Statistics on the Marshall Protocol

The primary function of the Marshall Protocol (MP) study site is to learn how the MP affects and improves the health of patients with a variety of inflammatory conditions. As of February 2009, there are about 1,000 patients who post in their progress reports on the MP study site. Most patients have recovered sufficiently to rejoin the work force, and subsequently become so busy that they no longer report progress. Autoimmunity Research Foundation is currently in the process of partnering with a hospital which has the resources necessary to manage a large-scale cohort study of the MP.

Response rate

One of the observations seen in the online progress reports–and confirmed in independent reports coming from MP physicians whose patients do not post on the study site–is that nearly everyone on the MP experiences immunopathology. Some estimate this number to be as high as 99%; others are more conservative and say it is 95%. Immunopathology is the calculated rise and fall in symptoms and is a sign that bacteria are being killed. Immunopathology seems to be independent of the diagnosis given to the disease.

Recovery rate

The best data collected thus far (as at 2010) is from a 2008 survey of MP patients with autoimmune diseases, the methodology of which is described here. That data was presented by Capt. Tom Perez, MPH, at the 2008 International Congress on Autoimmunity.

Later information 2013

from DJ in California

Almost a year ago (February 2013) I was on this discussion topic with others. I am retired and have a lot of time on my hands, so I did some work as a member who cares. I have been waiting since August for the results of my 6 weeks of work to be released on this site, and have not seen anything.

This is statistical data taken from the progress reports of you, the members of this forum. I do not know any of you and I read so many reports I could not tell any of you what has happened to anyone single person.

My report is on SUBJECTIVE data, it is not based on any one measurable test or physical reading. It is based solely on the testimony of members who have used the Marshall Protocol.

During the summer of 2013 I looked at 2,000 records of people using the Marshall Protocol.

I eliminated all records that had less than 20 messages, as these were usually inquiries into the treatment without actual participation. I eliminated all records from people who had been banned from the site. I eliminated all records from Health Professionals who did not actually have disease. I eliminated all records where I could not find a valid progress report. This left me with 864 meaningful records.

My method was to bring up a members progress report. I would make note of the major disease listed by the member. I would then page down to the last page of the progress report and find the last, or last meaningful reply and try to determine if the member was reporting improvement in health, a decline in health or worsening of symptoms. Sometimes this was just that the person said they felt better. Sometimes this was looking at the change in toleration numbers.

I then determined that they were in some way reporting success on the protocol. Or they were reporting no success. In some cases I could not tell from what the person had written whether they had success or not.

I am not expecting this data to stand up to the double blind studies of the professional scientific researchers. (I know what double blind studies are about, I was married to a cardio vascular PhD researcher for over 20 years. I have also been a subject in a double blind study, and am currently involved in one. I know how precise these must be.)

We don't have a controlled study group here but we do have a lot of honest testimony from a lot of people who were very sick when they signed on to this site. Who took the time to make weekly or other periodic reports. Who have voices (your voices) to say this Marshall Protocol treatment works or does not work.

I tried my best to be unbiased as I was expecting to see about a 20% improvement in health of members, or in other words a 20-25% success rate. I was intending to compare this to the 10% success rate I found done on the use of prednisone to treat Sarcoidosis. That double blind report shows that 10% treated with prednisone achieve remission. (BTW remission in Sarcoidosis as far as I can find out is measured rather subjectively)

The following information is what I found:

Sarcoidosis: 236 members; 179 success; 25 no success; 32 unsure

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: 183 members; 110 success; 30 no success; 43 unsure

Lyme Disease: 169 members; 113 success; 23 no success; 33 unsure

Rheumatoid arthritis: 39 members; 27 success; 5 no success; 7 unsure

Fibromyalgia: 53 members; 34 success; 6 no success; 13 unsure

Other Th1 diseases: 184 members; 110 success; 30 no success 44 unsure

TOTALS: 864 members;573 report success; 119 report no success; and for 172 results are not clear.

SUCCESS RATES: Over all success rate 66.32% Over all unsuccessful 13.77% Over all unsure 19.91%

Sarcoidosis success 75.8%

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome success 60.1%

Lyme disease success 66.9%

Rheumatoid arthritis success 69.2%

Fibromyalgia success 64.2%

All Other Th1 diseaseAny of the chronic inflammatory diseases caused by bacterial pathogens. success 59.8%

What we who are a part of this forum, who stuck with the protocol long enough, who endured the IP and were able to keep a doctor, report is that this has a better than 50% success rate.

Not just a 10% or the 20% I hoped for, but you/we report an overall 66% success rate.

Now if this information can just be broad cast to the Conventional Medical world, maybe just maybe Dr. Marshall will be a hero not only to us but to thousands(perhaps millions) more out there suffering from Th1 diseases.

home/patients/cohort_statistics.txt · Last modified: 09.14.2022 by
© 2015, Autoimmunity Research Foundation. All Rights Reserved.