Re: positive crohns tx study, 1994

[Guest guest]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:51:57PM -0000, wrote:

>With the inclusion of nitroimidazoles, one might do even better than

>whats seen in this trial. I have read some old case reports on great

>results from nitroimidazoles in Crohns.

Metronidazole is a standard treatment for Crohn's today; you can find it

mentioned on many of the standard websites. As usual, they found some

effect of the drug on the immune system (I don't know quite what), and

are attributing the clinical success to that rather than to any

antibacterial effect. (Sometimes they admit that the drug must have some

effect on intestinal flora, and could thereby affect Crohn's). That's

the party line, anyway. A more aggressive view is at:

http://gut.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/48/5/647

which mentions " antituberculosis regimens---some of which succeeded some

of the time " , which presumably includes the trial you quoted below. A

still more aggressive view is at:

http://www.crohns.org/treatment/borody.htm

which mentions metronidazole as an antibiotic to avoid using on its own,

so that bacteria might not become resistant to it, which could be a

concern later in properly designed multi-antibiotic combinations which

included metronidazole. It also says that first-line antituberculosis

drugs were found in vitro to not work particularly well on

paratuberculosis.

> I found this while checking

>to see if the new Gibson P et al abx trial for Crohns was out yet,

>which it isnt.

Is that the large Australian trial (this one:)?

http://www.crohns.org/treatment/austrial.htm

There's a feature of a couple of studies (one in humans and one in

monkeys) which makes me think that mycobacterium paratuberculosis is a

hanger-on in Crohn's disease, not a primary causative agent. This is

that when they examined patients for antibodies to it, and also examined

gut tissue samples for its DNA, in many patients they found antibodies,

and in many they found DNA, but in none did they find both antibodies and

DNA. This would seem to say: if the immune system wakes up to it, it

quickly gets eradicated. (Sorry, I didn't make a note of which studies

these were.)

Stratton's group claims that at least some Crohn's disease cases are

caused by Chlamydia pneumoniae; they list a few such patients in their

patent, as having been cured by their protocols. I would guess that they

got positive blood tests -- their own experimental ones, not standard

serology -- before attempting the cure.

--

Norman Yarvin http://yarchive.net

[Guest guest]

Hi, Norman.

I know people personally whose Crohn's has gone into remission using

the treatments discussed by Gregg at http://www.krysalis.net.

Click on Crohn's and Crohn's testimonies. This is for real.

Rich

> >With the inclusion of nitroimidazoles, one might do even better

than

> >whats seen in this trial. I have read some old case reports on

great

> >results from nitroimidazoles in Crohns.

>

> Metronidazole is a standard treatment for Crohn's today; you can

find it

> mentioned on many of the standard websites. As usual, they found

some

> effect of the drug on the immune system (I don't know quite what),

and

> are attributing the clinical success to that rather than to any

> antibacterial effect. (Sometimes they admit that the drug must

have some

> effect on intestinal flora, and could thereby affect Crohn's).

That's

> the party line, anyway. A more aggressive view is at:

>

> http://gut.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/48/5/647

>

> which mentions " antituberculosis regimens---some of which

succeeded some

> of the time " , which presumably includes the trial you quoted

below. A

> still more aggressive view is at:

>

> http://www.crohns.org/treatment/borody.htm

>

> which mentions metronidazole as an antibiotic to avoid using on

its own,

> so that bacteria might not become resistant to it, which could be a

> concern later in properly designed multi-antibiotic combinations

which

> included metronidazole. It also says that first-line

antituberculosis

> drugs were found in vitro to not work particularly well on

> paratuberculosis.

>

> > I found this while checking

> >to see if the new Gibson P et al abx trial for Crohns was out

yet,

> >which it isnt.

>

> Is that the large Australian trial (this one:)?

>

> http://www.crohns.org/treatment/austrial.htm

>

>

> There's a feature of a couple of studies (one in humans and one in

> monkeys) which makes me think that mycobacterium paratuberculosis

is a

> hanger-on in Crohn's disease, not a primary causative agent. This

is

> that when they examined patients for antibodies to it, and also

examined

> gut tissue samples for its DNA, in many patients they found

antibodies,

> and in many they found DNA, but in none did they find both

antibodies and

> DNA. This would seem to say: if the immune system wakes up to it,

it

> quickly gets eradicated. (Sorry, I didn't make a note of which

studies

> these were.)

>

> Stratton's group claims that at least some Crohn's disease cases

are

> caused by Chlamydia pneumoniae; they list a few such patients in

their

> patent, as having been cured by their protocols. I would guess

that they

> got positive blood tests -- their own experimental ones, not

standard

> serology -- before attempting the cure.

>

>

> --

> Norman Yarvin

http://yarchive.net

>

[Guest guest]

Ah, Crohns and MAP. Looks like another scientific miasma. God, what a

drag.

Ive read very little in this area.

In message 6471 I posted a link to a 2005 paper which was very

critical of oligonucleotide probe protocols used by two groups to

visualize MAP in Crohns.

Your view that the non-overlap between seropositivity and PCR

positivity suggests that MAP is easy to clear, does seem reasonable.

One possible alternative which is very speculative, is that immune

pressure makes the organism less amenable to PCR. But I wouldnt know

how, nor am able to point to any suggestive precedent. I just know

PCR creeps me out a lil. I prefer the concretion of immuno-

electronmicroscopy. At least as a consumer, that is. If I tried to

use IEM myself maybe I'd find out its alot more iffy and finicky than

I'd imagined.

I've been studying MAC pulmonary disease feverishly for the last 3

days. It excites me because I didnt know there existed any accepted

bacteriosis as regularly refractory to antibacterial treatment as

pulmonary MAC is. Hell, it averages about as hard to treat with abx

as CFS and Crohns are, if not worse. Ive read about 6-drug treatment

combos for pulmonary MAC. Only a minority see resolution of symptoms -

or, depending on what trial you read, even significant improvement

for that matter. Of course, many with MAC have AIDS, cystic fibrosis,

or emphysema, but I'm talking particularly about primary pulmonary

MAC - people who are otherwise healthy as far as is known.

It sounds like the phase II Crohns trials had alot of responders. I'm

sorry to see they are dropping people from the phase III if they

relapse in the first 4 months; that seems a lil on the quick side

IMHO. I guess its tough to justify hanging on to nonresponders for 8

months tho, since many of em are going to be on placebo. Nobody wants

to spend half their life taking a bunch of placebos.

[Guest guest]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:03:27PM -0000, wrote:

>Ah, Crohns and MAP. Looks like another scientific miasma. God, what a

>drag.

Yeah, I think the reason why most researchers prefer the auto-immune

hypothesis (otherwise known as blaming the patient for the disease) is

that it simplifies the question drastically: you only have to worry about

the biochemistry of one organism, not of two (or, god forbid, three or

four). And you're always studying a relevant organism; there's no

possibility of ruining your career by studying some obscure microbe for

ten years, then finding out that it is of no importance whatsoever.

>Ive read very little in this area.

>

>In message 6471 I posted a link to a 2005 paper which was very

>critical of oligonucleotide probe protocols used by two groups to

>visualize MAP in Crohns.

Yeah, it was by following those links that I ran across the two papers I

mentioned.

>Your view that the non-overlap between seropositivity and PCR

>positivity suggests that MAP is easy to clear, does seem reasonable.

>One possible alternative which is very speculative, is that immune

>pressure makes the organism less amenable to PCR. But I wouldnt know

>how, nor am able to point to any suggestive precedent.

It still could easily be. One of the problems with PCR is how to destroy

the organism, beforehand, so as to expose the DNA. Different forms of a

bacterium will naturally have different optimal ways of destroying them.

> I just know

>PCR creeps me out a lil. I prefer the concretion of immuno-

>electronmicroscopy. At least as a consumer, that is. If I tried to

>use IEM myself maybe I'd find out its alot more iffy and finicky than

>I'd imagined.

With PCR, a major problem is contamination. The DNA gets multiplied so

vastly that an absolutely miniscule speck of contamination from the last

batch can ruin your present one.

With immuno-electronmicroscopy, a major problem is cross-reactivity: any

other molecule with a sufficiently similar shape, and similar locations

of positive and negative charges on that shape, gives you a false

positive.

But those are just fundamental problems; when you add in everyday issues

like where to buy supplies from, the techniques must become even hairier.

>I've been studying MAC pulmonary disease feverishly for the last 3

>days. It excites me because I didnt know there existed any accepted

>bacteriosis as regularly refractory to antibacterial treatment as

>pulmonary MAC is. Hell, it averages about as hard to treat with abx

>as CFS and Crohns are, if not worse. Ive read about 6-drug treatment

>combos for pulmonary MAC. Only a minority see resolution of symptoms -

> or, depending on what trial you read, even significant improvement

>for that matter. Of course, many with MAC have AIDS, cystic fibrosis,

>or emphysema, but I'm talking particularly about primary pulmonary

>MAC - people who are otherwise healthy as far as is known.

They do seem to be pretty old, though; the first paper that popped up on

Medline when I typed in " primary pulmonary mycobacterium avium " was a

study from Japan, on 72 patients, whose average age was 68. The immune

system is much weaker in the elderly.

Tuberculosis is pretty refractory, too, although not quite that bad; a

year or so is the standard treatment length. Even if one is just

seropositive, with no signs of clinical disease, they tend to treat for

at least six months. Sometimes they use one or two drugs, but for

drug-resistant variants of TB, they use more.

--

Norman Yarvin http://yarchive.net

[Guest guest]

'

Your drifting my way- only believe in what you can see????The PCR

stuff is q long way from helping anyone at this point IMO. This also

seems to be the medical establishments observations after many

failed therapies on that type of diagnosis.

tony

>

> Ah, Crohns and MAP. Looks like another scientific miasma. God,

what a

> drag.

>

> Ive read very little in this area.

>

> In message 6471 I posted a link to a 2005 paper which was very

> critical of oligonucleotide probe protocols used by two groups to

> visualize MAP in Crohns.

>

> Your view that the non-overlap between seropositivity and PCR

> positivity suggests that MAP is easy to clear, does seem

reasonable.

> One possible alternative which is very speculative, is that immune

> pressure makes the organism less amenable to PCR. But I wouldnt

know

> how, nor am able to point to any suggestive precedent. I just know

> PCR creeps me out a lil. I prefer the concretion of immuno-

> electronmicroscopy. At least as a consumer, that is. If I tried to

> use IEM myself maybe I'd find out its alot more iffy and finicky

than

> I'd imagined.

>

> I've been studying MAC pulmonary disease feverishly for the last 3

> days. It excites me because I didnt know there existed any

accepted

> bacteriosis as regularly refractory to antibacterial treatment as

> pulmonary MAC is. Hell, it averages about as hard to treat with

abx

> as CFS and Crohns are, if not worse. Ive read about 6-drug

treatment

> combos for pulmonary MAC. Only a minority see resolution of

symptoms -

> or, depending on what trial you read, even significant

improvement

> for that matter. Of course, many with MAC have AIDS, cystic

fibrosis,

> or emphysema, but I'm talking particularly about primary pulmonary

> MAC - people who are otherwise healthy as far as is known.

>

> It sounds like the phase II Crohns trials had alot of responders.

I'm

> sorry to see they are dropping people from the phase III if they

> relapse in the first 4 months; that seems a lil on the quick side

> IMHO. I guess its tough to justify hanging on to nonresponders for

8

> months tho, since many of em are going to be on placebo. Nobody

wants

> to spend half their life taking a bunch of placebos.

>