Having an open mind does not mean to believe everything. What are the names of the bacteria you think are involved?
XMRV infection rate points to cofactor not sole cause
- Thread starter Fejal
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,512
- Likes
- 2,689
eric_s asked Fejal
I googled. I understand it is a special form of normal bacteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-form_bacteria
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007316
http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schae...erial-lform-can-some-of-them-be-unveiled.html
I googled. I understand it is a special form of normal bacteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-form_bacteria
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007316
http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schae...erial-lform-can-some-of-them-be-unveiled.html
Yes, many bacteria take L-form. Different species share genes so the trait is common. Right now there is no diagnostic test to identify them and an informed MD would treat using broad spectrum bacteriostatics and lifestyle modification to check their growth, agents to block their immunosuppressive effects. Once the immunosuppresion is reversed as the bacteria die they leak toxic, inflammatory byproducts into the bloodstream which gives easily noticeable symptoms. The symptoms are in proportion to the kill. Overdose on an agent and it will be dangerous. Rather than identify bacteria MDs use combinations of bacteriostatics developed by the Marshall Protocol (minocycline, and others) and response is guaged by symptom increase. As a patient progresses symptoms decrease and the problems resolve.
Well, I think CFS is caused by leprechauns. Why else would CFS patients like rainbows, and pots of gold?
I know there is no study to prove it, but theres no study to disprove it either, so obviously it's true.
The mind is like mojo...if you don't use it, you lose it.
I know there is no study to prove it, but theres no study to disprove it either, so obviously it's true.
The mind is like mojo...if you don't use it, you lose it.
all the other viruses are only in 10%....xmrv is 85% plus.
so I know which one im going to put my money on.
so I know which one im going to put my money on.
Recent WPI radio interview
While listening to the receent WPI interview with Mike Hillerby he said something I thought was easy to understand and pretty funny.
" If you saw 100 people in a room with a broken thumb and 85 were holding a hammer. You might think the hammer had something to do with it."
While listening to the receent WPI interview with Mike Hillerby he said something I thought was easy to understand and pretty funny.
" If you saw 100 people in a room with a broken thumb and 85 were holding a hammer. You might think the hammer had something to do with it."
I may be being dim but studies proving what? that they were heckled? flight didnt need studies to prove it was possible as demostrations both abound - and waddle
btw I'm not convinced you understand that a retrovirus is different from a virus - viral load tells you almost nothing about it's potential to mess things up unless nil - and probably not even then unless you can prove the patients DNA has never been infected inc vertically
btw I'm not convinced you understand that a retrovirus is different from a virus - viral load tells you almost nothing about it's potential to mess things up unless nil - and probably not even then unless you can prove the patients DNA has never been infected inc vertically
Wonko re-read the thread it's there.
I am not a virologist but a search revealed that XMRV targets CD-4 T Helper cells and increases the kill for macrophages so that's related.
Sharma, P. Notice for 2010 abstract of "Organ and Cell Lineage Dissemination of XMRV in Rhesus Macaques during Acute and Chronic Infection." posted online.
On the other hand, if the XMRV block was the main problem then treatments targeting the bacterial pathways wouldn't influence symptoms (something people here love to ignore). The Marshall Protocol groups report that after a period of time people recover immune function after q4h dosing with Benecar. So the data doesn't support the belief that XMRV is the sustaining problem.
I am not a virologist but a search revealed that XMRV targets CD-4 T Helper cells and increases the kill for macrophages so that's related.
Sharma, P. Notice for 2010 abstract of "Organ and Cell Lineage Dissemination of XMRV in Rhesus Macaques during Acute and Chronic Infection." posted online.
On the other hand, if the XMRV block was the main problem then treatments targeting the bacterial pathways wouldn't influence symptoms (something people here love to ignore). The Marshall Protocol groups report that after a period of time people recover immune function after q4h dosing with Benecar. So the data doesn't support the belief that XMRV is the sustaining problem.
This does not, indeed, belong under XMRV thread. Fejal, you are starting with a conclusion and then marshaling your andecdotal evidence to "prove" it. That antibacterials cause waxing and waning of symptoms only suggests that we have confections, or that the anti-inflammatory impact of the agents is lowering inflammation, and doesn't say a thing about XMRV. It's utter crap that immune function is restored after 4 or even 34 doses of Benicar. The only ones claiming it are MP. Enough. We are only giving a forum for faux discussion. You have only to do a causual review of the forums here to note thAt plenty of us are dealing with bacterial, viral, yeast and other infections and no one denies that these are with us. You are making XMRV a straw dog to push one of the least proven and most anecdotal of approaches. It's not a discussion it's an excuse. My last word onthis thread.
your andecdotal evidence to "prove" it. That antibacterials cause waxing and waning of symptoms only suggests that we have confections, or that the anti-inflammatory impact of the agents is lowering inflammation, and doesn't say a thing about XMRV. It's utter crap that immune function is restored after 4 or even 34 doses of Benicar. The only ones claiming it are MP. Enough. We are only giving a forum for faux discussion. You have only to do a causual review of the forums here to note thAt plenty of us are dealing with bacterial, viral, yeast and other infections and no one denies that these are with us. You are making XMRV a straw dog to push one of the least proven and most anecdotal of approaches. It's not a discussion it's an excuse. My last word onthis thread.I'll try not to be defensive despite the abusive tone. I am a health professional and my experience exactly matches the immunopathology that the Marshall Protocol describes. Moreover, I have challenged it and it does exactly what they say. Other health professionals report the same thing with their patients (and poor long term treatment outcomes as well-all but two of the MDs on their North Carolina referral list have quit the protocol). Trevor Marshall is sloppy, crafty, conceited and overcontrolling but he is not making this up. They also ran a phase 2 clinical trial in china that supposedly shows favorable results. If he wasn't being honest there is no way he would allow them to do a clinical trial on it.
Moreover, any co-infection by an L-form bacteria is self sustaining due to a bacterially generated immunological blockade. Even if XMRV were completely eradicated this wouldn't affect the bug.
Moreover, any co-infection by an L-form bacteria is self sustaining due to a bacterially generated immunological blockade. Even if XMRV were completely eradicated this wouldn't affect the bug.
As far as i know, there were also studies that concluded that CFS is caused by mycoplasma and that it can be cured with antibiotics targeting the mycoplasma. But this has disappeared again, i think.
Why should the L-form bacteria theory be any more true? So many people have been treated with all sorts of antibiotics. I'm often shocked to read about it, because i think it's harmful, so what is the percentage of people that were actually cured after such a therapy?
I know the BALI protocol is new, but is there any evidence that all the other things people have tried before, would not be able to fight L-form bacteria?
And if so, and the BALI protocol is so new that it's not possible yet to have numbers, it's also not possible to say it's succesful. So we have to wait. I would bet it does not cure more than 10% of people (my guess is closer to 0). But how to measure this, if there are no clinical trials?
Edit: You have edited your post and say there were clinical trials, so is there any documentation about those, that is available?
Why should the L-form bacteria theory be any more true? So many people have been treated with all sorts of antibiotics. I'm often shocked to read about it, because i think it's harmful, so what is the percentage of people that were actually cured after such a therapy?
I know the BALI protocol is new, but is there any evidence that all the other things people have tried before, would not be able to fight L-form bacteria?
And if so, and the BALI protocol is so new that it's not possible yet to have numbers, it's also not possible to say it's succesful. So we have to wait. I would bet it does not cure more than 10% of people (my guess is closer to 0). But how to measure this, if there are no clinical trials?
Edit: You have edited your post and say there were clinical trials, so is there any documentation about those, that is available?
health 'professionals' in the UK say their experience exactly matches the idea that CBT and GET is really really good for those whinney layabouts who say they have a neuroimmune disorder (M.E). and arent even a little bit mad - when they 'know' that everyone is - apart from them obviously
after all they (the lazy mad fools) dont have any psychatric qualifications and even if they did they wouldnt be 'experts' in lazy whinny maligerers syndrome - so their (ie my) opinion doesnt count for squat
doesnt make it true - and more importantly doesnt make them right - it just means they have a point of view that excludes any evidence or opinions to the contrary
TBH I dont see whats wrong with the WPI hypothesis - makes sense to me, and most others AFAIK (at least the others not covered by above rant)
in light of my experience with health professionals in this field I personally dont like or trust any of them with my health - researchers a slightly different matter - but GP's, consultants, psychatrists, psychologists taht I've had dealings with - i wouldn't trust them to correctly diagnose a missing limb - let alone treat it
after all they (the lazy mad fools) dont have any psychatric qualifications and even if they did they wouldnt be 'experts' in lazy whinny maligerers syndrome - so their (ie my) opinion doesnt count for squat
doesnt make it true - and more importantly doesnt make them right - it just means they have a point of view that excludes any evidence or opinions to the contrary
TBH I dont see whats wrong with the WPI hypothesis - makes sense to me, and most others AFAIK (at least the others not covered by above rant)
in light of my experience with health professionals in this field I personally dont like or trust any of them with my health - researchers a slightly different matter - but GP's, consultants, psychatrists, psychologists taht I've had dealings with - i wouldn't trust them to correctly diagnose a missing limb - let alone treat it
The body doesn't lose the ability to mutate and inactivate the XMRV virus so it can't be the cause of CFS.
-Groom, H. Susceptibility of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) to retroviral restriction factors. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0913650107
-Groom, H. Susceptibility of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) to retroviral restriction factors. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0913650107
really? you draw that conclusion from the words you quoted? interesting
thats not what it says IMO - the fact that you seem blind to the bits that disagree with your hypothesis even in the very things you think support you is very enlightening as to where you are coming from
however everyone is entitled to their own point of view
thats not what it says IMO - the fact that you seem blind to the bits that disagree with your hypothesis even in the very things you think support you is very enlightening as to where you are coming from
however everyone is entitled to their own point of view
Oops wrong reference. Thanks for pointing that out:
Groom, H. Susceptibility of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) to retroviral restriction factors. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0913650107
Groom, H. Susceptibility of xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) to retroviral restriction factors. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0913650107