Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
Tex,
Wow, this is a lot to digest! At this point I still would not take any anitbiotics without being tested first. Wayne will have to make up his own mind.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Pat
Xifaxan
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Pat,
I agree with you. A lot of this, (most, really), is based on sheer speculation, with a generous sprinkling of hope mixed in. But then, when you're searching for a new " thinking out of the box" type of solution, that's almost always the case. "New" ideas are almost always universally disputed and discredited, (often, of course, for good reason).
In the real world, most big breakthroughs are based on accidental discoveries, and fortuitous observations, which are shown to provide the desired results, and then the theory is usually developed later. This is true of most commercial products, and pharmaceutical "discoveries", for example. Generally speaking, only in situations involving the world's greatest thinkers, physicists, and mathematicians, is the theory developed first, and then subsequently shown to be true in the physical world.
I'm a strong believer in the Chaos Theory, namely, that despite our best planning, most of the influences that determine the most dramatic changes in our lives, (and in everything else, such as the evolution of this planet, solar system, etc.), are based on chaotic events, (powerful, life-altering events, which are unpredictable, and beyond our control). Examples of this range from the asteroid impact that led to the extermination of the dinosaurs, (or whatever caused their relatively sudden demise), to how did you meet your mate - did you plan it? And, of course, MC is an obvious example of a chaotic event.
Anyway, I believe that chaotic events often lead to developments that in themselves, amount to chaotic events, (in a sense), and chaotic events don't always cause problems - sometimes they solve problems. Therefore, a corollary of the chaos theory should lead to the realization that somewhere, there is a radically different approach to treating IBDs, that will provide relief in the most severe cases, despite the fact that it appears to be illogical. The odds of stumbling upon that "event", of course, may be as slim as the odds of successfully testing the infinite monkey theorem, and coming up with the complete works of Shakespeare, but it's out there, somewhere, if we can find it.
I certainly agree that for long-term use, antibiotics should never be considered, but if one treatment can do the trick, then it may be worth the risk. It's difficult to "mess up", (using sanitized language), a train wreck, after all, so if chronic D is already the pattern, what's an antibiotic going to do - cause more D?
Since no treatment seems to work perfectly, (at least not necessarily promptly), for everyone, in a sense, we're always "guinea pigs", every time we try a treatment. Wayne will have to decide if he wants to be a guinea pig, in this case.
Pat, we most definitely appreciate your thoughts and insight, because you almost surely have more experience with a variety of treatments, than anyone else here, so I hope that Wayne weighs carefully, everything that you have said, before he makes any decisions.
Tex
I agree with you. A lot of this, (most, really), is based on sheer speculation, with a generous sprinkling of hope mixed in. But then, when you're searching for a new " thinking out of the box" type of solution, that's almost always the case. "New" ideas are almost always universally disputed and discredited, (often, of course, for good reason).
In the real world, most big breakthroughs are based on accidental discoveries, and fortuitous observations, which are shown to provide the desired results, and then the theory is usually developed later. This is true of most commercial products, and pharmaceutical "discoveries", for example. Generally speaking, only in situations involving the world's greatest thinkers, physicists, and mathematicians, is the theory developed first, and then subsequently shown to be true in the physical world.
I'm a strong believer in the Chaos Theory, namely, that despite our best planning, most of the influences that determine the most dramatic changes in our lives, (and in everything else, such as the evolution of this planet, solar system, etc.), are based on chaotic events, (powerful, life-altering events, which are unpredictable, and beyond our control). Examples of this range from the asteroid impact that led to the extermination of the dinosaurs, (or whatever caused their relatively sudden demise), to how did you meet your mate - did you plan it? And, of course, MC is an obvious example of a chaotic event.
Anyway, I believe that chaotic events often lead to developments that in themselves, amount to chaotic events, (in a sense), and chaotic events don't always cause problems - sometimes they solve problems. Therefore, a corollary of the chaos theory should lead to the realization that somewhere, there is a radically different approach to treating IBDs, that will provide relief in the most severe cases, despite the fact that it appears to be illogical. The odds of stumbling upon that "event", of course, may be as slim as the odds of successfully testing the infinite monkey theorem, and coming up with the complete works of Shakespeare, but it's out there, somewhere, if we can find it.
I certainly agree that for long-term use, antibiotics should never be considered, but if one treatment can do the trick, then it may be worth the risk. It's difficult to "mess up", (using sanitized language), a train wreck, after all, so if chronic D is already the pattern, what's an antibiotic going to do - cause more D?
Since no treatment seems to work perfectly, (at least not necessarily promptly), for everyone, in a sense, we're always "guinea pigs", every time we try a treatment. Wayne will have to decide if he wants to be a guinea pig, in this case.
Pat, we most definitely appreciate your thoughts and insight, because you almost surely have more experience with a variety of treatments, than anyone else here, so I hope that Wayne weighs carefully, everything that you have said, before he makes any decisions.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Wayne,
"How much worse could it get?" For me Neomycin really did me in. Before Neo I could control the D pretty well with immodium. After Neo ( I realize Neo is not Xifaxan but it is pretty potent too) even 9 immodium a day didn't help. I lost weight which I didn't have to lose. I became very fructose intolerant. Maybe I was somewhat before the Neo but even now almost 2 years later it is very bad. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy.
Pat
"How much worse could it get?" For me Neomycin really did me in. Before Neo I could control the D pretty well with immodium. After Neo ( I realize Neo is not Xifaxan but it is pretty potent too) even 9 immodium a day didn't help. I lost weight which I didn't have to lose. I became very fructose intolerant. Maybe I was somewhat before the Neo but even now almost 2 years later it is very bad. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy.
Pat