Sorry, perhaps you're new to the MP, and never saw or read of the people who were indeed harmed, but that's again the statement that the harm is 'unsupported' is just not factually true, and is supported by kidney function improving/returning after stopping the MP meds, aldosterone levels that were drastically lowered returning to better levels, and most importantly, most, but not all, patients recovering to some extent (and a few even recovering completely) after stopping the MP, and in many cases, adding vitamin d to their protocol.
Dan, there are possible explanations for all of the things you've packed together in that paragraph, and before I address them, I understand how having to address a multitude of charges can make one believe that the person addressing them protests to much or is onto something that does not make sense. In comparison, my ex-boss used to see business opportunities where those of us who worked with him would see many obstacles, and sometimes the number of obstacles is a good indicator that the opportunity is not a good investment (particularly when you consider the impact on your current organization). Sometimes, however, it is. As the owner of his business, that was his decision to make (to risk the gains and the losses). As the person who is responsible for my health and well being, these are decisions for me to make. I don't say this because I think you are trying to tell me not to make this decision, but to highlight that different people are influenced and convinced by different data.
First, yes, some people have died. As was mentioned earlier by someone on this thread, some people die no matter the drugs they are taking because they are very sick. People with CFS untreated die, I believe, 25 years earlier on average (at least that is one thing I heard or read recently... can't remember if it was a CFSAC video or not). On the MP, one incredibly sick person's lungs could not handle it when that person's immune system came roaring back on--if I remember correctly, this person had only been given a few months at most to live prior to starting the MP. Also, I know of only two people who were removed from olmesartan while their kidneys were at risk--that is, ER personnel removed the drug that was protecting their kidneys from damage. From the research I read, doctors are often 15 to 20 years behind on the research; I would hope that emergency room staff would be more up to date and familiar with the research that olmesartan protects poorly functioning kidneys from damage. Perhaps these people would have died had they continued taking the olmesartan; however, I have never heard of anyone dying from kidney failure while on olmesartan despite their high kidney labs.
Second, labs get out of whack on the MP as a result of immunopathology. We are warned to expect higher kidney levels and anemia, etc. I never had anemia prior to the MP and have had it since nearly the beginning years ago. It cleared over three months ago. My BUN has returned to the normal range. I am still waiting for my creatinine to return to normal. When I took a break from the MP, my kidney labs returned to normal as well; however, taking that break was really risky as I could have damaged my kidneys because I ought not have taken a break while my labs were high. (Life circumstances required a break however.) However, prior to the MP, my kidney labs were just below abnormal, which were high for my age and yet doctors said I had no kidney problems despite the years of kidney symptoms. My doctor when he saw the high labs in response to the protocol said, "Well, obviously we have been wrong. I see this as a sign that your kidneys are indeed infected." If my immune system was not working prior to the MP, then infection had been allowed to progress unheeded and nearly unrecognized by lab results (though I was getting there according to my labs just before the MP).
So labs returning to normal after stopping the MP in the middle only means that the person is not killing off L forms at a fast pace.
At any rate, I hope this makes clear as to why the MP is such a commitment, and why people who cannot make the commitment ought not begin it to being with. Most of us try to stress this to people who are interested in the MP. You can't just start and stop the MP without taking a risk of damage to your organs or having your immune system turned on so much without the olmesartan that you won't be able to stand the immunopathology (at least for a while, until the immune system goes back to not functioning as well). If you start, you ought to be prepared to see it all the way through until you are no longer having any symptoms while on the MP meds.
I understand that all of this is counter intuitive. And that you and others may disagree with it; however, for me, knowing that fevers and other symptoms are a sign of a working immune system, this protocol makes a lot of sense.
Third, anyone who has not fully recovered while on the MP meds will more likely than not feel better when they stop the MP. So I will repeat: It is a feel worse to get better protocol, and if a person gets to stage 5--the stage where their immune system becomes fully functioning again--without having killed off a substantial amount of bacteria, then they can feel much, much worse. The abx will no longer palliate, which is one of the things it does for some; it can only provoke, and so the person must grin and bear this stage with olmesartan alone. Anyone anywhere along the line is likely to think, "OMG! The MP is making me worse!" I have no doubt the person is feeling much, much worse. Like I said, my first two years were a very wild ride, and I may have more in store for me. Anyone who truly understands how the MP operates will understand this.
If a person recovers completely, it is probably due to the fact that the person's immune system is now working properly. However, if someone has stopped while still having any immunopathology on the MP drugs, it is likely that they just feel better... for now.
You may be familiar with quorum sensing--that is, the idea that bacteria do not do their dirty business in terms of symptoms until there are sufficient numbers of them in one's body. (Search this topic online: for example,
http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html and
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102085832.htm) From all that I've studied, here is what I make of chronic illness and immune recovery. One might have already reached the tipping point into chronic illness without having symptoms (or at least symptoms that would get a rise out of their doctor or even themselves)--meaning, unless something happens to turn things around, the person may have already lost the battle. If that is true, then so may be the obverse: A person may feel well, but if their immune system has not reached the tipping point where it has control, the person will deteriorate. (Probably slowly, as
most bacteria are slow growing.)
And to get back to an issue raised earlier--has anyone finished the protocol?--, quorum sensing is also one of the reasons why some continue olmesartan for a while after they are no longer able to provoke an immune response with abx. (How long no one knows, but people do report feeling better and better, that their health exceeds anything they remember.) Some of us believe that it might be a good idea to continue of olmesartan to insure that we've reached the tipping point in immune health and not just a sense of wellness. I plan to do this. I also recognize that I might have a virus--retro or otherwise--that might make killing off bacteria more difficult and so olmesartan and a yearly abx cleanup might be in order for the remainder of my life, giving me the opportunity to wear out rather than die from bacteria related chronic illness. And I still hold out that something different may need to happen to restore my health fully.
In summation, I would feel a lot better if I stopped the protocol tomorrow (that is, once my creatinine level clears). However, because I am not well on the MP drugs (have not reached a point where olmesartan combined with abx do not illicit an immune response), I would begin to deteriorate over time. How well I've gotten would probably determine how long it would take me to deteriorate, not taking into account additional exposures and the like.