Chris Froome cured
Comments
-
Let's face it, we won't know the truth until the book comes out 8)...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
rayjay wrote:WBT has great debating skills IMO. The anger always comes from elsewhere.
How so?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
If you want to start a thread about WBT why not make one, or PM.
It would be good if like I saidsomeone will come up with the medical information on here I expect, that will save joining the dots with conjecture in the meantime yeah.
...then WBT's theories can be discussed in the context of some real information.0 -
mfin wrote:I don't have the studies, but someone will come up with the medical information on here I expect, that will save joining the dots with conjecture in the meantime yeah.
One really only needs to type a simple search string into Google to see several medial studies indicating the effects to hematocrit from Schistosomiasis.
Regardless If one has Schistosomiasis one would expect a humans RB count to remain the same? Not higher and not lower?
If there's no impact to RB count and his passport did not note any fluctuations then the next questions would be the following... why once treated did his performances increase dramatically?0 -
I have actually got better things to be doing but here you go for starters:
(Please bear in mind that this is a scientific paper rather than some unsubstantiated internet hogwash)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074920/
"Table 1 shows significant increase (p < 0.01) in eosinophilia and leukocyte counts in S. haematobium infected children and a haemoglobin level below 12 g/dl for both the patients and the control group. There was no relationship between the level of haemoglobin and the intensity of the infection. Haematocrit was within the normal range. Elevated levels of serum total protein and globulin and decreased serum albumin were observed in infected children. No significant change in the level of urea and uric acid or sodium content was observed. Serum potassium was significantly decreased and calcium was significantly increased (p < 0.01)."
Of course the effects of the disease are evidenced in the blood (see below), but I see no reason why the UCI would be checking these parameter - perhaps they could, or should, go back and do so to confirm illness in cases like this (and indeed that of JTL):
"In 74% out of 97 children infected with S. haematobium the egg count exceeded 500 eggs/10 ml of urine and they had high level of eosinophilia and leukocyte counts, high globulin and calcium levels and low potassium. The serum total proteins, globulins, albumin and urea showed statistically significant differences between control and patients and between patients before and after treatment, although the levels were within the normal reference range. Praziquantel treatment was highly effective as proved by a (58%) cure rate, a (98%) reduction in egg count and normalization of the examined blood parameters six weeks post-treatment."
If you want to know why the disease might have hampered Froome's performance between treatments I suggest you research the effects of the disease (fatigue, fever, chills, cough, muscle aches, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, dysentery and blood in the urine) and then trying going for a bike ride the next time you feel a bit run down. It's not always about the red blood cells.
By the way, neither Froome nor Walsh nor I are doctors. Although I suspect I have a greater understanding of some of these science than they do.
Happy reading.
Please could you now indicate a reputible source for your previous statement:whiteboytrash wrote:He'd have the hematocrit of a old lady! :roll:
Or admit that you made it up. I will not be interacting with you any further until you do one of these two things.0 -
nic_77 wrote:If you want to know why the disease might have hampered Froome's performance between treatments I suggest you research the effects of the disease (fatigue, fever, chills, cough, muscle aches, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, dysentery and blood in the urine) and then trying going for a bike ride the next time you feel a bit run down. It's not always about the red blood cells.
I'm glad you added this as it also kicks into touch the issue about it not affecting VO2 max which I'm sure someone is likely to bring up too (inevitably)0 -
Thanks for that post nic_77, it's always easier to understand the basics of something when someone who knows a bit about something posts like that.0
-
So, how come Froome/Walsh/Brailsford have stated on numerous occasions the Bilharzia feeds on the red blood cells, effectively doing the reverse of what EPO does?0
-
-
mfin wrote:Thanks for that post nic_77, it's always easier to understand the basics of something when someone who knows a bit about something posts like that.
Quite. Nic is The Mighty Boosh* for his above posts
*an accolade for which there is no higher honour in the RR household0 -
Stillnox wrote:So, how come Froome/Walsh/Brailsford have stated on numerous occasions the Bilharzia feeds on the red blood cells, effectively doing the reverse of what EPO does?
So do the inaccuracies in Walsh's writing only apply when they can be used as evidence of a cover up?0 -
I am basing this on what I have read about the disease...Stillnox wrote:So, how come Froome/Walsh/Brailsford have stated on numerous occasions the Bilharzia feeds on the red blood cells, effectively doing the reverse of what EPO does?
and Froome/Walsh/Brailsford are factually correct - the worms do eat red blood cells.
Consider the life cycle of the disease:
1. Invasion by the parasite
2. (Day 2-10) Migration to the liver
3. (6-8 Weeks) Maturation of the worms
4. Egg laying (a pair of worms can lay several hundred eggs a day)
5. Many eggs are released by the body, others become lodged (in places like the liver)
6. Worms can remain in the body for many years presumably eating RBCs and laying eggs
NOTE: The worms themselves can not proliferate in the body - so there may not be a large number of them, yet many egg are being produced. The eggs have to leave the body to hatch and then they need to pass through a snail host before they become capable of infecting a human.
So, during the time when the worms are actively in the body they are eating the RBC... but as the study I quoted previously shows this does not appear to have an affect on the haematocrit or RBC count. Perhaps because of the numbers involved or the body's ability to cope with the depletion - this I can't answer for sure.
The presence of the eggs however is what cause the immune response from the body and therefore the pathology and symptoms.
So... there is room in this story for everyone to be telling the truth and for the cause to be genuine!0 -
Not quite... more likely they got bored when listening to the doctors or just heard the bit that they understood.dsoutar wrote:0 -
Pross wrote:Stillnox wrote:So, how come Froome/Walsh/Brailsford have stated on numerous occasions the Bilharzia feeds on the red blood cells, effectively doing the reverse of what EPO does?
So do the inaccuracies in Walsh's writing only apply when they can be used as evidence of a cover up?
Yes if you don't like Sky
No if you like them
I don't like Sky, Walsh or posh crap so called comic Jack Whitehall.
Just want to say that.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:WBT has great debating skills IMO. The anger always comes from elsewhere.
How so?
One can only assume that rajay is comparing them to his own."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Pross wrote:Stillnox wrote:So, how come Froome/Walsh/Brailsford have stated on numerous occasions the Bilharzia feeds on the red blood cells, effectively doing the reverse of what EPO does?
So do the inaccuracies in Walsh's writing only apply when they can be used as evidence of a cover up?
Beat me to it, Pross.
This is how the internut works.
Spend endless hours trying to chip away at a guy's credibilty, only to fall back upon quoting the same guy
as unimpeachable, when it suits.
Simples."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
nic_77 wrote:I have actually got better things to be doing but here you go for starters:
(Please bear in mind that this is a scientific paper rather than some unsubstantiated internet hogwash)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074920/
"Table 1 shows significant increase (p < 0.01) in eosinophilia and leukocyte counts in S. haematobium infected children and a haemoglobin level below 12 g/dl for both the patients and the control group. There was no relationship between the level of haemoglobin and the intensity of the infection. Haematocrit was within the normal range. Elevated levels of serum total protein and globulin and decreased serum albumin were observed in infected children. No significant change in the level of urea and uric acid or sodium content was observed. Serum potassium was significantly decreased and calcium was significantly increased (p < 0.01)."
Of course the effects of the disease are evidenced in the blood (see below), but I see no reason why the UCI would be checking these parameter - perhaps they could, or should, go back and do so to confirm illness in cases like this (and indeed that of JTL):
"In 74% out of 97 children infected with S. haematobium the egg count exceeded 500 eggs/10 ml of urine and they had high level of eosinophilia and leukocyte counts, high globulin and calcium levels and low potassium. The serum total proteins, globulins, albumin and urea showed statistically significant differences between control and patients and between patients before and after treatment, although the levels were within the normal reference range. Praziquantel treatment was highly effective as proved by a (58%) cure rate, a (98%) reduction in egg count and normalization of the examined blood parameters six weeks post-treatment."
If you want to know why the disease might have hampered Froome's performance between treatments I suggest you research the effects of the disease (fatigue, fever, chills, cough, muscle aches, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, dysentery and blood in the urine) and then trying going for a bike ride the next time you feel a bit run down. It's not always about the red blood cells.
By the way, neither Froome nor Walsh nor I are doctors. Although I suspect I have a greater understanding of some of these science than they do.
Happy reading.
Please could you now indicate a reputible source for your previous statement:whiteboytrash wrote:He'd have the hematocrit of a old lady! :roll:
Or admit that you made it up. I will not be interacting with you any further until you do one of these two things.
Thanks. Good study on schoolchildren.
Not sure why you're saying "admit I made it up". I was presenting the theory put forward by Walsh/Froome and Brailsford.
Who stated it was a "RBC", "munching" disease. Froome said it was the "reverse of EPO".
As did Dave Brailsford.
Your study is correct as others I've read but there is an impact to hemoglobin which the passport would pick up.So I assume he would have got a "please explain" letter at one point.
So how did Froome, Walsh, and Brailsford get it so wrong?
If you get time I suggest reading a more direct study on the impacts to blood parameters here:
http://www.slideshare.net/AlexanderDeck ... parameters
Worth reading.Very insightful.
So where are we now?
No impact to RBCs. No impact to Vo2 Max (on schoolchildren).
One can only assume the symptoms of Bilharzia was the cause of his poor form and for several years he had no idea he it?
Seems plausible? With the following symptoms he just thought it was normal for 96 months as a pro athlete? and once cured he was able to nearly win the Vuelta? :shock:
Breathlessness.
Cough.
Palpitations.
Chest pain.
Liver failure.
Seizures.
Confusion.
Paralysis0 -
RichN95 wrote:Most patients have little understanding of their own disease. If this was made up as some seem to think, then there wouldn't be inconsistencies.
Lance Armstrong had a better understanding of his disease than most Doctors did.
I'm not sure what you write is based on any fact. Its just a hunch you have. But I don't think its true.
If this "thing" was causing Froome to miss out on being a GT winner then he knows what its doing to his body. Considering that in Walsh's book it tells how Froome is a "scientist" first then a bike rider. As he's always looking at the numbers to see where he can improve.
Think Froome might know about something which effects his health and career.
Thoughts? or think he doesn't really care about it much that it might eat up some more of his RBC's?0 -
Someone I know having been in Hospitals on and off for a couple of years and when in there, they come round every 3/4 days to take blood samples.mfin wrote:The interesting thing about blood tests is they tell you everything that is not right in your blood.
Oh, hang on, no they don't, they just look for the things they are looking for at the time.
Then about 8 months later he has red in his urine and his GP doctor prescribes antibiotics.
Then sends him to Hospital to find he has cancer in his bladder that must have started two or three years earlier.
Yes they only look for whatever is needed for your known symptoms.
My question to the debate so far is :-
If you go to give blood, I thought they said it would be 24 hours for the body to replace same, so the RBC's should also be replaced. It is a question for me to understand the debate and innuendo's. :?Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
ddraver wrote:(wbt you asked me once what i considered evidence, ^that)
Yes evidence but not proof. Theres an important distinction between the two. A finger painting by a trained monkey could be evidence. But does not mean its proof.
Nevertheless in this case a study on Sudanese school children is not really applicable to world class athletes. But the principles appear to be sound.
What we know now is the RBCs are not being "munched" on as stated by Froome and Walsh.
Good news!0 -
He only had a moderate version of it. It has some effect on blood but not enough to set off alarms on the bio passport - especially in someone who wasn't being tested a huge amount. And anyway, the UCI were aware of his illness as they were the ones who spotted it in the first place.
The main effect was it left him tired which effected his recovery and how much he could train. If he did an office job it probably wouldn't have been that big a deal.
As for his improvement, there was a bit more to it than curing his illness. Proper training, no knee injury, a bit more tactical sense and being given more responsibility in the team were just as responsible, if not more.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:He only had a moderate version of it. It has some effect on blood but not enough to set off alarms on the bio passport - especially in someone who wasn't being tested a huge amount. And anyway, the UCI were aware of his illness as they were the ones who spotted it in the first place.
The main effect was it left him tired which effected his recovery and how much he could train. If he did an office job it probably wouldn't have been that big a deal.
As for his improvement, there was a bit more to it than curing his illness. Proper training, no knee injury, a bit more tactical sense and being given more responsibility in the team were just as responsible, if not more.
I see thanks for the update. It was only moderate. So probably not really impacting his performance?
According to Froome it was "feeding" on his red blood cells. "Draining" his immune system.
Poor guy. Only moderate though.
VN: What kind of health problems did you have?
CF: Bilharzia – it’s a water-borne disease, which I found that I had it in December last year. It feeds on your red blood cells, for a cyclist, it was a nightmare. I must have touched some contaminated water somewhere in Africa. I probably had it for year before I found it. That just drained my immune system. I was always getting little colds and coughs, nothing serious, but it always kept me from being at 100-percent fitness.
The UCI found it?
That's not what Froome said. Altough the story has changed a few times. I think the official line now is he told the UCI to look for something and BAM they found it! (according to Walsh).
Not sure what the UCI were looking for but they found it :shock:
2009 - Diagnosis (Possible mix-up)
"Back at...I think it was the end of 2009 actually...I was diagnosed for the first time with bilharzia" (Dec '12)
"You don't realize it is bilharzia unless you go for that specific test -- which I was lucky enough to detect at the end of 2009" (Dec '12)
("Since then I've...every 6 months I go for another check, and if there's any sign of it in the system then I'll just repeat the treatment" (Dec'12))
2009/2010 - Contraction
"I probably had it for year before I found it." (Sep '11)
"I found it 18 months ago and they had probably been in my system for a year before that." (May '12)
Dec/End of 2010 - Diagnosis (and presumably Treatment)
"Bilharzia – it’s a water-borne disease, which I found that I had it in December last year." (Sep '11)
"At the end of 2010, I was back home in Kenya visiting my family, and it was that time of year to do the UCI blood passport checks, so I went and had the tests done and at the same time I said to the doctors “I haven’t been great all year, can we just check a full screening for anything, and they came back immediately and said you have this parasite…” ('13)0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:ddraver wrote:(wbt you asked me once what i considered evidence, ^that)
Yes evidence but not proof. Theres an important distinction between the two. A finger painting by a trained monkey could be evidence. But does not mean its proof.
Drifting a bit here but....
Posters need to be more specific when requesting 'evidence'.
What they really mean is 'better evidence' - better being short hand for robust, reliable and relevant.
For me that would be a positive test, reliable eye witness testimony or a confession.
Anything else is just gossip and monkeys finger painting.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:ddraver wrote:(wbt you asked me once what i considered evidence, ^that)
Yes evidence but not proof. Theres an important distinction between the two. A finger painting by a trained monkey could be evidence. But does not mean its proof.
Drifting a bit here but....
Posters need to be more specific when requesting 'evidence'.
What they really mean is 'better evidence' - better being short hand for robust, reliable and relevant.
For me that would be a positive test, reliable eye witness testimony or a confession.
Anything else is just gossip and monkeys finger painting.
Yes you are drifting but I'll go with it. Really what you are saying is you want "proof". Evidence could just be a Froome's climbing times on Ventoux. Doesn't mean that evidence would ever be enough to proved that he doped. Of course not. But its evidence all the same. You can't pretend that it doesn't exist. It does.
Gossip is admissible as evidence. 100% for sure. Works very well. A police informant generally relies on a form of "gossip". The UCI doping hotline is expecting a form of "gossip" to assist them with their policing of doping.
Di Luca's positive test came from an anonymous tip off to WADA. The testers knew when to strike as they received "information" or "gossip" on the window to test him.
Generally it the totality of evidence that provides what proves convincing enough. Similar to the reasoned decision. Once they had several riders on board and testimonies it became more damming. There's been rumors etc. for years about Armstrong. But put together in liner fashion its paints the entire story and becomes very convincing. Still no positive test, mind you.
Froome's journey has just begun. Time will be the true judge if he can stand up to the scrutiny, Let us see.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:TailWindHome wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:ddraver wrote:(wbt you asked me once what i considered evidence, ^that)
Yes evidence but not proof. Theres an important distinction between the two. A finger painting by a trained monkey could be evidence. But does not mean its proof.
Drifting a bit here but....
Posters need to be more specific when requesting 'evidence'.
What they really mean is 'better evidence' - better being short hand for robust, reliable and relevant.
For me that would be a positive test, reliable eye witness testimony or a confession.
Anything else is just gossip and monkeys finger painting.
Yes you are drifting but I'll go with it. Really what you are saying is you want "proof". Evidence could just be a Froome's climbing times on Ventoux. Doesn't mean that evidence would ever be enough to proved that he doped. Of course not. But its evidence all the same. You can't pretend that it doesn't exist. It does.
Gossip is admissible as evidence. 100% for sure. Works very well. A police informant generally relies on a form of "gossip". The UCI doping hotline is expecting a form of "gossip" to assist them with their policing of doping.
Di Luca's positive test came from an anonymous tip off to WADA. The testers knew when to strike as they received "information" or "gossip" on the window to test him.
Generally it the totality of evidence that provides what proves convincing enough. Similar to the reasoned decision. Once they had several riders on board and testimonies it became more damming. There's been rumors etc. for years about Armstrong. But put together in liner fashion its paints the entire story and becomes very convincing. Still no positive test, mind you.
Froome's journey has just begun. Time will be the true judge if he can stand up to the scrutiny, Let us see.
I'm going to cut this very short.
I don't mean proof I mean 'better evidence', that's why I wrote 'better evidence'“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I never run in to these renaissance men in real life. Internet is full of them. Where do they all go?0
-
My goodness, I knew this wouldn't be worth getting into... but in for a penny, in for a pound.whiteboytrash wrote:If you get time I suggest reading a more direct study on the impacts to blood parameters here:
http://www.slideshare.net/AlexanderDeck ... parameters
Worth reading.Very insightful.
I've read it, it is incredibly insightful.
Allow me to draw your attention to the following conclusions:
"In this study no difference in the hematocrit of both sexes when compared to the control group, while it was reversibly affected with the degree of parasitemia when the mean was compared in mild and sever infections (P. value 0.001)."
In case that isn't clear... there is no statistical difference in hematocrit between infected and uninfected individuals (however, if you compare a mildly infected individual with a severly infected individual there is a statistically significant difference).
"In the current study we found that there was no difference in the RBCs count of male patient group and male control group (P. value 0.18), while it was significantly reduced in females (P. value 0.022). RBCs was not affected with parasitemia."
So thanks for providing further conclusive evidence to support my assertions... (unless you are going to question Froome's gender next?)
I'll go on, shall I?whiteboytrash wrote:So how did Froome, Walsh, and Brailsford get it so wrong?
I presume you read my other post which clearly shows that they didn't.nic_77 wrote:
I am basing this on what I have read about the disease...Stillnox wrote:So, how come Froome/Walsh/Brailsford have stated on numerous occasions the Bilharzia feeds on the red blood cells, effectively doing the reverse of what EPO does?
and Froome/Walsh/Brailsford are factually correct - the worms do eat red blood cells.
Consider the life cycle of the disease:
1. Invasion by the parasite
2. (Day 2-10) Migration to the liver
3. (6-8 Weeks) Maturation of the worms
4. Egg laying (a pair of worms can lay several hundred eggs a day)
5. Many eggs are released by the body, others become lodged (in places like the liver)
6. Worms can remain in the body for many years presumably eating RBCs and laying eggs
NOTE: The worms themselves can not proliferate in the body - so there may not be a large number of them, yet many egg are being produced. The eggs have to leave the body to hatch and then they need to pass through a snail host before they become capable of infecting a human.
So, during the time when the worms are actively in the body they are eating the RBC... but as the study I quoted previously shows this does not appear to have an affect on the haematocrit or RBC count. Perhaps because of the numbers involved or the body's ability to cope with the depletion - this I can't answer for sure.
The presence of the eggs however is what cause the immune response from the body and therefore the pathology and symptoms.
So... there is room in this story for everyone to be telling the truth and for the cause to be genuine!
...and thenwhiteboytrash wrote:With the following symptoms he just thought it was normal for 96 months as a pro athlete? and once cured he was able to nearly win the Vuelta? :shock:
The paper you so very helpfully referenced above states:
"Symptoms and signs depend upon the number and location of eggs trapped in the tissues."
"Many individuals do not experience symptoms"
Please also google 'subclinical infection'. The body can be working hard fighting perceived infections, thus diverting resources from other things without the patient necessarily experiencing symptoms.
And for what it's worth...whiteboytrash wrote:nic_77 wrote:Please could you now indicate a reputible (sic) source for your previous statement:whiteboytrash wrote:He'd have the hematocrit of a old lady! :roll:
Or admit that you made it up. I will not be interacting with you any further until you do one of these two things.
Not sure why you're saying "admit I made it up". I was presenting the theory put forward by Walsh/Froome and Brailsford.
Who stated it was a "RBC", "munching" disease. Froome said it was the "reverse of EPO".
As did Dave Brailsford.
Sorry, where did Froome, Walsh or Brailsford say that Froome would have the Haematocrit of an old lady? You made that up, now be a good chap and admit it.
It was my pleasure 'debating' with you.0 -
It was my pleasure 'debating' with you.[/quote]
Nice try Nic but he'll be back! 0
This discussion has been closed.
