Guest guest Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 No. in this case, they knew it was differences in the patients. infecting strains were identified at the start. Barb > > > > > > > > > > > > > Biofilms, maybe in some cases. > > > > > > > > True. > > > > > > > > > Evolution thru selective pressure in other cases. > > > > > > > > I dont think this is an important factor, at least not on on a > > > month- > > > > to-month scale: > > > > > > > > ========================== > > > > > > > > Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 Apr;49(4):1294-301. > > > > > > > > In vitro susceptibility testing of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu > > lato > > > > isolates cultured from patients with erythema migrans before > and > > > > after antimicrobial chemotherapy. > > > > > > > > Hunfeld KP, Ruzic-Sabljic E, Norris DE, Kraiczy P, Strle F. > > > > > > > > Institute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital of > > > furt, > > > > -Ehrlich Str. 40, D-60596 furt/Main, Germany. > > > > K.Hunfeld@e... > > > > > > > > Clinical treatment failures have been reported to occur in > early > > > Lyme > > > > borreliosis (LB) for many suitable antimicrobial agents. > > > > Investigations of possible resistance mechanisms of the > Borrelia > > > > burgdorferi complex must analyze clinical isolates obtained > from > > LB > > > > patients, despite their receiving antibiotic treatment. Here, > > > > borrelial isolates obtained from five patients with erythema > > > migrans > > > > (EM) before the start of antibiotic therapy and again after the > > > > conclusion of treatment were investigated. The 10 isolates were > > > > characterized by restriction fragment length polymorphism > > analysis > > > > and plasmid profile analysis and subjected to susceptibility > > > testing > > > > against a variety of antimicrobial agents including those used > > for > > > > initial chemotherapy. Four out of five patients were infected > by > > > the > > > > same genospecies (Borrelia afzelii, n = 3; Borrelia garinii, n > = > > 1) > > > > at the site of the EM lesion before and after antimicrobial > > > therapy. > > > > In one patient the genospecies of the initial isolate (B. > > afzelii) > > > > differed from that of the follow-up isolate (B. garinii). No > > > > significant changes in the in vitro susceptibilities became > > obvious > > > > for corresponding clinical isolates before the start and after > > the > > > > conclusion of antimicrobial therapy. This holds true for the > > > > antimicrobial agents used for specific chemotherapy of the > > > patients, > > > > as well as for any of the additional agents tested in vitro. > Our > > > > study substantiates borrelial persistence in some EM patients > at > > > the > > > > site of the infectious lesion despite antibiotic treatment over > a > > > > reasonable time period. Borrelial persistence, however, was not > > > > caused by increasing MICs or minimal borreliacidal > concentrations > > > in > > > > these isolates. Therefore, resistance mechanisms other than > > > acquired > > > > resistance to antimicrobial agents should be considered in > > patients > > > > with LB resistant to treatment. > > > > > > > > Publication Types: > > > > Clinical Trial > > > > > > > > PMID: 15793100 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 shredded cheese on a flour tortilla, in the toaster oven till the edges are brown and crispy. Topped with some salsa, or better, guacamole and salsa. *S* > > > > > > > > > > > > Good luck with your abx eating. > > > > > > > > > > > > These bacteria have almost all the same ribosomal targets, > > the > > > > same > > > > > > enzymatic targets, all the same drug targets as an E. coli > > > > bladder > > > > > > infection has. Ergo, either > > > > > > > > > > > > A. bacteriostasis due to drugs does not cause them to be > > > > eliminated > > > > > by > > > > > > the host (somewhat unlikely), or > > > > > > > > > > > > B. bacteriostasis due to drugs is an elective stress > response > > > > that > > > > > > doesnt occur in all bacteria in all circumstances (rather > > > > > unlikely), or > > > > > > > > > > > > C. the drugs arent getting to their targets, for some > > > particular > > > > > > molecular reason. Which is what I've focused on. > > > > > > > > > > > > Its not necessarily some impenetrable mystery. As of now > > theres > > > > no > > > > > > particular reason to suspect that it probably cant be > solved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2005 Report Share Posted December 27, 2005 Thanks for posting this Tom. Its not far from me. I wasn't sure what I should or could post here. Take Care > > Ottawa team unravelling brain damage in multiple sclerosis > > Last Updated Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:47:38 EST > CBC News > > The puzzle of how nerve coatings are damaged in the brains of people with multiple sclerosis may have been solved by a Canadian-led research team. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Members, Sharon & I have already spoken to and did the telephone interview. This was all handled in a very nice professional manner and I would highly advise anyone that has dealt with an employer or employees to take this interview. The questions are nonevasive. Hopefully 's research will help teach the employer and employees to work together and to find a solution that benefits both parties. Thank you for your interest. KC --- In , " Ellsworth " <eellswor@...> wrote: > > Hello, I am a graduate student at the University of Kansas who is > interested in how people approach their employer when they need a > change in their work schedule or work environment due to a health > reason. With permission from KC and Sharon, I am posting in search > of research participants. If you have asked for a change in your > schedule or work environment because of health reasons (or if you can > recommend someone who has) and are willing to participate, please > contact me at eellswor@... My research is done through a > telephone interview that lasts between 30 and 45 minutes. Thank you > very much!!! > Ellsworth > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 --- In , " Ellsworth " <eellswor@...> wrote: > > Hello, I am a graduate student at the University of Kansas who is > interested in how people approach their employer when they need a > change in their work schedule or work environment due to a health > reason. With permission from KC and Sharon, I am posting in search > of research participants. If you have asked for a change in your > schedule or work environment because of health reasons (or if you can > recommend someone who has) and are willing to participate, please > contact me at eellswor@... My research is done through a > telephone interview that lasts between 30 and 45 minutes. Thank you > very much!!! > Ellsworth > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 > One of the most bogus studies out there regarding CFS, in my view, is > the " twins study " that tries to draw conclusions about CFS by starting > from the misleading assumption that identical twins completely > eliminates genetic influences. Doesn't it though? Maybe not epigenetic influences (I don't really know). > To me, the problem with genetic research is not that it's looking at the > wrong thing, but that the field way under-estimates the complexity of > the problems they are tackling. The mentality seems to be that it's > possible to find one defective gene, enzyme or protein that corresponds > to one disease state. As if diseases were nice, cooperative little guys > with single causes. Many diseases are like that: sickle cell, Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis (to a large extent), familial forms of Alzheimer's and ALS... I can't really agree with your picture; I feel like most researchers into CFS, lupus, etc are expecting to find bewildering complexity at the headwaters of each of the immune diseases. In fact, the introductions of their papers almost ritually state that the disease is " extremely complex, " although there's usually not significant evidence to support that statement. As I see it the main problem with research is faith in models. I can't even express my outrage and disbelief at the fact that people actually assume that EAE = multiple sclerosis. Fortunately, this guy can: " Does the use of animal models of disease take us any closer to understanding human disease? With rare exceptions, the answer to this question is likely to be negative. The reasoning is simple. An animal model of disease can be said to be congruent with the human disease only when three conditions have been met: we fully understand the animal model, we fully understand the human disease and we have examined the two cases and found them to be substantially congruent in all important respects. [...] " All the other animal models — including those of inflammation, vascular disease, nervous system diseases and so on — represent nothing more than an extraordinary, and in most cases irrational, leap of faith. We have a human disease, and we have an animal model which in some vague and almost certainly superficial way reflects the human disease. We operate on the unjustified assumption that the two are congruent, and then we spend vast amounts of money trying to investigate the animal model, often without bothering to test our assumptions by constantly referring back to the original disease in humans. " This rather acid editorial is found at: http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v2/n2/full/nrd1012_fs.html It may even be far too harsh. I can't deny that I enjoy reading it, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 wrote: > Doesn't it though? Maybe not epigenetic influences (I don't really know). > Many diseases are like that: sickle cell, Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis (to a large extent), familial forms of Alzheimer's and ALS... Maybe those are the diseases where twin studies would be a good tool .... in the case of CFS, I think they are using a hammer to tighten a screw ... and that's a charitable way to put it. Besides, there was anecdotal evidence that it was a poorly-conducted study anyway ... in one case I heard of, the twins were mixed up in the study and the "well" twin could not convince them of their error. I would call sickle cell, Down's, etc., the "low hanging fruit" of genetics. The public, I suspect, has made the mistake of extrapolating those easy wins into a general principle that all disease states are easy to get everyone to agree on a simple definition, and that they have single causes that are amenable to single fixes. And at any rate .... even those aren't "easy wins" in that I don't recall cures even for those diseases you listed. Then there was all the hoo-raw surrounding the sequencing of the human genome ... that turned out to be overblown and now we realize that the proteome is where the action is at and that will be a much bigger job to decode and understand, much less do anything about. But I ramble. At any rate ... I am glad to hear that geneticists at least understand that CFS will not be an "easy win". --Bob wrote: > One of the most bogus studies out there regarding CFS, in my view, is > the "twins study" that tries to draw conclusions about CFS by starting > from the misleading assumption that identical twins completely > eliminates genetic influences. Doesn't it though? Maybe not epigenetic influences (I don't really know). > To me, the problem with genetic research is not that it's looking at the > wrong thing, but that the field way under-estimates the complexity of > the problems they are tackling. The mentality seems to be that it's > possible to find one defective gene, enzyme or protein that corresponds > to one disease state. As if diseases were nice, cooperative little guys > with single causes. Many diseases are like that: sickle cell, Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis (to a large extent), familial forms of Alzheimer's and ALS... I can't really agree with your picture; I feel like most researchers into CFS, lupus, etc are expecting to find bewildering complexity at the headwaters of each of the immune diseases. In fact, the introductions of their papers almost ritually state that the disease is "extremely complex," although there's usually not significant evidence to support that statement. As I see it the main problem with research is faith in models. I can't even express my outrage and disbelief at the fact that people actually assume that EAE = multiple sclerosis. Fortunately, this guy can: "Does the use of animal models of disease take us any closer to understanding human disease? With rare exceptions, the answer to this question is likely to be negative. The reasoning is simple. An animal model of disease can be said to be congruent with the human disease only when three conditions have been met: we fully understand the animal model, we fully understand the human disease and we have examined the two cases and found them to be substantially congruent in all important respects. [...] "All the other animal models — including those of inflammation, vascular disease, nervous system diseases and so on — represent nothing more than an extraordinary, and in most cases irrational, leap of faith. We have a human disease, and we have an animal model which in some vague and almost certainly superficial way reflects the human disease. We operate on the unjustified assumption that the two are congruent, and then we spend vast amounts of money trying to investigate the animal model, often without bothering to test our assumptions by constantly referring back to the original disease in humans." This rather acid editorial is found at: http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v2/n2/full/nrd1012_fs.html It may even be far too harsh. I can't deny that I enjoy reading it, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 > Maybe those are the diseases where twin studies would be a good tool I think it's very enlightening to get an upper limit on the genetic component, for any disease. Twin studies deliver that. > I would call sickle cell, Down's, etc., the " low hanging fruit " of genetics. For sure. Especially the causation of Down by trisomy 21. That's a discovery that was made (I'm pretty sure) with an optical mircoscope, just by looking at the number of chromosomes in cells. Could have been done in a middle school science lab. All it took was to look at the right thing. > Then there was all the hoo-raw surrounding the sequencing of the human genome ... that turned out to be overblown Yeah, a lot of it seems very exaggerated to me and can be a bit repulsive. But it garners more money for medical research. So, I'd probably say the same stuff, if I were the bigshot with the media's ear. A billion spent on research probably does more good than a billion spent on most of the stuff that a billion gets spent on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2008 Report Share Posted September 7, 2008 Please look on my web site under Why ABA: research www.learnerscompass.com<http://www.learnerscompass.com/> [ ] research Can anyone send me any research to support intensive ABA for young children with autism that also specify number of hours. I have the Lovaas article but having trouble finding other articles online, thanks Kowalski, M.A., BCBA Certified RDI Consultant lak214@...<mailto:lak214@...> 610-659-5344 42 Union Street Norristown, PA 19403 www.connectingpieces.comGet<http://www.connectingpieces.comget/> more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com<http://explorer.msn.com/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Dear Pat, If I remember correctly, even Novartis was skeptical and was going to shelve STI571, until Dr. Druker asked to buy the patent. He recognized its potential and went for it. We are the beneficiaries of medical history and his dream. I want all the researchers to follow their dream, we never know where it will take us, but I feel positive that someone is on to something that will eventually become a cure. Let's all keep a positive attitude that in due time, there will be a cure pronouncement. Thank you to all who keep holding us up when we are down and holding on to the dream. Haven't we all witnessed members who were really sick, recover by being patient and changing treatments? I can think of quite a few right off the bat. It would be interesting to hear part of their stories posted as a reminder of how fortunate we are to be living in this time. How many of you have changed from Gleevec to another drug, but at least credit Gleevec with saving your life? Hands & hearts, Lottie Duthu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 You can count me in on that group! On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Lottie Duthu <lotajam@...> wrote: > > > Dear Pat, > If I remember correctly, even Novartis was skeptical and was going to > shelve STI571, until Dr. Druker asked to buy the patent. He recognized its > potential and went for it. We are the beneficiaries of medical history and > his dream. I want all the researchers to follow their dream, we never know > where it will take us, but I feel positive that someone is on to something > that will eventually become a cure. Let's all keep a positive attitude that > in due time, there will be a cure pronouncement. Thank you to all who keep > holding us up when we are down and holding on to the dream. Haven't we all > witnessed members who were really sick, recover by being patient and > changing treatments? I can think of quite a few right off the bat. It would > be interesting to hear part of their stories posted as a reminder of how > fortunate we are to be living in this time. How many of you have changed > from Gleevec to another drug, but at least credit Gleevec with saving your > life? > Hands & hearts, > Lottie Duthu > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Hello Group.. on research, I hope that all who are now on the newer drugs, that they hold for a lifetime. the unfortunate part of this is, I attend the hospital twice week, and see more and more of CML (aml) in younger and younger people. When I first was dx with my Leukemia It was not even called CML and is was very very rare. It was later that I started to note that there were more and more people over the age of 40. Now it seems that young people in their 20 and 30's have it. I have even heard of younger people than that. So my prayer is that this group and other groups do not let up on the search for a cure.. I have failed Imatinib, Dasatinib and Nilotnib . I wonder if the drugs they now have will last for a long long time. Be safe all Skip DXed 32 + years Re: [ ] Research You can count me in on that group! On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Lottie Duthu <lotajam@...> wrote: > > > Dear Pat, > If I remember correctly, even Novartis was skeptical and was going to > shelve STI571, until Dr. Druker asked to buy the patent. He recognized its > potential and went for it. We are the beneficiaries of medical history and > his dream. I want all the researchers to follow their dream, we never know > where it will take us, but I feel positive that someone is on to something > that will eventually become a cure. Let's all keep a positive attitude that > in due time, there will be a cure pronouncement. Thank you to all who keep > holding us up when we are down and holding on to the dream. Haven't we all > witnessed members who were really sick, recover by being patient and > changing treatments? I can think of quite a few right off the bat. It would > be interesting to hear part of their stories posted as a reminder of how > fortunate we are to be living in this time. How many of you have changed > from Gleevec to another drug, but at least credit Gleevec with saving your > life? > Hands & hearts, > Lottie Duthu > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2010 Report Share Posted January 14, 2010 Skip, I agree with you fully.  As a 26 year old new CML-er,  I hope that not only a cure can be found, but also a cause.  If more and more people are getting this than ever before... It just makes ya wonder what's going on. Working toward Zero, Danny -- Sent from my Palm Prē Skip Duffie wrote:  Hello Group.. on research, I hope that all who are now on the newer drugs, that they hold for a lifetime. the unfortunate part of this is, I attend the hospital twice week, and see more and more of CML (aml) in younger and younger people. When I first was dx with my Leukemia It was not even called CML and is was very very rare. It was later that I started to note that there were more and more people over the age of 40. Now it seems that young people in their 20 and 30's have it. I have even heard of younger people than that. So my prayer is that this group and other groups do not let up on the search for a cure.. I have failed Imatinib, Dasatinib and Nilotnib . I wonder if the drugs they now have will last for a long long time. Be safe all Skip DXed 32 + years Re: [ ] Research You can count me in on that group! On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Lottie Duthu & lt;lotajam@...> wrote: > > > Dear Pat, > If I remember correctly, even Novartis was skeptical and was going to > shelve STI571, until Dr. Druker asked to buy the patent. He recognized its > potential and went for it. We are the beneficiaries of medical history and > his dream. I want all the researchers to follow their dream, we never know > where it will take us, but I feel positive that someone is on to something > that will eventually become a cure. Let's all keep a positive attitude that > in due time, there will be a cure pronouncement. Thank you to all who keep > holding us up when we are down and holding on to the dream. Haven't we all > witnessed members who were really sick, recover by being patient and > changing treatments? I can think of quite a few right off the bat. It would > be interesting to hear part of their stories posted as a reminder of how > fortunate we are to be living in this time. How many of you have changed > from Gleevec to another drug, but at least credit Gleevec with saving your > life? > Hands & amp; hearts, > Lottie Duthu > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2010 Report Share Posted January 14, 2010 Yes I agree also a cure and a cause would be fantastic :-) I am 28 years and have been on Gleevec since Nov. 2003. I cant stop thinking that I know Gleevec is fighting the CML but what else is it doing? Can it harm your body after so many years? > > > Dear Pat, > If I remember correctly, even Novartis was skeptical and was going to > shelve STI571, until Dr. Druker asked to buy the patent. He recognized its > potential and went for it. We are the beneficiaries of medical history and > his dream. I want all the researchers to follow their dream, we never know > where it will take us, but I feel positive that someone is on to something > that will eventually become a cure. Let's all keep a positive attitude that > in due time, there will be a cure pronouncement. Thank you to all who keep > holding us up when we are down and holding on to the dream. Haven't we all > witnessed members who were really sick, recover by being patient and > changing treatments? I can think of quite a few right off the bat. It would > be interesting to hear part of their stories posted as a reminder of how > fortunate we are to be living in this time. How many of you have changed > from Gleevec to another drug, but at least credit Gleevec with saving your > life? > Hands & amp; hearts, > Lottie Duthu > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Nope - I am not an official researcher. If you are - great! > > I am intending a virtual seminar next week, Feb 17th, titled " Beyond the Bench: The Perceived Price of Activism " . I wanted to get some comments from others here before I see the talk. > http://www.sefora.org/feb-2011-seminar/ > > I am interested to know how many of those in are directly involved in researching CMT. If you are researching, are you active in other ways in the CMT community? Why/Why not? Would you be researching it if you could? Do you feel that creating awareness/raising money is enough? What kind of credit do you give to those who do the " real work " ? If you neither raise awareness or research, what are your reasons for doing so? > > I feel like this debate is like all those pink ribbons and fund-raisers you see for cancer research, while all the scientists behind their respective benches don't really get very much credit from the community. > > Any comments will probably help figure out how I feel about doing my own research and my position in the community. > > Thanks, > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.