Posted by Miguel (4.40.20.190) on October 20, 2000 at 07:08:54:
In Reply to: Candida: Lamisil Experiment Underway posted by Flash on October 19, 2000 at 19:35:50:
I don't mean to bust your bubble, but our experiment is
hardly scientific. For starters, you took the shrooms.
Since shrooms appear to contribute in stopping the
cycle, the results you abtain with Lamisil are inconsequential
since you have too many variables involved. Moreover,
you may become sensitive to C. Albicans once
more, perhaps in a few months. The effects reported
by people that took the shroom therapy seem to be
rather long lasting. How does one know that the lack
of CH in the next theoretical cycle is not due to
residual activity of the shrooms? Please do not say
that - it always... Because there are always exceptions
and variables associated with every ailment and incidence.
I don't know if you recall that +/- 10% is acceptable
as variability in bio-science.
Another smoking gun: How do you know that shrooms
aren't effective against C. Albicans? Has
anyone done any research in that specific and direct
type of correlation? Also, there is still the issue of the
other smoking gun: The direct connection between
C. Albicans and 5-HT. I saw below that you
noted that there is a direct relationship. However,
no references, or evidenced was posted besides your beliefs.
Let me tell you a little story about this type of science.
Once upon a time there was a group of scientists
working in a pharmaceutical company that shall remain
nameless. One of the scientist directed certain type
of research toward producing a drug that would improve
the quality and quantity of life of those afflicted. The problem was that
such specific category of drugs had previously been found to be
detrimental to the patient's condition by other
companies. However, it was the ballon to executive-level
mangement for that fellow. Concomitantly, there
was this little scientis in a small lab, with small
staff that after performing test with the
drug found that the claims of greatness for the drug
were false. The big-wig pressured the little scientist
to come up with results that would fit expectations.
However, the data is the data. The little scientist was
pressured, threatened, emotionally abused, and almost
fired. Little scientist weighed the problem, and
concluded that giving patients the false hope of wellness
in exchange for promotions and the financial wellbeing
of the company was not worth it. Also, this scientist
had enough data, scientifically sound and valid, to
prove his conclusions anywhere where he was challenged.
Further, the little scientist thought that in an all out battle
he would have the least to loose, the company would have
the most. So, little scientist gathered all his data
and started proceedings to challenge the validity
of the claims via FDA (the real big guns in the US).
The executive powers at be decided to give the data
one more closer look, and let the little scientist
present it. The little scientist was challenged
time and time, which is what science is all about,
pier review! And the data held...not the scientist,
but the data. That is what science is all about,
DATA!!!! Needless to say, the drug was killed before
it got to clinical II, where the drug is tested in
a larger scale, with more sites involved. Unfortunately,
by the time everything as said and done, $42.5 million
were used up in chasing the dreams of a bad scientist in power.
Also, 4.5 years of valuble time had been wasted.
Why were they wasted? Simply because if they had only
stopped and looked at the initial data 4.5 years back,
it, the drug, would not have gone so far.
Above all, the hopes of those in need of medication to prolong
and improve their quality of life was not falsely
supported with a potentially detrimental drug, whose
worst side effect was death.
The point is that enthusiasm aside, the C. Albicans
issue is extremely interesting. On the same vein,
and before the 30% to 40% that apparently tested
positive in a self performed unscientific test
for C. Albicans, go pump themselves full of
Lamisil, it would stand to reason to produce some
of the most basic item to warrant doing so, DATA!
We are all in extreme pain, hence our hopes for a
"magic bullet" are very very high. Also, our tendencies
to jump to conclusions, while affecting the hopes
for a better life are sometimes inevitable when pain
expresses itself so vividly. Never the less, a reality
check must be done to determine the validity of our
claims. Flash, and I mean this in a positive way,
you have no data to establish a direct connection.
Also, you lack a scientifically sound protocol to
produce the data you seek. Please, slow down, cross the
"t's" and dot the "i's" before more hopes are busted.
Do what you are doing, but do it in a scientific manner.
If you lack the background or resources, ask for help.
That is what it is all about, help.
In DATA veritas
Miguel