Posted by bleauberry on January 10, 2014, at 9:11:47
In reply to Re: minocycline » bleauberry, posted by SLS on January 10, 2014, at 6:06:45
Thanks Scott. I appreciate the info.
Your posts directed at me have a tone of antagonism or confrontation. Is that intended, accidental, or just one of those misinterpretations that happens when only words on a page can be seen without body language accompanying it?
Just curious. You are a science guy. I am a realville guy. I do not ever try or intend to antagonize your views on things. But I sense antagonism directed toward me. Just wanted to know if that is true or am I imagining things that aren't there?
I am a psych patient after all.
I don't recall ever saying I've taken mino in that last 3 years so I have no idea where you got that idea.
I take Azithromycin, Cefdinir, and Plaguenil, with spotty pulsed doses of Flagyl here and there.
I made a lot of progress with doxy but it reached a plateau and began to relapse. Mino earlier in my journeys was just too strong and kicked me out of the game with massive Herx's. In that class, Tetracycline is the one in the real world that does not show the same pattern of plateau and relapse that the others do.
I wish more of this "outside the box" type thinking would enter the psychiatric world. It is this sort of stuff where I believe true deep long lasting mood improvement will happen.
The science studies help point us in the right direction, such as mino instead of doxy or tetra, but that is nothing more than a starting line. It could very well be that despite a study that showed mino more effective than tetra in depression, the guy sitting next to you will do great with neither of them but doxy instead. Ya know? It just aint as simple as science tries to make it look. There is no nice neat compartmentalized box. Americans try to squeeze things into black and white. No gray allowed. It's either Addisons' or Cushings, but nothing inbetween. It's either Celiac or not, no such thing as gluten sensitivity. It's either depression or bipolar (poor example but you know what I mean).
As far as "disseminating" data gathered scientifically, that's not a problem. The actual mechanics of how and why they gathered that data, is a problem. Studies look great in Abstracts. Start digging into fine details and there are all sorts of flaws. Not universally, but commonly.
How about the incident last year when those global warming scientists with all their peer reviewed stuff, got caught when it was discovered that all their data was completely forged. The most prominent voices in global warming were proved fakes in their own emails. It was all a hoax made to look like science.
If you want, might be a fun experiment, send me a study of your choice....the whole thing, not just the abstract....authors, who funded it, purpose of the study, how the subjects were selected, the actual mechanics of dosing, how the study was used after publishing, political affiliation of the author(s), economic affiliation, if any, with a potential conflict of interest, details details details. And hopefully it doesn't have in it the common words "may", "could", "suggests". That's just not science. That's editorial. I have other stuff I want to be do, so I'm actually hoping you don't send me one! :-) But if you do, I can probably find some flaws in it that make the whole thing questionable. If not, it's a good study, because I am critical and picky. I ask questions others won't dare ask.
> > Just curious. Why are folks singling out minocycline as the antibiotic to take? There are lots of choices. Why that one?
>
> I thought that you were taking minocycline and that it was working. Did you stop taking it?
>
> You really ought to do the research yourself. Perhaps, then, you can be convinced to disseminate scientifically derived information.
>
> I have written quite a bit about minocycline and how it differs from the other tetracyclines. Pubmed and Google will provide you with more information. This drug really needs to be studied in order to appreciate its potential.
>
> This is a short list:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl?init=/babble/20120803/msgs/1023257.html
>
> Check this out:
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFsQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.medicinabiomolecular.com.br%2Fbiblioteca%2Fpdfs%2FCasos-Clinicos%2Fcc-0471.pdf&ei=-N3PUpCJPKLisASHu4LQDA&usg=AFQjCNGEJDCalzac6pLFs5Yr6aSJ_ZOPEg&bvm=bv.59026428,d.cWc&cad=rja
>
> Molecules are three-dimensional. There are multitudinous sites on a molecule that can act as ligand substrates for different biological receptors. With minocycline, there are a bunch of them that are unrelated to antibiotic action. Apparently some of them are capable of producing positive changes in the trajectories of major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.
>
>
> - Scott
poster:bleauberry
thread:1058144
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140104/msgs/1058180.html