Guest guest Posted September 27, 2008 Report Share Posted September 27, 2008 Ok so it was a one time treatment then. How well did it work for you? > Re: [ ] This is crazy! > > One day. Three times a day, 5 hours apart. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2008 Report Share Posted September 28, 2008 I really don't know until I am tested again. It's not like I can see the eggs or the worms.............. I'm supposed to follow up with some herbals. Aftermisinin, which I have, plus two others. wrote: > > Ok so it was a one time treatment then. How well did it work for you? > > > Re: [ ] This is crazy! > > > > One day. Three times a day, 5 hours apart. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2008 Report Share Posted September 28, 2008 If only it were easy to test for parasites with outstanding accuracy. Parasite tests often miss parasites. Parasites may not show up in the stool or blood stream samples at the time in which they are taken and then tested. As you say parasites do come in cycles. If the test cycle is not timed correctly then the parasites may be missed. Some parasites, such as the malaria parasite, may hide in the liver for years. Finding treatment and a good parasitologist to conduct testing in the US is also difficult. In general it is thought that parasites are not that common in the US and so it is not exactly one of the bigger specialty areas. Many do not have access to testing or to those who know how to test for and treat parasites. I am not saying that every parasite is a problem--yet. I am saying it may be possible to have a blood fluke infection and to have contracted it within US borders, because the government is nearly always behind in identifying when particular infections have become a problem. Look at the AIDS epidemic and look at how long it was before anyone seriously looked into this new disease. Many hemophiliacs became infected and so did others who received blood transfusions. Blood tests were developed and even improved to detect this infection and yet as late as 1989 it was admitted that the AIDS virus could be the blood stream up to three or more years before antibodies to it are detectable: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5D9113FF932A35755C0A96F94826\ 0 " Some people may carry the AIDS virus for up to three years without its being detected by standard AIDS tests, a study has found. In the study, about one-quarter of a group of 133 homosexual men who engaged in high-risk sexual behavior were infected, but for long periods they did not produce the antibodies that are detected by AIDS screening tests. The finding raises concern that some people who are infected with the virus may unwittingly pass it on, thinking they do not carry it on the basis of a misleading screening test. It also suggests that the screening tests used to protect the blood supply and organ donations may be less reliable than generally thought. And it calls into question the accuracy of surveys of the prevalence of AIDS infection because they, too, rely on an antibody test. " So this shows that even while health authorities were stating the blood supply was safe after a test to detect AIDS in the blood supply was developed there still was a large window of opportunity for it to hide in the blood undetected by this test. This window of opportunity exists to this day. Relying on high risk donors to voluntarily remove themselves from donating blood is rather naive, as many of these donors depend on donating a certain amount of blood to obtain money. No doubt there are many other false negatives when blood is tested for chosen diseases and blood borne parasites which is why I find this reassurance about blood supply safety from the same article mildly amusing: " Dr. Lewellys F. Barker, senior vice president for blood services of the American Red Cross, said the organization realized some people might be infected without producing antibodies. But he said, ''We think the blood supply is as safe as we can make it.'' He added that ''we really do depend on our ability to exclude people with known risk factors'' from donating blood and this ''is the most important thing we do'' to keep the blood supply safe. " Still feel safe? Here is what the CDC says about donating blood when exposed to malaria or when one has had malaria: http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/faq.htm http://www.cdc.gov " Malaria Wait 3 years after completing treatment for malaria. Wait 12 months after returning from a trip to an area where malaria is found. Wait 3 years after living in a country or countries where malaria is found. Malaria is a blood infection caused by a parasite that can be transmitted from a donor to a patient through transfusion. It is possible to have a new infection with malaria but have no symptoms, even though the parasite is present in your blood. It is also possible to feel well, but have a very mild case of malaria, especially if you have lived for extended periods of time in parts of the world where malaria is found. " Blood donations are not tested for malaria. Therefore, it is important that people who may have malaria or been exposed to malaria because of living in, or traveling to, a country where malaria is present not be allowed to donate blood until enough time has passed to be certain that they are not infected with malaria. This is done by having a waiting period for those who lived in, move from, or traveled to, the locations with malaria. " This next link states that the malaria parasite may be harbored in the body for years after " recovering " from acute symptoms. It makes me wonder why the CDC would advise a wait three years after treatment for malaria before donating blood when it is probable that this blood will never be safe to donate. How is that suddenly insuring a safe blood supply? Why is anyone who has had malaria allowed to donate blood? They even admit above that there is no test currently done for malaria: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13690282/ " Historically, most cases of transfusion-spread malaria have been traced to immigrants from malaria-prone countries who still harbored the parasite despite years with no symptoms, something only a test could uncover, he adds. " So it looks as if it could be easy for malaria parasites to enter the general blood supply. Mosquitoes could also bite people who have had malarial infections and thus spread the disease even more. It is not easy to treat these infections either: http://www.dhpe.org/infect/Malaria.html " Is malaria an emerging infectious disease? Yes. Many countries have been experiencing a resurgence in cases caused by Plasmodium falciparum, the most deadly of the four human malaria parasites. Urban migration, poverty, and poor sanitation have returned malaria to cities where it once was eliminated. New roads, logging, and irrigation have drawn people into once-isolated areas where mosquitoes thrive. Refugees, migrants, and tourists have spread the disease across borders. The seriousness of the worldwide re-emergence of malaria is made worse by the spread of parasites that are resistant to anti-malaria drugs. Parasites, like bacteria and viruses, can develop resistance to the drugs used to prevent or treat infection. Malaria parasites are increasingly resistant to chloroquine, the drug most widely used for prevention and treatment. Chloroquine-resistant strains have been reported from areas in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The potential also exists for malaria to become re-established in the United States. Currently, about 1,200 malaria cases are reported each year in the United States. Almost all occur in persons who were infected in other parts of the world (imported malaria). Small outbreaks of non-imported malaria, the result of transmission from imported cases, have also been reported. So far, the outbreaks have been quickly and easily contained. A continued increase in drug-resistant malaria throughout the world, however, could increase the number of cases of imported malaria and improve the chances for malaria to re-emerge in the United States. " It is quite possible that many people in the US today harbor parasites which were not problematic just thirty years ago. It seems many diseases and parasite infections which were previously mostly unknown problems to those in the US have the potential to become larger in scope. These diseases and parasite infections are far more serious than most folks realize. What is disturbing is that often there are not effective controls or cures for these illnesses. The cost of trying to treat or control these diseases could doubtless be staggering to the nation. If any care had been taken though it might have been prevented. Many people have been lulled into a false sense of security because of the use of antibiotics and other drug treatments in Western medicine. Due to over use these drugs are often no longer effective. The same may be said about the parasite drugs. The risk of infection is probably greater than many of us would like to think about. Even if not living in areas of the US mentioned in the article I believe the potential for exposure to new diseases and parasites infections is there. > > > > You might like to read this long article about the " hidden " > problems > > of parasite infections in the US: > > > > http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371% > 2Fjournal.pntd.0000256 > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2008 Report Share Posted September 29, 2008 Keep us up to date Pam. I am curious to know if indeed they think the infection cleared and if you see any progress due to the treatment! > Re: [ ] This is crazy! > > I really don't know until I am tested again. It's not like I can see > the eggs or the worms.............. I'm supposed to follow up > with some > herbals. Aftermisinin, which I have, plus two others. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2008 Report Share Posted September 30, 2008 --- Hi Fin, We are now feeling that the flukes may not been alive. Just to be on the safe side, my Dr is giving me a round of med's. As far as MMS goes,I am still happy that I did it and may add back in future. I do everything by checking in with higher guidance not by what anyone say's is the right wrong thing to do. I also want to add that for yrs I had many blood and stool tests for parasites. Nothing ever showed up until I started killing lyme and company. Peeling the onion we think.Lots of mysteries about lyme and all this stuff. Healing Blessings and Namaste' Joyce In , " Finette Lerman-Russak " <FinRussak@...> wrote: > > Hi Joyce > > Ive seen on other forums that youve been on the MMS miracle mineral > stuff for a long while. Isnt that promoted to be antiparasitic too?? > I was wondering how you managed to still have any kinds of > parasites , let alone flukes,after taking that for so long. > > and glad youre doing better!! > > Finette > 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.