Jill - stuff

[Guest guest]

I'm pretty sure, tho not certain, that no virus can infect both

prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

The 3-d tissue model is cool, but can it reflect whats really up in

the body, where immunity is partly endocrinely and neurally

marshalled? And I dont think you can have the adaptive branch of the

immune system really working in that model... can you? Antimicrobial

efficacy is another matter - I dont remember it doing so, but does

that model show failure of antimicrobials? That would be fascinating.

This paper illustrated that endothelial cells, as well as fibroblasts,

were able to protect Bb from ceftriaxone and also penicillin - but

doxy and erythromycin still killed well:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=163368 & blobtype=pdf

I have a sort of intuitive suspicion that the blebs/gemmae probably

contain the whole genome and are viable. But theres no " good " reason

they should resist amx drugs.

I dont know much about the privaleged site ideas.

Tho there arent really answers about its immunoevasion, theres more

deep study out there on syphilis than I thought, it just takes alot of

time to find it. PMID 6191721 is a case report, finding that many

spirochetes and " a large amount of diffuse indistinct fluorescent "

material were present in an immunofluorescent-stained lesion

apparantly representing tertiary syphilis - interesting because

tertiary syphilis has a lyme-like reputation for extreme paucity of

organisms. This biopsy was negative by silver staining, which could

call into question the precision of histologic findings in both lyme

and syphilis using silver stains. The latter are not all the same, but

most of them seem to have pretty shabby specificity.

Probably the craziest thing about syphilis is the incubations of 10,

20, 30 years before tertiary syphilis becomes symptomatic.

<jenbooks13@h...> wrote:

> 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.

[Guest guest]

ERic, just curious why do you use " amx " for antibiotics?

I guess we should go with horses not zebras. Thus I think active

infection is responsible for symptoms.

Thus we have to find novel approaches to kill it, or stop it. One easy

way is to stop its ability to adhere to cells. Then over time, the

infection will wane and die out. So maybe those glyconutrients are one

possibility, so let me know. Another possibility is to get something

into the cell that kills it. That's how ICHT worked--within the actual

cell itself, shedding heat, and making the antibiotics far more

effective. As I said, I'm working on a product--or rather, got some

companies to work on one, we'll see if it works, if it does, that

would be great but I'm assuming tho the idea is good that something

will not work about it in vivo. (Hope for the best, expect the worst)