Re: Antibiotics Do More Than Kill Bugs

[Guest guest]

Terry,

Let me begin by reiterating that I am not opposed to antibiotic therapy for

rheumatoid arthritis. I believe that minocycline is a safe drug, especially

relative to other options, and that the studies done so far have

demonstrated that it does seem to have some positive effect on the symptoms

of rheumatoid arthritis. I had used it myself for approximately a year and a

half, and I believe it helped me feel better.

You say " IF THERE IS NO BUG ANTIBIOTICS DO NOTHING. " This is

not accurate. It is true that the primary use of antibiotics in this country

is to kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria. No argument there. Yet,

antibiotics have been shown to have other effects on the body, not

exclusively bacteriostatic and bacteriocidal ones.

" Antibiotics, such as hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine, have been used

for many years to treat rheumatic diseases. Recent studies have confirmed

the benefits of minocycline in the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

Tetracyclines (e.g., minocycline and doxycycline) have been shown to inhibit

cartilage-degrading collagenase and metalloproteinase enzymes; their

potential use in the treatment of osteoarthritis as structure-modifying

drugs is being studied. "

(Source: http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-163/issue-4/0417.htm#5)

In the legal realm, arthritis suffers cannot reasonably sue physicians for

not knowing what cannot be known. At the moment, nobody knows what causes RA

and, therefore, nobody can cure it. The perfect treatment cannot be known at

this time. Period. On the other hand, if a physician prescribes a drug that

is not formally approved or tested for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

(like minocycline), especially instead of drugs which have been approved and

shown to be efficacious long-term, would a suit by a patient who loses

several joints be justified? Perhaps.

I agree that pharmaceutical companies make big dollars off of people with

rheumatic diseases, and, for these money-making giants, there is no

incentive to look into minocycline. Business is business though, and they

can't be expected to research a drug that won't be profitable for them. More

problematic is that because pharmaceutical concerns have such tremendous

influence over other sectors (like the AMA), it is hard imagine who will

continue to do these studies, and, moreover, fund them.

Where you say " the evidence is there but the dollars aren't, " I agree that

the money isn't there. And there certainly is evidence, but it is mostly

circumstantial at this point. As a result of the studies performed so far,

minocycline has been shown to be safe and moderately effective in reducing

the joint swelling and tenderness that accompanies rheumatoid arthritis.

There are no proven long-term remissions. One of the most serious concerns

is that it has not been proven that minocycline is effective in preventing

the erosions that can lead to loss of function of a joint. Safe, symptomatic

relief is a valid reason for using a drug, but, in the case of rheumatoid

arthritis, we also need drugs that will slow or stop joint destruction.

Should minocycline continue to be studied? Should we especially examine

whether it is effective in preventing joint loss? Should we look into

minocycline combined with other DMARDs as a treatment for RA? Should

rheumatoid arthritis sufferers try this therapy even though unproven?

Affirmative to all of the above. My only caution would be that, in the

matter of whether an RA patient should experiment on him/herself with

minocycline, for those with aggressive, erosive disease, perhaps using

another DMARD concurrently would be wise. Risking a joint on a hunch is a

huge wager.

----- Original Message -----

From: <tperrella@...>

< egroups>

Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 6:03 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: The New Arthritis Breakthrough

> You know a, you don't have to be a PhD or MD to understand

> antibiotics only do one thing. They kill germs, period. If an

> antibiotic improves RA or any other autoimmune disease or puts it

> into

> remission, they can only affect one thing, BACTERIA. All the double

> blind studies, or any other study for that matter can't change the

> fact that IF THERE IS NO BUG ANTIBIOTICS DO NOTHING.

>

> Now the real world. There is a 66 BILLION dollar market treating our

> select group. We are special! If a simple antibiotic will knock out

> 50 -75% of our problem a lot of people are going to be without jobs

> not to mention a lot of poorer investors.

>

> Just think of all the learned MD's that would just stand out as being

> stupid. Not to mention all the medical liability suits that would

> follow if modern medicine admitted a bug causes RA.

>

> No, modern medicine will fight this theory - fact until the stick of

> stupidity has beaten them to the point of no resistence. Then we

> will

> no longer have to suffer. The evidence is there but the dollars

> aren't.

>

> Ohio - Terry

> A Stupid PhD

[Guest guest]

,

Very well said. If pharmaceutical companies didn't make money, who would

look for any new drugs? One thing I have to point out is that the Mayo

clinic actually lists sulfasalazine (Azulfidine), and minocycline (Minocin)

as DMARD's. I am hoping it is true and joint erosion will be halted, but

since RA responds better to combinations, many people that are on

antibiotics also take Enbrel and mtx. As the antibiotics start to work,

the other drugs are slowly reduced until just AB's are used for maintenance.

Unfortunately there are no studies that have tested the safety of these

combinations, so there is a risk involved,

I still take Enbrel as needed, and will continue to do so as long as I have

swelling. BUT so many people have erosion with no swelling, so swelling

alone isn't an indicator of joint erosion. X-rays must be done to monitor

erosion.

a

----- Original Message -----

From: Matsumura <Matsumura_Clan@...>

< egroups>

Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 6:00 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Antibiotics Do More Than Kill Bugs

> Terry,

>

> Let me begin by reiterating that I am not opposed to antibiotic therapy

for

> rheumatoid arthritis. I believe that minocycline is a safe drug,

especially

> relative to other options, and that the studies done so far have

> demonstrated that it does seem to have some positive effect on the

symptoms

> of rheumatoid arthritis. I had used it myself for approximately a year and

a

> half, and I believe it helped me feel better.

>

> You say " IF THERE IS NO BUG ANTIBIOTICS DO NOTHING. " This is

> not accurate. It is true that the primary use of antibiotics in this

country

> is to kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria. No argument there. Yet,

> antibiotics have been shown to have other effects on the body, not

> exclusively bacteriostatic and bacteriocidal ones.

>

> " Antibiotics, such as hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine, have been used

> for many years to treat rheumatic diseases. Recent studies have confirmed

> the benefits of minocycline in the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

> Tetracyclines (e.g., minocycline and doxycycline) have been shown to

inhibit

> cartilage-degrading collagenase and metalloproteinase enzymes; their

> potential use in the treatment of osteoarthritis as structure-modifying

> drugs is being studied. "

>

> (Source: http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-163/issue-4/0417.htm#5)

>

> In the legal realm, arthritis suffers cannot reasonably sue physicians for

> not knowing what cannot be known. At the moment, nobody knows what causes

RA

> and, therefore, nobody can cure it. The perfect treatment cannot be known

at

> this time. Period. On the other hand, if a physician prescribes a drug

that

> is not formally approved or tested for the treatment of rheumatoid

arthritis

> (like minocycline), especially instead of drugs which have been approved

and

> shown to be efficacious long-term, would a suit by a patient who loses

> several joints be justified? Perhaps.

>

> I agree that pharmaceutical companies make big dollars off of people with

> rheumatic diseases, and, for these money-making giants, there is no

> incentive to look into minocycline. Business is business though, and they

> can't be expected to research a drug that won't be profitable for them.

More

> problematic is that because pharmaceutical concerns have such tremendous

> influence over other sectors (like the AMA), it is hard imagine who will

> continue to do these studies, and, moreover, fund them.

>

> Where you say " the evidence is there but the dollars aren't, " I agree that

> the money isn't there. And there certainly is evidence, but it is mostly

> circumstantial at this point. As a result of the studies performed so far,

> minocycline has been shown to be safe and moderately effective in reducing

> the joint swelling and tenderness that accompanies rheumatoid arthritis.

> There are no proven long-term remissions. One of the most serious concerns

> is that it has not been proven that minocycline is effective in preventing

> the erosions that can lead to loss of function of a joint. Safe,

symptomatic

> relief is a valid reason for using a drug, but, in the case of rheumatoid

> arthritis, we also need drugs that will slow or stop joint destruction.

>

> Should minocycline continue to be studied? Should we especially examine

> whether it is effective in preventing joint loss? Should we look into

> minocycline combined with other DMARDs as a treatment for RA? Should

> rheumatoid arthritis sufferers try this therapy even though unproven?

> Affirmative to all of the above. My only caution would be that, in the

> matter of whether an RA patient should experiment on him/herself with

> minocycline, for those with aggressive, erosive disease, perhaps using

> another DMARD concurrently would be wise. Risking a joint on a hunch is a

> huge wager.

>

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <tperrella@...>

> < egroups>

> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 6:03 AM

> Subject: [ ] Re: The New Arthritis Breakthrough

>

>

> > You know a, you don't have to be a PhD or MD to understand

> > antibiotics only do one thing. They kill germs, period. If an

> > antibiotic improves RA or any other autoimmune disease or puts it

> > into

> > remission, they can only affect one thing, BACTERIA. All the double

> > blind studies, or any other study for that matter can't change the

> > fact that IF THERE IS NO BUG ANTIBIOTICS DO NOTHING.

> >

> > Now the real world. There is a 66 BILLION dollar market treating our

> > select group. We are special! If a simple antibiotic will knock out

> > 50 -75% of our problem a lot of people are going to be without jobs

> > not to mention a lot of poorer investors.

> >

> > Just think of all the learned MD's that would just stand out as being

> > stupid. Not to mention all the medical liability suits that would

> > follow if modern medicine admitted a bug causes RA.

> >

> > No, modern medicine will fight this theory - fact until the stick of

> > stupidity has beaten them to the point of no resistence. Then we

> > will

> > no longer have to suffer. The evidence is there but the dollars

> > aren't.

> >

> > Ohio - Terry

> > A Stupid PhD

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Our websites: http://rheumatoid.arthritis.freehosting.net/

> http://www.rasupport.webprovider.com/

> Change subscription options:

>