Thanks Brian. I've read a few of your postings and was wondering if your small finger was PIP or MCP--your results are encouraging considering what others have written about quicker recurrence--for example what Luba wrote in response to my original query. One of my questions in response was if there were people who had longer term good results with NA, which would make it worthwhile. 6-12 months to recurrence is not very encouraging--19 months and still going strong sounds much better.

If there is anyone else with encouraging PIP results with NA, I'd like to know.

My other question, which no one has addressed is why Dr. Eaton has not published his results from 8000 NA-s--or why he didn't present the findings at the Miami Conference--evidently he keeps meticulous records, being a published medical scientist by experience. I'm concerned about this because of the latest report of Van Rijssen of 85 percent after a mean of 2.3 years from NA--if this is true, it makes NA not as "glorious" as I had thought--Dr. Eaton previously has been quoted as stating 50 percent after 3 years.

Jerry S.

@guest:

---

Thanks Brian. I've read a few of your postings and was wondering if your small finger was PIP or MCP--your results are encouraging considering what others have written about quicker recurrence--for example what Luba wrote in response to my original query. One of my questions in response was if there were people who had longer term good results with NA, which would make it worthwhile. 6-12 months to recurrence is not very encouraging--19 months and still going strong sounds much better.

If there is anyone else with encouraging PIP results with NA, I'd like to know.

My other question, which no one has addressed is why Dr. Eaton has not published his results from 8000 NA-s--or why he didn't present the findings at the Miami Conference--evidently he keeps meticulous records, being a published medical scientist by experience. I'm concerned about this because of the latest report of Van Rijssen of 85 percent after a mean of 2.3 years from NA--if this is true, it makes NA not as "glorious" as I had thought--Dr. Eaton previously has been quoted as stating 50 percent after 3 years.

Jerry S.

@guest:

---

My other question, which no one has addressed is why Dr. Eaton has not published his results from 8000 NA-s--or why he didn't present the findings at the Miami Conference--evidently he keeps meticulous records, being a published medical scientist by experience. I'm concerned about this because of the latest report of Van Rijssen of 85 percent after a mean of 2.3 years from NA--if this is true, it makes NA not as "glorious" as I had thought--Dr. Eaton previously has been quoted as stating 50 percent after 3 years.

Jerry S.

flojo:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps you could write directly to Dr. Eaton and ask him. I'd imagine the reason he hasn't published is the horrendous time and effort it would take to do followups with his patients. He'd have to have a questionnaire, perhaps pictures, someone to mail or email the info, someone to tabulate the results and on and on and on.

I've had mixed results-- one NA procedure that lasted less than 6 months, two with Dr. eaton- one lasted a couple years, another is almost 12 months old and much better but I had RT after that and Xiaflex hardly lasted a year.

Moondanc,

With all those different procedures and results, you're almost a research project all by yourself. Good information.

I wanted to title the previous post as this.