Low Dose Antigens / Immunotherapy (LDA/LDI) Lyme

[Sushi]

It is interesting that Dr. Nancy Klimas (ME/CFS specialist and advocate, Member of the IOM Commitee, past Director, Clinical Immunology Research, Miami VAMC, presently Chair, Department of Clinical Immunology, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Nova Southeastern University) is getting interested in researching this.

In this video at 56:27 -- 59:33 she discusses it briefly.

 

[minkeygirl]

"very homeopathic and a very safe way to approach it". Taken out of context. See @Sushi comment

"find out what's causing the inflammatory response and then quiet it down".

"I'm excited about all the different approaches" (not exact quote).

 

[Vitalic]

"very homeopathic and a very safe way to approach it"

Does Klimas not know what homeopathy is?

 

[minkeygirl]

What I took away is that she is open to all sorts of treatment approaches. She is not locked into just one thing. Being open minded to different treatments is essential for treating ME/CFS.

 

[Sushi]

Does Klimas not know what homeopathy is?

She was referring to the levels of dosing, saying that the dosing was very homeopathic-like or something like that. Yes, I'm sure she knows what homeopathy is. However, this is not homeopathy. There are differences--for instance and adjuvant is used.

 

[sillysocks84]

My thing is there can be more than one pathway in the body to recovery. Rtx is great for a good percentage, yes. But this has had actual positive results too. If it seems pseudo, delve further.

Don't assume you get everything. There could be different pathways you don't know of. A new part of the lymph system was discovered just last year I believe. The body can see anything as an allergy. Treating it's tolerance threshold can help tremendously I believe. The fact, yes fact.. is allergies albeit nontraditional in this case do play a part in a large percent of cfs/me/dysautonomia populations.

Now why? That's what needs to be investigated. Just because you can't say the why doesn't negate it's importance but on the other hand validates it.

@Sushi I will be following your process in this treatment. I believe it holds a lot of promise. Like rtx for some it CAN work. Not might, but can. Which again has been shown in some people already.

 

[Gingergrrl]

There are differences--for instance and adjuvant is used.

@Sushi Just curious (if you know) what kind of adjuvant or additives/preservatives are used?

 

[Sushi]

Just curious (if you know) what kind of adjuvant or additives/preservatives are used?

It is the enzyme beta-glucuronidase. There are no additives or preservatives.

 

[Gingergrrl]

My thing is there can be more than one pathway in the body to recovery.

Agreed and thanks for saying that so eloquently!

 

[Dufresne]

She was referring to the levels of dosing, saying that the dosing was very homeopathic-like or something like that. Yes, I'm sure she knows what homeopathy is. However, this is not homeopathy. There are differences--for instance and adjuvant is used.

I think this is where the problem lies in trying to discuss this topic scientifically. It's my understanding LDI is homeopathy, albeit with a kick. Dr Vincent is indeed using homeopathic dilutions, which are nothing a mainstream MD is going to consider an antigen.

I'm not knocking it; I don't have a problem with homeopathy. And apparently Drs Luc Montagnier, Dietrich Klinghardt, Richard Horowitz, Neil Nathan, Nancy Klimas, to name but a few, don't have a problem with it either.

Isn't it interesting such a number of medically trained doctors are willing to put their reputations on the line for magic water? Might this suggest there could be something to homeopathy after all? Of course believing this might require admitting we don't have existence completely figured out.

 

[barbc56]

(he mentions science several times). He seems to think that alternative methods may be more effective - this is not unscientific. as long as those methods are proven scientifically

If any methods/treatments are scientifically proven then we're not talking about alternative medicine but conventional medicine.

Mentioning science has nothing to do with whether something is alternative or conventional treatment. In fact many alternative doctors/treatments will throw in some scientific jargon to make a bogus therapy seem legitimate.

Barb

 

[barbc56]

I think this is where the problem lies in trying to discuss this topic scientifically. It's my understanding LDI is homeopathy, albeit with a kick. Dr Vincent is indeed using homeopathic dilutions, which are nothing a mainstream MD is going to consider an antigen.

I'm not knocking it; I don't have a problem with homeopathy. And apparently Drs Luc Montagnier, Dietrich Klinghardt, Richard Horowitz, Neil Nathan, Nancy Klimas, to name but a few, don't have a problem with it either.

Isn't it interesting such a number of medically trained doctors are willing to put their reputations on the line for magic water? Might this suggest there could be something to homeopathy after all? Of course believing this might require admitting we don't have existence completely figured out.

If Nancy Klimas is really advocating homeopathy, for me, her credibility just tanked. Is this really true?

Homeopathy goes against everything that is known about pharmacology, physiology, and medical science.

We don't have existence figured about but what does that have to do with homeopathy? Possibility is not the same as probability.

Barb

 

[msf]

How do you know what ´we´re´ talking about Barb? Do you decide what words mean? I took it to mean that he is for treatments that are not commonly offered by many doctors - this does not necessarily mean that they haven´t been scientifically validated, there are tons of natural substances that have been shown to have an effect on disease, and very few of them are on offer at your local chemist´s.

I think it´s the other way round: mentioning alternative medicine has nothing to do with whether someone believes in and practices the scientific method.

 

[msf]

Also, if you take the time to actually look at the website, there is nothing that jumps out at you as ´non-scientific.´ If he was offering homeopathy I wouldn´t bother to defend him. LDA seems to have some evidence to support its use in allergy, so using it for Lyme consitutes off-label use, and therefore may or may not turn out to be appropriate.

 

[msf]

Oh, and read Sushi´s post above if you do not understand that Klimas may not have been using ´homeopathic´ literally.

 

[barbc56]

I think it´s the other way round: mentioning alternative medecine has nothing to do with whether someone believes in and practices the scientific method

I think it does indeed have everything to do whether a practitioner believes in the scientific method. If an alternative practioner advocates any treatment that isn't scientifically plausible, best medical scientific practice or backed up by studies by definition that person is not adhering to the scientific method.

There's scientific medicine and alternative practices. You can't have it both ways.

This is not a value statement nor made up definitions. These terms/definitions are accepted by the medical and scientific community.

Sushi's post was very illuminating. I guess my beef is calling something homeopathic when by definition it's not.

Barb

 

[msf]

Newsflash! Sometimes people use words to mean something other than their dictionary definitions!

 

[msf]

Hint: you can use context to work out what they actually mean.

 

[msf]

And if off-label use is alternative medicine, then a lot of doctors fall in the alternative category.

 

[Dufresne]

If Nancy Klimas is really advocating homeopathy, for me, her credibility just tanked. Is this really true?

Homeopathy goes against everything that is known about pharmacology, physiology, and medical science.

We don't have existence figured about but what does that have to do with homeopathy? Possibility is not the same as probability.

Barb

Well is LDI homeopathy? I'll admit it's been awhile since I looked into it, but that was my impression when I did. I recall Dr Vincent saying he starts patients at around a 20C dilution. Anybody that knows anything about homeopathy knows there's not a single molecule of the original substance remaining in such a dilution. That's why I say it can hardly be called an antigen.

I may be incorrect about LDI being homeopathy. I admit it's odd nobody has ripped it apart on this basis. So correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think homeopathy goes against any of those things. Rather it's something quite apart from them.

And yes homeopathy receives its warm reception based on the fact that it's so implausible. But you have to admit it's strange a good number of people, even those scientifically trained, believe there's something to it. While we've done away with bloodletting and lobotomies, somehow we still have a soft spot for the most implausible of all possible treatments. How could this be unless there's actually something to it?