Bob, I hear you but...

[Guest guest]

Bob,

I am great friends with Rich V. I highly respect Cheney. I don't

know . But here's my point. I am fairly well recovered and I

know that borrelia and mycoplasma were the cause of my illness. I

know my son and husband are both infected but doing well on

antibiotics and herbs.

I get very disturbed when an infection worse that syphilis or

tuberculosis is to be treated just with herbs and whey protein. I

want people like your wife to recover. I want people who are so sick

they can't even get out of bed to be able to be treated effectively

and earn a living again, not throw all their money after a

fleeting " cure. "

The MP is not the perfect fix but it is a piece of the puzzle, namely

the right antibiotics correctly used for a few years may do wonders.

So is the protocol started by Dr. Stratton and Garth Nicolson.

So, yeah, I get a little annoyed, but not because I am jaded and

sick, quite the opposite. Because I have seen people recover on

antibiotics.

a Carnes

>

> It was my understanding that , when he initially wrote, was

fresh

> from, if not still attending, the conference where Cheney spoke and

Rich

> presented his latest paper. So he's " pumped " with the

possibilities and

> wants to share them. Some people want to believe so badly that

> something huge is just around the corner that they don't keep a

sense of

> perspective. It's understandable. You get more and more immune to

that

> (maybe " jaded " is the right word) the longer you are sick *and* the

> longer you don't see improvement despite trying a variety of

> approaches. In 's case he's been sick a long time but he has

> managed to see some improvement and have some kind of life, and has

> experienced a fair amount of success. We however haven't been that

> lucky and it makes us grind our teeth any time someone says they

have

> found " the " answer.

>

> Look, CFS has such a lousy, wimpy case definition, and getting

worse all

> the time, that it doesn't even represent a specific target. There

can

> be no " one " answer as long as the CDC keeps watering it down and

> bringing in even people, as they did in their latest " study " , who

are so

> mildly-to-not-at-all sick that they don't even *realize* they have

an

> illness and just think they're tired like everyone is (which

basically

> they are). Even if you go back to the original 1988 case

definition you

> still are casting a broad enough net that there is probably

no " one " answer.

>

> 's misplaced enthusiasm aside, I'm glad that Rich, Yasko and

Cheney

> keep contributing in their own ways. I keep my thumb on the pulse

of

> that stuff and integrate it with everything else, but I don't

seriously

> think that one of them is going to have an " aha experience " that

will

> usher us all back into good health with minimal fuss. 's

rejoinder

> will no doubt be that Yasko's protocol is highly customized to the

> individual but in my experience that customization is far from

> fool-proof. It reminds me of " Crabtree's Bludgeon " , which is sort

of a

> foil to Occam's Razor: / " No set of mutually inconsistent

observations

> can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent

> explanation, however complicated. "

>

> /--Bob