longer the suppressants and the longer you have the disease w/o antibiotic

protocol, the harder it is to reverse and it takes longer. So, all of you who

haven't started on A/P yet, get going and stop dawdling. You're playing with the

grim reaper! ~~~~~~~Dolores

Ken Pearson <maputo95@...> wrote: Hi

A great question which merits some thought. I'm afraid i'm too ignorant even

to hazard a guess but I hope someone can answer it.

Ken.

Carbone wrote:

Sorry if this seems like a naive question, but it's something I've been

wondering about and haven't yet come across any good reasoning...

How do the traditional non-infectious theories about autoimmune diseases

attempt to explain the localized nature of many of them? If a person's immune

system did indeed decide (for whatever reason) that joint tissue itself was the

enemy, why would it choose to attack only certain joints and not others at any

given time? And how is it that inflamed areas can " spread " from place to place

in/on the body over time if there isn't some (thus far undiscovered) local

causative factor provoking the reaction? One would expect a truly haywire immune

system to see all connective tissue of a certain type as a threat and to attack

it all over the body at once, not just in certain places.

Any ideas or opinions?

---------------------------------

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

[Guest guest]

Hi Everyone, It's not Mike who wrote this explanation. it is I, Dolores, his

wife. who posts on his site. To answer your question on the dosage of Minocin.

I started my first month on 50 mg MWF twice a day from a dermatologist. Second

month I had an appt. with Dr. T. in Boston who is my rheumatologist. He ramped

me up to 100 mg. twice a day every day 24/7. This is my 7th month on Minocin

and all my symptoms are reversing one by one. I cannot speak for others. We

all heal at our own speed according to how long we have been sick and what meds

we were on prior to Minocin. Minocin works best when it has no competition

from the use of immunosuppressant drugs. This is my story, it may not be

someone else's story. Dolores

Ken Pearson <maputo95@...> wrote: Hi Mike

Do you have ideas about dosages of Minocin? If so, pleease share them.

Ken.

Ken Pearson wrote:

Hi Doleres

Thank you for this brillant explanation which increases my confidence in

Antibiotic Therapy. I'll read it several times to get a handle on it.

Ken.

mike rosner wrote:

Because the mycoplasmas are an anerobic (aneriobic means an organism that lives

in an environment that has no oxygen), If they are exposed to oxygen, they die.

Micoplasmas are a cross between a virus and a bacteria and thrive best in the

synovia areas of the body where there is no oxygen. The synovia areas of the

body are the natural fluid sacs that protects the joints and keeps them

nourished, but when the micoplasma's settle in their favorite hiding place

there, they cause inflammation because the immune system sends white cells to

attack the mycoplasma. The mycoplasma remove the DNA out of the cells in the

synovial fluid and replace it with their own DNA so when the white cell attack

the mycoplasmas, the old school called it an autoimmune disorder thinking they

were attacking the normal synovial fluid cells, but they were really attacking

the new micoplasma cells that were disguised as our own cells. Every joint has

synovial fluid around it. The mycoplasmas can

freely get into the fluid. That is why sometimes one joint flares up as it is

defending itself and the another joint flares up and it can go around the body

flaring joints as each joint is attacked. These mycoplasmas are difficult to get

rid of. They take on a unique shape. That's why it takes large amounts of

antibiotics for long periods of time to get rid of and even then, the

mycoplasmas can hide and remain dormant for a long time undetected and then like

the tasmanian devil raise it's ugly head at an opportune time when the immune

system is weakened. That's why taking immune suppressants, like steroids,

methotrexate, Rumicade, Humira, Thalidomide, etc don't work in the long run.

They reduce the inflammation, but weaken the body and you finally die from

either the disease which has damaged so many organs or an infection that the

body cannot fight off because it has no fight left in it when the immune system

is knocked out. I hope this answers your question! This

is why getting on A/P at an early stage works. A/P has a more difficult time

getting at the mycoplasmas if the body has been on immune suppressants. The

longer the suppressants and the longer you have the disease w/o antibiotic

protocol, the harder it is to reverse and it takes longer. So, all of you who

haven't started on A/P yet, get going and stop dawdling. You're playing with the

grim reaper! ~~~~~~~Dolores

Ken Pearson wrote: Hi

A great question which merits some thought. I'm afraid i'm too ignorant even to

hazard a guess but I hope someone can answer it.

Ken.

Carbone wrote:

Sorry if this seems like a naive question, but it's something I've been

wondering about and haven't yet come across any good reasoning...

How do the traditional non-infectious theories about autoimmune diseases attempt

to explain the localized nature of many of them? If a person's immune system did

indeed decide (for whatever reason) that joint tissue itself was the enemy, why

would it choose to attack only certain joints and not others at any given time?

And how is it that inflamed areas can " spread " from place to place in/on the

body over time if there isn't some (thus far undiscovered) local causative

factor provoking the reaction? One would expect a truly haywire immune system to

see all connective tissue of a certain type as a threat and to attack it all

over the body at once, not just in certain places.

Any ideas or opinions?

---------------------------------

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

[Guest guest]

> Sorry if this seems like a naive question, but it's something I've

been wondering about and haven't yet come across any good

reasoning...

>

> How do the traditional non-infectious theories about autoimmune

diseases attempt to explain the localized nature of many of them? If

a person's immune system did indeed decide (for whatever reason)

that joint tissue itself was the enemy, why would it choose to

attack only certain joints and not others at any given time? And how

is it that inflamed areas can " spread " from place to place in/on the

body over time if there isn't some (thus far undiscovered) local

causative factor provoking the reaction? One would expect a truly

haywire immune system to see all connective tissue of a certain type

as a threat and to attack it all over the body at once, not just in

certain places.

>

> Any ideas or opinions?

>

> ---------------------------------

> Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

>

>