Monday, September 10, 2012

A Tempting TV Broadcast - Too tempting by far!

On ABC1 TV 23/08/12 at 8pm, a program called “Catalyst” was screened, of which the first 14 minutes suggested a possible cure (or at least, significant improvement) for Multiple Sclerosis. As Pam is now totally physically disabled because of Primary Progressive MS (PPMS), diagnosed in 1986, we both took great interest in what the program had to say.

The doctors named in the program were Dr David Wheldon and Dr Paul Thibault. They claim that MS is caused by an infection by Chlamydia Pneumoniae and it could be successfully treated by an extended term of three concurrently delivered antibiotics– a term well in excess of twelve months.

I soon after asked our GP, Dr Meyer if he could prescribe these for Pam – as Pam is now so weakened by MS that I fear she will not survive her next inevitable attack of the common cold. (The last time she caught a cold was in 2009 when it developed into pneumonia and a brain haemorrhage resulting in a stroke. As you may have read, Pam, who was much stronger than she is now, very nearly died back then; but was saved by an emergency treatment of the antibiotic Vancomycin.)

Reasoning that even if the treatment prescribed by Dr Wheldon and Co merely improved Pam’s strength against her next attack of a cold, at least then she’d have a better chance of surviving it.
Dr Meyer explained that he was unable to prescribe anything but ‘normal periods of treatments’ of antibiotics, which certainly didn’t extend to the time-period suggested on the video, but at least he encouraged me to see what I could find on the internet in relation to Dr Wheldon. Dr Meyer also gave me a referral to a local physician, Dr Terry Cook.

Upon searching the internet I quickly found two documents written by Dr Wheldon: The first was a highly detailed “Empirical antibacterial treatment of infection with Chlamydophila pneumoniae in Multiple Sclerosis” and the second was a detailed rebuttal of another doctor’s argument which claimed that “Chlamydophila (Chlamydia) pneumoniae was unlikely to have any input into Multiple Sclerosis”.

I printed off both of the above documents and copied the 14 minute segment of the Catalyst segment onto a DVD, all of which I submitted to the physician's receptionist for his eventual perusal should he so decide to familiarise himself (when he returns from a seminar in Melbourne). I explained in a covering letter that the video program goes to some trouble to explain that the described treatment has not yet had any clinical trials, nor is it ever likely to ever get any because the antibiotics involved are all ‘old’ and out of patent, and therefore there is no money to be made to justify/fund any such trial. Dr Wheldon (on the video) said himself that he’d be a widower by now if he’d waited for a clinical trial prior to his (successful) treatment of his own MS-afflicted wife.

In that letter I left for Dr Cook I also noted that because the treatment hasn’t (yet) been clinically trialled, it is alleged that most medicos either avoid or actively reject it. I wrote "Pam and I are admittedly ‘grabbing at straws’ – we urgently seek anything that will possibly strengthen her to give her a better chance to cope with the inevitable. Anything better towards, say, a cure, would be an unexpected bonus".

Pam's and my appointment with Dr Cook is not until mid-October (and I'm writing this on 10th September) but since making that appointment I'm having serious second thoughts about Dr Wheldon's treatment. Just today we received a copy of 'Intouch Magazine' and in it was a feature about the different forms of MS. Pam has PPMS and according to this article, dated Spring 2012, there are no medications at all which are affective with that. Dr Wheldon is a poet and a novelist as well as a doctor - that bothers me somewhat... Is his supposed treatment of MS also a fiction - at least, for Pam?

Once again I contacted Dr Cook's receptionist and explained my revelations, but she encouraged me to nevertheless continue with the appointment, regardless - and so I shall; but with a VERY different point-of-view to what I originally had in mind.