Re: Tapeworm and dangers of empirical treatment

"
Apearantly this gentleman had HIV, while I'm sure this wreaked havoc on his immune system and the parasite could have been acting oppurtunistically and could certainly have contributed to the severity of the case, wouldn't it also be possible that the meds he was taking may have been toxic to the parasites fueling an escilating autoinfective process?
"

Quite possible, I think.






"
Could this also explain why some patients experience "hepatotoxicity" from hiv meds while others do not?
"

Very well, I'd say. In fact, it's much of what I suspect.







"
A long suspicion of mine regarding regarding the selective "hepatotoxicity" of individual patients to particular drugs (not just antivirals) is that it may be parasite related, particularly with sulphonamides, which many parasites tend to be quite sensitive to.
"

I agree. Also keep in mind that the Liver is a 'luxury' reservoir for many parasitic species; 'the best they can find for the price', so to speak. They 'engulf' themselves in layers of Fat adhered to the Liver. They find it quite nice there, I hear [see 'fatty liver' problems]. Nice temperature, nice environment, nice neighborhood.







"
Also, some other classes of antibiotics are known to be reactive in regards to parasites, although usually not enough to effect a cure, so much as to merely stir the pot.
"

And a question of mine for quite a while has been HOW this reaction takes place. There seems to be evidence pointing to 'dying bacteria' within the parasite, which in turn may lend to upset it. I used this small possible fact to my advantage on several occasions at first, when nothing else seemed to work. This is how I found myself killing some species of nasty worms with ABX combinations alone.







"
It seems a long habit of the medical industry to turn the other way when adverse reactions occur in some patients while none in others, and simply chalk it up to allergic reaction.
"

The list of Adverse Reactions is on top of my preferences when studying a documented mechanism/drug. Beats me why they [researchers/industry] don't seem to make the connection themselves yet!



"
I wonder, is it merely ignorance or shear laziness?
"

Maybe it's something I call "Negative Skepticism", and it closes their minds and eyes shut so they are blind.

In Science, I've learned, one thing is to be skeptical about things and another to 'Believe in the Possibility'. Skepticism is Healthy for most in Science, I think, but to a degree of course. [Personally, I prefer to 'Believe in the Possibility' every single time without skepticism but with objective and unforgiving examination]

I've met many skeptics in the practice of Science. Some are POSITIVE Skeptics [my own definition], and others are "Negative" ones.

The "Positive" Skeptics [or the optimistic ones maybe?] always doubt and question everything, of course -they're skeptics after all, right?-, but they always wish to hear arguments for evaluation first, before 'passing judgement'. They give new ideas a chance. The "Negative" ones don't or don't seem to. Most of the time their ears and minds are CLOSED SHUT, period, to the point where new ideas quite often are met with anger and ridicule, so they listen to no reason.

The "Positive" ones don't seem to presume the falsehood of new ideas. They stay more or less neutral before them. The "Negative" ones presume Fault initially, so that new ideas must be proven True beyond absurd mockery and rejection very much before they're proposed. The "Positive" ones respect. The "Negative" ones respond with sarcasm and arrogance. And so the comparison grows. You get the idea. Tweet