Lähettäjä: Soijuv Lähetetty: 23.6.2006 9:13
Mielenkiintoisessa artikkelissa lääkäri R. Whitmont käsittelee mm. borrelioosia, immuunijärjestelmän merkitystä, lääkkeiden haitallisuutta ja homeopatian merkitystä borrelioosin hoidossa. "Ihmisen elimistön ei ole todettu minkään tutkimuksen mukaan olevan steriili. Mikrobit ypäröivät meitä sekä sisäisesti että ulkoisesti. Elimistön oma immuunijärjestelmä huolehtii normaalisti tasapainotilanteesta (homeostaasi)." Artikkelissa esitetään muutamia borrelioostapauksia.
Koko artikkeli: http://www.homeopathicmd.com/articles/a ... ticleID=15
Homeopathy and Lyme Disease
by Ronald D. Whitmont, M.D.
Abstract: The Demographics and Microbiology of Lyme disease and several other zoonotic infections are reviewed. Case studies utilizing the classical homeopathic system of assessment and treatment are presented. The discussion focuses on the strengths and limitations of the classical homeopathic and conventional allopathic models in the management of Lyme disease.
Key words: Classical Homeopathy, Lyme Disease, Zoonotic Infections, Complementary and Alternative Medicine
BACKGROUND
Making the diagnosis of Lyme disease today has become increasingly complicated. Many physicians feel that Lyme is being constantly overdiagnosed and that too m any cases with so called soft evidence are being treated inappropriately.(1,2) (By soft evidence, I refer to a range of vague complaints running from chronic fatigue through fibromyalgia and depression.) On the other hand, there is a growing population that suffers from very real physical and emotional symptoms, but have found it difficult to prove that they have any identifiable disease despite the fact that, in many cases, all their symptoms date back to a tick bite.
Medical research and popular literature reflect an ever-increasing number of reports on this topic.(3,4) In addition to the dilemma of making the correct diagnosis, the question of appropriate, effective management and cure has also become increasingly controversial. There are an increasing number of cases labeled as recurrent an d chronic Lyme disease, as well as cases of post Lyme disease syndrome. This all occurs despite the prolonged use of conventional antibiotic therapy according t o the standard of care. Almost every known infectious agent has demonstrated at least some degree of antibiotic resistance and this is probably true with Lyme disease.(5,6,7,8,9) Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and, particularly, Classical Homeopathy, is poised to offer viable alternatives and solutions to this modern dilemma in the case of Lyme disease and many other infectious problems.
......
Homeopathic Treatment
The starting point for homeopathic medical treatment of Lyme disease and other related zoonotic infections is the history and physical exam. It is important to remember that the diagnosis of Lyme disease does not automatically imply the treatment, homeopathically. The homeopathic repertory is helpful after a case has been thoroughly perceived.
Hahnemann stated in paragraph 6 of The Organon:
The unprejudiced observer perceives nothing in each single case of disease other than the alterations in the condition of the body and soul, disease signs, befallments, symptoms, which are outwardly discernable through the senses. That is, the unprejudiced observer only perceives the deviations from the former healthy state of the now sick patient....All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its entire extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable gestalt of the disease.(19)
A search through Murphy's Repertory (20) reveals three medicines under Lyme disease: Arsenicum album, Mercurius and Thuja. Expanding the search through the MacRepertory and ReferenceWorks programs, reveals four additional medicines: Carcinosin, Lac caninum, Ledum, and Syphilinum. I also include Tick Bite, Lyme Tick and Borrelia when evaluating cases of known or suspected Lyme disease or prophylaxis. These medicines are only a starting point for consideration. Any homeopathic medicine can be used to effectively treat Lyme disease if it is the simillimum to the individual case.
.............
DISCUSSION
Rx: Homeopathic vs. Allopathic?
It is important to recognize the clinical manifestations of Lyme disease and other zoonotic illnesses, and to understand the treatment options, using both the conventional and the classical homeopathic approach. The use of conventional antibiotic medicine conforms to the standard of care in this country, but even when implemented according to current treatment guidelines, does not guarantee that these illnesses will be cured. The number of cases of recurrent and chronic illness are increasing as the diagnosis of Lyme disease is more frequently made. In addition, there are many reported cases of post-Lyme disease syndrome and a vast number of individuals who find it difficult to fit into any diagnostic category and so are classified as chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, somatization disorder or depression.(2)
Antibiotics are not tremendously effective in treating Lyme disease at any stage. Initial treatment recommendations start with courses of therapy ranging 3-4 weeks followed by reevaluation, and then an additional course of several weeks or months if symptoms persist or recur. Late stage illness requires long courses of intravenous antibiotic therapy. Treatment is prolonged because these tick-borne organisms are relatively resistant to therapy, even at the outset. In addition, the longer any antibiotic therapy continues the greater the likelihood that resistance will develop. This is a hard lesson which we have already learned by experience with tuberculosis and other infections.
The phenomenon of antibiotic resistance with subsequent recurrent infection, chronic infection and resistant strains of organisms has been extensively investigated and many recommendations made.(5,6,7,8,9) The blame for this phenomenon has generally been placed upon a combination of physicians' indiscriminate overuse of these agents, coupled with patients' demands and erratic compliance with their proper use. This tendency to blame the physician (for trying to eradicate an illness quickly and efficiently) or the patient (to be free of illness rapidly and to stop taking a potentially toxic medicine when they feel better) may be a mistake based on a basic incorrect assumption and a false premise about how antibiotics work in treating illnesses.
Antibiotics do not cure infections. This is a common misconception, even among physicians. When antibiotics are used judiciously in cases of susceptible bacterial infections in concentrations that are considered bactericidal, then a proportion of the total bacterial load is reduced in a dose-response relationship. Through repeat dosing over days, weeks or months, bacterial counts are significantly reduced so that the host's immune system can (theoretically) complete the task of eradicating any remaining organisms. The task of healing, or reestablishing homeostasis is always dependent upon a number of different factors intrinsic and extrinsic to an individual, but includes the orchestration and coordination of the entire organism; mental, physical and spiritual.(21)
The pharmacodynamics of antibiotic use necessitates a level toxic to the bacterium be established within a range that is tolerable to the host. In The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, Goodman & Gilman state:
The dose of a drug utilized must be sufficient to produce the necessary effect on the microorganisms; however, concentrations of the agent in plasma and tissues must remain below those that are toxic to human cells. If this can be achieved, the microorganism is said to be susceptible to the antibiotic. If the concentration of drug required to inhibit or kill the organism is greater than the concentration that can safely be achieved, the microorganism is considered to be resistant to the antibiotic.
As this bacteriocidal range is approached, the rate of bacterial inhibition or toxicity approaches a level of efficacy, but (by nature of biological systems and pharmacodynamics) becomes asymptotic to the maximal expected efficacy. This means that even the best antibacterial agents are never 100% effective in eliminating any parasitic organisms, except in ideal in vitro conditions where toxicity to the host is not an issue.
If antibiotics are not responsible for curing bacterial infections, how is it that the majority of individuals treated with these drugs seem to improve? Clearly, when we improve from any condition, including infectious diseases, it is a result of the body's own tendency toward homeostasis (working through the immune and other systems) that enables a cure.
Goodman and Gilman continue:
An important determinant of the therapeutic effectiveness of antimicrobial agents is the functional state of the hosts defense mechanisms. Both humoral and cellular immunity are important. Inadequacy of type, quality, and quantity of the immunoglobulins, alteration of the cellular immune system, or either a qualitative or, most important, a quantitative defect in phagocytic cells may result in therapeutic failure despite the use of otherwise-appropriate and effective drugs.(22)
The apparent eradication of infectious organisms may actually be a partial shut down of the immune/inflammatory response that provides the symptoms of infection. In other words, if the antigenicity of the organism (infectious agent) can be changed or modified to create less of an immune response (see below), or if our ability to react immunogenically to the organism has been suppressed, we will not be aware of the illness; we will have no symptoms. The organism would then be free to enter a less obvious, yet persistently active resident state resulting in damage in deeper structures over greater periods of time.
At the microbiologic level, one of the ways that health is reestablished is through the coordination of all the arms of the immune system. Antibiotics and other agents that are utilized in assisting in immune function work at a very superficial and, perhaps, harmful level. Chemotherapeutic agents act by lowering the burden of parasitic opportunists and simultaneously turning off the autonomic inflammatory immune response. These chemotherapeutic antibiotic agents may not only be somewhat incidental to actual cure; they may also act by effectively thwarting the body's own mechanisms of defense. Macroscopically, the use of these agents effectively turns off defense mechanisms of inflammation and fever (which are helpful in the immune response). These agents may interfere at the microscopic level as well.
Goodman and Gilman further state that:
Another interesting twist that may influence the efficacy of antimicrobial therapy is that these agents have been shown to affect various host immune responses adversely; these include leukocyte chemotaxis, lymphocyte and monocyte transformation, antibody production, phagocytosis, and the microbicidal action of polymorphonuclear leukocytes. While the clinical significance of this immunosuppression is not known, these observations should help discourage the indiscriminate use of antibiotics.(22)
We have no studies demonstrating that a sterile environment is ever achieved internally. All evidence points to the fact that we are constantly surrounded (internally and externally) by potentially pathogenic organisms. It is only through the constant activity of our immune systems, supported via physical, emotional and spiritual means, that we maintain health. Healing, when it does occur, is ultimately the result of host factors that continue to succeed in mounting surveillance coupled with a lytic response. Symptoms act as essential feedback loops maintaining this dynamic equilibrium while triggering appropriate biochemical, emotional and behavioral responses.
As a result of even the most prolonged course of antibiotic treatment, some bacterial organisms do survive within us. Those that do survive, by definition, have acquired a degree of antibiotic resistance. Therefore, the very nature of antibiotic therapy favors the Natural Selection of more resistant infectious agents that are able to exist and survive without immune inflammatory recognition. Conventional antibiotic therapy directly promotes this course of events.
Another result of antimicrobial therapy complicates diagnosis. As the immune response is shut off (prematurely by reduced bacterial count and direct inhibition), antibody production and cellular memory may become impaired leading to a delay or an inhibition of seroconversion. This would effectively reduce the reliability of antibody-based diagnostic tests.(23)
The very basis for the germ warfare approach to infectious illness enables and ensures the retaliation from stronger bacterial and viral organisms in future illnesses. It should be no surprise that even through the most judicious use of these agents, coupled with the most thorough (and compliant) courses of treatment, that emergence of resistance to these agents is a guaranteed ultimate fact. Recurrence is only a matter of time and (in a dynamic living system) a question of location.
From this discussion, it would appear that our immune system has developed through a reliance upon the growth characteristics of infectious organisms within and around us. The orchestration of antigenic recognition, clonal production and cellular memory may not have sufficient information to adapt to the changes that we so readily interject. The use of chemotherapeutic antibiotics (that reduce, but fail to eliminate these organisms) may exacerbate the situation and hinder the immune response by confusing feedback loops of inflammation. If antibiotics are capable of interfering with our system in this manner, they may shut down important processes prematurely. This may directly lead to a form of revolving door series of infections until suppression was strong enough to set up a chronic illness (see below). The strategy at the core of the conventional approach to infectious disease may be fundamentally flawed. The notion of a sterile (bacteria free) human is as absurd as the notion of a perfect vacuum - it does not exist. Additionally, our ignorance in relying on this Stone Age view of microbiological dynamics may be extremely harmful. Our attempts to assist with infections using antibiotics may significantly impede our health.
If we recognize that antibiotic resistance is an inevitable fact, then we will also perceive that the phenomenon of disease suppression is the ultimate outcome. Disease suppression is the phenomenon widely recognized for over 200 years by homeopathic physicians; it is one of their greatest contentions with allopaths. In this paradigm, the allopathic application of medicines (that only achieve the short-term reversal of symptoms) drives illnesses deeper into potentially more serious levels of pathology. This phenomenon (known only empirically till now) has recently been validated.
Suppression is seen following many conventional treatments using hormones, steroids, antibiotics and other medications that limit the inflammatory response. The use of these agents sometimes results in dire infectious, neoplastic, rheumatologic and metabolic consequences. Recently, the organism Chlamydia pneumoniae has been implicated in the pathogenesis of both heart disease and cerebrovascular disease(24,25). The bacterium Helicobacter Pylori has been implicated in the development of peptic ulcer disease, migraine headaches(26) and cancer(27). Both of these organisms are common superficial opportunists that appear to have escaped immune detection until their pathogenicity is expressed in an heretofore unsuspected disease. These are examples of potentially lethal consequences that may occur when the normal homeostatic balance of the immune system is turned off and suppressed by conventional treatments. In a similar fashion, viral agents have long been implicated in the development of certain types of cancer and lymphoma and, recently, a Borna virus has been implicated in the etiology of certain emotional ailments, including depression.(28 )
The change in role of these minor infectious agents and their involvement in more serious pathology may have resulted from the overuse of suppressive treatments that (a) effectively enabled resistance, (b) simultaneously inhibited immune recognition allowing the organism to evade detection and reach a deeper protected niche in arterial walls, in the mucus barrier inside the stomach or even in the brain.
Recent studies in the pathogenesis of viral factors in cancer have indicated that the EBV agent is able to selectively express only certain proteins that enable it to remain protected intracellularly for long periods of time before contributing to a devastating illness.(29) Similarly, any form of therapy that suppresses immune function and reduces symptoms of inflammation (without eliminating the cause) may open the door to this phenomenon.
In the example above, of cardiac and cerebrovascular disease, these may be the result of treatment with suppressive agents that acted to relieve symptoms, but inhibited the development of immunity. Short-term effects of this might include recurrent infections while long-term results might include pathology in more vital organs in the viscera. The recognition of the possible relatedness of these events has been delayed because conventional wisdom ignores the theoretical (and empirical) conclusion that different illnesses suffered by an individual throughout his or her lifetime may be related. It is interesting that the denial and flagrant ignorance of these phenomena now lead directly to their proof.
The solution to this modern dilemma is not to redouble the use of suppressive therapies, but to work to stimulate and support the immune system through our understanding of how it does work. The recognition that our very own chemotherapeutic agents inhibit our immune defenses while strengthening the position of the parasite should allow us to explore the use of alternative therapeutic modalities that work in accordance with the functioning of the body rather than against it.
In the case of Lyme disease (and many other infectious illnesses), if the immune reaction is turned off prematurely (by reduction of bacterial burden, below a threshold level), before all the arms of the immune response are activated, then the complex system of antibody production and cellular memory may not become fully activated. This may lead to a partial crippling of the very system that we have so generously tried to assist. The ability of the immune system to adapt to infection may be thwarted and subclinical disease may progress unhindered. The heroic, short-term, symptomatic solution may be more harmful in the long-run. Immunity may never develop and the illness may progress to more serious stages of (initially) asymptomatic pathology. This situation may lead to the successful, temporary relief from a symptom at the expense of worsening overall health.
Biologically, the long-term effects of this short-term disease suppression may produce a profound dependence upon the repeated administration of these toxic agents and a weakening of the health of an individual as illness is ultimately driven deeper toward more vital organs. This phenomena should be perfectly clear by observing the effects of repeated antibiotic administration in cases of recurrent pediatric otitis media and strep pharyngitis. Conventional medical wisdom assumed that there was a long term benefit to the pharmacologic control and temporary suppression of these symptoms. However, these assumptions have never been rigorously tested in any double-blinded format. One recent study does suggest that antibiotics should not be indicated as first line treatment in these infections and that they should be regarded as optional.(31) This is the conclusion that has been supported by over 200 years of homeopathic treatment.
Hahnemann states in paragraph 60 of The Organon:
When these ill-consequences arise from the antipathic employment of medicines (as may very naturally be expected) the ordinary physician believes he can aid his cause by giving, with each renewed aggravation, a stronger dose of the medicine. This results, likewise, in only a short-lasting pacification. Since this necessitates an ever higher intensification of the palliative, there ensures either another greater malady or frequently even incurability, danger to life or death itself, but never cure of a malady that is old or very old.(19)
Homeopathic medicines have been shown to stimulate an individual's immune response with an information/energy intensive quantum boost. This specific boost acts in a fashion similar to the crude inoculation, but appears to be individually matched to the precise pattern and vibratory frequency of the system that is out of atunement. This impetus enables the development of an increased strength of the immune response with greater resistance to illness. The immune system appears to benefit via this paradoxical treatment. Ultimately, homeopathic treatment forces the immune system to work harder in exercising immunity and cellular memory. Through the judicious use of the classical homeopathic method whereby each case is taken individually and the simillimum is given in the correct strength, we begin to see illness prevented and cured. In this manner, many illnesses that have become chronic and long-standing can be fully reversed.
CONCLUSION
My clinical experience with Lyme disease strongly supports the role of classical homeopathy and homeopathic medicines early after exposure as the most effective means of management. Since this application of medicine stimulates and augments the immune inflammatory response, a prompt resolution usually results. In early cases and in prophylaxis, I advocate the use of homeopathy as a first line of treatment. This approach is effective for the prompt resolution of threatening infection, and it additionally appears to stimulate the individual in a fashion (similar to an immunization) such that immunity from future infection is also strengthened (rather than the reverse, which is commonly seen with conventional antibiotic prophylaxis).
My experience working with established cases of late Lyme disease has included cases treated with extensive courses of oral and IV antibiotic therapies for recurrent disease. At this stage, there is some controversy regarding the questions of chronic suppressed disease versus actual reinfection and true recurrence. The point is moot however since reinfection suggests that immunity was never attained on a cellular level. Antibiotic treatment suppressed not only the disease associated organism (spirochete), but also turned off the immune response prematurely and prevented the development of immunity.
Chronic infection suggests that a stalemate of continued disease activity is the result of an associated disease agent (spirochete) that has established a niche in a susceptible host. Neither the antibiotic nor the host's immune response is sufficient to break the cycle. The continued use of stronger and broader spectrum agents only weakens the immune system further and allows the infection to slip deeper toward organ systems less able to evoke a perceptible symptomatic inflammatory response. It becomes more difficult to effect a cure using either homeopathic or allopathic medicines as the bacterial or viral agents become established in these deeper niches and symptoms subside. In this model, superficial infections may establish chronic silent residence until inevitable pathology ultimately effects more critical levels of functioning.
Homeopathy is the most viable option in these cases as conventional treatments tend to act in a toxic manner toward the host, provide only partial bactericidal action and further suppress toward more serious latent illnesses. My experience suggests that the judicious use of homeopathic medicines applied through the classical homeopathic approach is one of the best means to cure Lyme disease (and other related infections) and to reestablish a healthy equilibrium.
LÄÄKKEIDEN VAIKUTUS IMMUUNIJÄRJESTELMÄÄN
Valvojat: Jatta1001, Borrelioosiyhdistys, Bb