I’ve been forced to accept the fact in the last two weeks that, despite the great recovery that I had in October, I’m still not better. In fact, at this point, it appears that I have simply gotten back to where I was when I first started antibiotic therapy. In other words, while on antibiotics, I got very, very sick … and then I recovered from that. Who knows whether or not I would have gotten just as sick if I’d never started the antibiotics, but I certainly find it difficult to believe that my current treatment course is getting me where I want to go. At my last LLMD visit, my doctor called me an “antibiotic veteran” — and this is after just one year of antibiotics (but four different types + mepron).

Based on this realization, I have started once again to think about alternatives to antibiotics, such as those described in The Top 10 Treatments for Lyme Disease, Healing Lyme, and Lyme Info’s page on alternatives to antibiotics. I don’t know where this will lead me yet, but I do know that I will consider both techniques that are complementary to and substitutes for traditional antibiotics. This will be the first in a series of posts where I explore different alternative techniques. Disclaimer: I am no doctor, and I cannot speak to the ability for these techniques to cure anyone. What I will document is what sources of information I found about different techniques, and what evidence I used to make my own personal decision to try or not to try something. I encourage you to research these techniques and make your own decisions about them.

Note: this post used to go on to discuss the  Marshall Protocol, but instead I decided to step back and think about how to evaluate different treatment approaches. I will discuss the Marshall Protocol in a future post once I’ve had time to collect my thoughts on it in a way that addresses the full set of issues that I think should go in to such a serious decision.

3 thoughts on “Alternatives?

  1. If you haven’t done so, check out Marshall’s keynote presentation at Conference on the Gene in China. The science here is well ahead of rife or anything like it:

    Transparent as my biases may be, I don’t think Mark London is a reliable commentator on disease or the MP. He makes a lot of misstatements in that article.


  2. I hadn’t seen that keynote, thank you for posting it for me and any other readers of this blog. Mark’s credentials don’t seem all that strong (I am clear about that in my post). His is simply the only extensive rebuttal I’ve found (others exist but seem very short and content less). Can you elaborate on his misstatements?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s