 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Meg Mangin R.N.
Research Team (on leave)
|
Posted: Mon Jan 3rd, 2005 03:14 |
|
If antibiotics are effective at very low doses, why do we ramp up the dose?
Linda Jones answers:
"My understanding is that the antibiotics don't actually kill the Cell Wall Deficient pathogens that are the underlying cause of these illnesses. They are bacteriostatic and just make them susceptible to our immune system. But to some degree, the antibiotics suppress immune function. So as the antibiotic decays, the immune system is able to become more and more active.
I'd guess that it takes the pathogens longer to recuperate from the antibiotic exposure than it does for the immune system to become less suppressed. That's why the immune system is able to mop up the pathogens that have become susceptible by that particular dose of antibiotics before the pathogens have recuperated.
Some pathogens take higher doses of antibiotics to become susceptible. And some take lower doses. Some are more affected by one antibiotic than another and some are more affected by combinations of antibiotics. By working slowly upward with the antibiotics, and slowly adding antibiotics, you cover the whole spectrum of susceptibility. The low doses are taken long enough for the immune system to wipe out the pathogens most susceptible to low doses, and the higher doses are then used to allow the immune system to wipe out the pathogens susceptible to the higher doses.
The advantage of this is that you don't kill all the pathogens off at once, which reduces the severity of the Herxheimer reaction. That keeps the host alive while killing the pathogens. And it also does a more thorough job of wiping out the pathogens.
This is also why they are recommending that if someone has too severe of a Herx reaction, they take the minocycline more frequently (not allowing the level to decay), which suppresses immune function and slows down the die-off, allowing the body to heal and detox enough to catch up.
I think that antibiotics do kill some pathogens, just not the particular ones that we are infected with. And to complicate things, only some antibiotics are capable of killing pathogens without converting some of the survivors to CWD form. That's why antibiotic therapies have failed in the past. They have been taken at high doses for long periods of time, and in so doing, they've just suppressed immune function for long periods of time, and/or created CWD forms to develop. I would bet that this is why some people with Lyme will become asymptomatic from antibiotic use, but then when antibiotics are stopped, their symptoms return. And this is also why research on treating Lyme with high dose long-term antibiotics has not shown it to be successful. The high doses for long periods simply suppressed immune function and kept the Lyme from being able to be completely eliminated. And because the Lyme wasn't necessarily susceptible to the particular antibiotics used, or the antibiotics used converted the Lyme to CWD form, the Lyme was able to survive.
Most people seem to be reporting a period between antibiotic doses where their Herx is worse. That would be the point where their immune system is most active and the pathogens are still succeptible to the immune system. As the antibiotic decays to zero, the immune system becomes better able to function."
(edited by Meg Mangin, R.N.)
Also:
Anecdotal reports of beginning at and in increasing the MP antibiotics in increments of 25 mg have been positive.
But anecdotal reports of beginning at and in increasing these antibiotics in smaller increments than 25mg have not been positive.
It appears that the antibiotic dose needs to be changed a significant amount to alter the immune system response. Dr Marshall has said, "The body/immune system can *get used to* a dose level and can stop responding."
____________________
Nothing contained in this site is or should be considered, or used as a substitute for, medical advice, diagnosis or treatment by your physician.
|
Current time is 11:10 | |
|
|
|
|
