Aa
Bb spirochetes for life?
From what my LLMD and LLND told me, the Bb spirochetes are never totally eradicated even once treatment is done. My LLMD and LLND said that once a patient is asymptomatic for 3 months they stop treatment and the belief is that your own immune system has been built back up enough to continue the fight on its own, as it does with other bacteria on a daily basis. I know there are some of you who don't agree with that. My question though is, if this is the case (and no one truly knows at this point in time) once treatment has stopped does this mean that you can still transmit the bacteria either in vitro, in blood donation, breast milk, as an STD?
I read the article. Here are excerpts that do not distort the writer's intent, but the article is only two pages long, so the whole thing doesn't take long to read for anyone interested.
Bottom line: the article (now 7 years old, an eternity in the medical world) sets up a 'straw man' argument -- meaning one that is not accurate -- and then gallantly knocks it down.
What straw man? By comparing treatment with doxycycline alone versus treatment with herbs. Doxy given alone, except in the very earliest stage of Lyme, is not effective, because the Lyme bacteria soon encase themselves in biofilms *which the doxy cannot penetrate.* Standard treatment by a Lyme doc is biofilm-buster PLUS other antibiotics to kill the bacteria inside the biofilm.
The article you cite to references research done in 2007 and was published in 2010 in the 'Magazine for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine Professionals -- United Kingdom'. Quite old at this point.
The subtitle is "One of the world's leading Lyme Disease researchers has tested a natural treatment protocol based on the Cat's Claw (Uncaria tomentosa) product Samento and Banderol (from the Otoba plant) and found that its at least effective as conventional antibiotic treatment - and for some forms of the disease, more effective."
What follows below in "quotes" are excerpts from the article; the 'comments' are mine:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dr Eva Sapi, PhD, a professor of cellular and molecular biology at the University of New Haven, Connecticut, was the first person to discover that the microbe that causes Lyme disease ... creates biofilm communities that protect it form the immune system - and from antibiotics. ...
"The microbe is classified as a spirochete bacterium, but is a pleomorph; it cycles between different forms, some of them inactive -- one of these is a cyst form, as well as the colony-like biofilm -- in response to the presence of antibiotics."
===> My comment: Biofilms are what the Lyme bacteria do naturally and what makes them hard to kill without the right medication for the right length of time. Docs who treat with antibiotics use two meds simultaneously, one to break through the biofilm, and the other to kill the Lyme bacteria inside the biofilm.
----------------------------------------
From the article:
" ' Unfortunately, when Bb [Borrelia burgdorferi, the 'Lyme' bacterium] is in these inactive forms [in biofilms], conventional antibiotic therapy will not destroy the bacteria', say Sapi and her colleagues. 'The frontline treatment for chronic Lyme disease is administration of tetracyclines (eg doxycycline) or macrolides (eg clarithromycin). However, even after 3 months of treatment with these drugs, only a 50%-60% improvement rate is observed in patients, with a cure rate of only 20%.' "
===> My comment: The statement about the existence of biofilms is also the view of docs who treat with antibiotics and not herbs. What Sapi does not state in that quote is that (except very early in a Lyme infection, before the bacteria have created the biofilms to hide in), more than one antibiotic is used: a 'cystbuster' antibiotic (such as Flagyl) to break through the biofilm, and another antibiotic to kill the Lyme bacteria inside. Thus the article is incomplete in that regard: she states only the biofilm problem, and not the common and easily done fix for the problem.
Sapi does go on to say in the next section, as though she and her colleagues are the only ones to think of this, "We have to find antimicrobial agents [antibiotics] that can eliminate all the forms of B.burgdorferi."
It's already been done. Read Burrascano's treatment guidelines on the ILADS website. They've been around for a while.
----------------------------------------
From the article:
"Here we have provided evidence that two natural antimicrobial agents (Samento and Banderol extracts) had significant effect on all three known
forms of B. burgdorferi [Lyme] bacteria in vitro [meaning in a glass dish, not in a human]."
"We have also demonstrated that doxycycline, one of the primary antibiotics used in the clinic to treat Lyme disease, only had significant effect on the spirochetal [not cyst] form of B. burgdorferi."
... Which is why Lyme docs use Flagyl or another 'cyst-busting' drug along with an antibiotic to kill what is inside the cyst.
=======================================
Bottom line: The article does not show that herbals are superior to antibiotics.
Bottom line: the article (now 7 years old, an eternity in the medical world) sets up a 'straw man' argument -- meaning one that is not accurate -- and then gallantly knocks it down.
What straw man? By comparing treatment with doxycycline alone versus treatment with herbs. Doxy given alone, except in the very earliest stage of Lyme, is not effective, because the Lyme bacteria soon encase themselves in biofilms *which the doxy cannot penetrate.* Standard treatment by a Lyme doc is biofilm-buster PLUS other antibiotics to kill the bacteria inside the biofilm.
The article you cite to references research done in 2007 and was published in 2010 in the 'Magazine for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine Professionals -- United Kingdom'. Quite old at this point.
The subtitle is "One of the world's leading Lyme Disease researchers has tested a natural treatment protocol based on the Cat's Claw (Uncaria tomentosa) product Samento and Banderol (from the Otoba plant) and found that its at least effective as conventional antibiotic treatment - and for some forms of the disease, more effective."
What follows below in "quotes" are excerpts from the article; the 'comments' are mine:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dr Eva Sapi, PhD, a professor of cellular and molecular biology at the University of New Haven, Connecticut, was the first person to discover that the microbe that causes Lyme disease ... creates biofilm communities that protect it form the immune system - and from antibiotics. ...
"The microbe is classified as a spirochete bacterium, but is a pleomorph; it cycles between different forms, some of them inactive -- one of these is a cyst form, as well as the colony-like biofilm -- in response to the presence of antibiotics."
===> My comment: Biofilms are what the Lyme bacteria do naturally and what makes them hard to kill without the right medication for the right length of time. Docs who treat with antibiotics use two meds simultaneously, one to break through the biofilm, and the other to kill the Lyme bacteria inside the biofilm.
----------------------------------------
From the article:
" ' Unfortunately, when Bb [Borrelia burgdorferi, the 'Lyme' bacterium] is in these inactive forms [in biofilms], conventional antibiotic therapy will not destroy the bacteria', say Sapi and her colleagues. 'The frontline treatment for chronic Lyme disease is administration of tetracyclines (eg doxycycline) or macrolides (eg clarithromycin). However, even after 3 months of treatment with these drugs, only a 50%-60% improvement rate is observed in patients, with a cure rate of only 20%.' "
===> My comment: The statement about the existence of biofilms is also the view of docs who treat with antibiotics and not herbs. What Sapi does not state in that quote is that (except very early in a Lyme infection, before the bacteria have created the biofilms to hide in), more than one antibiotic is used: a 'cystbuster' antibiotic (such as Flagyl) to break through the biofilm, and another antibiotic to kill the Lyme bacteria inside. Thus the article is incomplete in that regard: she states only the biofilm problem, and not the common and easily done fix for the problem.
Sapi does go on to say in the next section, as though she and her colleagues are the only ones to think of this, "We have to find antimicrobial agents [antibiotics] that can eliminate all the forms of B.burgdorferi."
It's already been done. Read Burrascano's treatment guidelines on the ILADS website. They've been around for a while.
----------------------------------------
From the article:
"Here we have provided evidence that two natural antimicrobial agents (Samento and Banderol extracts) had significant effect on all three known
forms of B. burgdorferi [Lyme] bacteria in vitro [meaning in a glass dish, not in a human]."
"We have also demonstrated that doxycycline, one of the primary antibiotics used in the clinic to treat Lyme disease, only had significant effect on the spirochetal [not cyst] form of B. burgdorferi."
... Which is why Lyme docs use Flagyl or another 'cyst-busting' drug along with an antibiotic to kill what is inside the cyst.
=======================================
Bottom line: The article does not show that herbals are superior to antibiotics.
Thought you might find this of interest:
http://www.biologischmedischcentrumbmc.nl/Lyme-CowdenCAMResearch%20Article.pdf
http://www.biologischmedischcentrumbmc.nl/Lyme-CowdenCAMResearch%20Article.pdf
I avoid ABX because I feel that many of these things are already adapted to them. Let's take the mycoplasmas that come from vaccines grown on fertilized chicken eggs, like typhoid, as an example. The chickens that laid those eggs were fed antibiotics, any microvermin left inside those eggs are microbes that have already adapted to man's best shot. However, they haven't been exposed to nature's best and perhaps can't deal with them. Cost is also a factor in my case, I live in an area where the herbals are often free to me. As for peer-reviewed research, all that is to me is an opportunity for big-pharma to hire someone, like Kerti Shah, to throw a shadow over good research, and make people doubt said research. Thus we go on with our lives thinking that SV40 isn't doing anything to us, but it is, for several generations to come.
I would be very interested to hear/read any research that has been done on the efficiency and completeness of Lyme treatment by herbals only. Does anyone have peer-reviewed articles etc.?
And why the aversion to antibiotics?
And why the aversion to antibiotics?
I assumed that was the mixup - that I was indicating I'd only been treated for 3 months. ;) I'm actually just starting my 2nd month of treatment, also going the herbal route. It sounds like my LLND has the same thought process/plan as you - getting the immune system built up to target them. LOL, yes hopefully they die of old age first - thanks for the chuckle!
Nah, the sentence was fine, it was just missing a hyphen:
"I have been taking RNA/DNA-inhibiting herbals over 3yrs now."
All fixed. (English grammar: what a mess, huh.)
"I have been taking RNA/DNA-inhibiting herbals over 3yrs now."
All fixed. (English grammar: what a mess, huh.)
Yes, I got the asymptomatic for 3 mo confused with treatment for 3 mo, sorry. And yes, I've been on herbals that inhibit RNA/DNA. Keeps them from reproducing but doesn't kill them. Either they die of old age (hopefully before I do), or the immune system gets them. I won't be specific about the herbals. But I will say it is working for me. Reason I won't be specific is, if everyone started taking what I do, the price would go up, and they soon wouldn't be available to me. I will say this much though. An herbal doesn't need to be exotic and expensive to be effective. We sometimes walk right over and/or past, just what we need.
"I have been taking RNA/DNA inhibiting herbals over 3yrs now"
I think Bob is saying he's been taking herbs that inhibit RNA/DNA, the genetic material in the Lyme bacteria, so that it disables/kills the bacteria. Just a thought, I might be wrong.
I think Bob is saying he's been taking herbs that inhibit RNA/DNA, the genetic material in the Lyme bacteria, so that it disables/kills the bacteria. Just a thought, I might be wrong.
Thanks for the info though I'm confused about " a short 3 mo treatment". I don't believe anyone mentioned being treated for only 3 months........
My LLMD and LLND treat nonstop until one is asymptomatic (means without having any symptoms) for at least 3 months.
Hope you're finding your treatment effective. How will you know when you have been effectively treated and can stop treatment? I am not familiar with those herbals (RNA/DNA). Would you be able to post some more info? Thanks!
My LLMD and LLND treat nonstop until one is asymptomatic (means without having any symptoms) for at least 3 months.
Hope you're finding your treatment effective. How will you know when you have been effectively treated and can stop treatment? I am not familiar with those herbals (RNA/DNA). Would you be able to post some more info? Thanks!
Any microvermin small enough to be inside your cells, which includes many bacteria and viruses, can come back after a short 3 mo treatment. One has to continue the treatment until the infected cell has time to turn over, effectively kicking said microvermin out of their house. I have been taking RNA/DNA inhibiting herbals over 3yrs now, and there are still things dying in me. Most recently it was microvermin in my knees. Last year I couldn't get into a sitting position for shooting, this year I can! I mentioned turnover above, this is accomplished by adult stem cells. If those stem cells are infected, and some of the microvermin just love them, SV40 in particular, one has really got a problem, one that 3 months of antibiotics isn't going to touch.
Just please remember that ILADS member docs don't all think or practice medicine the same way, and some of them may have really squirrely ideas. There's no admission test or oath-of-how-to-diagnose-and-treat when a doc joins ILADS. A doc pays dues and the goes back to doing what the doc pleases.
So still wear your skeptical hat even tho the doc writes a check each year to be listed in the ILADS directory. It's good sign, but not a final statement of the doc's views and actions in this still-developing area of science and medicine.
So still wear your skeptical hat even tho the doc writes a check each year to be listed in the ILADS directory. It's good sign, but not a final statement of the doc's views and actions in this still-developing area of science and medicine.
Nope, doesn't guarantee anything but neither is anything in life guaranteed, other than death and taxes! ;)
For now, an ILADs doc is the best we can do right?
So back to the original question....anyone else have input?
Thanks!
For now, an ILADs doc is the best we can do right?
So back to the original question....anyone else have input?
Thanks!
Being an ILADS member doesn't require that a doc follow a specific approach in diagnosis or treatment ... because there IS no standard yet. Lyme and the coinfections are still developing areas of medicine. It's a good sign when a doc belongs to ILADS, but it doesn't guarantee anything.
Oh, it's not only my docs that say Bb spirochetes are never totally eradicated. I've seen it in other literature as well. Sometimes after treatment is complete, people have "flareups" or "setbacks" with some symptoms returning if they've encountered a very stressful situation.
As both my "LLMD and LLND" docs are part of ILADs, I feel pretty confident with them. One of them is actually featured in The Nature Of Things, "Ticked Off". They both prescribe cyst-busters/biofilms but I too recently read an article with an MD against cyst-busters and what I recall, the concern was that it would spread the bacteria around more than being in the encapsulated form, re: the cyst. However, my question to that is, then how does one eradicate the cyst-form and biofilms if they don't break it open to allow the antibiotics or antimicrobials to target the bacteria inside? Interesting stuff but obviously much more research is needed.
As both my "LLMD and LLND" docs are part of ILADs, I feel pretty confident with them. One of them is actually featured in The Nature Of Things, "Ticked Off". They both prescribe cyst-busters/biofilms but I too recently read an article with an MD against cyst-busters and what I recall, the concern was that it would spread the bacteria around more than being in the encapsulated form, re: the cyst. However, my question to that is, then how does one eradicate the cyst-form and biofilms if they don't break it open to allow the antibiotics or antimicrobials to target the bacteria inside? Interesting stuff but obviously much more research is needed.
That would be the risk, wouldn't it.
Perhaps your doc(s) are thinking of the Lyme bacteria hiding in biofilms that are not dissolved so that the antibiotics can wipe out the bacteria there.
To my understanding, that is why two drugs are used against Lyme: a cyst-buster to get through the biofilm and an antibiotic to kill the then-exposed bacteria. Perhaps your docs don't favor using the cyst-busting drugs and are intending just to try to keep them corralled indefinitely.
You might ask them about this aspect. I would. Lyme and syphilis are in the same bacterial family, and I'm not aware that any doc shoots for corralling the syphilis bacteria instead of wiping them out. Infection is infection. But I'm no doc.
There are docs who don't treat with meds to pierce the biofilms. Your docs may be in that group. I have never seen an explanation of why that is all right in the minds of those who hold that view, and do not know why they would not prescribe Flagyl to reach the bacteria hiding in the biofilm.
Any doc can say 'I'm an LLMD' and 'I'm a Lyme specialist' but that doesn't make it so. It's not a degree or a title or a membership: it's a state of mind. It's up to you whether to go with the diagnosis and treatment your docs are recommending. Best wishes!
Perhaps your doc(s) are thinking of the Lyme bacteria hiding in biofilms that are not dissolved so that the antibiotics can wipe out the bacteria there.
To my understanding, that is why two drugs are used against Lyme: a cyst-buster to get through the biofilm and an antibiotic to kill the then-exposed bacteria. Perhaps your docs don't favor using the cyst-busting drugs and are intending just to try to keep them corralled indefinitely.
You might ask them about this aspect. I would. Lyme and syphilis are in the same bacterial family, and I'm not aware that any doc shoots for corralling the syphilis bacteria instead of wiping them out. Infection is infection. But I'm no doc.
There are docs who don't treat with meds to pierce the biofilms. Your docs may be in that group. I have never seen an explanation of why that is all right in the minds of those who hold that view, and do not know why they would not prescribe Flagyl to reach the bacteria hiding in the biofilm.
Any doc can say 'I'm an LLMD' and 'I'm a Lyme specialist' but that doesn't make it so. It's not a degree or a title or a membership: it's a state of mind. It's up to you whether to go with the diagnosis and treatment your docs are recommending. Best wishes!
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Lyme Disease Community
Fearing autism, many parents aren't vaccinating their kids. Can doctors reverse this dangerous trend?
Can HIV be transmitted through this sexual activity? Dr. Jose Gonzalez-Garcia answers this commonly-asked question.
A breakthrough study discovers how to reduce risk of HIV transmission by 95 percent.
Dr. Jose Gonzalez-Garcia provides insight to the most commonly asked question about the transfer of HIV between partners.
Before your drop a dime at the pharmacy, find out if these popular cold and flu home remedies are a wonder or a waste
Fend off colds and the flu with these disease-fighting foods
