Some Answers to Concerns About Long-Term Antibiotics

strict warning: Only variables should be passed by reference in /home/cpnhelp/www/www/modules/book/book.module on line 559.

Answers to Concerns About Long-Term Antibiotics

Many doctors, and patients, raise concerns about the long-term effects or side effects of antibiotics, and are frightened of the CAPi’s because of this. Doctors, especially, need a little support for going against the grain of their training.

On the issue of side effects-
As I noted in a ThisIsMs post, the side effects of MS are devastating disability and death. Kinda puts a scale on things, doesn’t it? Similarly:

  • The side effects of Chronic Fatigue and Fibromyalgiai are minimally functional existence, depression, unrelenting pain.
  • The side effects of Rheumatoid Arthritis are unrelenting pain and encroaching disability and dysfunction.
  • The side effects of Alzheimer’s Disease are… well, you get the picture.


The side effects of the antibiotics commonly used in CAP’s for Cpni are intestinal upset from killing bowel flora, nausea if not taken with food, and some idiosyncratic effects for different people. All of these are transient, and mild or can be handled with counter agents (such as supplementing bowel flora in between antibiotic dosages).

The main side effects patients with Cpn have are actually die-off reactions from Cpn bacterial kill. Patients who do not have Cpn (or other significantly endotoxic bacteria) will not have these typical die-off reactions to Cpn. These, then, are not “side effects” but actually main effects.

Long term antibiotic use is harmful- Many antibiotics, especially the tetracycline family such as the doxycycline used in most CAP’s or minocycline, have been used long term (i.e. for years) without harmful effects. They have been used this way as immunomodulators, in low dose protocolsi (such as for arthritis) and at regular doses for acne.

Flagyli/Tinidazole are potentially carcinogenic-
Studies of carcinogenic effects are done on rats with huge doses not used in humans, and are taken continuously to produce these effects. This is another good reason why these medications are pulsed in the CAP's rather than taken continuously. Note: Cpn left to proliferate in tissues is potentially carcinogenic as well.

Doesn’t long term use of antibiotics create bacterial resistance?

The use of two anti-replication antibiotics which work on different proteins in the replication process (e.g. doxycycline and azithromycin combo) is done specifically to minimize the possibility of resistance. Taking NACi to kill the infectious Elementary Bodyi stage of the Cpn organism and Flagyl/Tinidazole further minimizes resistance because, as Dr. Charles Strattoni noted in an article by this name, “Dead Bugs Don’t Mutate.” Additionally, these antibiotics are not the ones used to treat the dire acute disorders where potential resistance could bbe fatal such as acute septicaemia, acute meningitis etc. So any potential resistance is unlikely to influence treatment of such emergency disorders.

Won’t antibiotics cause yeast infectionsi?
If you don’t supplement regularly with probiotic flora you can get intestinal Candida imbalance (dysbiosis). Supplementation, plus appropriate use of antifungals for existing infections (nystatin, diflucan, oregano oil, etc.) will prevent this.

On a related note: Cpn can infect the bowel quite significantly. Dr. David Wheldoni has observed, "The resolution of fungal infections is quite remarkable. I've seen people with long-term dermatomycoses (unresponsive to antifungals) which have paradoxically resolved with Cpn treatment." Many of us with what we thought was chronic yeast infection noticed that after a month or two on antibiotics our “yeast problem” resolved quite a bit. The problem was, in fact, that bowel Cpn was the more central problem, and as it resolved so did other bowel problems. Resolving bowel Cpn also enhances the bowel immunei system, since Cpn can infect immune cells. Additionally, the secondary porphyriai can cause bowel and stomach problems that resolve as the Cpn infection causing the porphyria resolves.

To summarize-
You can reinforce with your doctor:
That the “side effects” of otherwise untreatable diseasesi are much more significant than the side effects of these common antibiotics.
That these antibiotics were especially chosen to have minimal long term effects,
That they are used long-term for other diseases simply as immune modulators,
That the more toxic ones (e.g. Flagyl) are used in pulses minimizing their harm potential,
That the dual abxi prevents resistance from arising in long term use,
That the gut flora effects can be readily balanced by probiotic flora supplementsi and by anti=yeast medications (e.g. nystatin, diflucan) or herbs.
That the use of NAC instead of amoxicillini not only further protects gut flora, but protects the liver as well.
 

Comments

Hi, anyone know of GP doctor in British Columbia who is open to this treatment for chronic asthmai?  Thanks!

Flagyli/Tinidazole are potentially carcinogenic-
Studies of carcinogenic effects are done on rats with huge doses not used in humans, and are taken continuously to produce these effects. This is another good reason why these medications are pulsed in the CAPi's rather than taken continuously. Note: Cpni left to proliferate in tissues is potentially carcinogenic as well.

Recent data shows pretty conclusively that metroi/tinii cause cryptic Cpn to begin replicating. IMOi this is neccessary for antimicrobial agents to be effective. Obviously in these studies mice were not given antibiotics so presumably they significantly increased chlamydial growth which might have led to an increased incidence of cancer. It seems unlikely this would be an issue for people taking the CAP.

- Paul

Paul, you should know by now that you just can’t post things like this without referring people to where the information can be found!.......................Sarah

A Journey through Light and Shadow

Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MSi in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

Sarah,

First I do not need to provide a link to any information I post. Second you would have this data except for making a conscious effort not to obtain it. You have spoken to and corresponded with Dr. Stratton and never inquired about the research with C. Pneumonia and pH while at the same time publicly attacking me, Dr. Stratton, and the Vanderbilt research. This would seem to make no sense but I suppose it is because Dr. Wheldon has become so invested in the hypothesis that metronidazolei acts as an antimicrobial agent against cryptic C. Pneumonia.

The ONLY evidence that metronidazole kills cryptic C. Pneumonia is that Dr. Wheldon and Dr. Stratton wrote a paper hypothesizing this in order to explain experimental and clinical success with combinations using it. However Dr. Stratton no longer thinks this is likely to be the case so the ONLY evidence is that Dr. Wheldon believes it. On the other hand there is a lot of experimental evidence that metronidazole and other agents work by lowering C. Pneumonia's internal pH.

None of this would matter much except that if the the pH theory is correct, one might use this information to create a more effective therapeutic strategy. And while this is a work in progress it is my opinion that people who have approached it from this standpoint have had faster responses with less side effects. Anyway I do not normally post unpublished data but will make this one exception because this debate is becoming annoying and actually doing people harm who otherwise might have had better clinical outcomes.

The slides below show C. Pneumonia HSPi-60 and MOMP levels after two weeks. As can be seen both levels drop dramtically with all antibioticsi except metronidazole. The increased HSP-60 and MOMP levels with metronidazole strongly suggest that C. Pneumonia converted to the reticulate body state and significantly increased its numbers. It is notable that this study was done in HL cells which appear to produce mostly a cryptic infection with little or no growth in the absense of agents that lower C. Pneumonia's pH.

http://gallery.me.c…ulster/100019/Slide7 <

http://gallery.me.c…ulster/100019/Slide8 <

- Paul

Paul,

Your posts are interesting, but I too, cannot help wondering the authenticity of your information. An unsigned bar graph w/o any accompanying valid research, signed and dated, doesn't prove anything except that someone went to the trouble to create a bar graph. I don't understand that you thought the graph actually PROVED anything.

When I read your comments, it looks to me like you know just enough to stir the pot, not enough to validate your claims. You drop Dr.  Stratton's name and insinuate  you have access to his private lab work, which contradicts the purpose of this site.  I find it hard to believe that you are privy to this information which  DW: Stratton's friend and peer. is not.  I also am leery of anyone who stoops to make insulting  innuendos. 

Norman Yarvin's and Evita's  comments are always backed up by research. Some of their information seems "off the wall" sometimes, but both are conscientious about  siting their sources. I agree with Sarah: you need to do the same: as does everyone here. If your comment is an opinion or a value judgement, you need to stipulate that also.  This is your mother talking.  (and don't stomp off in a huff; FIX it!

MSmom

 

I

MSmom,

To answer some of your questions, I was the first patient treated, maybe 17-18 years ago, and have funded the Vanderbilt research for its entirety. I am not dropping Dr. Stratton's name, he is one of my best friends. And the "graphs" don't prove anything, but the data they represent is pretty compelling. If you think the data/graphs are forged well there is really no arguing with you. But lots of people on this site talk to Dr. Stratton and can confirm it is data and charts from their research at Vanderbilt. And why would I not be privy to it? I paid for it ;-)

<edit>

Oh, and you are welcome! The amount I spend on this now is inconsequential but caused me real heart burn a few years ago when I was funding this and was not as well off as I am today (Something that would never have happened if not for Dr. Stratton and this therapy.). Anyway I am very happy I have been able to help and hope I can continue to do so in the future...

- Paul

Paul, you are always very shy of giving references. You also claim to speak on behalf of researchers as though they had no voice of their own. I strongly suspect that, had Dr Stratton come to disbelieve the efficacy of metronidazolei following induction of a cryptic formi, he would have let me know. 

 

You say: 'Recent data shows pretty conclusively that metroi</tinii<i< cause cryptic Cpn to begin replicating.' Again, references are needed, or you might be quoting from a ballad-book.

 

Metro causes single-strand DNA breaks at the AT bond. I can't see how this would initiate replication. But I'm willing to learn.

 

 

D W - [Myalgia and hypertension">i (typically 155/95.) Began (2003) taking doxycycline and macrolide and later adding metronidazolei. No medication now. Morning BP typically 110/75]
DW, I don't think Paul is saying that metronidazolei is ineffective following induction of a cryptic formi, but rather just that the mechanism involves waking the germ up so that the other antibioticsi can kill it. At least that's what he's said in the past.

But count me in as one who thinks Paul is being overly teasing, here; why, for instance, give us "slide7" and "slide8" of what looks like a slide presentation, and not the other slides? It's not that I doubt those results in and of themselves, but there's a lot of background information needed to make much sense of them. For starters, where were those concentrations measured? (In the supernatant liquid, in the cells themselves, or in the whole mess after it'd been blended thoroughly?) That makes a big difference. And there's more: the concentrations of antibiotics used, the amount of time they were used for, how the culture was started, and so forth — the things that people would put in a scientific paper, even if one doesn't necessarily have a paper written yet (let alone sent off for peer review and accepted).

Also, the big question is what metronidazole does in combination with other antibiotics, not what it does on its own, and these results don't seem to resolve that: particularly well: all the relevant numbers seem to be close to the edge of detectability, and thus likely unreliable. They might mean something, or might just be random noise.

Paul- Enough already! If you make claims expect them to be questioned.

"First I do not need to provide a link to any information I post. Second you would have this data except for making a conscious effort not to obtain it. You have spoken to and corresponded with Dr. Stratton and never inquired about the research with C. Pneumonia and pH while at the same time publicly attacking me, Dr. Stratton, and the Vanderbilt research."

Post whatever claims you wish to make, but stop the "I'm too precious to question" crap!

Of course you "don't have to" provide supporting data in a post. But don't act coy and surprised when people doubt your claims. That's hogwash. You certainly would question others who don't supply their data source and details. Why shouldn't you be questioned as well?

No one is attacking Dr. Stratton or the "Vanderbilt research." They are questioning you. Paul. You are not given the authority to use the Royal "We." If Dr. Stratton has claims to make, he can argue them for himself. You don't have any official standing for him that he has communicated to me.

I don't want to see personal attacks on anyone here, nor ascribing their thoughts and motives. That includes personal attacks on you Paul, or on Sarah, David, Chuck or anyone else. Questioning your authoritativeness, however, is not a personal attack.

 

CAPi for Cpni 11/04. Dxi: 25+yrs CFSi & FMSi. Currently: 250 aithromycin mwf, doxycycline 100mg BIDi, restarted Tinii pulses; Vit D2000 units, T4 & T3, 6mg Iodoral

The problem is information in handbook is not up to date. Last update from Dr.Stratton is from 4/2008 and it is more than 3 years ago. I know Vanderbilt protocol has evolved and changed since then. I wonder, why there is no change in handbook. Is it because you, Jim, or someone else is not in contact with Vanderbilt anymore? I think old information are one of the reason, why people are speculating and confused about this issue. We need recent news..

Stratton/Wheldon protocol 02/2006 - 10/11 for CFSi and many problems 30 years

I think it's time I am giving my personal attitude to Paul's blogs and comments. 

When I came to this site I was really very bad. I didn't know whether I was alive or not. I only knew I wanted to ged rid of that bad state. I was reading everything what appeared here regarding MSi and Cpni. There were a few Paul's new approches to the treating of the cpn. It was very confusing for me then - there were WP and SP and mostly WP for me then which I knew I should stick to but I also wanted to cure myself according to the latest approaches. Then I decided not to use these new approaches and waited and the time would show how to proceed. Yes, the time showed. As I was improving and my head started to clear I started to ask myself - who is this guy who acts as the speaker of the latest Vanderbilt research? I read his profile and there was nothing not even a note confirming this, no information who is this guy, where he is from, what he does... So I decided to ignore his blogs or any comments. And it helped really to my treatment. Now when my head is clear and also my thinking is so my view to this is this. If should Paul be the official representative of the Vanderbilt there should be an official statement of the Vanderbilt or of the prof. Stratton or at least of Jim's on this in this site. As there is no statement like this it's only Paul's unconfirmed claim that he is with Vanderbilt research. This could be believed or not. Let's believe he is with the Vanderbilt. Is he authorised to release the information on the research that is in the process? I am afraid not. I think the only authorised person prof. Stratton shoud be and I believe he is. Unless a research is completed it's very dangerous to release any information and try to put it into practise. Any particular information of all the researches should be top secret until the researches are completed.

MSi for more than 30 years, WP since July 08, break Jan 09-March 09. NACi 2x600mg, Doxyi 2x100mg, Roxi 2x150mg, Entizol in pulzes, LDNi, supplementsi.Since May 2013 without abxi.

Sorry, Evita, but what you wrote was absolute nonsense. If we wait till research is completed, most of us would be dead or badly disabled. All the protocolsi posted on the site are experimental and there is no "completed research". We clearly need the newest information and ideas regarding treatment.

Paul has funded cpni research largely, so I do not see any reason why he would intentionaly lie. I only think he should be able to explain why he claims what he does.

There is clearly many new information about treatment, which can be obtained from Vanderbilt's patients privately but it is not in the handbook from some uknown reasons.

I personally am very interested in hot cpn news.

Stratton/Wheldon protocol 02/2006 - 10/11 for CFSi and many problems 30 years

Lala I think you misunderstood my comment. Try to click on Paul's name. You may have in your computer the information he has funded the cpni research but I don't have it and I have no information there. From where should I and others know this? If there is a new  information from the Vanderbilt research here in the site the person who gives this information should be at least somehow authorised to do this. 

I am also interested in hot cpn knews. But if a problem/a question is being solved and some information goes out before it's seriously solved out I take it just as some information and I wouldn't practice it. But if there is someone who takes a risk and try it and practice it I think it may be dangerous because it may harm more than help. And that's migbt be the cause why WP or SP don't work.

Yes, the protocolsi posted here are said to be experimental but they are based on the patent which is the result of the serious work. So from the point of the view they are not so experimental. They are maybe said to be experimental because they are not widely used. But the reasons are somewhere else. And the research from Vanderbilt may bring something completely new or just some adjustments. But I do think till each particular research (or a question) isn't completed there's a big risk to publish it as there may be ones who can practise it. I didn't tell that Paul intentionally lies. I only told that he releases information that is in the process of the research, other words he releases it too soonand I also asked if he was authorised to do this. What happens if in a few months or years the research shows that they were completely wrong with the idea. And this is common with a research. It doesn't mean if something is being researched that there will be a positive result or the result which was awaited.

And the words that if we wait till the research is completed most of us would be dead I think are too strong. Maybe some of us would be dead is better but still too strong. For sure the quality of the life would go down. Maybe I should express this better not the whole research is completed but the particular research is completed. The main research is done and there is an excellent result which helps a lot of people to come back to the life and now I don't need to practice any experiments.  Why Sarah cured from severe MSi? She was cured according to the Vanderbilt patent which was adjusted by her husband, Dr. Wheldon.  And she is one of few people who is not on abxi anymore and lives the life she wants to live.

MSi for more than 30 years, WP since July 08, break Jan 09-March 09. NACi 2x600mg, Doxyi 2x100mg, Roxi 2x150mg, Entizol in pulzes, LDNi, supplementsi.Since May 2013 without abxi.

I called Dr. Stratton about a year ago, and he confirmed to me that Paul has been funding his lab. (Without my asking; I'd hadn't been suspicious). So that part is completely true. There is no reason to doubt that these are actual results from the Vanderbilt lab. However, their interpretation is another question; I've had plenty of disagreements with Paul about interpretation of results. To take one thing, his above post speaks of "increased HSPi-60 and MOMP levels with metronidazolei", but the slides, though they show an increase of MOMP, show a decrease of HSP-60 (with, however, an unusually large error bar — what's up with that?).

Norman thanks for the clearing the things. What I object to results to the next problem you have mentioned. How reliable the interpretations of the results are. For me it's better to have no interpretations than unreliable ones.

MSi for more than 30 years, WP since July 08, break Jan 09-March 09. NACi 2x600mg, Doxyi 2x100mg, Roxi 2x150mg, Entizol in pulzes, LDNi, supplementsi.Since May 2013 without abxi.

Paul, as a naturally inquisitive person I have never made a conscious effort not to obtain some information from anywhere and it is none of your business what I might talk about to Stratton, either by email or phone.  I can say, however, that I would never attack either him or the Vanderbilt research: after all I owe Stratton and team too much.

One thing, though, you might well have been one of the first Cpni patients, but this would surely be in the pre-metronidazolei days, like Astrodiana.  This could well be why it is taking you so long to recover......................Sarah

A Journey through Light and Shadow

Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MSi in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

error

D W - [Myalgia and hypertension">i (typically 155/95.) Began (2003) taking doxycycline and macrolide and later adding metronidazolei. No medication now. Morning BP typically 110/75]
By the way, one thing about journal articles is that some journals have an official policy against releasing results to the press before the article is approved for publication. I'm not sure what constitutes 'the press', but these days, Internet sites such as cpnhelp might qualify. In any case, the penalty the journals inflict is that the article doesn't get published. So there may be a good reason for whatever reticence we're seeing here.

Other thing is that a research working place should have their own internal regulations and there should be appointed person/s who is/are authorised to release any information.

MSi for more than 30 years, WP since July 08, break Jan 09-March 09. NACi 2x600mg, Doxyi 2x100mg, Roxi 2x150mg, Entizol in pulzes, LDNi, supplementsi.Since May 2013 without abxi.

Norman and Evita, what you both say is very true.  Thinking about it though, wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Vanderbilt lab were about to unroll a big discovery,  but were managing to keep it a secret in case some blabbermouth spilt the beans?........................Sarah

A Journey through Light and Shadow

Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MSi in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that this sort of policy, on the part of the journal, is a good idea. It's just that when a journal does have such a policy, one has to play by its rules. This sort of policy strikes me as a sort of intellectual jealousy -- they want the credit for breaking the news, even though they aren't really suited for quick publication, due to their practice of sending papers out to be refereed. And I'm not sure that the sort of journal that this would be published in would even have such a policy. Hmm, let's see... here's the policy for the journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy:

In brief, a paper is not acceptable for submission to an ASM journal if it, or its substance, has been published/posted in:

  • A serial, periodical, or book
  • A conference report or symposium proceedings
  • A technical bulletin or company white paper
  • A nonpersonal website
  • Any other retrievable source

The following do not preclude submission to, or publication by, an ASM journal, as long as the posted data do not constitute the substance of a submission:

  • Posting of a method/protocol on a nonpersonal website
  • Posting of a limited amount of original data on a personal/university/corporate website or websites of small collaborative groups working on a problem
  • Posting of unpublished sequence data on the Internet (the URL where the sequence is posted should be included in the text)
  • Preliminary disclosures of research findings as meeting posters, webcast as meeting presentations, or published in abstract form as adjuncts to a meeting, e.g., part of a program
  • Posting of theses and dissertations on a personal/university-hosted website

That's pretty mild and moderate; it explicitly allows posting of "a method/protocol" (which would include the sort of background information I pointed out as being necessary to interpret the results), as well as "a limited amount of original data", provided that it's on "a personal/university/corporate website" (which wouldn't include cpnhelp, but would include plenty of other places that information can easily be posted). But other candidate journals might be stricter. The Nature journals have a very strict policy, beginning with "Material submitted to Nature journals must not be discussed with the media...", and emphasizing that they have refused to publish papers by authors whose tongues have been loose. But Nature is a very high-profile journal, that often generates newsworthy articles; other journals are not likely to be as strict.

As for the idea of "having appointed persons" who are "authorized to release any information", that's an absolutely horrible idea; it would shut down informal scientific discourse almost completely, miring it in a mass of bureaucracy.

Yes, but Norman, what if someone was working on something which was nearly ready to be made public  but someone else got to hear of it and rushed in and claimed the glory just because they knew something about it and managed to work out the final details?  That happened to Charles Darwin.  At least he had al his theorising finished and only hadn’t made it public because he knew the uproar it would make.  To my mind this sort of intellectual jealousy must be worse than that of jealous journals and it is what I meant my hypothetical “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if............”      Sarah

A Journey through Light and Shadow

Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MSi in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

From what I've read, what happened with Darwin was nothing like that. Far from Darwin having his idea stolen, Wallace had come up with the idea independently. And both of them being true gentlemen, a joint publication of their ideas was amicably arranged... which, far from causing an uproar, gathered almost no attention at all! It was only when, a bit over a year later, Darwin published The Origin of Species, that many people took notice. As Darwin put it in his memoirs, "This shows how necessary it is that any new view should be explained at considerable length in order to attract public attention."

Of course, those were very different times. Modern science is quite publicity-hungry, and often cutthroat about who published first; I have heard of a referee recommending rejection of a paper, then going out and publishing the same thing himself. Yet at the same time, truly revolutionary ideas still go unstolen and unappreciated: "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are that good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." - Howard Aiken

Hi Jim,

Of course you "don't have to" provide supporting data in a post. But don't act coy and surprised when people doubt your claims. That's hogwash. You certainly would question others who don't supply their data source and details. Why shouldn't you be questioned as well?

No one is attacking Dr. Stratton or the "Vanderbilt research." They are questioning you. Paul. You are not given the authority to use the Royal "We." If Dr. Stratton has claims to make, he can argue them for himself. You don't have any official standing for him that he has communicated to me.

I think if you will think back you do this all the time, far more than I. You have conversations with Dr. Stratton and convey that information on this site. Somehow it must be different if I do this... not sure exactly how... but somehow ;-)

And I certainly have the authority to use "we". I am pretty careful to differentiate when it is only I that believe something to be true.

- Paul

Hi Norman,

The other slides in this set were for intermediate sampling (i.e. day 3, 7, 10) and showed the same general trends but day 14 was the end point and most relevant data. I think the concentrations were listed on the chart and they were used for the entire 14 day period.

I agree that the PCRi results were at the edge of detectability for the other antibioticsi and combinations. I only posted this to show the effect that metronidazolei has on Cpni in comparasin to other antimicrobial agents. And I am sure we will end up at the same point again when I state this but FWIWi the results of all tested acidic agents have been similar in causing Cpn to apparently convert to the RB state and begin replicating. IMOi metronidazole may be the most effective of these in vivo though as it has a very long half life and is taken in comparatively huge doses. For example if one were to compare its potential acidifying effect to something like ibuprofen, it would be typically taken in comparable doses 500 mg vs. 400 mg but is far, far more acidic pKa 2.5 vs. 4.4. I think that would make it almost 100 times more acidic.

- Paul

Hey Norman,

I've had plenty of disagreements with Paul about interpretation of results. To take one thing, his above post speaks of "increased HSPi<i<-60 and MOMP levels with metronidazolei", but the slides, though they show an increase of MOMP, show a decrease of HSP-60

We do disagree a lot but they are reasonable disagreements and we have (usually) avoided personal attacks ;-)

The way I worded that was very unclear. HSP-60 was increased dramatically above the other antibioticsi and combinations but was below the control.

- Paul

Sarah,

I can say, however, that I would never attack either him or the Vanderbilt research: after all I owe Stratton and team too much.

One thing, though, you might well have been one of the first Cpni<i< patients, but this would surely be in the pre-metronidazolei days, like Astrodiana.  This could well be why it is taking you so long to recover.

It is really not fair to ascribe your intentions so I apologize for that. However for a couple of years you and David have made personal and private attacks against me and sometimes Dr. Stratton although I am guessing that is because you thought you were attacking me. And at any time you could have easily checked the veracity of what I had written.

It did not take me 18 years to get well, it took me 3 years the first time to get to what I thought was well from CFSi which seems to usually be more difficult to treat and then about 12 years later when I realized I gotten sick again it took me 3 years again but this time I have no doubt that I have made FAR more progress and do not think I will relapse again.

Why do you think I haven't taken metronidazole?

- Paul

 

Oh, Paul, we were attacking you, not the delightful Chuck Strattoni! I think he knows that.

However, about you getting well, I was under the impression that metronidazolei was not part of the protocol 15 years ago: I might well be wrong but it certainly wasn’t used in the first trial for MSi, nothing like that long ago. Also Astrodiana, one of the first of Stratton’s chronic fatigue and fibromyalgiai patients like you, was never given it either.  I am sorry if I was wrong about that and you were the first person ever to try metronidazole................................ Sarah

A Journey through Light and Shadow

Completed Stratton/Wheldon regime for aggressive secondary progressive MSi in June 2007, after four years, three of which intermittent.   Still improving bit by bit and no relapses since finishing treatment.

Hi Jim,

Thank you for this post on treatment with antibioticsi. I am new so very interested. Also I am generally only interested in natural treatments. But I came here through the  Perfect Health Diet site so have been partially prepared for the idea that this Cpni protocol may be what I need.

I already do the sups.

We'll see. Anyway good post there.

Birdie

Fibromyalgiai, CE/CFSi, Post Polio Syn.

Hi,

I did chelation therapy for mercury with a doc in Nainaimo. Cline Medical Center. If they don't do Cpni treatment they might know who does.

Best, Birdie

Fibromyalgiai, CE/CFSi, Post Polio Syn.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.