I heard it through the grapevine that he has 20 or 25 that he describes as either "completely well" or or "nearly completely well", as a direct result of this new protocol. Also, the paper from Dr. Irene Grant (posted earlier in this thread) showed 91% of her patients had 'dramatic improvements'.
I simply cannot fathom how nasal antifungals (amphoterecin has been compounded by CAM docs for thirty years now, and I know others using nasal antifungals) would cure 80-90% of bedridden patients. I'll believe it when I see a real peer review study (not in an open access online journal with no real oversight).
I didn't say I'm not interested, I'm skeptical, and grapevine reports of improvements are not sufficient. It seems like hype. I have a right to say that.
They used this (n=55) as their reference value for the test validity, in that sense here would not be a need to repeat that in further studies, but in one of the subsequent studies, this same group (n=55) is desribed as 'heathy controls' which is a very different thing.Anyway he imported an N from a different study who ever heard of that.
Brewer and colleagues set a level of mycotoxin that they considered clinically significant based on results from 55 non randomly selected subjects. There is no independant measure of clinical significance, so what does the test for mycotoxin actually mean ?Brewer's patients (and now others) show abnormalities and give every indication of responding (slowly) to treatment.
They used this (n=55) as their reference value for the test validity, in that sense here would not be a need to repeat that in further studies, but in one of the subsequent studies, this same group (n=55) is desribed as 'heathy controls' which is a very different thing.
What bothers me most about the whole thing though is the lack of any control study over the long term use of amphotericin in ME/CFS. This isn't a benign substance and the potential for negative outcomes seems signignficant, it's not enough for the clinicians to say 'all is OK'. There's also the fact that Brewer and others seem to be presenting their treatment approaches as somehow novel - all this has been debated widely and research shows far more limited benefit than, for example, the 90% Grant is claiming: http://www.enttoday.org/details/art...ry_Debated_in_Amphotericin_B_Controversy.html
Brewer and colleagues set a level of mycotoxin that they considered clinically significant based on results from 55 non randomly selected subjects. There is no independant measure of clinical significance, so what does the test for mycotoxin actually mean ?
Does having between 17% and 98% more of a tiny amount of mycotoxin in urine or nasal swabs actually mean anything ? It's still a very tiny amount, only a fiftieth of the amount that the US government says is safe to be in food. So are these tests really showing up 'abnormalities' or just results that fit within the normal range that would be found in the US population without any health impacts ?
I don't think I would wreck the microbiome of my nasal, respiratory and gastric linings on such flimsy (if not down right contradictory) evidence.
Does Grant actually have a research cohort ? As far as I can tell she's simply reporting on a group of patients, they don't seem to have been subject to selection or categorisation; it's difficult to tell because there's no published study, just various conference presentations. I don't know whether the claim is outrageous or not but it certainly seems to be at odds with various studies quoted in the 2008 ENT Today article (as above - http://www.enttoday.org/details/art...ry_Debated_in_Amphotericin_B_Controversy.html )You are comparing 2 different cohorts there. One is mold patients and the other is patients with CRS with unknown cause. Dr Grant doesn't claim 90% cure, she claims 94% improvement. And if you actually look at the data (which I have if anyone wants to see it), you'll see most of the improvement comes in the nasal and throat categories. It's not an outrageous claim.
Does Grant actually have a research cohort ? As far as I can tell she's simply reporting on a group of patients, they don't seem to have been subject to selection or categorisation; it's difficult to tell because there's no published study, just various conference presentations. I don't know whether the claim is outrageous or not but it certainly seems to be at odds with various studies quoted in the 2008 ENT Today article (as above - http://www.enttoday.org/details/art...ry_Debated_in_Amphotericin_B_Controversy.html )
Amphotericin is a broad spectrum fungicide -it will impact upon the human microbiome and long term use could be very problematic and maybe a particular issue for anyone who already suffers from IBS type symptoms. There doesn't appear to be any valid research that suggests antifungicides are helpful in Autism - but in any case that seem an awful long way from Brewer and Grant's respective treatment propositions. Maybe Amphotericin as a short term treatment for chronic rhinitis is a reasonable proposition, but I'm unclear how cycling fungal infection could be distinguished from cycling allergic rhinitis - at least without some comparitive research.
Getting a sinus fungal culture is difficult to do and highly inaccurate. A mycotoxin test from Realtime Laboratories will tell you whether you are excreting mycotoxins. A positive test will indicate either that you are currently exposed to environmental molds or you have a current internal mold colonization or both.
Brewer has spent almost 2 years working on treatment. He started with oral medications with limited success. For the past 10 months or so he has tried a number of nasal treatments and has now settled on a rather simple protocol:
1. Atomized "Chelating PX” contains EDTA and Polysorban X in the morning
2. Amphotericin B in the evening
These medications are provided by ASL Pharmacy http://www.aslrx.com/
I don't know precise doses, but the people at ASL Pharmacy are very easy to work with. Some people cannot tolerate the Amphotericin B. It is important that is be dosed separately as it can bind with other atomized medications.
It should be noted that sinus structure can be a limiting factor as it can prevent penetration of the medications deep into the sinuses.
Some people have a herxheimer reaction and so the Amphotericin B treatement is limited to once per day. ASL and Brewer are working on other types of antifungal that might be as good or better and easier to tolerate.
My hunch: it'll turn out to help a very few people a lot, some people some or a little, and a lot of people not enough or not at all. Like most everything else out there. Meanwhile, while the hype is high, a few doctors will be very busy.
David. B, Ifish and Global Pilot, I hope you see this post since I am not replying directly to a post each of you has made. I am curious about the use of binders, even if just charcoal to mop up dead mold spores, as I understand Brewer is using in some way. Are you all using charcoal or other binders and how much, how often?
Also curious about alternatives to Ampho B. I have mast cell activation issues and histamine intolerance. Ampho B is contraindicated for people with mast cell activation. I am not sure if this applies only to oral form or would also apply to topical application. Has anyone heard mention of voriconizole as an alternative?
I was pleased to hear Dr Grant mention mast cells in her radio presentation. She talked about the mast cells being triggered by fungal hyphae. Fungus is a known trigger for mast cells (as is lyme). I am curious if any of Brewer's or Grant's patients have developed mast cell activation from the biofilm infection.