Guest guest Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 Your very welcome Lynn, Tonya In a message dated 11/7/00 3:15:49 PM Central Standard Time, PL102900@... writes: << Thanks Tonya Lynn >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 Hello, how are you? My name is Mohammad Alshiekh. I'm 46, Egyptian, I'd never drink alcoholic or beer or wine, I wonder! I'm new to this group and I hope we can do something. I've 3 Kids ( 3 Gifts ) son 17, at engineering college in andria, Egypt, 2 girls, 11th grade and 9th grade in andria, Egypt. Any way I'm in USA now, living in Knoxville, TN. I married a citizen woman but after i had been sick and discoverd that i had cirrhosis and esophageal varices she filled for divorce paper. I had bleeded through my stomach and i throw up some blood, and black stool, it happend twice through one month. I went to the emergency room last Jan 3 2001, they made an ultrasonic and endoscope and some blood testes and there is the resultes: Massive upper GI bled secondary to esophageal varices evaluate for cirrhosis and patency of the portal venous system. Prior to possible TIPS. Transabdominal image demonstrate the liver to be homogenous in echogenicity with no focal mass or evidence of interhepatic biliary dilatation. The common duct is not demonstrated. The hepatic venous and portal venous system appears to be patent with no varices demonstrated. The spleen is enlarged at 16_17 cm. there is no ascites. Impression: Some splenomegaly with patent vascular structures as detailed above. blood results: ALP: 41 sgot: 48 sgbt: 36 bili total: 0.8 bilirubin, direct: (0.2) Albumin:3.0 total protein , sr( gm/dl): 6.2 Hgb : 9.2 Hct%: 29 Sodium: 136 Potassium: 4.3 Chloride: 106 CO2: 27.5 BUN: 27 Glucose :179 Creatinine: 0.8 calcium: 8.8 WBC:6.3 ( N 4.8-10.8 ( 1000/mm3)) RBC: 4.15 (4.7-6.1) Hgb: 10.3, then 9.3 ( 14-18) HCC: 29 (43-52) Mcv: 81 Mch: 25 (27-31) MCHC: 31 ( 32-36) RDW: 13.8 Platlete : 90 ( 140-400)1000/mm3 MPV: 10.9 (6.8-10.4 granulocyt%: 79 lymphocyte% : 11.7 Monocyte%: 7.9 Eosinophil%: 0.6 Basophil%: 0.8 Gran #: 5.0 Eos #: 0.0 Lymph #: 0.7 ( 1-4.8) Mono#: 0.5 Baso #: 0.1 General examenation: The patient is pleasant, well-developed gentelman in no acute distress. Vital signs: blood pressure: 110/72. Heart rate : 72, The heart has a regular rate and rhythem., respiratory rate: 20 Head and neck: Negative for scleral icterus or oral lesions. Lungs: clear. Abdomen: Soft, non tender, normal bowel sounds, no bruits, the liver was not enlarged by percussion, Spleen tip could not easily be palapated. Extremities: His extremities demonstrated no odema. Neurologic Examenation: he is alert and oriented, there is no evidence of encephalopathy. Overall Impression: 1: suspected chronic liver disease and cirrhosis with portal hypertension, of unclear etiology, rule out chronic hepatitis C. 2: Large esophageal varices with probable recent variocele bleeding. 3: Anemia related to number 2. Plan of treatment: 1: start beta blocker with Pripanololo 20 twice a day. 2: Clear liquids. 3: Follow Hemoglobin and hematocrit. If should, however have signs of rebleeding ; then treatment with sandodtatin piterssin or emergent shunting or scleral therapy ( TIPS ) will be nedded, he should avoid all aspirin and antiflammatories. So, what is your openion about my case: no, I take : Tagamet 400, twice a day, propamololo 20 mg twice a day, B complex once aday, multivitamin once aday, Iron 325 mg, twice aday, Vitamin K once aday. For how long time can i take this medicines without side effects? what is better to do (TIPS)? Is it safe? who did it ( TOPS ) to tell me about it? the doctor told me that i've to do TIPS first then rubber banding the varices, Also, who did rubber band for varices, os ot safe and ok? then treatment for C with ( rebetron ) for 24 or 48 monthes. who take this medicine? what about that medicine? did you work through taking that (rebetron )? I need HELP, , Can you help me? Thanks in advance and i hope I feel better when you reply my email. Thanks again, Mohammad Alshiekh. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 At 05:50 PM 01/19/2004, hepcpete wrote: >Your lucky Bob's gone fishin' Satya... > >pete Yeah and unfortunately it ended far too soon! Great time but so sorry to be back to work! From her postings we do know that Satya's viral load has not changed in the years she has been on her protocol(s) and that she has no pre-protocol biopsy or fibrospec for comparison so I do wonder what objective measurements indicate that her disease has stabilized? regards, BobK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 why do you say that, Bob? I thought you knew my situation. My viral loads when first diagnosed showed readings of 430 to 250,000. Now they are under 70 thousand for the last year. My last tests were 21, 41, and 69,000 respectively. When diagnosed my enzymes were elevated, and stayed that way until the 4th month of Dr. Zhang's protocol (plus other stuff), where my enzymes went to normal, and have stayed that way for two years now, with only very slight fluctuations (only twice during this time, pushing them to H by one or two points). that is why I feel (as well as does my western doc and Dr. Zhang (also a medical doctor, not just an herbalist--by the way, his protocol is not considered TCM, it is MCM--Modern Chinese Medicine) that my disease has stabilized. And that is what I meant by saying that my disease is stabilized. I don't know, from my numbers, you don't think I can say this? and What's this about the fibrospect test? I had it done, and the result was 0-1. Are you saying I'm lying about taking the test? Jesus.....hell, I'm still getting billed for the damn thing.........If you are saying I had no baseline, you are mostly correct. All I had upon diagnosis was a sonogram, which was normal, just showed some small gallstones. I have no proof my protocol has done anything. All I know is I feel better and my numbers are as described above. Satya Re: [ ] Re: Can you help me? At 05:50 PM 01/19/2004, hepcpete wrote:>Your lucky Bob's gone fishin' Satya... >>peteYeah and unfortunately it ended far too soon! Great time but so sorry to be back to work!From her postings we do know that Satya's viral load has not changed in the years she has been on her protocol(s) and that she has no pre-protocol biopsy or fibrospec for comparison so I do wonder what objective measurements indicate that her disease has stabilized?regards,BobK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 Please do enjoy living in your little fantasy, the rest of us just happen to live in the real world where we don't cherry pick tests and results to suit our particular fantasy. Most of us have better things to do than to debate on line with those who continue to suggest one thing and constantly do the complete opposite. Very sad indeed. > >Your lucky Bob's gone fishin' Satya... > > > >pete > > Yeah and unfortunately it ended far too soon! Great time but so sorry to > be back to work! > > From her postings we do know that Satya's viral load has not changed in > the years she has been on her protocol(s) and that she has no pre-protocol > biopsy or fibrospec for comparison so I do wonder what objective > measurements indicate that her disease has stabilized? > > regards, > BobK > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 At 12:27 PM 01/20/2004, thecelestialspirit wrote: >why do you say that, Bob? I thought you knew my situation. My viral loads >when first diagnosed showed readings of 430 to 250,000. These viral loads, as we discussed before, are from test results using bDNA technology. As such the numbers are overestimated by a order of magnitude (common flaw in the type of test used) which means that your viral load has remained constant...which is very common in people with HCV. > Now they are under 70 thousand for the last year. My last tests were 21, > 41, and 69,000 respectively. And they are all identical as far as a HCV viral load considerations. Fluctuations in viral load up to 8-fold are considered normal. You cannot make direct comparisons between PCR and bDNA test numbers. To do so you must take into consideration the inherent error of the bDNA test which is overestimation of the viral load. Bottom line = no change! >When diagnosed my enzymes were elevated, and stayed that way until the 4th >month of Dr. Zhang's protocol (plus other stuff), where my enzymes went to >normal, Normalized enzymes are certainly a good thing for a person who previously had chronically elevated enzymes. That is a objective measurement of improvement that is associated with some alt protocol and the reason sho-saiko-to is in trials at Sloan Kettering. > I don't know, from my numbers, you don't think I can say this? I think you can say you have normalized your enzyme levels but nothing has changed your viral load nor do you know if there was any change in liver histology. >and What's this about the fibrospect test? I had it done, and the result >was 0-1. Are you saying I'm lying about taking the test? No I never said that. I did say that you don't have a pre-protocol test to compare it too. Given your stats and length of infection it is very likely that your stage was 0-1 prior to any protocol and not a result of said protocol. >.If you are saying I had no baseline, you are mostly correct. Yes that is exactly what I said....why speculate what I wrote it is right there on your screen...it is not ambigous! >All I had upon diagnosis was a sonogram, which was normal, just showed >some small gallstones. Sonogram cannot detect fibrosis. > I have no proof my protocol has done anything. All I know is I feel > better and my numbers are as described above. I would agree with you on this!! regards, BobK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 my tests were PCR, not bDNA, except for the earlier ones. I think you are nitpicking, and I'm done even discussing my program with you anymore. You are a negative person, and not supportive of people's success unless it's with tx. ....the protocol I presently am taking contains the sho-saiko-to....the only reason Sloan Kettering is studying it is because they know they will make a bundle. I have better things to do, Bob, than defend myself and what I do for treatment. You, unlike many others here, don't respect what each individual chooses for treatment. I guess you have singled me out as being the only person stupid enough to treat with alternatives. You say you respect Jay Emmons and his work. Well it doesn't seem so as the protocol you are bashing is his. That is what I am taking. Satya Re: [ ] Re: Can you help me? At 12:27 PM 01/20/2004, thecelestialspirit wrote:>why do you say that, Bob? I thought you knew my situation. My viral loads >when first diagnosed showed readings of 430 to 250,000.These viral loads, as we discussed before, are from test results using bDNA technology. As such the numbers are overestimated by a order of magnitude (common flaw in the type of test used) which means that your viral load has remained constant...which is very common in people with HCV.> Now they are under 70 thousand for the last year. My last tests were 21, > 41, and 69,000 respectively.And they are all identical as far as a HCV viral load considerations. Fluctuations in viral load up to 8-fold are considered normal. You cannot make direct comparisons between PCR and bDNA test numbers. To do so you must take into consideration the inherent error of the bDNA test which is overestimation of the viral load. Bottom line = no change!>When diagnosed my enzymes were elevated, and stayed that way until the 4th >month of Dr. Zhang's protocol (plus other stuff), where my enzymes went to >normal,Normalized enzymes are certainly a good thing for a person who previously had chronically elevated enzymes. That is a objective measurement of improvement that is associated with some alt protocol and the reason sho-saiko-to is in trials at Sloan Kettering.> I don't know, from my numbers, you don't think I can say this?I think you can say you have normalized your enzyme levels but nothing has changed your viral load nor do you know if there was any change in liver histology.>and What's this about the fibrospect test? I had it done, and the result >was 0-1. Are you saying I'm lying about taking the test?No I never said that. I did say that you don't have a pre-protocol test to compare it too. Given your stats and length of infection it is very likely that your stage was 0-1 prior to any protocol and not a result of said protocol.>.If you are saying I had no baseline, you are mostly correct.Yes that is exactly what I said....why speculate what I wrote it is right there on your screen...it is not ambigous!>All I had upon diagnosis was a sonogram, which was normal, just showed >some small gallstones.Sonogram cannot detect fibrosis.> I have no proof my protocol has done anything. All I know is I feel > better and my numbers are as described above.I would agree with you on this!!regards,BobK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 fuck you andy [ ] Re: Can you help me? Please do enjoy living in your little fantasy, the rest of us just happen to live in the real world where we don't cherry pick tests and results to suit our particular fantasy. Most of us have better things to do than to debate on line with those who continue to suggest one thing and constantly do the complete opposite.Very sad indeed.> >Your lucky Bob's gone fishin' Satya... > >> >pete> > Yeah and unfortunately it ended far too soon! Great time but so sorry to > be back to work!> > From her postings we do know that Satya's viral load has not changed in > the years she has been on her protocol(s) and that she has no pre-protocol > biopsy or fibrospec for comparison so I do wonder what objective > measurements indicate that her disease has stabilized?> > regards,> BobK > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 At 07:33 AM 01/21/2004, thecelestialspirit wrote: >my tests were PCR, not bDNA, except for the earlier ones. I think you are >nitpicking, Satya, This is exactly what I said...do you even read what I write?? Do you even understand why the bDNA tests cannot be compared directly to the PCR tests? To do so, without taking into consideration the overestimation of the viral load, is a misleading interpretation. It is important to keep a proper perspective on what different treatment protocols can and cannot do. When you speak of your improvements you don't need to inflate your responses it provides misleading info to those who are interested in finding out what their options are. In your case you exaggerated the responses from your protocol into something they are not. > and I'm done even discussing my program with you anymore. You are a > negative person, and not supportive of people's success unless it's with > tx. .... That isn't my stance and you know that! I am very glad you don't have more problems with your HCV and that is spoken from someone who has been there and likely to regress back there. It is important not to give misleading representation of what a person can expect out of taking any form of treatment...those considered allopathic and those so-called alternative. >the protocol I presently am taking contains the sho-saiko-to....the only >reason Sloan Kettering is studying it is because they know they will make >a bundle. How will they make money? It is not patentable, it is readily available from many sources. It is called basic research and we the people afflicted with HCV are the ones who will benefit. They will no doubt get several publications out of the studies but that is far from making a bundle. > You say you respect Jay Emmons and his work. Well it doesn't seem so as > the protocol you are bashing is his. Since you don't read what I write it is no wonder you have a problem understanding what my stance is. You have posted many protocols from microhydrin to revensara oil and these I have bashed because they deserve it and have done nothing for you or anyone else. I have not bashed the sho-saiko-to protocol but I did point out to you that despite your wish to believe that your protocol has brought down your viral load the test results you post indicate otherwise. You also seem to forget that I am also taking Jay's blend not to combat viral load but to help normalize LFT's and hopefully retard the rate of fibrosis progression. There is a growing body of evidence in support of this outcome and it has great potential to help prevent fibrosis progression (although long-term data is not yet available) and I certainly support that. Inflated claims don't help anyone...yourself included!! regards, BobK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 that is the reason I take Jay's Blend also, to stabilize my disease and prevent progression. the other stuff, is well, mute, because I'm really not reading your posts anymore--my head is spinning from reading all your back-and -forth--you just don't know when to quit, do you? You really don't have to interest yourself further with my supposed ramblings, okay? and I won't further engage you....Jesus, I spend more time talking to you than I do to my boyfriend. This is stopping now. I will post what I want, call it inflated, call it what you want, you see what you damn well want to see. From now on I am going to have to ignore your postings to me, it is getting too much going on and on with you. Now I'm just asking you nicely to drop it, just forget about me for awhile, will you?? I really would appreciate it. I told you, I already have a date! Satya Re: [ ] Re: Can you help me? At 07:33 AM 01/21/2004, thecelestialspirit wrote:>my tests were PCR, not bDNA, except for the earlier ones. I think you are >nitpicking,Satya,This is exactly what I said...do you even read what I write?? Do you even understand why the bDNA tests cannot be compared directly to the PCR tests? To do so, without taking into consideration the overestimation of the viral load, is a misleading interpretation. It is important to keep a proper perspective on what different treatment protocols can and cannot do. When you speak of your improvements you don't need to inflate your responses it provides misleading info to those who are interested in finding out what their options are. In your case you exaggerated the responses from your protocol into something they are not.> and I'm done even discussing my program with you anymore. You are a > negative person, and not supportive of people's success unless it's with > tx. ....That isn't my stance and you know that! I am very glad you don't have more problems with your HCV and that is spoken from someone who has been there and likely to regress back there. It is important not to give misleading representation of what a person can expect out of taking any form of treatment...those considered allopathic and those so-called alternative.>the protocol I presently am taking contains the sho-saiko-to....the only >reason Sloan Kettering is studying it is because they know they will make >a bundle.How will they make money? It is not patentable, it is readily available from many sources. It is called basic research and we the people afflicted with HCV are the ones who will benefit. They will no doubt get several publications out of the studies but that is far from making a bundle.> You say you respect Jay Emmons and his work. Well it doesn't seem so as > the protocol you are bashing is his.Since you don't read what I write it is no wonder you have a problem understanding what my stance is. You have posted many protocols from microhydrin to revensara oil and these I have bashed because they deserve it and have done nothing for you or anyone else. I have not bashed the sho-saiko-to protocol but I did point out to you that despite your wish to believe that your protocol has brought down your viral load the test results you post indicate otherwise. You also seem to forget that I am also taking Jay's blend not to combat viral load but to help normalize LFT's and hopefully retard the rate of fibrosis progression. There is a growing body of evidence in support of this outcome and it has great potential to help prevent fibrosis progression (although long-term data is not yet available) and I certainly support that. Inflated claims don't help anyone...yourself included!!regards,BobK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 As the " Church Lady " would say on SNL " aren't we special " > >my tests were PCR, not bDNA, except for the earlier ones. I think you are > >nitpicking, > > > Satya, > This is exactly what I said...do you even read what I write?? Do you even > understand why the bDNA tests cannot be compared directly to the PCR > tests? To do so, without taking into consideration the overestimation of > the viral load, is a misleading interpretation. It is important to keep a > proper perspective on what different treatment protocols can and cannot > do. When you speak of your improvements you don't need to inflate your > responses it provides misleading info to those who are interested in > finding out what their options are. In your case you exaggerated the > responses from your protocol into something they are not. > > > and I'm done even discussing my program with you anymore. You are a > > negative person, and not supportive of people's success unless it's with > > tx. .... > > That isn't my stance and you know that! I am very glad you don't have more > problems with your HCV and that is spoken from someone who has been there > and likely to regress back there. It is important not to give misleading > representation of what a person can expect out of taking any form of > treatment...those considered allopathic and those so-called alternative. > > >the protocol I presently am taking contains the sho-saiko- to....the only > >reason Sloan Kettering is studying it is because they know they will make > >a bundle. > > > How will they make money? It is not patentable, it is readily available > from many sources. It is called basic research and we the people afflicted > with HCV are the ones who will benefit. They will no doubt get several > publications out of the studies but that is far from making a bundle. > > > You say you respect Jay Emmons and his work. Well it doesn't seem so as > > the protocol you are bashing is his. > > Since you don't read what I write it is no wonder you have a problem > understanding what my stance is. You have posted many protocols from > microhydrin to revensara oil and these I have bashed because they deserve > it and have done nothing for you or anyone else. I have not bashed the > sho-saiko-to protocol but I did point out to you that despite your wish to > believe that your protocol has brought down your viral load the test > results you post indicate otherwise. You also seem to forget that I am > also taking Jay's blend not to combat viral load but to help normalize > LFT's and hopefully retard the rate of fibrosis progression. There is a > growing body of evidence in support of this outcome and it has great > potential to help prevent fibrosis progression (although long- term data is > not yet available) and I certainly support that. Inflated claims don't > help anyone...yourself included!! > > regards, > BobK > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 Aren't we special > > >Your lucky Bob's gone fishin' Satya... > > > > > >pete > > > > Yeah and unfortunately it ended far too soon! Great time but so > sorry to > > be back to work! > > > > From her postings we do know that Satya's viral load has not > changed in > > the years she has been on her protocol(s) and that she has no > pre-protocol > > biopsy or fibrospec for comparison so I do wonder what objective > > measurements indicate that her disease has stabilized? > > > > regards, > > BobK > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > ----------- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 Jesus, I spend more time talking to you than I do to my boyfriend. You have a boyfriend...heard love was blind, but was not aware that it was deaf, dumb and no sense of smell. > >my tests were PCR, not bDNA, except for the earlier ones. I think you are > >nitpicking, > > > Satya, > This is exactly what I said...do you even read what I write?? Do you even > understand why the bDNA tests cannot be compared directly to the PCR > tests? To do so, without taking into consideration the overestimation of > the viral load, is a misleading interpretation. It is important to keep a > proper perspective on what different treatment protocols can and cannot > do. When you speak of your improvements you don't need to inflate your > responses it provides misleading info to those who are interested in > finding out what their options are. In your case you exaggerated the > responses from your protocol into something they are not. > > > and I'm done even discussing my program with you anymore. You are a > > negative person, and not supportive of people's success unless it's with > > tx. .... > > That isn't my stance and you know that! I am very glad you don't have more > problems with your HCV and that is spoken from someone who has been there > and likely to regress back there. It is important not to give misleading > representation of what a person can expect out of taking any form of > treatment...those considered allopathic and those so-called alternative. > > >the protocol I presently am taking contains the sho-saiko- to....the only > >reason Sloan Kettering is studying it is because they know they will make > >a bundle. > > > How will they make money? It is not patentable, it is readily available > from many sources. It is called basic research and we the people afflicted > with HCV are the ones who will benefit. They will no doubt get several > publications out of the studies but that is far from making a bundle. > > > You say you respect Jay Emmons and his work. Well it doesn't seem so as > > the protocol you are bashing is his. > > Since you don't read what I write it is no wonder you have a problem > understanding what my stance is. You have posted many protocols from > microhydrin to revensara oil and these I have bashed because they deserve > it and have done nothing for you or anyone else. I have not bashed the > sho-saiko-to protocol but I did point out to you that despite your wish to > believe that your protocol has brought down your viral load the test > results you post indicate otherwise. You also seem to forget that I am > also taking Jay's blend not to combat viral load but to help normalize > LFT's and hopefully retard the rate of fibrosis progression. There is a > growing body of evidence in support of this outcome and it has great > potential to help prevent fibrosis progression (although long- term data is > not yet available) and I certainly support that. Inflated claims don't > help anyone...yourself included!! > > regards, > BobK > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 > the other stuff, is well, mute, I think you meant moot ;-) My replies aren't entirely for you. There are readers on your list who might be confused about the different viral load tests and it is important to me to help them understand what the tests can tell you as well as the limitations of the tests. People are also looking for treatments that might help them. In these cases it is very important to give them accurate information. An example of this would be Jay's blend. It helps many people lower and normalize their LFT's but it won't lower viral load.....there is no need to mislead them on this wither intentionally or otherwise. If you would read what I post the first time it would save a lot of the back and forth since a great deal of that is done in trying to clear up your misconceptions of what I stated. In the end you agreed with all my points. regards, BobK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 WOW, I know the liver is the angry organ and you are all warriors but this has been quite a nasty little exchange. I feel hesitant to post anything here because I don't want to fight with cyber people or have my observations attacked, I just want to fight my dragon. alley > > >my tests were PCR, not bDNA, except for the earlier ones. I > think you are > > >nitpicking, > > > > > > Satya, > > This is exactly what I said...do you even read what I write?? > Do you even > > understand why the bDNA tests cannot be compared directly to the > PCR > > tests? To do so, without taking into consideration the > overestimation of > > the viral load, is a misleading interpretation. It is important > to keep a > > proper perspective on what different treatment protocols can and > cannot > > do. When you speak of your improvements you don't need to > inflate your > > responses it provides misleading info to those who are > interested in > > finding out what their options are. In your case you > exaggerated the > > responses from your protocol into something they are not. > > > > > and I'm done even discussing my program with you anymore. You > are a > > > negative person, and not supportive of people's success unless > it's with > > > tx. .... > > > > That isn't my stance and you know that! I am very glad you > don't have more > > problems with your HCV and that is spoken from someone who has > been there > > and likely to regress back there. It is important not to give > misleading > > representation of what a person can expect out of taking any > form of > > treatment...those considered allopathic and those so-called > alternative. > > > > >the protocol I presently am taking contains the sho-saiko- > to....the only > > >reason Sloan Kettering is studying it is because they know they > will make > > >a bundle. > > > > > > How will they make money? It is not patentable, it is readily > available > > from many sources. It is called basic research and we the > people afflicted > > with HCV are the ones who will benefit. They will no doubt get > several > > publications out of the studies but that is far from making a > bundle. > > > > > You say you respect Jay Emmons and his work. Well it doesn't > seem so as > > > the protocol you are bashing is his. > > > > Since you don't read what I write it is no wonder you have a > problem > > understanding what my stance is. You have posted many protocols > from > > microhydrin to revensara oil and these I have bashed because > they deserve > > it and have done nothing for you or anyone else. I have not > bashed the > > sho-saiko-to protocol but I did point out to you that despite > your wish to > > believe that your protocol has brought down your viral load the > test > > results you post indicate otherwise. You also seem to forget > that I am > > also taking Jay's blend not to combat viral load but to help > normalize > > LFT's and hopefully retard the rate of fibrosis progression. > There is a > > growing body of evidence in support of this outcome and it has > great > > potential to help prevent fibrosis progression (although long- > term data is > > not yet available) and I certainly support that. Inflated > claims don't > > help anyone...yourself included!! > > > > regards, > > BobK > > > > > > 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.