You are here: Welcome to the MPKB » Welcome to the MPKB » Resources for patients » Confronting uncertainty about the Marshall Protocol
Home

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
home:patients:grappling_uncertainty [06.06.2019] – [One pathology, one treatment] sallieqhome:patients:grappling_uncertainty [08.01.2019] – [Understanding studies] sallieq
Line 45: Line 45:
 For a person who still has doubts about the MP science, perhaps an empirical or observational approach is warranted. Patients should look at what the MP predicts and ask themselves if their reactions are consistent with what has been experienced by every other patient who has succeeded on the MP: For a person who still has doubts about the MP science, perhaps an empirical or observational approach is warranted. Patients should look at what the MP predicts and ask themselves if their reactions are consistent with what has been experienced by every other patient who has succeeded on the MP:
   * "Do I get an increase in the symptoms of my disease, known as immunopathology, when taking olmesartan (Benicar)--a medication that is otherwise used to lower blood pressure, of all things?"   * "Do I get an increase in the symptoms of my disease, known as immunopathology, when taking olmesartan (Benicar)--a medication that is otherwise used to lower blood pressure, of all things?"
-  * "Do I feel calculated increases in the severity of my symptoms following each dose of antibiotics?" 
   * "Do I feel the temporary immunosuppression caused by antibiotics?"   * "Do I feel the temporary immunosuppression caused by antibiotics?"
   * "While the olmesartan blockade is in place, am I photosensitive?" //While this reaction tends to be somewhat variable, those patients who do experience it have added evidence that the MP is working.//   * "While the olmesartan blockade is in place, am I photosensitive?" //While this reaction tends to be somewhat variable, those patients who do experience it have added evidence that the MP is working.//
Line 71: Line 70:
 Another common source of questions is recent studies. PubMed has tens of millions of studies. Some of them, many in fact, seem to contradict the conclusions put forth in the Knowledge Base or in the ARF research team's published papers. Often, a critical thinker may be able to apply the evidence and criticisms in the Knowledge Base to a study and make sense of it. Another common source of questions is recent studies. PubMed has tens of millions of studies. Some of them, many in fact, seem to contradict the conclusions put forth in the Knowledge Base or in the ARF research team's published papers. Often, a critical thinker may be able to apply the evidence and criticisms in the Knowledge Base to a study and make sense of it.
    
-An example: one study concluded that vitamin D might lower the incidence of colorectal cancer.(({{pubmed>long:17556697}})) A critical thinker might realize that the study was only for four years and might even be able to find studies over a longer period, which contradicted the original study's findings.(({{pubmed>long:12117397}})) +An example: one study concluded that vitamin D might lower the incidence of colorectal cancer.(({{pubmed>long:17556697}})) A critical thinker might realize that the study was only for four years and might even be able to find studies over a longer period, which contradicted the original study's findings. See (({{pubmed>long:18065602}})), (({{pubmed>long:17991672}})), (({{pubmed>long:18326620}})), (({{pubmed>long:18326621}})) and select OXFORD//academic//  to read the comments.
  
 Using statistical inferences, John P. A. Ioannidis concluded in the prestigious journal //PLoS Medicine// that half of published research must be wrong.(({{pubmed>long:16060722}})) The arguments of that paper are beyond the scope of this article; but in grappling with a confusing study, it's seriously worth considering how Ioannidis could be right.  Using statistical inferences, John P. A. Ioannidis concluded in the prestigious journal //PLoS Medicine// that half of published research must be wrong.(({{pubmed>long:16060722}})) The arguments of that paper are beyond the scope of this article; but in grappling with a confusing study, it's seriously worth considering how Ioannidis could be right. 
Line 111: Line 110:
 As before, it is again impossible to predict how long any bout of IP will last, how it will manifest, whether it will become intolerable.  Often people give up, they decide they would rather feel better now and take the risk of feeling much worse when older. As before, it is again impossible to predict how long any bout of IP will last, how it will manifest, whether it will become intolerable.  Often people give up, they decide they would rather feel better now and take the risk of feeling much worse when older.
  
-Sometimes a person decides the MP "does not work" for them   ....but it is very likely that MP is working 'too well' at the time, with great quantities of cytokines being produced by death of microbes. +Sometimes a person decides the MP "does not work" for them   ....but it is very likely that MP is working 'too well' at the time, with great quantities of cytokines being produced by death of microbes in biofilm. 
-Our job as support team includes asking MPeers to 'phone home' with information and experiences which will help others, often ways of ameliorating nasty IP whether physical or pharmaceutical.  There is no easy way, we wish there were.+Our job as support team includes asking MPeers to 'phone home' with information and experiences which will help others, often ways of ameliorating nasty IP whether physical or pharmaceutical.  There is no easy or short term way, we wish there were.
  
  
home/patients/grappling_uncertainty.txt · Last modified: 09.14.2022 by 127.0.0.1
© 2015, Autoimmunity Research Foundation. All Rights Reserved.