A discriminating anti-bacterial?

[Guest guest]

I just don't understand it.

I've been reading about holistic and alternative medicine for years

and I've discovered that many substances appear to be " natural

antibiotics. " For example, I'm sure you have read about the anti-

bacterial effects of coconut oil---more specifically, lauric acid and

monolaurin. People claim that it can kill ANYthing; fungus, virus,

and bacterium. But for some reason, they claim that it does not kill

the good bacteria, like that found in yogurt or sauerkraut. WHY? Why

does coconut oil, this " natural antibiotic " , kill only bad bacteria,

and not the good bacteria? Why does it discriminate? And how?

Of course, this applies to other substances as well. Colloidal Silver

is another example. Read what this website

(http://curezone.com/foods/silver.html) has to say on the matter:

*********

" As single celled creatures called bacteria use a common type enzyme

or `chemical lung' for their oxygen metabolism, the presence of

colloidal silver cripples the enzyme, therefore causing the organism

to suffocate. Any and all bacteria are therefore killed within the 6-

minute time frame, without causing any adverse effect on the

surrounding tissue cells. Dr Becker also states in his

book: `Positive silver kills all types of bacteria.' "

*********

(You might notice that this quote cannot explain the death of

anaerobic bacteria. If Colloidal Silver kills bacteria

via " suffocation " , then any bacteria that do not require air would

survive. But I'll ignore this fact for a moment)

If Colloidal Silver kills ALL bacteria, as this article claims, then

why shouldn't I just use antibiotics? What's the difference?

Colloidal silver and coconut oil supposedly kill all of the bacteria,

and antibiotics from the doctor does exactly the same thing.

I could name *dozens* of other substances that supposedly have anti-

bacterial qualities. But I just don't get it. If a natural remedy

really is anti-bacterial, then does it kill good bacteria also? And

if it kills the good bacteria, then what makes it so superior to

antibiotics, which does exactly the same thing?

Sincerely seeking answers,

Brad Belschner

[Guest guest]

>the anti-

>bacterial effects of coconut oil---more specifically, lauric acid and

>monolaurin. People claim that it can kill ANYthing; fungus, virus,

>and bacterium. But for some reason, they claim that it does not kill

>the good bacteria, like that found in yogurt or sauerkraut. WHY? Why

>does coconut oil, this " natural antibiotic " , kill only bad bacteria,

>and not the good bacteria?

>Why does it discriminate? And how? Sincerely seeking answers, Brad

Belschner

Dear Sincerely, I'm with ya! I've wondered about that too. But to the credit

of coconut oil I think that it is the lauric acid that acts as an

anti-fungal only (and I'm not sure there that there is a health-promoting

fungus to worry about. I know there are some benign ones..) I don't think

VCO is supposed to have any anti-bacterial qualities.

But your question is just as valid when applied to garlic and oregano oil

which are both considered to be anti-bacterials. Are we crazy to put garlic

in our kim chee if it's just going to kill the good bacteria in lactic acid?

I don't get it either.

I hope someone here can answer that too!

~Robin

[Guest guest]

Brad-

>I've been reading about holistic and alternative medicine for years

>and I've discovered that many substances appear to be " natural

>antibiotics. " For example, I'm sure you have read about the anti-

>bacterial effects of coconut oil---more specifically, lauric acid and

>monolaurin. People claim that it can kill ANYthing; fungus, virus,

>and bacterium. But for some reason, they claim that it does not kill

>the good bacteria, like that found in yogurt or sauerkraut. WHY? Why

>does coconut oil, this " natural antibiotic " , kill only bad bacteria,

>and not the good bacteria? Why does it discriminate? And how?

It's not magic. Any claims that something will magically kill ALL

undesirable microbes while preserving ALL undesirable microbes are bunk.

However, some substances do do a much better job of killing undesirables

than they do of killing desirables, basically because of the way we've

evolved. Many animals, for example, generate monolaurin from lauric acid,

and coconut oil happens to be about 50% lauric acid. Here's a quote from

Enig on the subject:

>>Approximately 50% of the fatty acids in coconut fat are lauric acid.

>>

>>Lauric acid is a medium chain fatty acid, which has the additional

>>beneficial function of being formed into monolaurin in the human or

>>animal body.

>>

>>Monolaurin is the antiviral, antibacterial, and antiprotozoal

>>monoglyceride used by the human or animal to destroy lipid-coated viruses

>>such as HIV, herpes, cytomegalovirus, influenza, various pathogenic

>>bacteria, including listeria monocytogenes and helicobacter pylori, and

>>protozoa such as giardia lamblia. Some studies have also shown some

>>antimicrobial effects of the free lauric acid.

Inasmuch as animals have evolved the production and use of monolaurin and

other similar compounds to kill undesirable microbes, evolution will also

have resulted in our guts (ideally) being populated by beneficial organisms

which aren't so vulnerable to them.

Here's some more from the same article by Enig:

>>The properties that determine the anti-infective action of lipids are

>>related to their structure: e.g., monoglycerides, free fatty acids.

>>

>>The monoglycerides are active; diglycerides and triglycerides are

>>inactive. Of the saturated fatty acids, lauric acid has greater antiviral

>>activity than either caprylic acid (C-8), capric acid (C-10), or myristic

>>acid (C-14). In general, it is reported that the fatty acids and

>>monoglycerides produce their killing/inactivating effect by lysing the

>>plasma membrane lipid bilayer.

>>

>>The antiviral action attributed to monolaurin is that of solubilizing the

>>lipids and phospholipids in the envelope of the virus, causing the

>>disintegration of the virus envelope. However, there is evidence from

>>recent studies that one antimicrobial effect in bacteria is related to

>>monolaurin's interference with signal transduction (Projan et al 1994),

>>and another antimicrobial effect in viruses is due to lauric acid's

>>interference with virus assembly and viral maturation (Hornung et al 1994).

And

>>According to the published research, lauric acid is one of the best

>> " inactivating " fatty acids, and its monoglyceride is even more effective

>>than the fatty acid alone (Kabara 1978, Sands et al 1978, Fletcher et al

>>1985, Kabara 1985).

>>

>>The lipid-coated (envelope) viruses are dependent on host lipids for

>>their lipid constituents. The variability of fatty acids in the foods of

>>individuals as well as the variability from de novo synthesis accounts

>>for the variability of fatty acids in the virus envelope and also

>>explains the variability of glycoprotein expression, a variability that

>>makes vaccine development more difficult.

>>

>>Monolaurin does not appear to have an adverse effect on desirable gut

>>bacteria, but rather on only potentially pathogenic microorganisms.

>>

>>For example, Isaacs et al (1991) reported no inactivation of the common

>>Escherichia coli or Salmonella enteritidis by monolaurin, but major

>>inactivation of Hemophilus influenzae, Staphylococcus epidermidis and

>>Group B gram positive streptococcus.

>>

>>The potentially pathogenic bacteria inactivated by monolaurin include

>>Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae,

>>Groups A,F & G streptococci, gram-positive organisms, and some

>>gram-negative organisms if pretreated with a chelator.

>>

>>Decreased growth of Staphylococcus aureus and decreased production of

>>toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 was shown with 150 mg monolaurin per liter

>>(Holland et al 1994). Monolaurin was 5000 times more inhibitory against

>>Listeria monocytogenes than ethanol (Oh & Marshall 1993). Helicobacter

>>pylori is rapidly inactivated by medium-chain monoglycerides and lauric

>>acid, and there appears to be very little development of resistance of

>>the organism to the bactericidal effects (Petschow et al 1996) of these

>>natural antimicrobials.

>>

>>A number of fungi, yeast, and protozoa are inactivated or killed by

>>lauric acid or monolaurin. The fungi include several species of ringworm

>>(Isaacs et al 1991). The yeast reported is Candida albicans (Isaacs et al

>>1991). The protozoan parasite Giardia lamblia is killed by free fatty

>>acids and monoglycerides from hydrolyzed human milk (Hernell et al 1986,

>>Reiner et al 1986, Crouch et al 1991, Isaacs et al 1991). Numerous other

>>protozoa were studied with similar findings; these findings have not yet

>>been published (Jon J. Kabara, private communication, 1997).

>>

>>Research continues in measuring the effect of the monoglyceride

>>derivative of capric acid monocaprin as well as the effects of lauric

>>acid. Chlamydia trachomatis is inactivated by lauric acid, capric acid,

>>and monocaprin (Bergsson et al 1998), and hydrogels containing monocaprin

>>are potent in vitro inactivators of sexually transmitted viruses such as

>>HSV-2 and HIV-1 and bacteria such as Neisseria gonorrhoeae (Thormar 1999).

Of course, as you'll have noticed, the fact that an organism ISN'T harmed

by something like monolaurin is no guarantee that it's benign.

>(You might notice that this quote cannot explain the death of

>anaerobic bacteria. If Colloidal Silver kills bacteria

>via " suffocation " , then any bacteria that do not require air would

>survive. But I'll ignore this fact for a moment)

Inasmuch as there's no big money to be found in the study of colloidal

silver, the science is unfortunately somewhat sketchy. I'm not sure anyone

fully understands the mechanisms of its action. However, it seems to be

extremely broad-spectrum in its effects, meaning it likely kills all sorts

of good organisms along with bad. The main reason it generally doesn't

seem to cause GI problems is that the particles in a true silver colloid

are so small that at least most of them are absorbed through the stomach,

thus bypassing the intestines altogether.

>If Colloidal Silver kills ALL bacteria, as this article claims, then

>why shouldn't I just use antibiotics? What's the difference?

CS is evidently very effective against fungi. Antibiotics, by contrast,

kill off bacteria and thus allow room for fungi to overgrow.

>Colloidal silver and coconut oil supposedly kill all of the bacteria,

>and antibiotics from the doctor does exactly the same thing.

As noted above, coconut oil also has substantial antifungal activity,

whereas antibiotics wind up having the opposite effect.

>I could name *dozens* of other substances that supposedly have anti-

>bacterial qualities. But I just don't get it. If a natural remedy

>really is anti-bacterial, then does it kill good bacteria also? And

>if it kills the good bacteria, then what makes it so superior to

>antibiotics, which does exactly the same thing?

Besides the fact that antibiotics leave a void for fungi to fill (and I

can't overemphasize the importance of that unfortunate fact) you have to

understand that there are many different types of bacteria. Gram-positive

and gram-negative. Bacteria with different types of lipid coats. Etc.

etc. etc. In general, " good " bacteria fall into certain classes and " bad "

ones into others, and in general, we've evolved defenses which are

effective against some but not all classes of bacteria while co-evolving

symbiotic relationships with members of other classes which aren't

vulnerable to those particular defenses. Unfortunately, evolution being

what it is (particularly amongst microbes) there's no absolute division

between " good " classes and " bad " classes, and the more we monkey with our

internal ecologies with bad food, antibiotics and whatnot, the more

problems we create for ourselves.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi, long-time lurker here.

Sally & 's coconut diet book addresses this. The coconut oil destroys

lipid-coated bacteria. Good bacteria is sugar-coated and not destroyed by

coconut oil. The good bacteria also helps to destroy the bad.

jen

>From: Robin Reese <robin.reese@...>

>Date: Wed Jul 20 22:38:59 CDT 2005

>

>Subject: RE: A discriminating anti-bacterial?

>>the anti-

>>bacterial effects of coconut oil---more specifically, lauric acid and

>>monolaurin. People claim that it can kill ANYthing; fungus, virus,

>>and bacterium. But for some reason, they claim that it does not kill

>>the good bacteria, like that found in yogurt or sauerkraut. WHY? Why

>>does coconut oil, this " natural antibiotic " , kill only bad bacteria,

>>and not the good bacteria?

>>Why does it discriminate? And how? Sincerely seeking answers, Brad

>Belschner

>

>Dear Sincerely, I'm with ya! I've wondered about that too. But to the credit

>of coconut oil I think that it is the lauric acid that acts as an

>anti-fungal only (and I'm not sure there that there is a health-promoting

>fungus to worry about. I know there are some benign ones..) I don't think

>VCO is supposed to have any anti-bacterial qualities.

>But your question is just as valid when applied to garlic and oregano oil

>which are both considered to be anti-bacterials. Are we crazy to put garlic

>in our kim chee if it's just going to kill the good bacteria in lactic acid?

>I don't get it either.

>

>I hope someone here can answer that too!

>~Robin

[Guest guest]

> But your question is just as valid when applied to garlic and

oregano oil

> which are both considered to be anti-bacterials. Are we crazy to put

garlic

> in our kim chee if it's just going to kill the good bacteria in

lactic acid?

> I don't get it either.

>

> I hope someone here can answer that too!

> ~Robin

The problem is semantics and " fuzzy science "

(as opposed to " fizzy science " , which is used

for making beer ...)

ALL " antibacterials " only work for a certain

" range " of bacteria. " Broad spectrum " antibacterials

work on loads of bacteria, " narrow spectrum " only work

on a few. Bacteria are divided into classes based

on various physical traits they have. One of the bigger

classes is " gram negative " and " gram positive " . This

classification is based on a certain stain that stains

one set and not the other, but it is also the case that

they tolerate different conditions. Gram positives are

usually " bad guys " ... and they are not very acid or

salt tolerant. The acid in our stomach tends to kill

them, as does the acid in kimchi. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram-positive

Gram-positive bacteria are those that are stained dark blue or violet

by gram staining, in contrast to gram-negative bacteria, which are not

affected by the stain. The stain is caused by a high amount of

peptidoglycan in the cell wall, which typically, but not always lacks

the secondary membrane and lipopolysaccharide layer found in

Gram-negative bacteria.

In the original bacterial phyla, the gram-positive forms made up the

phylum Firmicutes, a name now used for the largest group. It includes

many well-known genera such as Bacillus, Listeria, Staphylococcus,

Streptococcus, Enterococcus, and Clostridium. It has also been

expanded to include the Mollicutes, bacteria like Mycoplasma that lack

cell walls and so cannot be stained by Gram, but are derived from such

forms.

Garlic, salt, acid, lactobacilli, and yeasts all tend to kill gram

positives. Pascalite kills SOME gram negatives, but kills more gram

positives.

But then it gets more complicated because bacteria tend to form

alliances and groups and live symbiotically, so then you are dealing

with a whole colony that likes each other, as in kefir. Kefir produces

a LOT of antibiotics, but the antibiotics it produces are ones that

don't hurt the " clan " that lives in kefir. Just kills anyone else.

Many commercial antibiotics were isoloated from ferments, so they were

produced by bacteria that were trying to kill their enemies. So the

antibiotic kills the enemies of that bacteria, but not any bacteria

within the clan. When you eat kimchi or drink kefir, you are ingesting

a lot of very specialized antibiotics and antivirals and antifungals.

And " long term antibiotic use " isn't necessarily a bad thing, as they

have found bones of folks who lived long ago with high levels of

tetracycline. They got tetracycline daily in their beer ... didn't get

bone infections, it seems.

All of which boils down to: if it works (kills the infection but

doesn't bother your gut bacteria) ... then use it. You'll never figure

it all out without a microbiology lab, but in this case tradition and

word of mouth work pretty good.

-- Heidi Jean