Test Results from Dr. Peterson

C

CBS

Senior Member
Messages
1,522
Poet,

Here is a link to Dr. Montoya's Virally Induced CNS Dysfunction (in CFIDS) web-page: http://www.vicd.info/clinicaltrial.html

He discusses his second study and the significant cognitive improvement found in a large number of patients on Valcyte. Here's a link to a copy of the keep points from that presentation: http://www.vicd.info/Baltimore-CFS-Lay.doc

I do not know what his plans are for publication on this. I know that he is very conservative in his approach and it is my impression (and only my impression) that he is still learning about optimal doses. I am aware of new studies which he is conducting with CFS patients.

He also has a 2006 publication describing his original trial.

Use of valganciclovir in patients with elevated antibody titers against Human Herpesvirus-6 (HHV-6) and Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) who were experiencing central nervous system dysfunction including long-standing fatigue.

Kogelnik AM, Loomis K, Hoegh-Petersen M, Rosso F, Hischier C, Montoya JG.

J Clin Virol. 2006 Dec;37 Suppl 1:S33-8.
 
P

PoetInSF

Senior Member
Messages
167
Location
SF
cfs since 1998 said:
I am not sure what you'd be happy to be "proven wrong" about -- there is evidence that antivirals work, both in controlled trials and anecdotal evidence. It's just not usually a cure, possibly because the viruses we're talking about are only a co-factor and not the primary cause.
Click to expand...
If I'm proven wrong, that means there is a viral solution to our problem. I should be happy.

This has been going on for the past 25 years. In Osler's Web, Hillary Johnson talks about Cheney's claim of having great results with Acyclovir trial. Then later it talks about a controlled trial showing no effect. And then there is Montoya trial that failed in double-blind after a sentational initial claim. The bottom line is that, if there was any credible evidence, it would've made it into the standard treatment protocol in Canadian Consensus, etc.

Here is another example of conflict of interest claiming stunning 30 out of 33 improvements in controlled double blind trial: http://www.endfatigue.com/resources/Effective-Treatment-Of-Severe-Chronic-Fatigue-States.html

CBS said:
Here is a link to Dr. Montoya's Virally Induced CNS Dysfunction (in CFIDS) web-page:
Click to expand...

I have a copy from my correspondence with Montoya's office back in 2008. It is not likely to get published ever. Montoya has a better sense than that I'm sure.
 
C

CBS

Senior Member
Messages
1,522
PoetInSF said:
If I'm proven wrong, that means there is a viral solution to our problem. I should be happy.

This has been going on for the past 25 years. In Osler's Web, Hillary Johnson talks about Cheney's claim of having great results with Acyclovir trial. Then later it talks about a controlled trial showing no effect. And then there is Montoya trial that failed in double-blind after a sentational initial claim. The bottom line is that, if there was any credible evidence, it would've made it into the standard treatment protocol in Canadian Consensus, etc.

Here is another example of conflict of interest claiming stunning 30 out of 33 improvements in controlled double blind trial: http://www.endfatigue.com/resources/Effective-Treatment-Of-Severe-Chronic-Fatigue-States.html



I have a copy from my correspondence with Montoya's office back in 2008. It is not likely to get published ever. Montoya has a better sense than that I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Poet,

Keeping clearly in mind that I am limiting my comments to my personal experience, I agree that it is unlikely that there is a "viral solution," especially a one size fits all solution. I disagree that Montoya's double blind study 'failed.' It may not have reached a level of statistical stability as it was designed but I think it is fair to say that he learned a great deal from it and he clearly has not turned his back on anti-viral treatment or the importance of co-infections (he is an infectious disease specialist). I also think that experience has shown that there is an amazing degree of variation in co-infection constellation across patients which needs to be respected.

Don't be too surprised if something important is published capitalizing upon what was learned from the so called "failed" 2008 study.
 
Hope123

Hope123

Senior Member
Messages
1,266
PoetInSF said:
If I'm proven wrong, that means there is a viral solution to our problem. I should be happy.

This has been going on for the past 25 years. In Osler's Web, Hillary Johnson talks about Cheney's claim of having great results with Acyclovir trial. Then later it talks about a controlled trial showing no effect. And then there is Montoya trial that failed in double-blind after a sentational initial claim. The bottom line is that, if there was any credible evidence, it would've made it into the standard treatment protocol in Canadian Consensus, etc.

Here is another example of conflict of interest claiming stunning 30 out of 33 improvements in controlled double blind trial: http://www.endfatigue.com/resources/Effective-Treatment-Of-Severe-Chronic-Fatigue-States.html.
Click to expand...

The Canadian Consensus was put together around 2003 so some of the information that is now out concerning antivirals, rituximab, etc. is not in there. Also, Consensus does a good job but doesn't cover everything. In my own review of treatments, I've come across small but interesting studies that aren't discussed in Consensus, which is OK because the point of Consensus was to put something out specifically that general practitioners could use. My feeling is that there are treatments out there that can help but some have not been explored even half-way thoroughly due to the lack of funds and politics of CFS. (We're down near the bottom 10 of US federall research dollars out of 250 conditions. Diseases that affect 1/100,000 folks get more funding than us.)

Also, I would never put Teitelbaum in the same category as Montoya, Klimas, Peterson, Lerner, and the rest. It would be like comparing a mediocre home cook (I'm not going to give Teitlebaum the title of "good home cook" even) to Jacques Pepin, Julia Childs, and Thomas Keller.
 
A

Anika

Senior Member
Messages
148
Location
U.S.
Hope123 said:
Also, I would never put Teitelbaum in the same category as Montoya, Klimas, Peterson, Lerner, and the rest. It would be like comparing a mediocre home cook (I'm not going to give Teitlebaum the title of "good home cook" even) to Jacques Pepin, Julia Childs, and Thomas Keller.
Click to expand...

Now I'm hungry, Hope! You have a good idea of cooks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back