I also think Mike S. makes a good point..... but.....
Anectdotal evidence is not always compelling evidence not only because it is often subjective. It's only one case.
I think right now over 2000 people have dosed Telaprevir. We will await the FDA to see if they can reach a conclusion about that drug. I think it's silly to think that we can reach a conclusion about this tx and either support it or villify it.
Lol; we are laymen and this is the internet. ; )
Even if Mike M has terrible labs....or excellent labs the conclusion *should* remain muddy.
I'm more interested in seeing what the results are for 100 people with ample testing before, during, and after. Then I think we'll truly "know" something and perhaps not till then.
I'm still interested though.......
best,
Willy
well put mikesimon. couldn't have said it better myself
I would like to see something concrete but all I see are claims that "I feel good". I felt good - I mucked stalls for 3 horses twice a day and I warmed 2 horses up and rode them and then cooled them down at least 5 times a week. I kept 35 acres cut and 10 of them manicured. I rode my Harley everywhere......and then I had a major esophageal bleed and lost 4 units of blood. Up until then I felt fine. I felt pretty good 2 months later when I had my second massive bleed. In fact 5 years later I felt good enough that I was riding my motorcycle with a vibrating beeper down my pants waiting for the call that they had a liver the day before I was transplanted. So feeling good is nice but that really doesn't mean your liver is healthy. And I know that for certain.
Show me something - Fibroscan, Fibrosure, lab ratios - something.
I looked carefully at your platelet counts and I saw nothing remarkable there certainly nothing that suggests improved liver histology. The best that can be said, on the basis of platelet count alone, is that there doesn't appear to be any decompensation.
If you were just treating yourself I would never dream of asking for some real evidence but that is not the case. You are here trying to influence people who may be in a desperate situation and you have practically nothing to support your claims. I would expect that, if a person was as passionate as you appear to be about LDN and was trying to influence people's hopes and behaviors, then you would trouble yourself enough to be able to show some documentation. Your approach seems rather cavalier and that would be fine if you weren't pitching LDN so passionately. I think you owe the members here more than a proclamation that you feel better.
By the way, I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt but sooner or later you have to show us something solid.
Mike
Now now....
I surely don't know the answer. You *could* be right. At this stage there is little evidence but in time the evidence will manifest itself. In the meanwhile here is some anectdotal evidence and commentary....and some back and forth. No big deal I think. Very few people will read this and be swayed to act. Even those who do must act through a doctor, I believe.
If memory serves at one time there was no TX for HCV. Someone had the idea of using IFN to treat HCV. Here it was .... a failed drug of sorts being used for a treatment in which it was only marginally effective and yet a very tough and abusing form of TX, and one that was not even very safe. I've heard it referred to in several ways;
A drug in search of a treatment.
The cure being worse than the disease.
One could have easily called it snake oil at the onset. The cure rate was about 10% (but it was a cure; the only known one at that time)
It didn't get easier when they added "anti-freeze" to pegalate it. One could use one's *common sense* to reason it was just more poison added to poison.
And yet the cure rate increased.
I was just reading that there was a lawsuit over thalidomide. Here was a drug....with a terrible history..... and someone recycled it using it to treat a cancer. There is currently a lawsuit over it since it was very successful and someone wants a "cut". My point? One never knows.....
Also...... the first patient that tried it......the drug failed on him; he died. One could form a conclusion at that point, right?
In this case however, the drug was tried on other cancer patients and shown to be effective. I believe it is now a recognized form of TX for the specific type of cancer.
My point; one never knows sometimes even after one knows and has proof one is right.
I don't know the answer about this drug and this type of TX.
I think I support the notion of scientific inquiry into it's usefulness however. Someone else is doing the heavy lifting and the HCV infected will get the benefit. (whether proven or discredited)
Time will tell. You could be right.
Then again......
best,
Willy
Hey guys,
If you send me you regular email addresses in a private message I will send the docs as an attachment.
Best regards,
Mike H