Return to Non-Cardiovascular Outcomes Index Page
KNEES, HIPS, and other JOINTS
Nutritional Recommendations for Arthritis
Knees:
Avoiding Knee Surgery Number Two - BP
MME for Arthritis of the Knees - GJ
MME for Bone on Bone Knee Pain - ED
Partial Relief of Long-Standing Arthritis - GR
Hips:
Avascular Necrosis of the Hip - EA
Other Joints:
Arthritis Treatment Failure - HC
Under Treating a Condition because it is Not Life Threatening - HC
HC actually had a delayed, positive response to MME
Dr. Robert Becker, an orthopedic surgeon, was the first modern day physician (Hippocrates was 1st overall) to utilize the healing effects of magnetic energy. Carrying our basic research, Becker discovered that our embryonic development is directed by magnetic signals. He then mixed this scientific knowledge with a little engineering and came up with a magnetic device that successfully healed bone fractures that weren't healing on their own. The healing of these fractures was not felt to be possible despite the best anatomic and biochemical medical measures available at the time, but Becker used magnetic medicine, working at the molecular level, to do the impossible. 20 years later we have Dr. Bonlie and his MME machine, the strongest magnetic field emitting device in medicine. Can Bonlie do what Becker did? Can the Bonlie machine do the impossible? Dr. Stokesbary, of Laguna Nigel in California, was the first American physician to utilize MME. Patient outcomes with MME in his orthopedic practice are well chronicled on his website - click on - Laguna Nigel, California - some of our Bone & Joint outcomes are abstracted below.
Nutritional Recommendations for Arthritis
While we are enthusiastic about the benefits of MME in arthritis, let's also talk about nutritional therapies that may improve your response to MME, or improve your arthritic condition such that you don't even need MME or any other pharmacologic/surgical treatments. Let's discuss the major treatments one-by-one:
1. Glucosamine Sulfate (GS), taken orally, is absorbed through the GI tract and finds its way into the cartilage that lines your joints. Remember, it is erosion or inflammation of the joint cartilage that is causing your symptoms. GS is a raw material needed by your body to synthesize new cartilage; think of GS as "food for the cartilage". Randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies have shown that GS not only reduces arthritic symptoms, it delays, and in some cases prevents, further deterioration of the joint. No drug can do this! GS controls your symptoms and addresses the underlying problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (the Motrin family of prescription and over-the-counter agents) control your symptoms, but do not favorably affect cartilage metabolism. They do not delay progression of your arthritis; in some studies the rate of joint decline actually speeds up when you take a non-steroidal. We all now realize the potential toxicity of these agents. GS does not have appreciable toxicity, and there is some reason to believe that GS will be of value to the patient with cardiovascular disease (while the non-steroidals can compromise kidney function and lead to fluid retention). We do not need to comment about the Viox family of drugs and the heart patient. The dose of GS is 1000 mg, three times a day for two months, then 500-1000 mg/day to follow as a maintenance therapy. As with any nutritional therapy, patience is required; pain killers work quick, while it takes time to regenerate dysfunctional cartilage nutritionally.
2. Methyl Sulfonyl Methane (MSM), taken orally, is absorbed through the GI tract and makes its way to the cartilage that lines your joints, where it serves as a source of Sulfur, which is critical to healthy cartilage metabolism. MSM may work as a mono-therapy, but it only makes sense to use it in combination with GS. The typical dose of MSM is 500 mg, three times a day.
3. Chondroitin Sulfate (CS) - Like GS, CS serves as food for the cartilage. Experts argue about which is better, GS or CS, and most joint preparations include a little of both. CS is not as well studied as is GS, and its use makes sense (the usual dose is 400 mg three times a day), but I would also include GS in your program.
4. S-Adenosyl-Methionine (SAMe) is the most effective, and the
most expensive, nutritional therapy for osteoarthritis. SAMe promotes
methylation, a critical pathway in our biochemistry. SAMe has been used in
Europe for over a decade, and has been demonstrated to be of significant value
in depression and osteoarthritis (symptomatic relief equal to that obtained from
non-steroidal agents). SAMe is non-toxic, but at higher doses can cause
loose stools. The positive studies used SAMe in a dosing range of 400 to1600 mg/day.
5. Anti-Inflammatory Therapy:
A. Essential Fatty Acids - Whenever inflammation is the problem, essential fatty acid supplementation is a solution. Prostaglandins (locally active hormones manufactured from dietary fatty acids) obtained from meat and dairy produce and mediate the pain and inflammation of arthritis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents like Motrin and Aspirin work by blocking the production of these inflammatory messengers. Unfortunately, they also block the production of the beneficial prostaglandins that your body manufactures from fish oil and vegetable oils. They block the bad prostaglandins but also the good ones, explaining how these agents can blunt your pain, and at the same time cause gastric bleeding, kidney dysfunction, and the other side-effects of this class of drugs. A better approach, one with preventive, and often therapeutic value as well, is to minimize dietary meat and dairy (lowering production of the prostaglandins mediating pain and inflammation), at the same time supplementing your diet with the essential fatty acids that your body will convert into beneficial prostaglandins, the ones that block inflammation and pain, also the ones that protect your heart, kidneys, and GI tract, and your joints. Just as with the patient with heart disease, for joint disease I recommend one tablespoon/day of Fish or Cod Liver Oil, and GLA (Gammalinolenic Acid, obtained from Evening Primrose or Borage Seed Oil) 300 mg/day.
B. Botanical Anti-Inflammatory treatments are available and serve as nutritional substitutes for the more toxic prescription agents. Turmeric, the spice present in curried foods, may decrease your arthritic symptoms; I use this agent in my cardiology practice to lower fibrinogen and hsCRP levels. Boswellia serrata, a botanical used in traditional ayurvedic medicine, may also be useful. The best known and best studied botanical anti-inflammatory agent is Wobenzyme, actually a mixture of anti-inflammatory botanicals. Wobenzyme has been used in Europe for over a decade, and guess what, not only is Wobenzyme risk free cardiac-wise, it is therapeutic. A randomized, double blind study carried out in Russia demonstrated Wobenzyme to be of symptomatic benefit in patients with angina. My favorite anti-inflammatory agent is For Your Inflammation (FYI), a Wobenzyme-like agent formulated by Dr. Gary Gordon of Longevity Plus (800-580-7587). A family member was having trouble with knee pain during tennis; he found a certain prescription drug to be of symptomatic value. I didn't like this idea, and explained to him the potential downsides of this approach. He switched from the drug to FYI with good results. The prescription drug turned out to be Viox, so my family member was pleased that he was able to go off this agent a full year before the increased risks associated with this class of drugs were made known..
6. Dietary Recommendations:
A. As a general rule, it is best to avoid trans-fat containing processed foods, along with sugar and white flour products.
B. Food allergy may be playing a role in your arthritic symptoms. It may not be obvious to you, as your symptoms do not worsen immediately after you take in the offending food. Rather, chronic intake of the food, often a food we like and eat frequently, contributes to an inflammatory response that damages your joints. Food allergies can be identified by blood tests, or by following an allergy-elimination or rotation diet; this is something that you can read up on. The three leading food allergens in Americans are dairy, wheat, and corn. Many Americans have trouble, arthritis-wise, with the Nightshade group of foodstuffs, which includes tomatoes and potatoes.
Avoiding Knee Surgery Number Two - BP
BP has been under my care for seven years. He sustained a small, uncomplicated heart attack. He recovered without incident and was then treated with EECP and an aggressive anti-atherosclerotic regimen. Cardiac symptoms have not returned and follow-up stress studies have returned normal. His knees have not done so well. Left knee replacement was required in 2001. Surgery went well, but now BP's right knee is giving him trouble. The problem appeared to be arthritis, rather than a cartilage tear. In an effort to avoid, or to at least delay, the need for surgery, BP began a program of MME to his right knee.
BP received 46 hours of MME in 2 to 4 hour increments. During his first session, BP felt a "glow" over his knee. Some people do and some people do not experience a similar sensation during their MME sessions. We're not sure what it represents but we know it's not a bad thing. We call this sensation the "glow of healthy electron spin". At 10 hours BP noted an improvement in his arthritic symptoms. At 46 hours BP felt suitably improved so we stopped at that point. BP's arthritic pain was not totally resolved, but it was definitely improved, and he could now carry out desired activities with little difficulty. My feeling is that BP's right knee arthritis was not far advanced, such that we could achieve an adequate treatment effect with only 46 hours of MME. Patients with more advanced disease will need a greater number of MME treatment hours.
MME for Arthritis of the Knees - GJ
GJ is under my care for coronary artery disease. He is doing well on a non-pharmacological program and GJ is not experiencing chest pain. The same could not be said for his knees. They ached constantly during the day; the only time GJ wasn't experiencing knee pain was during sleep. On a 10 point scale, GJ rated his arthritic pain at a 10. GJ was taking glucosamine sulfate, along with an extensive cardiovascular nutritional program. X-Ray revealed arthritic changes, with joint space narrowing, spurring, and bony sclerosis (overgrowth).
GJ received 277 hours of MME to both knees. We recommend that patients not stress the joint under treatment, during MME and for four weeks post-MME treatment. GJ took this recommendation seriously; during MME he used crutches to take the strain off his knees. I saw GJ four weeks out from treatment. His knees no longer ache at rest. If he walks, pain will develop, but will resolve within two minutes of rest. A "grinding" sensation that troubled GJ before MME has fully resolved. Overall he rates his pain at a 7. Overall GJ is satisfied with his response, and so am I. I am optimistic that GJ will be feeling even better when I see him at a cardiac follow-up visit in four months.
MME for Bone on Bone Knee Pain - ED
ED, a well read and nutritionally aware nurse, had been experiencing knee pain for three years. ED has always enjoyed skiing and at work she is on her feet all day - this has taken a toll on her knees. X-Ray demonstrated extensive arthritic degeneration, "nearly bone on bone", in the words of her orthopedic surgeon, with findings suggesting tearing of the medial meniscus on the right. He did not feel that arthroscopic surgery would be helpful. Synvisc injection into the joint was tried but was not helpful. Knee replacement was recommended, when ED felt that the pain level was severe enough to warrant it. ED, as a well read nurse, is aware of the side-effects of anti-arthritic drug therapy; instead she put herself on a complete chondroprotective and anti-inflammatory nutritional program. ED received 108 hours of MME over nine days in early 1/07 with significant initial improvement - in ED's own words:
"Today on 1/11/07 I have finished 108 hours of MME for osteoarthritis of both knees. The first 4 hours after I had been on the machine I got up to take a break and my knees were very tight with fluid; they hadn't been when I had laid down just 4 hours before. Normally laying down would not cause any edema. After that, the next time I was up the edema was much less but was still present. At the end of the first day I felt there was a little improvement in the pain. The second 12 hour day resulted in more pain improvement and no swelling and easier movement. The 3rd 12 hour day, it was even better then on days 4-10 or 11. I noticed that getting off the MME machine for a break that my knees felt very good with no edema at all, and no pain except the little I notice if my knees wobble a little as I move as the 2nd orthopedic surgeon told me they do because they are unstable - I guess that is from the loss of cartilage. Also by day 2 or 3 I noticed that I could bend my knees to sit at a 90% or better angle as I need to do to sit on the commode. This getting up and down always caused pain but I have been able to do this now without pain. The only disappointing thing has been that at about day 3 or 4 I noticed that I was having some of the usual pain and mild to moderate swelling after sitting for an hour or two in the motel or after sitting for an hour to eat. It gets better after I walk a little ways. But each day as I am at MME and each time I get up for a break I feel really good with any fluid that should not be there and no pain while walking around in the office. Of course this is after I have been laying 2-4 hours and I get off the MME table with no pain. I appreciate the opportunity to be treated with MME and hope the effects of it continue to help my knees for a period of time after I return home".
Partial Relief of Long-Standing Arthritis - GR
GR had been troubled by arthritic pain in his right knee for 10 years. He was asymptomatic at rest, but activity reproducibly brought on pain, now at level 7 on a 1-10 scale, despite a chondroprotective nutritional regimen (glucosamine sulfate, chondroiten sulfate, etc.). GR used tylenol as needed for pain control and his doctor recommended surgery when the pain became intolerable.
GR received 100 hours of MME over 9 days in 6/07, each 8-12 hour session preceded by 30 minutes of Magna Charge (pulsed magnetic field) therapy. Vitamins D and K were added for their affects on cell signaling. GR improved, from a 7 down to a 3 on the 1-10 scale. His pain level did not increase following MME, but remained limited. GR decided to proceed with surgery, which consisted of a partial joint reshaping procedure. In retrospect, GR felt that the gain he received from MME had occurred by 50 hours of treatment. Whether we helped GR or not is a matter of debate - his pain decreased but surgery was still required (but perhaps a less extensive surgery than would have been required had he not undergone MME).
Avascular Necrosis of the Hip - EA
Interruption of the blood supply to the heart leads to heart attack, to that of the brain, a stroke. Interruption of the blood supply to bone leads to a condition called avascular necrosis (a = lack of, vascular = blood supply, necrosis = cell death). The bone dies due to a lack of oxygenated blood. Avascular necrosis of the hip is the most common avascular bone condition. It may occur as a side-effect of steroid anti-inflammatory medications (the SARS patients in China who were treated with high dose steroids are coming down with this disorder), due to vascular disease itself, or as a result of trauma (avascular necrosis of the hip ended Bo Jackson's football career - I was watching the game on TV and remember the hit). Dr. Becker utilized magnetic energy to re-unite bone fragments that would not heal, and Drs. Bonlie and Stokesbary have helped hundreds of patients with a dozen different orthopedic problems, so it's reasonable to ask if MME could help patients with avascular necrosis of the hip. Dr. Bonlie has treated several patients with avascular necrosis of the hip, with overall good results. One of these patients was so impressed with his own response that he obtained four MME machines and is now a MME practitioner. Good bone function is important for good cardiovascular function; the progenitor cells that become your replacement vessel lining endothelial cells are formed in the bone marrow. It thus makes sense to ask whether a good heartfixer can utilize MME and become a good bonefixer.
EA has coronary artery disease, with prior successful stent placement, and a treated lipid abnormality - but that's not why EA came in for a MME evaluation. EA was interested in MME to deal with persistent hip pain due to avascular necrosis. EA had required high-dose Prednisone therapy (100 mg/day for 3 months) to deal with a blood platelet disorder. Prednisone therapy worked, lowering his platelet count, but also predisposed him to this disorder of deficient bone blood flow.
Right hip pain began in mid-2003. X-Ray described joint space narrowing in the right hip. MRI revealed the problem to be avascular necrosis involving both hips. EA began a program of oral calcium and glucosamine sulfate supplementation, and with this felt a little better - but he still hurt. A follow-up MRI in revealed avascular necrosis involving 70% of the left femoral head (the region of the hip bone that fits within the hip joint socket), with an associated fracture of the femoral head and fluid within the joint, and 30% involvement on the left.
Pre-MME, EA was experiencing nearly constant pain, beginning in the right mid-pelvic region and radiating down into the hip and leg. He could walk slowly on a flat surface, but if he head to negotiate uneven terrain, such as walking on grass, a cane would be required. He could sleep only on his left side; on his right side the pain wouldn't allow him to fall asleep. EA was also troubled by arthritis in several joints, with more trouble during the winter months, but the key problem was in his hips, the blood supply to which had been interrupted. Bilateral hip replacement was recommended, essentially as the only option.
EA wasn't enthusiastic about surgery. He wanted to avoid surgery or at least put it off for as long as possible. We discussed what we do know and what we do not know about MME for his condition and the track record to date, and he began treatment. EA received a total of 257 hours, in 5-10 hour increments, over 30 days.
At first, nothing happened, but we don't expect "dead bone" pain to resolve overnight. EA noted a subtle improvement at about 100 hours. By 200 hours, EA reported that pain in his right hip was 80-90% better while pain in the left hip had resolved. Superficial tenderness was present, which EA related to lying on his side during the MME treatments. EA was now able to bend over and pick up objects, and he could now lie on his right side and not experience severe discomfort. EA did describe pain over his right knee and lower hip, which we both felt to be muscular, related to his body's adjustment to his changing condition. EA completed 257 hours of MME. To give the changes in his hip a chance to settle, I asked EA to take it easy and not begin any form of rehab (This is an important principle. During MME for musculoskeletal conditions, and for 4-6 weeks post-treatment, we ask you to rest the joint or body region involved. Ideally the joint is braced or immobilized; we ask you to lay low and not to engage in any vigorous exercise. In your mind please think of the joint/bone/ligament material to be plastic in nature, needing time to harden.). I did speak with EA over the phone, 3 weeks post-MME. EA reports that his gain with MME has been maintained, and that he might even be a little better. Hip pain remains improved, and he can now walk on an uneven surface (grass covered with snow) without major difficulty. I'll see him at 6 weeks and then a rehab program will be initiated, perhaps a combination or physical therapy and water therapy - whatever works best for EA..
We repeated EA's MRI, and it showed no improvement; actually bone loss over the right femoral head was felt to be a little worse. Why the discrepancy? How can we reconcile EA's clinical improvement with the absence of bony healing on his MRI? A placebo effect can't be fully excluded (decrease in symptoms simply because you believe that you are going to get better), but while I respect the power of a patient's will to get better, EA had been in pain for over a year and I just don't think a placebo effect could explain a 80-90% reduction in his right hip pain. It may be that we should have waited longer to obtain the MRI, or maybe the X-Ray and the MRI are not the best tools to evaluate the effects of MME. Remember, these and other scanning techniques are looking at anatomy, actually large structure anatomy (a lung cancer needs to be present for 5 years before it shows up on the chest X-Ray). It may be that the MRI is not sensitive enough to pick up early bone regrowth due to MME. Maybe we should have obtained the MRI 2 - 4 months following MME. Or maybe, as MME is working at the molecular level, the beneficial effects don't even show up at the level of large structure anatomy. This isn't a totally new concept for us. I may treat you with EECP and take you from 5 episodes of rest pain per day to pain free with moderate effort, but if I repeat your coronary angiogram, it may be totally unchanged. With EECP we are improving endothelial function (arterial biochemistry) and generating collateral flow (anatomy). Sometimes the collaterals are large and obvious to the eye, while in other individuals the collaterals are too small to see, but we know they are there (research studies using imaging and angiographic techniques not available to us clinically show us that most collaterals are invisible on the coronary angiogram), as your angina, treadmill time, and functional status have improved. I guess the key point here, the point that just dawned on me as I am finishing up EA's case study on 1/2, just moments away from the Packers-Bears game kickoff (I know that the Packers have already locked up the NFC Central, but you never know how many more times you'll get to watch Bret Favre), is that the diagnostic and imaging techniques utilized in the eras of anatomy and even anatomy-biochemical based medicine may not be appropriate in the era of energy-based, molecular medicine. MME starts by affecting the velocity of electron spin about the nucleus of the atom, and only later affects cellular biochemistry, and only after that the anatomy of the region being treated. It is wholly reasonable to expect that MME could improve biochemistry at the cellular level and resolve your clinical problem, without affecting your gross anatomy in a measurable fashion (to this point we have treated 3 cardiomyopathy patients with MME - the patient with the greatest clinical benefit had the least improvement in his echo picture). I think about these issues when I run, I think about these issues while driving to work, and I think about these issues when I am trying to fall asleep, and then I have these interesting dreams where massive electrons are whirling about my head. We will have these issues settled in a few years, but in the meantime EA got better, and that's what counts to us now.
Arthritis Treatment Failure - HC
Good results confirm our beliefs and fire us up. Bad results make us better clinicians. When things don't go as planned, it is critical that we analyze our failures, and ask - "what did we do wrong". So what did we do wrong, or what didn't we do right, with HC?
HC has been under my care for 5 years. Fatigue and shortness of breath were his initial symptoms. The cause turned out to be painless ischemia on the basis of multivessel coronary disease. Bypass surgery was carried out without difficulty. HC's BP and lipids are now under good control, and he follows a program of antioxidant and essential fatty acid supplementation - his heart is thus sound. The same cannot be said for his right wrist. Badly damaged by arthritis, his wrist is stiff and his wrist hurts. An immobilizing glove helped a little, but HC was still hurting. Surgery was not felt to be advisable, so it made sense to try MME.
With HC we did something that I thought was clever, and still feel was clever, even though HC's arthritis didn't improve. HC was positioned on his back, with the magnet directed over his heart, with HC holding his hand over his heart. The therapeutic effects of the negative magnetic field generated by the MME machine is not attenuated as it passes through the body region being treated, so why not treat two body regions at once? HC's heart was sound following bypass surgery, but the abnormal biochemistry within his arteries, the abnormal biochemistry that caused them to plug up in the first place, was still there. In my experience, non-invasive or nutritional therapies useful in the treatment of active coronary insufficiency also are useful in the prevention of coronary insufficiency, so preventive cardiac MME, especially as it wouldn't cost HC any more than treating his wrist arthritis alone, made sense. This brings up the question as to whether preventive, or before-you-start-hurting-really-bad cardiac MME, would be a good idea. MME is expensive and time consuming. So far we having been treating people who are otherwise stuck. They are getting better, but my hunch is that the real value of MME will turn out to be a protection against future adverse events; time will tell here.
So we treated HC with 20 hours of MME to his heart and wrist. As we expected, he didn't notice any changes in his heart, but he was asymptomatic to begin with. He also didn't notice any changes over his wrist. HC was a treatment failure (After reading the next section, please continue with - HC actually had a delayed, positive response to MME.). OK - what did we do wrong or what didn't we do right? I think the mistake was:
Under Treating a Condition because it is Not Life Threatening
This is the mistake I made with HC, and a mistake I made with another arthritis patient. Heart disease, brain disease, and spinal cord disease are life-threatening and/or serious quality-of-life compromising conditions. I gear up to treat these conditions. Frankly, treating inoperable heart disease is what I am all about professionally. Here I push hard to help you, and have no qualms advising you to commit to the project significant financial resources and your time - after all, you don't have any other options or you wouldn't be here.
No one dies of arthritis. It's a nuisance, or maybe in some people a cause of chronic pain (which we are not going to ignore or down play), but it is not going to kill you. SB, 3 years out from spinal cord injury, appears to be on her way to achieving a result unheard of in medicine, but she has committed the time and resources to undergo 440 hours of MME, and more is planned. My cardiac patients are responding favorably to EECP, but none have received less than 100 hours. I have not, to date, pushed my patients with arthritis to receive MME in this treatment-hour range, nor have they wanted to receive MME in this treatment-hour range (because we consider arthritis to be a not life-threatening condition - not "worth the money") - but what are we thinking?
Just because we don't regard arthritis as a serious, "worth-the-money" disease state, why should it be any easier to treat than a bad heart or a bad brain. When you think about it, joints are solid structures, the heart is soft, and the brain is gushy, so why should joint disease respond quicker? It shouldn't and it doesn't. We have been under treating joint disease, not because it is easier to treat, but because we aren't as strongly committed to treating it. I've hopefully learned from this mistake. If you simply have inflammation or a sports injury, a "short burst" of MME might solve your problem, but if you have a deeper, more extensive arthritic condition, I'm going to discourage you from trying "just a burst" of MME, to "see if it will work". It won't work until you get the job done, and that it going to take magnet time in patients with serious arthritis.
Second, could there be arthritic conditions that simply will not respond to MME? There may be. Better stated, there are likely conditions that will not respond to MME within a framework of treatment hours that you can afford. This is always difficult, talking money instead of medicine, but we do it all the time when prescribing pharmaceuticals (What is your co-pay? Can you afford the best agent or should I give you a generic?), and in decision making elsewhere (Can you afford Phosphatidylcholine or should you just have the high-risk bypass surgery?), so we must consider your costs, you're symptoms, and what they mean to you, when we consider the issue of whether you should or should not undergo MME. These machines are expensive and expensive to operate, so I can't treat you for free or refund your money if you don't get better. We don't give you or your insurance company money back if you have a bad outcome with surgery, a complication in the cath lab, or a GI bleed from your arthritis medicines. But the last thing we want is for you to spend the money you've been saving to educate your grandson on MME for a not life-threatening condition and then not get a good result. If I press you regarding how the cost of MME (or any other therapy) will affect your life, it's not because I want to pry or be nosy. No, it's because I want us to make the best decision regarding whether you should or should not undergo MME.
HC actually had a delayed, positive response to MME
HC didn't note any improvement following 20 hours of MME for wrist arthritis, so I used his case study as a springboard for the above discussion of our quite human tendency to under treat non-life threatening conditions, a point worthy of discussion. I'm now a little embarrassed, but a little more delighted, to report to you that HC did experience a benefit, a delayed benefit. I saw HC in the office, then two months out from MME. Our focus then was on HC's BP and lipid panel, but during the discussion HC let me know that his wrist arthritis had improved. Indeed, he didn't notice a thing during MME or upon completing MME, but one month post-MME he noticed an improvement.
With EECP, you are as good as you are going to get the day of your last treatment, and when we treat your angina or high blood pressure with a drug, the treatment effect occurs early on, but as HC demonstrates, the symptomatic benefit of MME may not be at a maximum the day of your last MME treatment. Should we be surprised? With MME we are altering electron spin, which alters physiology, which only later alters anatomy, and all of this takes time. If MME is "rebuilding things", before the structure can be rebuilt, "things need to be set into motion". Maybe we should delay our anatomic and symptomatic evaluations until a certain period of time has elapsed post-MME treatment. Maybe we need to give altered physiology time to alter anatomy. In my cardiomyopathy and post-heart attack patients, I have been carrying out cardiac echo studies before, during, and immediately after MME. I've seen the echo picture change, but considering the scenario with HC, I probably should also obtain an echo study late after MME, say three months out from the last MME treatment. All of us involved in MME will also need to keep in mind that the measuring sticks of anatomic and anatomic-biochemical medicine may not be appropriate, at least not by themselves, in assessing the effects of MME, a molecular treatment. We indeed have a lot to learn, but as long as our patients get benefits, this learning will be a lot of fun.
AMRI of NW Ohio provides MME treatment under the guidelines of an Investigational Review Board, consistent with FDA regulations.
Please note that MME treatment is considered to be experimental by the FDA. Although many patients have improved, no guarantee of success is implied.