Posted by bleauberry on April 20, 2018, at 11:40:26
In reply to HHV 6 Infection? Lyme infection? 9/10? Treatment? » bleauberry, posted by SLS on April 19, 2018, at 22:51:52
> > I automatically deduce that 9 out of 10 psychiatric patients have a tick born disease.
>
> This is an extraordinary assertion.I agree. The first time I heard that I thought it was insane. Ridiculous. Impossible. But then, during my own journey, I realized it was all true. Too many details to discuss here.
Did you read the part that those statements came from two different doctors not from me? And that they specialize in psychiatry and lyme? That's all they do. The same doctors who ended my 20+ years of treatment resistance? What gives that statement credibility is:
1.Different doctors from different localities who do not know each other offered the same exact opinion - their opinions, both of them, were their own, formed from years of clinical observation in their own offices. When they say 9 out of 10, they seriously mean 9 out of 10. They didn't make it up. It is actually what happens in the office. I was one of those 9. Their views are also bolstered and supported by feedback from other LLMDs. They meet annually for large seminars, recently in Las Vegas. Nothing I have shared here is disputable to them - what I share here came from them!
2.Their claims were not empty or wishful - this is what they do - they take poorly managed psychiatric patients from other doctors and they fix them up.
I understand your world view is through the lens of establishment science, not necessarily anecdotal. That creates a certain amount of skepticism if new info comes from some other source besides a scientific journal.
If you ask me, an extraordinary assertion is that 9 of 10 psychiatric patients are not infection victims. I have more proof that they are, than there is proof they aren't. In the end, it is an individual choice. Yours and mine have rarely been in agreement. I present options for those seeking choices. It makes no sense for someone to be stuck in depression and psychobabble for 20 years and not get options, especially when they haven't made much progress in all that time. I mean, we only have one life. It's not like we have forever to double down on things that haven't produced.
>
> Before I continue debating you on this, I am more interested in knowing what should be done with these 9 people. What is the FIRST thing to be done to get these people better? For the sake of conciseness, it might be easier to address the following two scenarios as examples.The first thing to do is to get a second opinion. That second opinion should come only from a doctor who considers themselves to be an LLMD. This second opinion will take about 2 hours, $300, a ton of questions (all of them are listed in the book 'Why Can't I Get Better" Horowitz).
Do not get another psychiatric prescription until the above has been performed first.
>
> 1. Acute - early de novo infection:
>
> 2. Chronic - late stage infection:Huge diff between acute and chronic. When I speak Lyme, you can just assume I mean chronic - either mid stage or late stage. Earlier stages of infection or co-infections are usually more physical and less psychological. As time goes on, it becomes more psychiatric. Acute is fairly easy to diagnose and treat. Chronic is more complicated, requiring greater expertise to diagnose and treat.
>
> I like the idea of using 3 antibiotics concurrently. I have heard this idea proposed before - sort of like a cocktail of drugs used to treat HIV / AIDS.In my case the reason is because Borellia can morph into 3 different forms when it is under threat. Each form responds to different ABX. If we only treat for 1 or 2 of the possible forms, then the bugs will shift into the other form and we make no progress. This is one reason why clinical trials are so useless. They don't do it right.
>
> Which 3 antibiotics are most often chosen?Variable. Most LLMDs agree on the multi-mechanism approach of multi ABX, but they might have their own favorites. My previous docs loved Clindamycin, for example, but my current one is fearful of it.
Doxy is common, as is Azithromycin. Tindamax. Ceftin. Flagyl. Rifampin. More. In my first remission a few years ago, I think I went through over a dozen different ABX over time and I don't remember all their names. Docs like to keep rotating them in and out for effectiveness and to avoid tolerance.
The primary factor is not which 3 (or even as much as 5), but rather, that all of them have different mechanisms so that they cover the entire spectrum of gram-negative, gram-positive, cell wall, cell wall deficient, and cystic.
And then there are common co-infections such as Bartonella, Babesia and Mycoplasma. The ABX cocktails often cover these confections as a side benefit. Sometimes a more targeted approach is needed. In my case for example, and in most psychiatric patients in my opinion, we are dealing with Bartonella and cystic Borellia. imo. My treatment is wide spectrum with an extra focus on Bartonella and busting cysts and biofilms.
I might mention there is a potential side benefit of visiting an LLMD instead of a psychiatrist - in their practice they have no way of avoiding becoming experts on psych meds, since nearly every patient walking in the door has unresolved psych symptoms. It's part of the picture. They have no choice. The psychiatrist is only dealing with psych meds and symptoms, not the whole person, and not other diseases. Generally., The LLMD is very different, addressing the whole person, various clusters of symptoms which seem unrelated but they are actually related, and addressing the psychiatric symptoms within all of that. So they get a certain exposure, perception, and experience that the psych docs just simply don't get in their practices.
So that brings up a new extraordinary assertion - that LLMDs may be more skilled in treating psychiatric symptoms than specialist psychiatrist are. :-)
>
>
> - Scott
poster:bleauberry
thread:1097758
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20180331/msgs/1098270.html