Badzilla, the disease of champions

[Ferminal]

Walsh's take on Badzhilla. For better or worse.

Wait, so arguably his best performance in at least two years, Suisse 2011, was whilst he was devastated by illness?

Yet he wasn't able to stay with a select group on any climb in 2009 or 2010, nor get close to top10 in a decent ITT. Both these feats he achieved in Switzerland. Overall he faded quickly but the ITT was the final day, so much for jelly legs.

And then he had the "brutal" treatment and in just 6-7 weeks he was able to not only recover, but do all the training necessary to be in GT winning shape.

What hogwash.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Walsh's take on Badzhilla. For better or worse.

The public health research is abundant and clear, no matter how long Froome had/has the disease, he isn't living in the conditions that generate the illness Walsh is describing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Wait, so arguably his best performance in at least two years, Suisse 2011, was whilst he was devastated by illness?

Yet he wasn't able to stay with a select group on any climb in 2009 or 2010, nor get close to top10 in a decent ITT. Both these feats he achieved in Switzerland. Overall he faded quickly but the ITT was the final day, so much for jelly legs.

And then he had the "brutal" treatment and in just 6-7 weeks he was able to not only recover, but do all the training necessary to be in GT winning shape.

What hogwash.

It makes perfect sense if you are The Chicken, Armstrong, or Froome.

 

[the sceptic]

Wait, so arguably his best performance in at least two years, Suisse 2011, was whilst he was devastated by illness?

Yet he wasn't able to stay with a select group on any climb in 2009 or 2010, nor get close to top10 in a decent ITT. Both these feats he achieved in Switzerland. Overall he faded quickly but the ITT was the final day, so much for jelly legs.

And then he had the "brutal" treatment and in just 6-7 weeks he was able to not only recover, but do all the training necessary to be in GT winning shape.

What hogwash.

Good stuff. Should probably put that in the Book of Walsh.

 

[thehog]

Wait, so arguably his best performance in at least two years, Suisse 2011, was whilst he was devastated by illness?

Yet he wasn't able to stay with a select group on any climb in 2009 or 2010, nor get close to top10 in a decent ITT. Both these feats he achieved in Switzerland. Overall he faded quickly but the ITT was the final day, so much for jelly legs.

And then he had the "brutal" treatment and in just 6-7 weeks he was able to not only recover, but do all the training necessary to be in GT winning shape.

What hogwash.

"My feeling with this condition is that it’s a case of move along folks, there is nothing to see here."

Indeed Mr. Walsh. Indeed.

 

[BroDeal]

Wait, so arguably his best performance in at least two years, Suisse 2011, was whilst he was devastated by illness?

Yet he wasn't able to stay with a select group on any climb in 2009 or 2010, nor get close to top10 in a decent ITT. Both these feats he achieved in Switzerland. Overall he faded quickly but the ITT was the final day, so much for jelly legs.

And then he had the "brutal" treatment and in just 6-7 weeks he was able to not only recover, but do all the training necessary to be in GT winning shape.

What hogwash.

That should be "hogwalsh".

In fact I petition the "Book of Walsh" thread to be changed to the "Book of Hogwalsh".

 

[repechage]

I have been following all the discussion about Froome's illness with interest. I have some medical training but it was a long time ago, so I could be wrong in my assumptions but, regarding the use of the word 'chemotherapy' in relation to schistosomiasis ... I wonder if someone read the Medscape article about the disease and misunderstood?

Chemotherapy, as a medical term, can be used to refer to the use of any medication to treat a disease, although most people do associate it specifically with cancer treatment. This is mentioned briefly at the start of this article:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158401.php

Now, the term chemotherapy is mentioned in the following Medscape article on schistosomiasis:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/228392-medication

but it seems here to be used for its more general meaning, merely to describe the drugs used to kill the worms and some antimalarial drugs that have also been shown to work, rather than referring to any drugs that are usually used to treat cancer.

So, going by the Medscape article, the treatment Froome has had would come under the heading 'chemotherapy' and there is no further, extreme treatment that involves drugs normally used to treat cancer.

As I say, maybe I have missed something but it seems like someone, somewhere has picked up this term chemotherapy and misunderstood it, possibly from the Medscape article. What the implications of this, if true, might be I don't know - maybe the doctors involved in Froome's treatment aren't very good at explaining things so the Sky officials decided to look everything up for themselves online?

Someone better qualified than me might be able to put me right if, indeed, what laypeople call chemo (i.e. a cancer treatment) has ever been used to treat schistosomiasis. I had a quick look online but couldn't find anything.

 

[The Hitch]

Who do you think misundestood what?

No one here has ever said anything about chemotherapy. Froome and Brailsford have never said anything about chemotherapy.

 

[repechage]

Walsh seems to misunderstand it in his book, whether because Sky are confused themselves and misinformed him or he alone became befuddled, who knows ... (relevant bit begins in the chunk of text third from the top - I've quoted it below):

"Sometimes in rare cases the long-term avoidance of organ damage requires chemotherapy, a detail which has occasionally been seized upon to bolster the accusation that Froome has hugely exaggerated the problems associated with bilharzia ..."

Walsh's take on Badzhilla. For better or worse.

As far as this forum goes, there was this post which originated in the other thread about Walsh's book:

Chemotherapy hasn't been used in ages as it's less effective than praziquantel, even for severe infections, and anybody who uses it needs to go back to med school.

There was also some discussion on the other thread in which the word chemotherapy/chemo was bandied about but perhaps any confusion there resulted from Walsh's quote in the book.

 

[sideshadow]

Walsh seems to misunderstand it in his book, whether because Sky are confused themselves and misinformed him or he alone became befuddled, who knows ... (relevant bit begins in the chunk of text third from the top - I've quoted it below):

"Sometimes in rare cases the long-term avoidance of organ damage requires chemotherapy, a detail which has occasionally been seized upon to bolster the accusation that Froome has hugely exaggerated the problems associated with bilharzia ..."



As far as this forum goes, there was this post which originated in the other thread about Walsh's book:



There was also some discussion on the other thread in which the word chemotherapy/chemo was bandied about but perhaps any confusion there resulted from Walsh's quote in the book.

I used the word chemotherapy as traditionally understood, meaning a drug used in cancer treatment, which I also think is what Walsh meant.

Artemisinin is the drug which has been tried in Schistosomiasis and is also used in chemotherapeutic regimines.

 

[repechage]

Hi sideshadow. Thanks for returning and clarifying. My (admittedly limited) understanding was that artemisinin derivatives were mainly used to treat malaria and only at the research stage as far as cancer treatment goes - are they now in use as treatments?

Also, wouldn't the doses of such drugs when used to treat malaria or schistosomiasis be a lot lower than they would be for treating cancer, and hence, presumably, not cause the horrendous side-effects often associated with cancer chemotherapy? If so, I understand Walsh's use of the term 'chemotherapy' even less.

Apologies for all the questions - just trying to understand the whole picture.

 

[rata de sentina]

Chemotherapy is a term used more broadly in medicine to cover drug therapies. e.g. http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23813602

So in the context of Bilharzia it's not out of place.

It's restriction to cancer therapy is pretty much a lay person terminology.

 

[sideshadow]

Hi sideshadow. Thanks for returning and clarifying. My (admittedly limited) understanding was that artemisinin derivatives were mainly used to treat malaria and only at the research stage as far as cancer treatment goes - are they now in use as treatments?

Also, wouldn't the doses of such drugs when used to treat malaria or schistosomiasis be a lot lower than they would be for treating cancer, and hence, presumably, not cause the horrendous side-effects often associated with cancer chemotherapy? If so, I understand Walsh's use of the term 'chemotherapy' even less.

Apologies for all the questions - just trying to understand the whole picture.


Chemotherapy is a term used more broadly in medicine to cover drug therapies. e.g. http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23813602

So in the context of Bilharzia it's not out of place.

It's restriction to cancer therapy is pretty much a lay person terminology.

No problem. You're right Arteminisin is almost exclusively used as an anti malarial drug, usually as a combination drug such as artesunate-mefloquine.

I get what you're saying that the term chemotherapy can/should be used to refer to treatment with Praziquantel and as you rightly point out the term chemotherapy is lay person terminology. But what do you think Walsh meant when he used this? He writes about Biltricide as initial treatment but then further on uses the term chemotherapy for prevention of organ damage as if it were something different. Does it not sound that way to you as well?

As far as Arteminisin goes, the dosage doesn't matter because it is less effective than Praziquantel. So even with minimal side effects you won't use it. End of. It's not better at a higher disease burden for example. I am not sure if it is used as an established first line anti cancer protocol, but I can't be sure. It is the only drug which could be used for Schistosomiasis with possible anti cancer properties tough (as far as my knowledge stretches), thus I assumed this is what Walsh wrote about. I mean I can only hope that he at least spoke to Froome's doctors concerning the possible treatments right?

The thing is this. Froome and co. tried to spin the narrative that the reason for his improvement was the Bilharzia parasite being treated and the reason for his poor pre 2011 Vuelta performance was the actual treatment:

It went largely undiagnosed until he underwent extensive blood screening with a switch to Sky in 2010.

Doctors discovered the rather obscure parasitic infection and quickly prescribed treatments that kill just about everything in the body, similar to chemotherapy.

'“It’s a very strong pill. It basically kills everything in your system, and hopefully at the same time, kills the [infection],” Froome said.

- http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...e-battles-parasite-media-cars-expelled_230162

Just lies. IMO, I think they are trying to distance themselves from this theory, because they realize it doesn't fit.

So the question for me is, as it always is with everything from the SKY camp (and I include Walsh in this); are they just 'confused' about everything from not knowing how to google Leinders, to Julich/Barry's past not fitting their PR, to Badzilla treatment or are they just plain old lying (badly).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Just lies. IMO, I think they are trying to distance themselves from this theory, because they realize it doesn't fit.

So the question for me is, as it always is with everything from the SKY camp (and I include Walsh in this); are they just 'confused' about everything from not knowing how to google Leinders, to Julich/Barry's past not fitting their PR, to Badzilla treatment or are they just plain old lying (badly).

I think this position (being confused) completely belies (pun intended) the insinuation often hinted at that Brailsford et al invented marginal gains. Where everything is looked at in fine detail for every possible 1% gain. Fine tooth comb analysis of every aspect of their profession - cycling.

So no.

Not confused at all.

When you then step back and look at professional cycling's history, the lying aspect seems far more in line with what we have experienced, over and over, from its inhabitants.

 

[blackcat]

I think this position (being confused) completely belies (pun intended) the insinuation often hinted at that Brailsford et al invented marginal gains. Where everything is looked at in fine detail for every possible 1% gain. Fine tooth comb analysis of every aspect of their profession - cycling.

So no.

Not confused at all.

When you then step back and look at professional cycling's history, the lying aspect seems far more in line with what we have experienced, over and over, from its inhabitants.

one percent is significant tho, not marginal.

and a premise of "marginal gains", is maintaining the execution of the other 100% imputs, and adding on the percentage gain.

But his is not an accurate assessment, all things being equal. Often, trying to pursue insignificant gains, will play out as confusing the trees from the forest. The most important thing is, hitting the key performance parameters, and dialling them in to 100% of their potential.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/...s-clear-parasitic-disease-014448134--spt.html

Froome is free at last.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/...s-clear-parasitic-disease-014448134--spt.html

Froome is free at last.

Great news, really. Congrats to him. He can start realizing his full potential now, which may even be necessary if other top Pro Teams are catching on to the Sky approach. It's the perfect excuse if he is forced to improve on his mutant performances from last season.

The argument of convenience that the Bilharzia actually helped him will soon be forgotten, if it comes to that. The future looks bright.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Seems he also said it december of last year.

 

[Cyivel]

Seems he also said it december of last year.

This is what he said in December last year

And while a recent interview suggested that he required annual treatment for the illness, he clarifies and states that this is not the case.

“I had a two week treatment in April last year, and have since been clear of the parasite,” he confirmed. “I have it checked every six months to make sure it hasn't returned.”

This is what he said today

I had a test when I went back to Kenya recently and it is the first time it has come back negative since the diagnosis (in 2009). That is fantastic news for me. I'm not going to have to worry about that any more. That should be it gone now.

"I have been going back every six months for the past two years and returning positive results.

"When I was first diagnosed they said it had been in my system for at least two years, but it could have been there even longer, five or six years possibly."

 

[The Hitch]

Sky also said bilharzia was a lifelong disease from which froome will NEVER be cured.

the fact that in the middle of the off season after supernaturally carrying it for 3 years and contesting gts with it, he is "cured" from his "incurable" disease is bull ****.

 

[bewildered]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1314256&postcount=134

Full timeline of quotes is here (from earlier in thread)

 

[The Hitch]

This is what he said in December last year



This is what he said today

Great find psy-evil.

The usual suspects will no doubt once again employ the - sky simply got a little bit confused and it's out of order to expect a patient to know every detail about his disease, defense in the usual patronizing tone, but deep down they know too there is no reconciling those 2 comments.

 

[Digger]

Sky also said bilharzia was a lifelong disease from which froome will NEVER be cured.

the fact that in the middle of the off season after supernaturally carrying it for 3 years and contesting gts with it, he is "cured" from his "incurable" disease is bull ****.

hey man if you could get link for that I would love to tweet it thanks

 

[The Hitch]

hey man if you could get link for that I would love to tweet it thanks

My bad. It seems they did not say say it can never be cured,(the person who said it was making it up)

But they did say that Froome can't be sure when its cured because it can always reappear, so its surprising now to see he is certain it can be cured.

Today:

That is fantastic news for me. I'm not going to have to worry about that any more. That should be it gone now.

Before:

Froome believes he contracted it while fishing with his brother in Kenya. But taking biltricide, which he describes as "just like a poison – it kills everything in your stomach good and bad" – every six months has helped manage the symptoms, even if there is an unspoken fear that it could return

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bKuqFBrE9o 11 minutes in.

"I probably still haven't got rid of it. It is something, every six months I have to go for checks"

How does Froome know now he will never get it again, if before he could never be certain?



Doesn't matter much anyway though since the whole premise of someone having Bilharzia for 4 years and winning the TDF and olympic medals with it, makes 0 sense to start with.

 

[D-Queued]

So much for Froome-dog winning any more races then.

Dave.