Before I take a shot at answering the question: "Do these bacteria make us ill?" I thought I'd first deal with a more pertinent question: "Does the Marshall Protocol make us better?"
Determining if a protocol or product actually cures can be difficult. T.V. ads over-flow with testimonials by seemingly-sincere people claiming to be cured from everything imaginable, by wearing this magic bracelet, or drinking that magic potion. I'm really skeptical. And I'm doubly skeptical when someone is getting rich by claiming to make sick people well. That applies as much to big drug companies and the Billion-Dollar-Medical industry as it does to charlatans and snake-oil salesmen and multi-level marketing schemes.
And while I have complete confidence that healing through faith and miracles happens all the time, I'm utterly skeptical of big-time, so-called faith healers who prey on people while making themselves famous and wealthy, and did I mention wealthy!? My version of hell has a special corner for those folks.
So how can we know that anyone's claim to have a cure for something is valid?
The Gold Standard for scientific proof is the 'double-blind' study. It's considered the best way to remove pre-conceived bias from the results. But double-blind studies are expensive to conduct in valid ways that produce reliable results - that is using large enough populations with properly-designed data collection over a significantly-long time frame.
But double-blind evidence is not the only way to prove or disprove a theory. For example in aviation, I would be pretty reluctant to participate in a double-blind study to see if an aircraft is properly designed and built. I'd prefer to know that there is good scientific logic underlying the design of the aircraft and that reasonably good predictions can be made about how the aircraft will perform once airborne, and that recent tests are confirming those beliefs. I'd also like to know a lot about the designer himself and his previous track record. In aviation, progress has been made by moving gradually from what is known to what is not known but strongly suspected. That's why test pilots always fly into the edges of the envelope to see what's just beyond. Reality is the ultimate test of truth.
Here's another point raised in that Wikipedia article:
Effective blinding can be difficult to achieve where the treatment is notably effective (indeed, studies have been suspended in cases where the tested drug combinations were so effective that it was deemed unethical to continue withholding the findings from the control group, and the general population)
So what I'm finally getting at is this. While the Marshall Protocol has not been subjected to full-out double-blind studies (for several reasons), that doesn't mean that the results Dr. Marshall presents are unreliable. The scientific evidence behind his description of the disease process, the accuracy of his predictions as to how the cure works and his ability to explain his ideas with science rather than conjecture and 'everybody knows' type statements has a the ring of truth to it. His research is drawn from studies previously conducted by many different people rather than one single source. He is not so heavily invested in one predicted answer that he is reluctant to change directions when reality demands it.
Also the results of the protocol are subject to free and open discussion thanks to the internet - those for whom it is working and those for whom it is not can thrash out their experiences.
Also adding credibility is the fact that no one is making money from this protocol. The antibiotics are familiar ones that have been around long enough to have generic versions available. The other important drug is a relative newcomer, but its manufacturer, Sankyo seems to take little interest in the Marshall Protocol. I mentioned earlier, no one sees much profit in curing a rare disease. So, ironically, Sarcoidosis proves to be the perfect disease for uncovering the mystery of Th1-based diseases. If, in fact such diseases are all related and there are millions of prospective patients out there, this dynamic will change. But not before the underlying facts will have been established free from economic bias and influence.
Other key factors come to mind when I consider the claimed results of the Marshall Protocol. One - Dr. Marshall does actually have the credentials. Two - this work is costing him a lot more than he stands to profit. Three - he's already used it on himself to treat his own sarcoidosis. That's a testimonial that bears listening to. Oh yeah, and Four - I've experienced the changes in my own health, often in surprising ways that would preclude my simply seeing what I want to see.
This posting is getting long, so I'll break here and present some of Dr. Marshall's data as well as a summary of my own experience in the next 'webisode' ...
So what I'm finally getting at is this. While the Marshall Protocol has not been subjected to full-out double-blind studies (for several reasons), that doesn't mean that the results Dr. Marshall presents are unreliable. The scientific evidence behind his description of the disease process, the accuracy of his predictions as to how the cure works and his ability to explain his ideas with science rather than conjecture and 'everybody knows' type statements has a the ring of truth to it. His research is drawn from studies previously conducted by many different people rather than one single source. He is not so heavily invested in one predicted answer that he is reluctant to change directions when reality demands it.
Also the results of the protocol are subject to free and open discussion thanks to the internet - those for whom it is working and those for whom it is not can thrash out their experiences.
Also adding credibility is the fact that no one is making money from this protocol. The antibiotics are familiar ones that have been around long enough to have generic versions available. The other important drug is a relative newcomer, but its manufacturer, Sankyo seems to take little interest in the Marshall Protocol. I mentioned earlier, no one sees much profit in curing a rare disease. So, ironically, Sarcoidosis proves to be the perfect disease for uncovering the mystery of Th1-based diseases. If, in fact such diseases are all related and there are millions of prospective patients out there, this dynamic will change. But not before the underlying facts will have been established free from economic bias and influence.
Other key factors come to mind when I consider the claimed results of the Marshall Protocol. One - Dr. Marshall does actually have the credentials. Two - this work is costing him a lot more than he stands to profit. Three - he's already used it on himself to treat his own sarcoidosis. That's a testimonial that bears listening to. Oh yeah, and Four - I've experienced the changes in my own health, often in surprising ways that would preclude my simply seeing what I want to see.
This posting is getting long, so I'll break here and present some of Dr. Marshall's data as well as a summary of my own experience in the next 'webisode' ...
No comments:
Post a Comment