Yes, you’re absolutely right. I didn’t get into all the implications of an organ transplants because I was most interested in communicating how Barsky’s work supports the hypothesis that the Th1 pathogens likely infect the stem cells.

But I definitely don’t think that transplant surgeries offer any sort of permanent reversal of illness. As you brought up, a patient receiving a transplant is almost certainly infected with the Th1 pathogens – if they didn’t harbor the chronic bacteria then they wouldn’t have needed a new organ in the first place (I’m excluding people who need a transplant due to an accident). So even if a new organ is transplanted and the stem cells of the organ don’t happen to be infected, it’s almost certain that as soon as the cells of the new organ come in contact with the recipient’s infected tissues, they too will begin to get gradually infected.

So yes, an organ transplant, in most cases, is just a temporary fix. The real fix is using the Marshall Protocol after or before the transplant to eliminate the chronic bacterial forms that cause our organs to fail in the first place.

Best,

Amy

I noticed this comment from the Economist article:
“Dr Barsky also found that if a tumor formed in the transplanted organ, it could be derived from either recipient or donor cells.”

We need to keep in mind that the organ recipient is very ill with a poorly functioning immune system resulting in the required organ transplant. Unless the reason for the recipient’s illness is addressed (probably intracellular bacterial infection), it seems likely that the donor organ will be infected by the host bacteria and eventually suffer the same fate as the original organ if given enough time.

Gene