Re: /regarding methotrexate

October 14, 2008

Leonie,

I say that methotrexate is a good drug with which to treat rheumatoid

arthritis because there is scientific evidence to prove it.

Methotrexate has been in use for a couple of decades to treat RA, and

there is plenty of research from which one validly may draw that

conclusion.

DMARDs like methotrexate don't simply mask symptoms, they alter the

disease course in a positive way - they stop or slow the progression

of the disease (as evidenced clinically, through lab results, and via

joint imaging). DMARD use is associated with significantly better

outcomes in RA.

In addition, as discussed recently, " induction therapy " is a strategy

whereby one or more DMARDs are used to bring early RA quickly into

remission. After remission is achieved, the DMARDs are scaled back

and, in some cases, even withdrawn completely. Drug-free remission has

now been demonstrated to be possible for a minority of patients with

RA. This is further and very strong evidence that DMARDs don't not

just mask the symptoms of RA.

The majority of patients who use methotrexate do not experience

serious side effects, if any at all.

You say " No drug helps your body heal itself properly... it can only

mask the symptoms. " What about, for example, cancer therapies? Do

those drugs not help the body heal?

Not an MD

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:56 PM, mumpup2000 <leoniecent@...> wrote:

> ,

> I understand what you're saying about MTX and i realise that of all

> the RA drugs, it's the most proven to be safe in the long term ... my

> thoughts are that no drug is a good one. No drug helps your body

> heal itself properly... it can only mask the symptoms. Drugs force

> some chemical reaction which appropriates healing, and there's always

> side effects that you don't want. The bottom line is that we know

> it's not good, but we take it anyway because we want to live in

> freedom without pain. If some people want to think it really is good,

> because it cures them, then good luck to them. Who am i to make them

> think otherwise ? Maybe it's not such a bad idea to put aside

> labelling anything in life with the judgement " good " or " bad " . It can

> only lead to confusion.

>

> And some ppl even suspend their judgement because they know it's

> possible to create one's own reality with the power of one's mind.

> If you think it's bad, then IT IS ! etc ...

>

> Leonie (I'm not an MD either)

October 14, 2008

Leonie, you aren't making any points here. In your original post about the

side-effects of MTX every side-effect you listed was predicated with the

word " CAN " or " MAY " . We have a number of members that are already frightened

by the 'possible side-effects' and in my opinion, this shouldn't be

bad-mouthed on the forum without proof. It's just giving more possible

reasons for the ones that are given that choice of using MTX and save their

abilities. I don't know of anyone that died because of an overdose of MTX,

but really suffered because it wasn't available when my mother died from the

side-effects of not treating the illness. It's been proven that MTX helps

many people and not hurting but a few. Prescribed limits are clearly

dictated with a very low amount compared to people with cancer, so it's not

that much of a problem. Most of us that I've read from on this list have

symptoms that could probably be fixed by injection rather than pills. I

can't use most of the other newer meds, so I'll use my MTX, thank you.

Dennis in eastexas