1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
9th Invest in ME International ME Conference, 2014 - Part 1: Autoimmunity and ME
Mark Berry begins a series of articles on the 9th Invest in ME International ME Conference in London, with a look at three presentations on autoimmunity
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Radio Show: The Cutting Edge of Health and Wellness Today (Drs. Nathan and Teitelbaum) Fridays 2-3

Discussion in 'Upcoming ME/CFS Events' started by Sushi, Jul 30, 2014.

  1. Sushi

    Sushi Moderator and Senior Member Albuquerque

    Messages:
    6,915
    Likes:
    5,772
    Albuquerque
    Following is an email sent to a member:

    taniaaust1 and Lillybelle like this.
  2. IreneF

    IreneF Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    Likes:
    423
    Highly effective? Any actual data?
  3. Lillybelle

    Lillybelle

    Messages:
    95
    Likes:
    63
    Australia
    taniaaust1 likes this.
  4. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes:
    883

    Nope!

    When I saw the title of this thread I was excited.

    What a let down.

    Barb
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2014
  5. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes:
    883
    The only research I found had no control group and made leaps of logic when interpreting the results.

    Barb
  6. Lillybelle

    Lillybelle

    Messages:
    95
    Likes:
    63
    Australia
    A pilot study is for proof of concept and to set the direction for a larger scale study. It may include a control group but does not need to as a pilot study.It can do the following for feasability:
    Table 1
    Aspects of Feasibility that Can be Examined with a Pilot Study

    Study ComponentFeasibility Quantification
    ScreeningNumber screened per month
    RecruitmentNumber enrolled per month
    RandomizationProportion of screen eligible who enroll
    RetentionTreatment-specific retention rates
    Treatment adherenceRates of adherence to protocol for each intervention
    Treatment fidelityFidelity rates per unit monitored
    Assessment processProportion of planned ratings that are completed; duration of assessment visit
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081994/
  7. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes:
    883
    I'll try and find the reference, I belive it was prohealth, that said this was after the pilot study.

    Barb

    ETA I found it. The following is the part referring to the pilot study. They call it a project, not a scientific experiment. The other you referred to was a paper. I'm not sure if there were any published studies.
    The full article is at
    http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=16338

    What I am saying is at this point it's a hypothesis which may or may not be correct.:)
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2014
  8. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,981
    Likes:
    4,959
    Sth Australia
  9. Lillybelle

    Lillybelle

    Messages:
    95
    Likes:
    63
    Australia
    Yep study was completed and published the only one by Rich that I know of. However it was a pilot study of 30 people over 6 month period. Unfortunately I don't think Neil Nathan has gone on to any larger study's on this subject. In fact this is the only study of Nathan's I can find. I think he's more practitioner than researcher. But obviously has lots of case work.
    p p
    taniaaust1 likes this.
  10. Sushi

    Sushi Moderator and Senior Member Albuquerque

    Messages:
    6,915
    Likes:
    5,772
    Albuquerque
    From Dr. Neil Nathan:

  11. Sushi

    Sushi Moderator and Senior Member Albuquerque

    Messages:
    6,915
    Likes:
    5,772
    Albuquerque
    From Dr. Neil Nathan:

  12. globalpilot

    globalpilot Senior Member

    Messages:
    592
    Likes:
    209
    Ontario
    Hmmm, I went to Dr Nathan for a while and I have intestinal problems and none of this was considered.
    I'm now being treated by Peta Cohen and she "gets" the intestinal health issues.
    AkeBono and Sushi like this.
  13. Sushi

    Sushi Moderator and Senior Member Albuquerque

    Messages:
    6,915
    Likes:
    5,772
    Albuquerque
    From Dr. Neil Nathan:

  14. Lou

    Lou Senior Member

    Messages:
    474
    Likes:
    299
    southeast US

    Really? People still trust Tietelbaum?
    barbc56 likes this.
  15. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes:
    883
    Still might be interesting to hear. I also thought Tietelbaum's theories are considered outdated but haven’t really followed him for a while.

    @Lou

    What is the trust issue?

    Barb
  16. Lou

    Lou Senior Member

    Messages:
    474
    Likes:
    299
    southeast US

    His theories.
  17. Sushi

    Sushi Moderator and Senior Member Albuquerque

    Messages:
    6,915
    Likes:
    5,772
    Albuquerque
    From Dr. Neil Nathan:

  18. Research 1st

    Research 1st

    Messages:
    80
    Likes:
    145
    A good question was asked here. That was why should people be cautious? Other people also ask, where is the data?

    The 'correct' answer on the effectiveness of Dr Teitelbaum's protocol likely depends on two factors:
    Firstly if one is thinking of 'fatigue' based CFS, or secondly if their understanding of CFS is a unique disease process resulting in a life long neuroimmune illness.

    Depending on one's views, the response would either be mild interest (or disinterest) in what Dr T believes helps, or perhaps smartly walking in the opposite direction and not stopping.

    Dr T operates what he calls, the 'SHINE' protocol, explained briefly below:



    One quote below:

    'In our published research study, over 90% of patients improved with treatment, with an average improvement in quality of life of 90%'.

    Source: http://www.endfatigue.com/treatment_options/Shine_treatment_protocol.html


    This all looks perfectly innocent, if one is treating chronic 'fatigue'. To be fair Chronic Fatigue Syndrome to some people, is simply fatigue and a few other symptoms. (This is how the CDC view CFS, and how the IOM view the soon to be further ostracized ME).

    Looking objectively at SHINE, one may ask quite how in only 10 weeks using Dr T's protocol, patients with CFS can be improved in 9 in 10 cases, when globally CFS remains an incurable chronic illness that the world's top researchers can't or won't do anything about. Of note, at 90% turn around using SHINE, even the biopsychosocial camp can't get anywhere near this for people with unexplained fatigue using CBT, exercise and other life-style changes.

    Without looking into it too deeply, SHINE appears a near miracle and that is all we need to recognize. A near miracle is never to be taken on face value.

    The exceptional patient responses to the S.H.I.N.E. treatment protocol are probably amounting to little more than:

    1) Potential exaggerated claims by the inventor of the product.
    2) Not reflective of people with 'classic' ME but people with 'chronic fatigue' and not CFS equaling or exceeding Fukuda criteria.
    3) Initial responses in the short term when a patient feels something positive is happening in their lives, that don't last.

    I'd go with number 2 mixed with 3.

    The SHINE protocol, realistically does not even begin to discuss the consequences of chronic untreated CFS, and CFS subsets.

    *Cancer
    *Autonomic dysfunction
    *Immune suppression not explained by nutritional deficiencies.
    *Arthritis and other damage to tissues from chronic Inflammation including vascular and brain walloped by long term oxidative stress.

    Etc...

    Undoubtedly addressing any nutritional deficiencies (if present) may reduce fatigue. That is a sensible approach to any illness, however a 90% improvement seems a little unlikely and sounds more like dodgy marketing.

    In cases of very high responses to an 'intervention' involving near miracles it appears there is always a personalized protocol of some sort that the patient must adopt (that no other product has), however a patient can reject this and simply continue a common sense approach. Follow rules of good nutrition, avoid stress, try and get as good sleep as possible etc. With regard to ME and CFS, a crucial observation is if patients do manage this, they will still remain sick and disabled which is why they have a chronic neuro immune illness of unexplained origin!

    In fact, many people with CFS and ME spend hundreds of dollars on nutrition per month, and still remain severely affected, infected and disabled. (Some even feel worse on high dose supplements and can't tolerate them). Remissions and relapses include tinkering with hormones, which is in itself risky if levels aren't measured first. Also, low cortisol in ME CFS, is centrally medicated (HPA dysfunction), so in effect unfix-able with cortisol supplementation. This was known decades ago by researchers who tried and failed to improve CFS patients long term by increasing their poor cortisol levels.

    Knowing this, this would explain some ME CFS sufferers objections to Dr T's potentially inflated claims when it comes to their experience of ME CFS patients radically improving. We then go in circles with counter claims, all because of what CFS is, and what CFS means to each individual, researchers and physicians.

    Sadly CFS and ME means many things. To many people, CFS ME doesn't mean much at all, precisely because it remains 'fatigue' centric by key players in power who ultimately have decided the fate of millions of sickly people hobbled by their condition. This is not the 'fault' of Dr Dr Teitelbaum or other people getting a little over excited about attempting to reverse chronic fatigue states. The counter argument is, CFS physicians should be more responsible and stress that CFS is not currently treatable by anyone, and that it can be very disabling.

    It's fascinating, yet cruel to see how wider societies rejection of individuals sufferance (due to the label of ME CFS), tends to push ME and CFS patients into the fringes of medical practice for 'help', a place in which they often remain untreated, and sometimes given further false hope be it through psychological or biomedical therapies that are untested, and unproven.[/quote][/quote]
    jimells likes this.
  19. jimells

    jimells Senior Member

    Messages:
    432
    Likes:
    596
    northern Maine
    I'd add a "Y" to that S.H.I.N.E.

    Y= You're own fault if you're still sick after 10 weeks. You're obviously doing something wrong or thinking the wrong thoughts.

    Seriously, I thought Dr T. was thoroughly discredited years ago. It's sad to see Dr Nathan hooked up with this hype. I don't understand why he didn't continue research on the methylation treatment protocol. If he's not sure how to organize a useful study, he could certainly find out.

    Recently I read a post by @Jonathan Edwards where he explained that study design was a standard part of medical education. He also wrote about purchasing very expensive medications out of his own pocket in order to pursue his research. Why don't we see more of this kind of initiative?

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page