For Sierra - Re: Minocycline

[Guest guest]

Hi n,

The only medicine I take with the antibiotic is ibuprofin--200-

400/day. I am puzzled by the fact that I was not offered minocycline

sooner when I think I am the perfect candidate for it--my symptoms

have only occasionally been acute--I've never needed prednisone. It

can be a very, very slow-acting drug, with efficacy most often seen

at the 6 month point or beyond. Perhaps the reason rheumatologists

are reluctant to prescribe it is that is is not approved by the FDA

as a treatment for RA. It's use for RA is considered " off-label " .

What I like about it is that I feel strong and well on it, not

weakened like I did on nearly all the other DMARDs.

Sierra

>

> >>>I have been on Minocycline for 4 months and it is the best

medicine

> I've been on for my RA. It is working beautifully for me and I'm

ever

> so grateful. I have mild-moderate RA--was diagnosed several years

ago

> and have been on the following DMARDS: Plaquineil, Methotrexate (2

> years), Arava (3 weeks), & Sulfasalazine (3 weeks).<<<

>

> Hi Sierra,

>

> Many thanks for your reply and it's great to hear the minocycline

is working so well for you! Are you taking it as a substitute for the

previous meds you mentioned or in combo with something else?

>

> I'm getting similarly good results with the tetracycline (same

family of abx). I have been on it for several months and improvement

has been slow, but definitely worth waiting it out, in retrospect,

and putting up with the pain to get these results.

>

> I wonder why this treatment seem to be such a well kept secret from

RA patients? If it works - even if for only a % of people - with so

few side-effects, then why isn't it being used more? I don't

understand the resistance by docs to at least try it on patients,

even if results aren't immediate. What exactly do docs mean when they

say they have had little success with it? Could they mean patients

give up without giving it time to kick in or that other drugs are

just more measurable in their immediate effects? Also, the dosing

seems variable...better results seem to come with lower doses given

every few days than continuous high dosing. Could there just be a

lack of education here? For all their training and the respect due

that we give them, docs can't know everything, afterall, and belief

systems can be a very hard thing to change.

>

> Sadly, my doctor says, the field of rheumatology is sketchy and

archaic at best with a lot of patients doing the " guinea pig " run

around with some pretty toxic drugs. Would pharmaceutical companies

really be altruistic enough to forego profits for researching

cheaper, more effective alternatives or a cure? It's just not in the

pharmaceuticals' best interests to do this and far more profitable to

keep people chugging on the big money drug train.

>

> Hate to sound so critical, but I really think we all need to be our

own best advocates and look at all alternatives and even suspend our

own disbelief at times, no matter how ridiculous some alternatives

may sound. For instance, there is a lot of " quack-busting " going on

that says liver flushing is all hoo-haw and hogwash. I was pretty

skeptical, myself, until after a series of pretty bad biliary colic

attacks a few years ago, I got up the courage to try a flush from

Curezone.com and it worked like a dream. My attacks stopped

immediately and it was a much safer, healthier alternative to having

my gall bladder removed. Truly, " the proof of the pudding is in the

eating " with anything... Incidentally, for anyone who may be

interested, liver flushing has been helpful for many with allergies,

asthma, gall stones, drug toxicity, pms, arthritis....you name it.

Check out Curezone.com for a full list of complaints that liver

flushing helps.

>

> Thanks, Sierra, for your confirmation...I was beginning to wonder

if my own improvement was imagined or solely due to the plaquenil.

>

> Peace, n

>