Re: About biofilms, some lost reflections

[Guest guest]

>

> Just a question I ask myself about biofilms. There is a long history of

biofilms concerning a lot of deseases,

yes, it is one of the major factors in antibiotic resistance of infections (not

the traditional inherited AB resistance, but adaptive resistance by changing

into other forms or cell organisations).

> and the concept was recently applied to the Lyme desease, as we all know (e.g.

the very recent work of Alan Mc). Some believe that it is the source of

the chronic aspect of the desease.

it is one of the factors, not the only one. Most of these other infections where

biofilms are an issue don't get chronic. It is 'normal' that ABX do not kill all

the bacteria, usually the immune system can kill off the remaining fewe, or at

least keep them in check. With Lyme that often is not the case.

Another important issue is the Bb stealth technology which is pretty advanced

compared to most other bacteria (pleomorphism, constant changing of antigens,

immune evasion and manipulation, etc.).

> Now, what about.....doing the opposit thing, that is, instead of breaking the

films, reinforce it, so the bacteria are trapped, and then die after a certain

delay. Also, what if the biofilms were an immune system defense ?

they won't be trapped because that is not the way biofilms are built. They have

some kind of outer protective layer (sometimes), but this 'protection' is not

what biofilm is about. Far more important is that they have an organisation like

organs. Often there are multiple bacterial species, which each of them (or

certain pleomorphinc forms) specialising in certain functions. e.g. some

bacteria will get 100x more effective in removing antibiotics and thus ensure

that the others are not bothered by ABX.

> My post may seems strange I know, but aren' they too few scientific edvidences

to attack those films knowing that other bacteria are also trapped in these ?

there is loads of literature on biofilms, just not about 'trapping' because that

is not possible.

I think using quorum sensing is far more promising in attacking biofilms, or

preventing them from being built. If you are interested I can point you to some

current literature on the subject.

[Guest guest]

Very interesting observation. Are you taking anything to break down

the bio-film, or instead reinforcing it? I was about to take teasel to

break up the bio-film, and kill the cysts. Now, I'm not sure.

I would be interested in you sending me some literature on the nature

of bio-films. Thanks,

Yoohs

susan@...

831-335-1842

" America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and

lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. " -

Abraham Lincoln

[Guest guest]

Your post is not strange at all.

I do not tolerate any supplements which dissolve biofilm.

They almost killed me. My body was vibrating for weeks and I thought that I had

finally lost the battle.

 

This is a very interesting aspect. Then not the germs would create the biofilm

but our body would make the biofilm to trap them.

 

What would germs do if they are not in a body? Are they creating biofilms in a

test??

Thanks for posting your idea.

 

From: knot_weed <tek0nik@...>

Subject: [ ] Re: About biofilms, some lost reflections

Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 10:10 AM

 

>

> Just a question I ask myself about biofilms. There is a long history of

biofilms concerning a lot of deseases,

yes, it is one of the major factors in antibiotic resistance of infections (not

the traditional inherited AB resistance, but adaptive resistance by changing

into other forms or cell organisations) .

> and the concept was recently applied to the Lyme desease, as we all know (e.g.

the very recent work of Alan Mc). Some believe that it is the source of

the chronic aspect of the desease.

it is one of the factors, not the only one. Most of these other infections where

biofilms are an issue don't get chronic. It is 'normal' that ABX do not kill all

the bacteria, usually the immune system can kill off the remaining fewe, or at

least keep them in check. With Lyme that often is not the case.

Another important issue is the Bb stealth technology which is pretty advanced

compared to most other bacteria (pleomorphism, constant changing of antigens,

immune evasion and manipulation, etc.).

> Now, what about.....doing the opposit thing, that is, instead of breaking the

films, reinforce it, so the bacteria are trapped, and then die after a certain

delay. Also, what if the biofilms were an immune system defense ?

they won't be trapped because that is not the way biofilms are built. They have

some kind of outer protective layer (sometimes), but this 'protection' is not

what biofilm is about. Far more important is that they have an organisation like

organs. Often there are multiple bacterial species, which each of them (or

certain pleomorphinc forms) specialising in certain functions. e.g. some

bacteria will get 100x more effective in removing antibiotics and thus ensure

that the others are not bothered by ABX.

> My post may seems strange I know, but aren' they too few scientific edvidences

to attack those films knowing that other bacteria are also trapped in these ?

there is loads of literature on biofilms, just not about 'trapping' because that

is not possible.

I think using quorum sensing is far more promising in attacking biofilms, or

preventing them from being built. If you are interested I can point you to some

current literature on the subject.

[Guest guest]

>

> This is a very interesting aspect. Then not the germs would create the biofilm

but our body would make the biofilm to trap them.

actually the germs usually coordinate the biofilm formation with the cells of

your body, who (sometimes) speak the same language. This is what happens with

probiotics in the gut. Bb speaks the same language that some of the wellknown

probiotics bacteria (like the Lactobacillus) use, and although they don't target

the gut they probably use some of the same tricks.

biofilms is not something that is produced by the body. Also, the germs are not

'trapped' in a biofilm, except maybe in the sense that less of them are freely

circulating in the body as a result. But they can leave the biofilm if they

want, and probably that happens all the time.

In Bb biofilms probably most of the pleomorphic forms (spirochete, cyst, l-form

etc.) are present, with the balance between those forms influenced by external

conditions.

> What would germs do if they are not in a body? Are they creating biofilms in a

test??

most germs can create biofilm in a testtube under the right conditions. One

reason may be survival, so if they are stressed (e.g. with ABX) they will tend

to form biofilms. The problem with Bb is that it does not behave normal in a

testtube, it needs to be inside a host for that. Because of that it is very

difficult to experiment with Bb biofilms and Bb quorum sensing. But Alan

Macs pictures clearly show that Bb biofilms exist and why not, most bugs

can form them under the right conditions.

[Guest guest]

If the germs produce the biofilm then it would make sense to destroy the

biofilm.

Do you think this would be the right decision?

Probably we should start very slowly.

From: knot_weed <tek0nik@...>

Subject: [ ] Re: About biofilms, some lost reflections

Date: Saturday, January 30, 2010, 1:39 AM

 

>

> This is a very interesting aspect. Then not the germs would create the biofilm

but our body would make the biofilm to trap them.

actually the germs usually coordinate the biofilm formation with the cells of

your body, who (sometimes) speak the same language. This is what happens with

probiotics in the gut. Bb speaks the same language that some of the wellknown

probiotics bacteria (like the Lactobacillus) use, and although they don't target

the gut they probably use some of the same tricks.

biofilms is not something that is produced by the body. Also, the germs are not

'trapped' in a biofilm, except maybe in the sense that less of them are freely

circulating in the body as a result. But they can leave the biofilm if they

want, and probably that happens all the time.

In Bb biofilms probably most of the pleomorphic forms (spirochete, cyst, l-form

etc.) are present, with the balance between those forms influenced by external

conditions.

> What would germs do if they are not in a body? Are they creating biofilms in a

test??

most germs can create biofilm in a testtube under the right conditions. One

reason may be survival, so if they are stressed (e.g. with ABX) they will tend

to form biofilms. The problem with Bb is that it does not behave normal in a

testtube, it needs to be inside a host for that. Because of that it is very

difficult to experiment with Bb biofilms and Bb quorum sensing. But Alan

Macs pictures clearly show that Bb biofilms exist and why not, most bugs

can form them under the right conditions.

[Guest guest]

>

> If the germs produce the biofilm then it would make sense to destroy the

biofilm.

> Do you think this would be the right decision?

> Probably we should start very slowly.

depends on which biofilms - I think most of the biofilm in the gut is essential

for our survival. We need many of these bacteria for our metabolism, immunity

etc. Destroying all gut bacteria with heavy ABX and proteases etc, and then

swallowing some probiotics will NOT restore gut function. There are probably

hundreds or even thousands of different microbe species required. Once you start

messing with that with brute force, I think chances are slim that the normal

ecology (the microbiome) will ever be restored.

You don't want to loose the symbiotic bacteria that have set up shop in your

intestines, because they can NOT be replaced at a later time with simple

probiotics (these don't 'colonize' the gut again, they get flushed away after

some time).

Biofilms in the arteries, in connective tissue, joints etc. are probably less

beneficial and more likely to harbour bugs that should not be there. So I think

they are the first to remove (far more difficult than in the gut ...) but yes,

we should be cautious. I think we will know a lot more in about five years (a

bit long if you are waiting for new treatment, I know ...) because many

researchers are now on top of it.

Even if they don't look at Bb biofilms we will learn a lot of things in the next

years, e.g. what is 'normal' and what is 'not normal'(related to illness)

regarding biofilms.