 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Meg Mangin R.N.
Research Team
|
Posted: Mon May 30th, 2005 19:59 |
|
I don’t understand the science behind the Marshall Protocol. Where can I get answers?
Some members want to understand the scientific principles behind the Marshall protocol before they decide if it’s right for them. Others believe they need to be able to argue the science of Th1 inflammation and treatment with the MP so that their doctor will be convinced. Still others are just curious and want to learn all they can but have difficulty understanding the intricate science.
The purpose of Marshallprotocol.com is to provide basic information about Th1 inflammation and detailed information about implementing the Marshall Protocol. It is beyond the scope of this website to discuss the science of Th1 inflammation in depth or debate the merits of other treatment protocols. Since this study site is used by professionals, as well as patients, we need to ensure the integrity of what is promoted here.
Dr. Marshall describes his Th1 inflammatory pathogenesis and treatment plan in his many papers and presentations. They can be accessed from this link:
PAPERS FOR PHYSICIANS
Dr. Marshall has defended the science behind the Marshall Protocol numerous times in website posts (still available online) and at multiple medical conferences where he can discuss these issues in depth with some of the best scientific brains in the world. He no longer has the time to enlighten each skeptical nonprofessional who has time to post a googled epidemiological study where the investigators did not understand the underlying biology, and so measured too few parameters and/or answer questions about basic science. This activity would greatly decrease the time he has to continue his research and to further his understanding by communicating with other researchers/scientists.
"One of the earliest physicians to see the promise of my work was introduced to it back in early 2003. She is a prominent Norwegian academic, who teaches at both Oslo and Trontheim Universities. She has both MD and PhD degrees.
She never asked the questions you are asking. She knew enough to understand that they were unanswerable, or at least based on guestimates, especially at that early point in our work. But she had the vision to understand what I had found, and to comprehend how important it would become.
It is people like that who have helped us get to the point we have now reached. The point of having solid science, confirmed by a comprehensive proof-of-concept clinical trial."
..Trevor..
"Part of a scientist's training is the ability to examine the alternate hypothesis. In other words, if your theory is wrong, then where is it most likely wrong?
Trying to study scientific literature without that background, and without the background of having actually worked in a research team yourself, is frought with unforseen traps.
Please read as much as you can of what this study-site has found. You will get knowledge by observing what works, and why it works, much quicker than by trying to glean info from the isolated scientific studies in PubMed  "
..Trevor..
"Let's not forget that Wikipedia is edited (mostly) by computer-tech geeks sitting at their keyboards, scanning PubMed for inspiration. It is not a reliable source, but by its nature is a "parrot" regurgitating what has been said before.
When dealing with the idiopathic diseases it is of little help to read what has been said before, because the people saying that were not able to reach a conclusion, and a solution. That is why the diseases are still idiopathic."
..Trevor..
Our new "science' DVD contains two detailed presentations on the pathogenesis, one presented to the physicians of the AAEM, and one presented to the Biologists at Melbourne University. We also have DVDs
available of our 2005 and 2006 Conferences. Most of the background material explaining the pathogenesis, and the curative therapy for these Th1 diseases, is covered during the 20 hours of presentations, panels and tutorials in that collection. Details are at URL
http://autoimmunityresearch.org/chicago2005.htm
.......................................................................................
For those who think that Dr. Marshall’s refusal to explain complicated biochemistry or the scientific theories of third parties reduces the credibility of the Marshall Protocol, Dave W has provided an excellent explanation:
"I have been a member for about ten months, but I must admit that I do not comprehend the (as yet known) intricacies of how the immune system works (and probably never will). I suspect that it would take a couple of science degrees to comprehend the current understanding of science (which is still far from complete).
I do understand that the MP has made some breakthroughs in the role of CWD in hijacking the immune system, and creating the many symptoms characteristic of Th1 diseases. The MP science is very different from the direction of conventional medical theories (which address only symptoms, and do not understand the causes, or offer any real help to get rid of the diseases).
Because the MP science is so new and different, it does contradict dozens (or probably hundreds) of studies that have been done in the past. It especially contradicts studies done on populations, as opposed to research that investigates the workings of the immune system at the molecular level.
I also realize that it is natural for new members to be skeptical of such a breakthrough. Most of us have been offered no end of "new and improved" vitamin/herb concoctions that are big on promise and short on delivery.
I suspect that you have noted that the MP is very different in that it neither charges for anything nor sells anything, and yet has many followers who volunteer to help each other. The many followers will also attest that the MP is neither quick nor easy - but it still maintains a strong following. This says something.
I was initially skeptical too. I had done a lot of research regarding my own symptoms before I knew of the MP. When I first found the MP sites, it took me two weeks of reading before I understood the theory and protocol sufficiently to accept it, and its potential.
Since I became a member, I have seen many instances of new (and understandably skeptical) members challenging MP science with other medical studies that contradict it. This asks Dr Marshall to explain why each of these studies came to their conclusions erroneously, or, to reconcile their findings with his own. This is an incredibly time consuming request, as it asks Dr Marshall to explain everyone else's science.
This is also a highly unrealistic expectation, as it will probably take decades of research to fully reconcile MP findings with conventional science. No one (as yet) has a full understanding of the complete workings of the immune system, as it is incredibly complex. There are innumerable contradictions between the thousands of studies out there. This simply attests to the fact that nobody understands it all. How can we realistically expect anyone to explain and reconcile all findings to date?
Dr Marshall has found an immune pathway that is critically implicated in Th1 disease, and has developed a protocol (with the help of many others) that utilizes this new understanding and has real impact against these diseases.
He has explained his science in his articles for all to see, even though few of us have the background to fully understand the explanations (including most Practitioners). However, Dr Marshall has provided much more scientific explanation than is required of many of the "conventional" treatments available - which may be routinely prescribed in spite of the fact that medicine has no idea of how or why they (purportedly) work.
Dr Marshall is also willing to discuss his science and protocol with any Doctor or researcher capable of understanding it.
I believe the unraveling of the complex role of 1,25D in Th1 disease is an important part of Dr Marshall's findings, and much of it is counter-intuitive. For example, if I take any drug that protects my CWD bacteria, I feel better and many markers will indicate my disease has declined - but in fact my disease is actually getting worse. Symptoms are sure to resurface later. This is why most anti-inflammatories (including steroids, which suppress the entire immune system, but permit CWD bacteria to thrive) can make us feel better, but do not cure the disease. This is also why our disease tends to get progressively worse over the years, in spite of these drugs.
Similarly, drugs and diet that kill off the CWD bacteria make Th1 patients feel worse (which we call immunopathology), but in fact we are getting better.
Many medical studies have understandably come to erroneous conclusions as a result of such counter-intuitive complexities.
What you will understand clearly as an MP patient, is that Benicar does have a profound effect on your metabolism, and upon the workings of your immune system. You will also know (from your experience) that the antibiotics are definitely doing something very profound (in spite of their very low doses).
Of course, the MP will not cure everything and it does not have all answers to all questions, as science will likely never stop furthering our understanding. However, that does not mean it is invalid or warrants dismissal.
The MP is a currently available treatment that uses very safe and conventional drugs prescribed by your Doctor. It offers real hope for an actual cure of Th1 disease.
I would suggest that you read and understand as much about the MP as you can, including both the articles provided and also by doing searches of the posts related to your own symptoms.
After investigating it thoroughly, you will be in a much better position to decide whether you think the MP is right for you. If you do decide to try it, you will be much more able to explain it to your Doctor (who will very likely also be skeptical initially).
You will not be able to explain all contradictory studies that he/she may come up with, but you could (undoubtedly) come up with many contradictory studies to the science and medications that he/she (or anyone else) prescribes - which places such challenges in perspective.
There are folks who are early adopters of new ideas, and others who are late adopters. Th1 patients or Doctors who fit into the latter category, will have little hope of being convinced to try something so new and unconventional.
That's OK - there are advantages to treatment now, and advantages to waiting for refinements and acceptance into conventional medicine, and each must decide for themselves which holds the greater advantage.
Those doctors who realize that conventional medicine (driven by pharmaceutical companies) is "missing the boat" and offers little real help beyond suppressing symptoms, and, who are not adverse to trying something new - are the ones who have accepted and prescribed the MP.
It does not surprise me that the Practitioners that have become the strongest supporters have been those who suffer from Th1 diseases themselves. To me - that says something that is beyond the rhetoric.
These are the perceptions of one (layman) MP patient. I have not endeavored to directly answer your questions (as I am incapable), but I have endeavored to help you understand why they have not been directly addressed. I hope that you have found these explanations helpful." ~DaveW
........................................................................................
You are probably like I was at the start....too focused on wanting to understand the science behind it all. My ignorance  no longer bothers me....because IT WORKS. My symptoms are improving after only 3 months on the MP and the BENICAR is a wonder drug....it comes to my rescue every time things want to go a bit out of control. After having watched countless DVD's and read umpteen posts and articles (many of which my put my brain fogged mind to sleep) I have decided to listen to Meg and recognise the fact that it takes years of study and research to even begin to understand the science behind all this.
If it were simple enough for me to GET IT....I am sure that this treatment would a) have been available ages ago and b) be understood and believed by every doctor. Don't hesitate....just jump in and try it out. Others have and are now enjoying a much more active life! ~IngeD
Related FAQ:
I found an interesting article/study. Can you tell me what it means?
Understanding Scientific Studies
|
Meg Mangin R.N.
Research Team
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25th, 2005 03:12 |
|
(filelink)
Scientific precision
When Niels Bohr once heard a lecture by Pauli explaining his version of the unified field theory, Bohr stood up and said, We in the back are all agreed that your theory is crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough!
I am a stickler for precision
..Trevor..
PS: now you all know why I am not concerned about being called "crazy" - that is the way science should be pursued. What really irks me are people calling themselves 'experts' who do not even have an inkling of what Niels Bohr was saying. 'Experts' who owe everything to Bohr's atomic theory, the basic concept of the structure of the molecule and atoms, but who just do not understand what SCIENCE is all about. What LEARNING is all about.
Last edited on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 02:02 by Meg Mangin R.N.
|
Meg Mangin R.N.
Research Team
|
Posted: Tue Feb 28th, 2006 02:06 |
|
Evaluating other protocols evaluateprotocollink
The mistake being made by folks adhering to other antibiotic protocols is that they think about 'Protocols,' rather than an understanding of the underlying disease. They will not be able to think beyond the disease until they start inducing full cure. Until that point they are struggling, and not conquering, hoping and not understanding.
That is why the Marshall Protocol is a curative therapy, and the protocols which came before it are not. It is a terrible mistake to regard antibiotics as equivalent, or even somewhat equivalent, in their functions. See, for example, the Molecular Genomics animations from my conference presentations where I show how the MP antibiotics target the bacterial 70S ribosome, and how they target it symbiotically.
Thanks for taking the time to let us know about David Wheldon's work. I was not aware of it. Now I will better understand the intellectual baggage which might well prevent some MS patients (and physicians) from understanding and embracing the science of 'the MP.'
Trevor Marshall, PhD
|
Current time is 00:47 | |
|
|
|
|
