I don't know what Demicin is, but this article discusses repeat treatments for bilharzia. The short answer is that all discussion of repeat treatments are for people who are chronically exposed to the parasite. The approach there is for repeated treatment with praziquantel, to deal with repeat infections, not a single, recurring infection.
Trematode infections is transmitted when larval forms released by freshwater snails penetrate human skin during contact with infested water. An estimated 700 million people are at risk. #BeatNTDs
www.who.int
I have never seen a discussion of this in all the time on the forum where it was suggested that chronic infection or repeated treatment was a thing for someone not repeatedly exposed to the parasite. It is quickly and easily cured with a single-day course of praziquantel. Some cases require an additional treatment if the first one was too soon after infection, because praziquantel is more effective against adult worms. No cases I've ever read are repeat treatments without additional exposure.
Given all that, the logical response is not to believe that someone can be re-infected without repeated exposure over time, unless someone presents evidence to support the assertion that this can happen and in fact did happen in the case of Froome. It's just basic logic not to believe a proposition without evidence. Assertions carry no weight without evidence.
I certainly don't expect them to provide evidence. They simply floated this for reaction. I would expect it to be dropped in the future or doubled down upon with repeated similar statements but no evidence to support it. If asked, they'll throw up some "personal medical information" or "our doctors confirmed it" assertions, also without evidence.
I'll happily admit I was wrong should any actual evidence ever be forthcoming.
I will say that it's possible he had the disease at some point. Of course it's possible. And it's irrelevant. They've never shown evidence of the timing of his claimed infection, and they've never shown or pointed to evidence that infection has detrimental effect on cycling performance. It just sounds like something that would affect performance, in that it can potentially reduce RBC count, and sounds dramatic and scary. Bad tropical disease from Africa. Ick. Could it affect performance? Sure. I might even expect it to. Show us the evidence and I'll accept that it does. Short of that, nope.
Historically, there are several claims about Froome's bilharzia, all which should be treated independently in terms of accepting them:
- Froome had bilharzia. Entirely possible but no evidence has ever been shown, only claims and assertions. If he did have it, no evidence of when he had it exists, only claims that it was early in 2010, which explains zero about his performances before that point.
- The (claimed) bilharzia affected his performance. I have never seen any study or independent anecdote which shows bilharzia negatively affects cycling performance. If it exists, great, I'm not claiming it doesn't. Would love to see it. Certainly seems possible but until it's shown, why accept this claim?
- The (claimed) bilharzia had affected his performance so much that curing it turned a very average rider into a rider who would win multiple GT's against the top riders of the day, including all-time legends who were in fact doped. Obviously there is no evidence for this claim. It's an extraordinary claim, relying on multiple levels of unsupported claims underneath it. Why accept such an extraordinary claim without any evidence? Without incredibly compelling evidence? In a sport where simpler answers are obvious and part of the record.
- The above explain how he did all what he did clean. Since there is no evidence for any of the above, why would someone accept this?
I'm 100% sure there are additional claims in all their discussion which also have no evidence but this is enough.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram