Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 621 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re:

The Hitch said:
Based on what readings? Based on what do you doubt that the life cycle sage has any effect on the effectiveness of PZQ?
the fact that it's not mentioned. anywhere? pretty simple really.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
read about the pzq mechanism. one theory is it allows the host to digest the worms. that won't care about the stage. nom nom nom.
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
The Hitch said:
Based on what readings? Based on what do you doubt that the life cycle sage has any effect on the effectiveness of PZQ?
the fact that it's not mentioned. anywhere? pretty simple really.
Jesus Christ. Does Google not exist where you come from? A quick search of pzq adult worm provides

Infections with all major Schistosoma species can be treated with praziquantel. The timing of treatment is important since praziquantel is most effective against the adult worm and requires the presence of a mature antibody response to the parasite. For travelers, treatment should be at least 6-8 weeks after last exposure to potentially contaminated freshwater.
No offense but you leave the very strong impression of someone who has never researched anything into the subject before and are just reacting based on what you perceive to be common sense to other posts as if you knew what you were talking about. Some unreal arrogance is actually making you present pure guesses you come up with based on 5 minutes of reading as scientific fact.

Worst of all you didn't even ask for someone to offer a source or argument like an inquisitive mind would do. You plain out dismissed the claim as false, without a clue in the world as to whether it's true or not.

This helps no one.
 
The Hitch said:
Ironically this was the mistake froome and sky originally made since Wikipedia said that bilharzia needs to be treated every 6 months and sky came up with the story that froome needs to be treated with pzq every 6 months. What they didn't realize was that that conclusion came from a report by the carter foundation into fighting bilharzia in rural Africa that explicitly said that it's cheaper and more efficient to assume everyone in a village has bilharzia and give everyone pzq every 6 months, than to test everyone all the time, since the risk of reinfection is so high.
Froome's village - Monaco does not have an endemic Bilharzia problem and Froome himself has access to world class healthcare. No doctor, not even the one in Maseratis avatar, would ever suggest taking pzq once every 6 months as a treatment for an individual patient in Monaco.

But froome or whoever was in charge of selling the bilharzia story to the press in Sep 2011 never read the source behind the quote and created the story of froome having to get treated for schisto every 6 months for the rest of his life. From this original mistake every subsequent mistake they have made stems.
This is damning, IMO. Aside from all the ways the story has changed, how it doesn't map in any way to bilharzia treatment etc., you can't get away from this. I don't know where they got the story, but this strikes me as a pretty good guess.

So it's established IMO that they're lying about it. For those on the fence about Froome, where exactly does that leave you?

Is it possible he had the disease? Sure. Is it clear they lied about the treatment and timeline? Yes. If he had it, why lie? Even if he did have it, does the disease do what they sold it as doing, explain his transformation? Clearly not. Not in 2011, and certainly not after as they story went...sometimes.

So you have both Froome and Sky lying, clearly, about the timeline and the effect.

What other conclusion can be drawn?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

red_flanders said:
The Hitch said:
Ironically this was the mistake froome and sky originally made since Wikipedia said that bilharzia needs to be treated every 6 months and sky came up with the story that froome needs to be treated with pzq every 6 months. What they didn't realize was that that conclusion came from a report by the carter foundation into fighting bilharzia in rural Africa that explicitly said that it's cheaper and more efficient to assume everyone in a village has bilharzia and give everyone pzq every 6 months, than to test everyone all the time, since the risk of reinfection is so high.
Froome's village - Monaco does not have an endemic Bilharzia problem and Froome himself has access to world class healthcare. No doctor, not even the one in Maseratis avatar, would ever suggest taking pzq once every 6 months as a treatment for an individual patient in Monaco.

But froome or whoever was in charge of selling the bilharzia story to the press in Sep 2011 never read the source behind the quote and created the story of froome having to get treated for schisto every 6 months for the rest of his life. From this original mistake every subsequent mistake they have made stems.
This is damning, IMO. Aside from all the ways the story has changed, how it doesn't map in any way to bilharzia treatment etc., you can't get away from this. I don't know where they got the story, but this strikes me as a pretty good guess.

So it's established IMO that they're lying about it. For those on the fence about Froome, where exactly does that leave you?

Is it possible he had the disease? Sure. Is it clear they lied about the treatment and timeline? Yes. If he had it, why lie? Even if he did have it, does the disease do what they sold it as doing, explain his transformation? Clearly not. Not in 2011, and certainly not after as they story went...sometimes.

So you have both Froome and Sky lying, clearly, about the timeline and the effect.

What other conclusion can be drawn?
caveat: haven't been accurately following the debate on the last few pages (above my paygrade). But:
isn't the idea behind the bilharzia story simply to explain a hypothetical (pretty darn probable) rise in hematocrit on Froome's post-vuelta BP?
Zorzoli probably needed a story of this kind in order have a legitimate reason to scratch certain test results from Froome's pre-vuelta passport, or to 'bypass' the BP software and/or BP expert panel, should Froome's data have been flagged.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Going into the 2013 Tour de France Sky even said their biggest fear was that it would return during the TDF.:eek:
The one that didn't even leave France yet alone Europe. Sky were worried Froome would get Bilharzia in France.

There are no words to describe the ignorance.
Maybe Sky was concerned that Dawg would get Bilharzia by eating bad fish in France :) like Berto and the steak :) Blame the evil French :( At least the booze is OK, ask Floyd: the day after, no hangover, he was flying.

Ignorance is the word: and the bigger the lie, the most believable it is for the people who want to believe it.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
caveat: haven't been accurately following the debate on the last few pages (above my paygrade). But:
isn't the idea behind the bilharzia story simply to explain a hypothetical (pretty darn probable) rise in hematocrit on Froome's post-vuelta BP?
Zorzoli probably needed a story of this kind in order have a legitimate reason to scratch certain test results from Froome's pre-vuelta passport, or to 'bypass' the BP software and/or BP expert panel, should Froome's data have been flagged.
It was as I heard it, an attempt to explain a massive change in performance. To paraphrase, "I was pretty good before (I finished ahead of Contador when he flatted twice on a medium mountain in a minor stage race), but after clearing up the bilharzia I became what I am now".

I think the blood issue is speculative as no one will release his pre-Vuelta blood, the only bit that matters. Certainly possible but IMO no supporting evidence for that specifically unless I missed it.

Funny thing is that bilharzia has no such effect on blood parameters though I've heard them (Sky/Froome/Walsh) claim it "eats red blood cells".
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Funny thing is that bilharzia has no such effect on blood parameters though I've heard them (Sky/Froome/Walsh) claim it "eats red blood cells".
It has a minor effect, unless the infection causes a rupture in the bladder or intestines. Then it can get pretty major pretty fast.

I recall seeing that quote. As I understand it an infection in an otherwise healthy person feels a lot like a dose of the flu you just can't shake.

Its plausible as a reason for poor performance, but not for the reasons they gave.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
sniper said:
caveat: haven't been accurately following the debate on the last few pages (above my paygrade). But:
isn't the idea behind the bilharzia story simply to explain a hypothetical (pretty darn probable) rise in hematocrit on Froome's post-vuelta BP?
Zorzoli probably needed a story of this kind in order have a legitimate reason to scratch certain test results from Froome's pre-vuelta passport, or to 'bypass' the BP software and/or BP expert panel, should Froome's data have been flagged.
It was as I heard it, an attempt to explain a massive change in performance. To paraphrase, "I was pretty good before (I finished ahead of Contador when he flatted twice on a medium mountain in a minor stage race), but after clearing up the bilharzia I became what I am now".

I think the blood issue is speculative as no one will release his pre-Vuelta blood, the only bit that matters. Certainly possible but IMO no supporting evidence for that specifically unless I missed it.

Funny thing is that bilharzia has no such effect on blood parameters though I've heard them (Sky/Froome/Walsh) claim it "eats red blood cells".
indeed that was their claim.
Froome suffered a problem known as bilharzia, a parasitical waterborne infection which, as he put it last year, "feeds off red blood cells, which is not ideal for an athlete".http://mail.economicshelp.org/cyclists/ ... roome.html
if true, it would be a perfect alibi should Zorzoli unexpectedly suffer another 2005'er and leak sensitive BP data to the press.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
that interview is epic.
brilliant in many ways.
revealing on many levels.

PK: I find it curious that you had just spent a season with a team that prides itself on attention to detail. You were feeling poorly all year. Surely someone at Sky could have sent you for a blood test?

(Michelle starts laughing)

CF: To be honest, yeah it is (surprising) . . .

.....

PK: Now this parasite (Bilharzia) attacks your red blood cells?

CF: Yeah.

PK: Richard Freeman (a Team Sky doctor) told David Walsh that your performances had tripped an alarm in his head. He looked at your (blood) profiles and there was no inconsistency. But if you’ve had a parasite attacking your red cells, surely there should be (some inconsistency). Surely that should show up?

CF: I would imagine so. I don’t know what the blood passport looks like. I’ve never looked into it.

MC: I think if there were issues at all, the UCI would have raised it. They’re not going to take it for granted that it was in the media that Chris has had Bilharzia.

CF: Logic says your red blood cells would be lower because your haematocrit is being eaten by those parasites. I’d imagine if there were any changes to my normal (profile) it would probably still be within the parameters so . . .

MC: You definitely weren’t in the advanced stages of Bilharzia.

CF: I was pretty full on.

MC: But you weren’t in the advanced stages, so it wasn’t necessarily going to be eating that much of (the red cells). But it was definitely affecting your performance.

CF: Yeah, but I don’t think either one of us is qualified to say exactly what stage of Bilharzia (I was at). But as far as the blood passport is concerned; I don’t know what it looks like or anything, but I’d imagine if it was outside the parameters questions would have been asked.

PK: You would have no problem with anybody else looking at those profiles?

MC: Sorry?

....
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
sniper said:
caveat: haven't been accurately following the debate on the last few pages (above my paygrade). But:
isn't the idea behind the bilharzia story simply to explain a hypothetical (pretty darn probable) rise in hematocrit on Froome's post-vuelta BP?
Zorzoli probably needed a story of this kind in order have a legitimate reason to scratch certain test results from Froome's pre-vuelta passport, or to 'bypass' the BP software and/or BP expert panel, should Froome's data have been flagged.
It was as I heard it, an attempt to explain a massive change in performance. To paraphrase, "I was pretty good before (I finished ahead of Contador when he flatted twice on a medium mountain in a minor stage race), but after clearing up the bilharzia I became what I am now".

I think the blood issue is speculative as no one will release his pre-Vuelta blood, the only bit that matters. Certainly possible but IMO no supporting evidence for that specifically unless I missed it.

Funny thing is that bilharzia has no such effect on blood parameters though I've heard them (Sky/Froome/Walsh) claim it "eats red blood cells".
Bilharzia does eat red blood cells. There's confusion here because bilharzia doesn't impact hematocrit so many mistook that to mean that it doesn't eat rbcs. I was also confused about this but from what I've seen, the answer is that bilharzia does consume red blood cells, but nowhere near enough to have any meaningful impact on hematocrit.

MI linked a study once, which showed that even in the absolute worst cases (in children iirc) it would have a 1% impact or some such on hematocrit.

So for froome to call it "reverse epo" is a bit far fetched.

But I can sort of understand froome saying that. In theory he could really be misinformed and on this particular issue I can see why he may have made wrong conclusions.

What's worse is Walsh writes the same thing. At least froome serves some other purpose - he flies up mountains as if he were on a .motorcycle, and he does actually have to make sacrifices and train hard.

Walsh serves no other purpose. Unlike froome his job is supposed to be to actually look these things up. Instead he does nothing but sit on his arse and repeats talking points of someone as dumb as froome.
 
Yes, the worms eat red cells, but not enough to affect HT. But what the infection can do to a significant extent (through the release of certain antigens by the eggs) is inactivate hemoglobin. So it can impact aerobic performance, but in addition, since Hb is affected but HT isn’t, it should definitely affect the passport, which looks at Hb/HT. Basically, if Froome’s performance was affected by the infection, the passport should have shown abnormalities.

Regarding the number of treatments, I discussed this in another thread last year. With this new forum format, I don’t even know how to do searches any more, and can’t dig up those posts, but I quoted a specialist in I think London who said it would be extremely unusual to need more than two treatments. And Froome’s own doctor was reduced to saying that one of the treatments—by himself!—must have been done very poorly.

KB, there are other studies showing that two treatments with prazi eradicate all the worms in a very high % of patients. In fact, a review article linked to the Senegal study that you cited to says that most studies find > 70% cure rates after a single treatment (and > 90% after two). They concluded that the failure to get a higher cure rate was due not only to heavy worm burden, which is not uncommon—this is why two treatments are generally recommended—but because the individuals had more than one pre-existing infection. I.e., when the subjects were diagnosed at the beginning of the study, there were worms in the body which were not detected because they had not matured yet.

So at the very least, we can say that a low cure rate like this is much more likely to occur only with individuals who have been infected multiple times. Also, keep in mind that even patients who are not cured have their worm burden significantly reduced, which can make a big difference. As I noted above, the biggest problem from an endurance athlete’s point of view is the eggs, which are constantly being excreted from the body. If the worm burden is lowered enough, the eggs won’t accumulate, and symptoms resulting from the eggs will gradually subside. The Senegal study reported that the intensity of the infection was reduced by 70% after one treatment, and by nearly 90% after a second treatment.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
has the thread turned into a wormhole..........................sucking in anything that could ring any alarms..................

mission accomplished for team sky.......................

Mark L
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
I thought all aspects of the disease were dealt with on the Bilharzia thread and this one shouldn't become another one. But Dear Wiggo said above that the eggs are excreted. This is not always the case and from what I have read:- 'Symptoms of schistosomiasis are caused not by the worms themselves but by the body’s reaction to the eggs. Eggs shed by the adult worms that do not pass out of the body can become lodged in the intestine or bladder, causing inflammation or scarring.'

So my q for more clued in posters is, does PZQ kill all eggs? It is clear that it kills all worms. It is also clear that eggs cannot hatch into worms/parasites within the human body, they need to be excreted into fresh water, attach to a snail and hatch into the parasite which affects humans. So to be riddled by worms after one (or two) doses of PZQ requires re-infection. But it is possible to take PZQ and to still suffer the symptoms thereafter due to eggs remaining in the body and not being killed by PZQ? I'm not sure that aspect has been dealt with in the current discussion (but may have been on the Bilharzia thread?) Thanks
 
PZQ doesn't kill the eggs. IIRC It might kill some, but its target is the worms.

You are right eggs are not always excreted. In some cases they go to other parts of the body.
So yes you can still suffer from having had Bilharzia, even after all the worms are killed.

But the symptoms are different. The damage the eggs do is different from the damage the worms do.
I think the main issue with eggs is they attack organs. In that case the damage caused by the eggs isn't reversable by taking Praziquantel.
And it wouldn't last 3 years.

If we take this theory - that Froome was cured as normal - on first or second treatment, then had eggs in his blood stream for 3 years then the story still doesn't make sense. The damage caused by eggs is different to that caused by worms. Froome claimed his symptoms remained the same. Whatsmore the damage cause by eggs is often long term. You wouldn't be able to just take PZQ and feel better. But that's exactly what Froome claimed he did throughout 2012 and 2013.

From what I remember anyway
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
Deleted for brevity.
Sorry for the late reply, work ran over and turbo session finished late as a result.


Im happy to discuss all this, however I think it's worthwhile making the point that it's essentially pointless to this discussion with regard to Froome. I don't think we're actually going to disagree on anything, we're just going to end up discussing possibilities in general terms based on the data available from studies and come to pretty much the same conclusion, for most cases of schistosomiasis outside endemic areas you would expect treatment to last 1-4 months tops.

If the timeline you guys are posting here is correct (and I'm not accusing you of lying, just that I haven't read the articles myself/can't remember them) then what Sky/Froome are claiming is completely unfeasible (Nothing is impossible but 18+ months from diagnosis is about as close to impossible as you can get with this). It should have taken 3-4 months tops to treat him from diagnosis and that's being generous and assuming multiple infections over a period of weeks.

I'm not in any way defending Froome, from yours and snipers posts in this thread with regard to timeline it's clear they are at best massively confused over what was happening and at worst outright lying. The reoccurrence of infection after treatment during the Tour is particularly silly. People may think it could happen because the schistosomes lay eggs inside the body, but it takes literally 15 seconds to explain to someone that those eggs will not "hatch" inside the body. There is no way the management of Sky don't know this.

I only posted as I objected to SeriousSam's claim that the vast majority of cases outside endemic areas require a single dose treatment and I only objected because the available data doesn't back that up. But the data does not in any way back up the claims of Froome and Sky, it rubbishes those too, so I was not criticising the stance, just that single point.


So, happy to continue the discussion on schistosomes and parasitology, it's a lot of what I do and will make me read more papers which is never a bad thing. but it's not going to relate to Froome and should probably go back to the Badzilla thread.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
Yes, the worms eat red cells, but not enough to affect HT. But what the infection can do to a significant extent (through the release of certain antigens by the eggs) is inactivate hemoglobin. So it can impact aerobic performance, but in addition, since Hb is affected but HT isn’t, it should definitely affect the passport, which looks at Hb/HT. Basically, if Froome’s performance was affected by the infection, the passport should have shown abnormalities.

Regarding the number of treatments, I discussed this in another thread last year. With this new forum format, I don’t even know how to do searches any more, and can’t dig up those posts, but I quoted a specialist in I think London who said it would be extremely unusual to need more than two treatments. And Froome’s own doctor was reduced to saying that one of the treatments—by himself!—must have been done very poorly.

KB, there are other studies showing that two treatments with prazi eradicate all the worms in a very high % of patients. In fact, a review article linked to the Senegal study that you cited to says that most studies find > 70% cure rates after a single treatment (and > 90% after two). They concluded that the failure to get a higher cure rate was due not only to heavy worm burden, which is not uncommon—this is why two treatments are generally recommended—but because the individuals had more than one pre-existing infection. I.e., when the subjects were diagnosed at the beginning of the study, there were worms in the body which were not detected because they had not matured yet.

So at the very least, we can say that a low cure rate like this is much more likely to occur only with individuals who have been infected multiple times. Also, keep in mind that even patients who are not cured have their worm burden significantly reduced, which can make a big difference. As I noted above, the biggest problem from an endurance athlete’s point of view is the eggs, which are constantly being excreted from the body. If the worm burden is lowered enough, the eggs won’t accumulate, and symptoms resulting from the eggs will gradually subside. The Senegal study reported that the intensity of the infection was reduced by 70% after one treatment, and by nearly 90% after a second treatment.
Hi fella,

Yep, I've read them too and agree with everything you say, I think I mentioned that longer treatments are only likely with initial multiple infections before diagnosis (but maybe not as strongly as I should). I think this is all my fault! I'm not disagreeing with the view of Sky lying at all, I disagreed on a minor point that has turned into a large scientific discussion that isn't really relevant to this case. In a meeting this would have been sorted out in 10 minutes.

I disagreed because using that false assumption actually weakens the argument against Froome, I feel my first post did not make this clear enough.
 
Dec 21, 2010
513
0
0
Worms, eggs, PZQ, etc are all irrelevant....

I am very pleased to see that following Vuelta Catalunya 2015, the Chris Froome that the forum knows and loves is back.......
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
Cheers for clarifying Hitch, it was just something i think the discussion hadn't covered. I agree that it makes no difference to Froome's backstory, I knew it couldn't
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY