 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Meg Mangin R.N.
Research Team
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29th, 2005 14:13 |
|
Why isn't the MP being used by more doctors?
 Dr Marshall wrote: "I didn't take anything about the MP at face value either  My own life depended on being exactly right..."
There is a traditional lengthy lag time between the discovery of a medical breakthough and its acceptance by the medical establishment. Then it takes many more years for that information to filter down to the average general practitioner. For example, Dr. Barry Marshall had to go to the extreme measure of swallowing bacteria to prove that they cause stomach ulcers and 20 years later many patients complaining of stomach pain are still not tested for H. pylori.
"Change in science is a very painful and slow process. My academic colleague, Nobel Laureate Barry Marshall, was ridiculed for over a decade before people actually started taking his discovery seriously, and accepting that stomach ulcers could be caused by bacteria. You can read his tribulations on the Nobel site at URL http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/marshall-lecture.pdf
Physicians are notoriously conservative, and do not like to speak against consensus. That is why so many breakthroughs in Medicine come from the young, who have not yet settled into the firm dogma of their profession, and from biology or biomedicine, such as we have done.
I get many calls from physicians who are absolutely amazed at the recovery they see in their patients. They are prepared to take on a few more, and a few more. But virtually all of them are still trying to convince themselves that this new-fangled science might actually be correct.
Old ideas die hard. It was the great physicist Max Planck (father of quantum theory) who said "Science progresses funeral by funeral."
Unfortunately, when talking about the slow pace of progress in medical science, the funerals of the patients take place more frequently than the funerals of the 'experts.'" ..Trevor..
The ability to research their medical condition on the world wide web by motivated patients has put many doctors on the spot and the Internet should greatly speed the dissemination of information from scientists to physicians.
You have to have a significant understanding of molecular medicine in order to comprehend why these organisms can exist inside phagocytes, and the way in which they take over the actions of phagocytes. Without that understanding it is too easy to lose focus and concentrate only on things that are obvious, rather than than the processes actually causing the disease.
The pulmonologists who have traditionally treated sarcoidosis have taken the tactic of ignoring our protocol which is based on solid research that they have ignored for decades. We have repeatedly attempted to contact them for years in order to debate the merits of the bacterial etiology and the Marshall Protocol but have been met with stony silence. Indeed, a few took pains to try to thwart the publication of Dr. Marshall's papers.
See Scientific revolutions require a pardigm shift
Dr. Marshall now has three papers published and indexed in the medical journals about the pathogenesis of Th1 inflammatin and has published extensively online about sarcoidosis and the Marshall Protocol. Not one sarcoidosis expert has refuted any of those writings. See:
My doctor wants to read about the MP in published medical journals. Where can I find them?
"It has always been supposed that a hard-to-detect living pathogen might be the cause of sarcoidosis, particularly since sarcoid granulomas resemble the human body's response to Tuberculosis. In sarcoidosis, however, granulomas are made entirely of living tissue, with none of the necrosis (dead tissue) found in TB. This is exactly what one would expect if the cells of the immune system itself are infected, rendering the immune system unable to launch an effective campaign to kill the slow-growing pathogens.
Consider, for instance, that over 40 years ago (1974), a group of researchers from Mount Sinai School of Medicine reported that freshly prepared segments of bowel from patients with ileitis (Crohn's Disease) and lymph nodes from patients with sarcoidosis, homogenized and then injected into healthy mice, resulted in localized granulomas in the mice within a few months. This granulomatous response could only be induced by injecting homogenates of granulomatous tissue, not simply inflammatory (but non-granulomatous) material.
The Mt. Sinai researchers speculated that, since the homogenates from human granulomatous tissue produced similar-appearing granulomas in mice, and since it did not produce any granulomas after it was frozen or thawed, then it was possible a living agent was responsible - one not detected using techniques available at the time. A non-living bacterial product, such as an antigen or antibody complex, or a hard-to-detect foreign body should have retained its granuloma-producing activity after freezing and/ or thawing, the researchers said.
One reason the explanation that a pathogen is responsible for sarcoidosis has not "caught on" is because prednisone - a corticosteroid contraindicated in infections - is now the standard treatment to relieve sarcoiodosis symptoms. Prednisone does not treat the underlying cause of sarcoidosis, is not a reliable treatment to stop sarcoid damage to body organs, and its use carries significant risks.
Why doesn't mainstream medicine understand that? Well, why doesn't mainstream medicine understand the paper we wrote on ARBs and the immune system? Give it another 20 years. It is taking a long time for medicine to realize that merely giving patients drugs will not cure chronic disease. One has to understand the molecular biology. Which means going 'back to school' to learn it.
'Mainstream' is a difficult term to define when Medicine is changing as fast as it is now. It will take a generation for a fresh set of physicians, who actually bothered to listen to their Molecular Biology lecturers, to assume positions of authority in the workforce. In the meantime the gap between the mathematical medical sciences, and evidence-based medical sciences, is wider than it has ever been. The first three slides in my AAEM presentation deal with this very issue, in the context of a debate in The Lancet about Statins and Vitamin D, a debate which I argue (in The Lancet) can only be settled by a knowledge of the molecular science, since there are too many degrees of freedom for epidemiological observations to result in a reliable conclusion.
ARF has a number of applications active with the FDA, and we have recently received designation of two antibiotics in the rare disease, Sarcoidosis. That is most certainly mainstream activity
The concepts I discuss do not rely upon epidemiological observations as their basis of reliability, they rely upon molecular science. True, we have performed a clinical study, innovative even by the FDA's forthcoming standards, to confirm that mathematical science. But it is the convergence of mathematical science and clinical science that I foster."
I doubt you will find a single person who has recovered from Sarcoidosis by listening to the advice of pulmonologists. I certainly know of none.
Further, not one of the 'Sarcoidosis Experts' has had the guts to discuss/debate this disease with me. Do you see any of them posting their 'advice' here, where it can be discussed and questioned?
Science has advanced by discussion, not by 'authority' and 'suppression.' Einstein had to support his theories, and held frequent meetings at his home for folk to do that (ca. 1906). Yet these pulmonologists think it is acceptible, in this 21st century, to say "We don't know what causes Sarcoidosis, but we know it isn't bacteria." I have nothing but scorn for folk who can think like that
..Trevor..
Resistance from the medical community
Dr. Barry Marshall ran into resistance regarding his discovery that a pathogen was responsible for stomach ulcers. The medical community at the time staunchly believed no bacteria could survive in the acidic environment of the stomach. The bacteria responsible for ulcers, H. Pylori, were hard to grow in a lab with the techniques in use at the time. Leading medical authorities believed at the time that the presence of H. Pylori in people with stomach ulcers was just a coincidence. The same attitude has been expressed by some of the medical community when bacteria have been cultured from blood or tissues of sarcoidosis patients.
More than 20 years ago, people believed Dr. Barry Marshall's explanation was too simple and incredible to solve a complicated disease like ulcers. Researchers and drug companies had already invested themselves in alternative explanations and treatments. Similar obstacles are barriers today to quick and widespread acceptance of Dr. Trevor Marshall's discoveries about sarcoidosis, but we believe that will change in time." ~Belinda Fenter.
Reluctant doctors
Q: In reading all of the articles describing the resistance to acceptance of the Marshall Protocol, I was curious as to why the doctors who are prescribing the MP have not come forward or are willing to defend the treatment to their peers at these conferences based on results they have seen?
A: The question you need to ask yourself is "what would they gain by doing that? There are few rewards for altruism in today's society, I am afraid. That's what makes the physicians who helped us in Chicago (they are on the DVDs) and who help us by watching and posting here, that is what makes them so special . " Dr. Trevor Marshall
Similarity betweens Barry Marshall and Trevor Marshall
The Nobel Prize is only a question of time. The work of Barry Marshall and Trevor Marshall has much similar points. Both discovered pathogen bacteria that
- live in an environment designed to kill them (stomach acid or inside immune cells)
- cause diseases not recognized yet as an infection
- were seen but ignored by others before
And both used themselves as guinea pigs, both were first neglected by established medicine, both made severe chronical diseases curable.
The observations that do not fit in the theories (or rather the dogma), that can not be or are not allowed to be are the fuel on which science runs. The medicine establishment feels so unwell with Trevor Marshall because he did the work they failed to do even when their heads were bumped into the facts. Can you imagine how embarassing it is when you searched a place again and again for traces of gold dust, found nothing and later someone finds nuggets bigger than melons there ~Nightshade
Why do other doctors often seem skeptical about the MP and how can their concerns be addressed?
Since Benicar is marketed as a blood pressure lowering medication, many doctors don’t think outside the box and realize that it has other very important effects that allow it to reduce inflammation and stimulate the immune system. They resist the idea that patients can maintain a normal blood pressure while still taking the ARB.
Many doctors are also afraid that long-term use of antibiotics will lead to resistance. In reality this isn’t an issue. When antibiotics are pulsed, the concentration of the antibiotic in the tissues is always changing and there are different levels of antibiotic in the body at any one point in time. Because the level of antibiotic is never constant, it is impossible for bacteria to develop resistance mechanisms. The effectiveness of pulsing a substance in order to eliminate the ability of a pathogen to develop resistance been demonstrated with pesticides. It has been found that disseminating pesticides in spurts rather than in a continuous fashion keeps the pathogens in crops from becoming resistant to the chemicals in the pesticide. Plus, we continue to find that when patients take minocycline, it continues to generate strong changes in immunopathology even after they have been taking the drug for many years.
I find that general practitioners are generally a little more open to the MP, but most of them feel they are too busy to actually sit down and fully read all the literature pertaining to the treatment. The MP is a very complex treatment so there’s a lot of research to be done if one is to understand it correctly. Specialists are difficult to convince because they tend to be rather narrow-minded. If the MP doesn’t invoke or make reference to something they have heard at a recent conference, they tend to ignore the possibility that it might work. It seems that many doctors are just hardwired to resist innovation and change.
It’s also hard for some doctors to accept the idea that the patient must avoid vitamin D. But I feel these concerns will become less frequent as more doctors realize that we’re telling patients to avoid a hormone/secosteroid, not a vitamin. We need to stop referring to “vitamin D” as a vitamin. I tell my patients, “What would you say if I told you to add testosterone to your food? You would tell me I’m crazy!” Adding “vitamin” D to the food supply is as ridiculous as telling the public to take large amounts of any other hormone. If you ingest massive amounts of any hormone or steroid it’s clearly going to throw off the body’s natural state of homeostasis. I have to say it boggles my mind that when molecular biologists have clearly recognized that vitamin D is not a vitamin doctors are still thinking of it as a nutrient rather than a hormone/secosteroid. ~Greg Blaney, MD
-I've decided there are 6 phases of development of the MD's MP-Mindfulness. They go like this:
Phase 1 - Ridicule: "That's a load of hogwash, and don't tell me how to practice medicine!
Phase 2 - Doubt: "OK, since you insist, I'll order the blood tests but I doubt they will show us anything I don't already know"
Phase 3 - Incredulity: "Well, I don't really know what to make of it all... did you say Dr Marshall has published this stuff somewhere? Is it in a "real" medical journal or just some silly website... I'd like to see where it's been published... oh, you have a copy there for me? Um... thanks, I'll look at it."
Phase 4 - Amazement: "hmmm... well that's amazing! Your test results came back just as the MP documents predicted."
Phase 5 - Hesitation & Self-preservation: "Wow, this is scary stuff. It seems to be working but what if I get struck off for using it?"
Phase 6 - Leap of Faith-in-Science: "Well, I've read the science and there doesn't really seem to be anything wrong with it. I'm getting results witih my patient(s)... This must be valuable new science after all and furthermore, there's nothing illegal or immoral about it either. I'm not sure what was holding me back from it... I'm going to find out all I can about the MP so I can help more of my patients get well." ~Claudia
-I think everything is accurate to the sixth step. It is hard to say what will happen there, as we haven't gotten there yet. Let's hope that the two big conferences this year (08) get us past step 5, so that we can start dealing with the (different) problems posed by step 6 ..Trevor..
Cognitive dissonance
Psychologists have long recognized that humans suffer a cognitive dissonance when presented with facts that do not agree with something they knowto be true. This site it as follows:
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them.
They also point out if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
An example of this occurred when Thomas Watson (a medical professor) originally suggested that doctors themselves were causing the spread of fatal fevers among women during childbirth by failing to wash their hands between patients. In 1842 there was no understanding of bacteria and viruses, and therefore no good explanation of how this would happen. Doctors did not rush to congratulate Watson for his new idea that would help them save lives. They generally refused to believe him, refused to wash their hands and probably desperately hoped Watson would be proved wrong (oh, and killed quite a few more women). One prominent obstetrician stated "Doctors are gentlemen, and gentlemen's hands are clean.
It is very hard for people who believe themselves to be good people (and that includes just about everybody) to accept that they have harmed others, even unintentionally, through their actions.
This is one reason why Trevor's BioEssays publication is an important one “ people can now try as hard as they like to disprove the science behind the MP. If they fail to do so, they will actually substantiate the MP and the revolution will begin. You can bet the FDA won't take too long to jump on board then. ~Ruth Goold.
"In 2002 I wrote to Prof Om Sharma and told him that we had made a breakthrough in the understanding of Sarcoidosis. Since then, many papers have been presented, by myself and by others, our Phase 2 study results have been publicly available for anybody who is interested, and I have made myself available at all times for discussion of what we have found.
You need to understand that during those 6 years I have been contacted by only one pulmonologist who wanted to negotiate with me with the aim of slowing down the rate of change. In other words, those who sent him wanted to allow more people to die and suffer than is really necessary. I discussed the issues with this delegate at length.
You need to understand that at no time has any of the self-anointed sarcoidosis experts ever shown one iota of interest in the well-being of their patients. It doesn't matter how many Phase 3 studies are done, it doesn't matter how much detail I elucidate for the disease pathogenesis. If the combined intransigence of the pulmonologists cannot be broken, then Sarcoidosis patients are going to continue to lead second-rate lives.
We have moved on, moving around the barriers put in our way. You will note that Meg, Amy and I are giving presentations next week at the home of Team Nobel, presentations on Neurological Disease manifestations, and I am chairing a session on the VDR in Autoimmune Disease in Portugal, during September.
http://www.marshallprotocol.com/forum39/11385.html
I am still happy to help Sarcoidosis patients get the care they deserve, but at this point we are focused on the greater good, I am afraid. You yourself are just going to have to bash some science into the heads of the sarcoidosis experts who are making your life a misery.
ps: The most helpful and cooperative physicians have been the Family Doctors and General Practitioners of the cohort subjects. Concentrate on these generalists, the sarcoidosis specialists are just a waste of time."
..Trevor.. April 08
See also:
Why won’t my doctor consider the Marshall Protocol?
and the postings at:
Dr Marshall's (occasional) Blog...
Why there aren't more MP doctors on our list
Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 06:28 by Meg Mangin R.N.
|
Current time is 16:23 | |
|
|
|
|
