Re: - Fallon - lyme wars

[Guest guest]

The enclosed cyst is an important concept in contemplating many

aspects of spirochetoses, but I dont see how it can explain why

appropriate antimicrobials can fail to kill the infection.

a good biblio is here:

http://www.samento.com.ec/sciencelib/4lyme/studiesoncyst.pdf

Generation of the enclosed cyst requires protein synthesis and changes

in protein expression [Alban]. It is generally understood to have a

permeable or semipermeable shell. I dont know the epistemology of that

finding but certainly such structures can be seen in some electron

micrographs (eg in URL above). Certainly the Brorsons experiments show

that the shell is not 100% impermeable to metronidazole, tinidazole,

or HCQ.

But even if the enclosed cyst were impermeable, and even if it does

contain gathered nutriment as suggested by an investigator of

Treponema, the nutriment it contains cannot be cleansed of

antimicrobials by the organism. Hence the amx should still act. Or, if

the encystment occured prior to the initiation of amx treatment,

growth will have to stop when the nutriment is exhausted - or else new

nutriment will have to be admitted from the milieu, which now contains

amx.

Dormancy (halt or near-halt of metabolism) is another matter. Dormancy

should confer resistance to all amx drugs except those that directly

attack the envelope membranes. But if the whole infection population

exists in dormancy, it should be destroyed by the immune system. The

immune system is always cutting into the infection, and for the

bacterial population to remain constant, the infection must take in

nutriment and compensate for this drain on its biomass. Otherwise it

will be eliminated. Thats why amx dont need to kill bacteria, or even

exert a literally bacteriostatic effect in order to cure an infection.

They just have to curtail the bacterial biomass production rate to a

level significantly lower than the bacterial biomass destruction rate.

So, if the bacteria are not dormant, amx should kill them; if they are

dormant they cannot contribute to maintaining the population biomass

in the face of attrition by host immunity; but what if they are

dormant and in a form not recognized by the immune system? Well, if

they are not recognized by the immune system they cannot make you sick

via inflammation (I would have to do a little work to say whether this

statement is 100% molecularly rigorous). They also cannot make you

sick by producing toxins, because they are dormant - hence Shoemaker's

work on hypo-eliminable recirculating toxins, but this idea cant

explain why so many people stay fairly sick on amx but then get worse

again if they stop them.

A form that is hypo-immunogenic and amx-refractory due to a shell or

to dormancy is thus a great way to explain why someone can stay

infected during appropriate amx treatment - but not why someone can

remain *sick* all thru appropriate treatment, as opposed to getting

well and then relapsing after treatment.

No wonder alot of people are so freaked out about the notion of

bacterial infection not being cured by amx to which the organisms are

suceptible in vitro. Its a paradox which those not informed about a

great range of relevant findings might assume to be fatal to the

paradigm. But most of the " anti-chronic-lyme " people should know damn

well that its not so simple; Klemper, who ran several trials

" disproving " the use of amx, and may in fact honestly feel that it is

futile to use amx (tho he must be familiar with Dontas studies) should

certainly know better, because he himself wrote PMID 1634816. A living

breathing bona fide amx mystery - tho perhaps not quite in the class

of the phenomenon seen in PMID 12760877.

> > > I'm leery of Rocephin also (as is my gallbladder!), however,

> agent

> > Scha

> > > is battling neuroLyme and I know that Dr. Fallon at Columbia is

> > coming

> > > up with some good data using Rocephin. I don't know what he

> combines

> > > with it and when. Presumable something to kill off the CWD forms

> > > generated.

> > >

> > > - Kate D.

[Guest guest]

> Thats why amx dont need to kill bacteria, or even

> exert a literally bacteriostatic effect in order to cure

> an infection. They just have to curtail the bacterial biomass

> production rate to a level significantly lower than the bacterial

> biomass destruction rate.

....and keep it there, which they will fail to do if resistance

develops. Thats why you see in antimicrobials literature alot of

reference to curing acute infections as fast as possible, making sure

doctors make sure patients comply with their amx courses, etc. If you

kill 99% of a strep infection with drug A, then stop the drug too

early and let the infection come back, youve got a slightly worse

problem than you had in the first place.

[Guest guest]

Very good thinking.

To make a cyst the spirochete literally curls up on itself. I can't

imagine it is impermeable as you said or how would it maintain

itself? I do imagine the granules, seen in the 50's when syphilis

shook itself and all kinds of seeds or spores shook loose, could be

almost inert--comlpletely dormant. The cyst doesn't have obvious

antigens. How could it make you sick? Only if it were active, or

shedding blebs (fake pieces that have antigens to make you sick), but

it has never been described that way, more as a kind of semi dormant

form that degrades over time but if properly stimulated can produce

daughter spirochetes.

That 3-D work at the NIH showed massive #'s of spirochetes. I think

its an active infection with active spirochetes actively causing

illness but they are indeed in protected niches that antibiotics

can't release, or else there's something else going on if

bioweaponized, maybe viruses live inside them and are released when

they die, who knows.

> > > > I'm leery of Rocephin also (as is my gallbladder!), however,

> > agent

> > > Scha

> > > > is battling neuroLyme and I know that Dr. Fallon at Columbia

is

> > > coming

> > > > up with some good data using Rocephin. I don't know what he

> > combines

> > > > with it and when. Presumable something to kill off the CWD

forms

> > > > generated.

> > > >

> > > > - Kate D.

[Guest guest]

This is an impressive bit of thinking, , but it all proceeds from

a set of assumptions whose validity is not obvious to me.

Is it true, for example, that the immune system can be counted on to

pick off the dormant cysts as they awaken? It seems unlikely to be

true. After all, the cysts are at whatever place in the body the bugs

wehere when they shape-shifted, and if that is the brain or the joints

the immune system has been failing to kill them there for a long time.

Why should it suddenly become successful at what it failed to do

before?

It's easy to be fooled by the seemingly unshakable nature of logic.

You are saying, in essence, " if they don't breed faster than I kill

them, they'll disappear. " That kind of mathematical certainty does not

apply to things less abstract and uniform than numbers. Every 1 is a

1, and every 2 is a 2, but every borrelia-immune system confrontation

is not the same, is not played out in the same conditions, the same

part of the body, with the same degree of success.

This could be a matter of you exaggerating a real dilemma, but if so

I'm not sure what the real dilemma consists of.

They've immersed the cysts in antibiotic solutions for some period of

time, a level of concentration that the body will not likely emulate,

and when they put them in a regular medium out the perky little vermin

pop, ready for business.

That's disturbing as hell, but it isn't a violation of the laws of the

universe. I don't think. Just feels to us like it should be.

Maybe you're saying something more that I'm just not getting, though.

> > Thats why amx dont need to kill bacteria, or even

> > exert a literally bacteriostatic effect in order to cure

> > an infection. They just have to curtail the bacterial biomass

> > production rate to a level significantly lower than the bacterial

> > biomass destruction rate.

>

> ...and keep it there, which they will fail to do if resistance

> develops. Thats why you see in antimicrobials literature alot of

> reference to curing acute infections as fast as possible, making sure

> doctors make sure patients comply with their amx courses, etc. If you

> kill 99% of a strep infection with drug A, then stop the drug too

> early and let the infection come back, youve got a slightly worse

> problem than you had in the first place.

[Guest guest]

<jenbooks13@h...> wrote:

> To make a cyst the spirochete literally curls up on itself. I can't

imagine it is impermeable as you said or how would it maintain

itself?

How about bio-films? I don't know if they apply to spirochetes, but

they certainly apply to infections in general, in the sinuses for

example. And bone. And they ARE pretty much inpenetrable by abx.

I just remembered the other day (when someone posted an unrelated

article) that the role of vitamin C in the salt/c protocol is to

potentially destroy the bio-films. AND according to the lymephotos.com

proponents, salt and vitamin C are curing people of " lyme disease " or

whatever it is they have.

And then there's always the possiblity that it's not even the

spirochetes making people sick. It could be some other bug (or lyme

bugs too), coated in bio-film, hiding in our sinuses and bone.

Remember our polls on the old I & I? The vast majority of us have

sinus or dental infections of some kind. And others like myself, have

proof of severe infections in these areas, with no discernible

symptoms. Biofilms are part of the package.

penny

[Guest guest]

Yes I agree biofilms are part of the picture...

[Guest guest]

There are several ways bacteria protect themselves- but as a rule,

their variant has a higher percentage of lipids in the 'new' variant

coat. That's why I used so much lauricidin.

Barb

> > To make a cyst the spirochete literally curls up on itself. I

can't

> imagine it is impermeable as you said or how would it maintain

> itself?

>

>

> How about bio-films? I don't know if they apply to spirochetes, but

> they certainly apply to infections in general, in the sinuses for

> example. And bone. And they ARE pretty much inpenetrable by abx.

>

> I just remembered the other day (when someone posted an unrelated

> article) that the role of vitamin C in the salt/c protocol is to

> potentially destroy the bio-films. AND according to the

lymephotos.com

> proponents, salt and vitamin C are curing people of " lyme disease "

or

> whatever it is they have.

>

> And then there's always the possiblity that it's not even the

> spirochetes making people sick. It could be some other bug (or lyme

> bugs too), coated in bio-film, hiding in our sinuses and bone.

> Remember our polls on the old I & I? The vast majority of us have

> sinus or dental infections of some kind. And others like myself,

have

> proof of severe infections in these areas, with no discernible

> symptoms. Biofilms are part of the package.

>

> penny