What is the evidence for various causes of Crohn's disease?
A very long re****t explains the jist of everything.
http://www.mad-cow.org/00/paraTB.html
A comparatively well done study follows from the above site. Previous
studies were flawed for several reasons: antibiotics chosen, length of
time, combination of treatments or lack there of, reinfection etc.
This study still has some problems, but notice the success rate is
very impressive considering that the patients were chosen largely by
extensive previous damage done by the ravages of this disease. I would
like to hear a realistic argument explaining why people with a
"genetic" illness could go into statistically significant rate of
remission after antibiotic treatments. The fact that this illness is
spreading doesn't lend credence to the genetic argument either. There
are more studies like this one scattered amongst most of these links.
http://alan.kennedy.name/crohns/research/chemo/htfull.htm
You can experimentally verify the next link's studies it references,
only be eliminating all high and moderate glycemic index foods, and
stimulants (coffee, cigarettes, etc.), and possibly more. Some studies
only eliminate sugar - not carbohydrates, and drugs (nicotine is more
common among Crohn's suffers compared to the general population and UC
sufferers), and so the results are in question.
http://www.paratuberculosis.net/25does_map_cause_crohns_disease/high_carbsugar_consumption/
I have had great success on this diet as long as my will power holds
out and as long as I can keep track of every little thing that I take
in.
http://alan.kennedy.name/crohns/welcome.htm
http://www.crohns.org/
What can I do about this difficult situation?
After about a year of looking for a Dr. willing to prescribe
antibiotics I discovered cheap natural over the counter antibiotics.
Amazingly certain plant oils are as effective or more effective than
traditional fungal based antibiotics, and need no prescription. One
component is not necessary effective against all bacteria, fungi, etc.
But many have broad spectrum effectiveness. Ever heard of thymol? This
is one active ingredient in Lysteriene. Thymol is effective against a
wide variety of microbes, including lysteria, but is toxic internally
in the effective dosage. Carvacrol is the main active ingredient in
oregano oil, but is not water soluble and is not sufficiently
effective against mycobacterium. I have been trying monolauren for
months now.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1517-83822000000400003&script=sci_arttext&tlng=
Also the last link is too long to put here but do a Google scholar
search for "lauric mycobacteria"; the fourth link down I think shows a
pdf formatted study that demonstrates effective treatments against TB
and other mycobacteria in animals like cattle over a period of about
21 days. Lauric acid or monolaurin is found in large amounts in
tropical oils especially coconut oils.
Personally I can verify that taking in large quantities of coconut oil
on an empty stomach 3 times daily absent of all stimulants has given
me much relief. 10 -20 times a day, roughly, I needed to powder my
nose 27/30 days - now more like 2/7 days are this difficult, and this
pattern has been consistent for months now. If I take in large amounts
of coconut oil (1/2 lauric acid) I can eat all the forbidden foods I
want and drink beer without consequence. I would like help discovering
the proper dosage and administration for people like me; though, as my
progress is slow. I still mess us the administration of lauric acid to
myself about 2/7 days a week.
Previously I have tried garlic - moderately successful but very hard
to swallow and chew raw; I have tried oil of oregano with oil food
etc. and though my acme disappeared I was still sick; and if you have
mycobacteria don't even think about taking an immune enhancing herb
because mycobacteria simply live in white blood cells. Don't believe
me? Read on it through wikipedia and Google searches, and search for
tuberculous.
You got a better idea? let's hear the facts. Believe me I want to know
more about this. But, nothing but empirical evidence and logic,
please. Also I'm going to give a preemptive rebuttal, to all those
that wish to argue this is pseudoscience because "my Dr. said so" or
because this research hasn't made entry into the popular press:
research logical fallacies (especially appeal to authority) and try
reading my sources carefully first, as well as my own writing. To give
a few examples of why this is im****tant: leeches, recent changes in
death rates of Dr.s as well as their patients have only recently,
20'th century, saved more than killed. Every day and every death was
full of confidence for the medical profession. A few years back Dr.s
believed that stress caused ulcers, now we know this is really mostly
caused my H. pylori - a bacteria also supceptable to lauric acid. By
the way some Dr.s still believe this, DESPITE overwhelming evidence.
To admit guilt or a mistake would hurt the Dr's pride so an illogical
argument is formed. Remember Luis Pasteur? If I remember right the
majority opinion went something like, 'how dare you [Pasteur] accuse
us [doctors] of hurting our patients. That would hurt our pride so you
must be wrong.'
Let's see 86% success rate with antibiotics, and minor side effects
with the possibility of a cure vs. surgery, lifelong illness, lifelong
medical expenses, and a greater chance of bowel cancer with
conventional wisdom. Hmmm? What evidence do medical people have that
what they recommend is more effective than leeches? I hope someone is
trying this on their own and can contribute some valuable incites.
Science changes one funeral at a time don't let it be yours.
Peace,
J-town
|
