Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 : When you read the " old " stuff- before there were laws not to do blantly misuse animals (and some unfortunate people) you'll find that the agents that DO kill these pathogens also kill the good bacteria (and in 50% of the cases the animal it's used on. So- I'm not sure such a broad spectrum agent is the way to go- unless you could figure some way to deliver it EXACTLY where you wanted it. Of course the body is an amazing thing- and if you almost kill it (like with Chemo therapy) sometimes it struggles back to life. Just some thoughts.. I like having you around. Barb > Basically I'm interested in seeing whether there is some reason why > arsenicals might be particularly lethal against semi-dormant bacteria > difficult to kill with most antibiotics. > > I am even more interested in testing the idea empirically myself. > This could be explored using a simple model such as starved E coli. > If anyone has a source of potassium arsenate or arsenic trioxide, I'm > very interested. I assume they're legal to posses in the US though I > haven't checked. > > This paper is a start. But it doesn't look like the mechanisms of > toxicity are terribly clear: > > http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S037842740200084X > > However, one *possible* major mechanism - reduction of disulfide > bonds in existing proteins - looks interesting. This could be quite > harmful to a non-growing bacterial cell where protein turnover is > very limited. Insults of all kinds are probably harder for fast- > growing cells to adapt to... but in this case, the fast-growing cells > is producing new proteins at a high rate, so damage to a number of > proteins at a fixed rate might not create quite so much of an insult > in the first place. > > But - *will* that damage occur at a fixed rate? Or will it instead > occur at a rate dependent on the rate of the bacterial metabolism? > > Protein turnover in relatively static/dormant bug would be limited > further if tetracyclines and macrolides were applied, and perhaps > rifampin. These agents would also impair the induction of arsenic > detoxification proteins. > > I do see some web page out there claiming that arsenicals were used > to treat neurasthenia, which is, roughly, CFS. Maybe not true, but if > true it wouldn't surprise me. Immunosuppressive effects might > possibly be at play here as well as antimicrobial and perhaps other > effects. > > I haven't yet looked into whether there is any dose which can be > considered to probably be wholly non-carcinogenic. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 The thing about arsenic is it was used quite commonly for a very long time, for things like syphillis, until antibiotics came into existence. Then a big publicity campaign ensued to convince the public it was dangerous, even in the tiny amounts used medicinally, so that we would adopt the new drugs and eventually make it illegal. It is still available in some countries however. Certainly was legal for animals in Italy where Tarello did his studies, and I don't know about Australia, but Tony did it after getting to know Tarello pretty well, and felt it helped him, although he thinks it would be most effective if taken early after onset, as is the case with Tarello & his wife. Tarello used it successfully to cure his wife and quite a few animals. According to Tony, he got fed up with the system that wouldn't pay any attention to his research and moved on to other things. It's still fed to approx. 70% of chickens in the U.S. to combat infection caused by unsanitary living conditions. Therapeutically, it's used in very small amounts, nothing like the levels found in people who are repeatedly exposed through their drinking water and develop cancer. penny Barb Peck <egroups1bp@...> wrote: :When you read the "old" stuff- before there were laws not to do blantly misuse animals (and some unfortunate people) you'll find that the agents that DO kill these pathogens also kill the good bacteria (and in 50% of the cases the animal it's used on.So- I'm not sure such a broad spectrum agent is the way to go- unless you could figure some way to deliver it EXACTLY where you wanted it.Of course the body is an amazing thing- and if you almost kill it (like with Chemo therapy) sometimes it struggles back to life.Just some thoughts..I like having you around.Barb> Basically I'm interested in seeing whether there is some reason why > arsenicals might be particularly lethal against semi-dormant bacteria > difficult to kill with most antibiotics.> > I am even more interested in testing the idea empirically myself. > This could be explored using a simple model such as starved E coli. > If anyone has a source of potassium arsenate or arsenic trioxide, I'm > very interested. I assume they're legal to posses in the US though I > haven't checked.> > This paper is a start. But it doesn't look like the mechanisms of > toxicity are terribly clear:> > http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S037842740200084X> > However, one *possible* major mechanism - reduction of disulfide > bonds in existing proteins - looks interesting. This could be quite > harmful to a non-growing bacterial cell where protein turnover is > very limited. Insults of all kinds are probably harder for fast-> growing cells to adapt to... but in this case, the fast-growing cells > is producing new proteins at a high rate, so damage to a number of > proteins at a fixed rate might not create quite so much of an insult > in the first place. > > But - *will* that damage occur at a fixed rate? Or will it instead > occur at a rate dependent on the rate of the bacterial metabolism?> > Protein turnover in relatively static/dormant bug would be limited > further if tetracyclines and macrolides were applied, and perhaps > rifampin. These agents would also impair the induction of arsenic > detoxification proteins.> > I do see some web page out there claiming that arsenicals were used > to treat neurasthenia, which is, roughly, CFS. Maybe not true, but if > true it wouldn't surprise me. Immunosuppressive effects might > possibly be at play here as well as antimicrobial and perhaps other > effects.> > I haven't yet looked into whether there is any dose which can be > considered to probably be wholly non-carcinogenic.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 My mother got amoebic dysentery in Peru in 1964. She didn't know she had it until she returned to the US. At that time in Peru the standard treatment for dysentery would have been arsenic, but in the US they only way they would give her that was if she was hospitalized during treatment. She took some pretty strong stuff all summer and did recover. I have often wondered if any of us got something chronic we caught from her. But that is probably being paranoid. a Carnes > > The thing about arsenic is it was used quite commonly for a very long time, for things like syphillis, until antibiotics came into existence. Then a big publicity campaign ensued to convince the public it was dangerous, even in the tiny amounts used medicinally, so that we would adopt the new drugs and eventually make it illegal. > > It is still available in some countries however. Certainly was legal for animals in Italy where Tarello did his studies, and I don't know about Australia, but Tony did it after getting to know Tarello pretty well, and felt it helped him, although he thinks it would be most effective if taken early after onset, as is the case with Tarello & his wife. > > Tarello used it successfully to cure his wife and quite a few animals. According to Tony, he got fed up with the system that wouldn't pay any attention to his research and moved on to other things. > > It's still fed to approx. 70% of chickens in the U.S. to combat infection caused by unsanitary living conditions. > > Therapeutically, it's used in very small amounts, nothing like the levels found in people who are repeatedly exposed through their drinking water and develop cancer. > > penny > > > > Barb Peck <egroups1bp@...> wrote: > : > When you read the " old " stuff- before there were laws not to do > blantly misuse animals (and some unfortunate people) you'll find that > the agents that DO kill these pathogens also kill the good bacteria > (and in 50% of the cases the animal it's used on. > > So- I'm not sure such a broad spectrum agent is the way to go- unless > you could figure some way to deliver it EXACTLY where you wanted it. > > Of course the body is an amazing thing- and if you almost kill it > (like with Chemo therapy) sometimes it struggles back to life. > > Just some thoughts.. > I like having you around. > Barb > > > > > > Legality is tricky in the U.S. The FDA has approved arsenic therapy > only for leukemia so far. However, I was told that Arizona has more > liberal laws than the rest of the U.S. and that it might be legal > there. > > > > penny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 > My mother got amoebic dysentery in Peru in 1964. She didn't know she > had it until she returned to the US. At that time in Peru the > standard treatment for dysentery would have been arsenic, but in the > US they only way they would give her that was if she was hospitalized > during treatment. She took some pretty strong stuff all summer and > did recover. I have often wondered if any of us got something chronic > we caught from her. But that is probably being paranoid. > > a Carnes Apparantly one quite dangerous arsenical treatment is still used for trypanosomiasis: Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1997 Jun;56(6):632-6. Links Attempt to correlate urine arsenic excretion with clinical course during melarsoprol therapy of patients with ian trypanosomiasis. PMID: 9230794 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1999 Jul-Aug;93(4):439-42. Links Risk factors for treatment failure after melarsoprol for Trypanosoma brucei gambiense trypanosomiasis in Uganda. PMID: 10674099 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] ....although a much safer (but very expensive) drug has been around for at least 20 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eflornithine This actually may have created a more useful (non)safety record for arsenicals generally than the use against cancer. Surely many/most of the cancer patients receiving arsenicals are moribund. If such patients die with a few years of the treatment, that makes it hard to infer much about whether it was significantly carcinogenic (which arsenic apparantly is believed to be). Needless to say, various arsenical compounds cannot be considered interchangable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 I don't think they treated my mom with arsenic. She was not hospitalized and she lived to 80 years of age. At that time she was about 50 something. paula > > > My mother got amoebic dysentery in Peru in 1964. She didn't know > she > > had it until she returned to the US. At that time in Peru the > > standard treatment for dysentery would have been arsenic, but in > the > > US they only way they would give her that was if she was > hospitalized > > during treatment. She took some pretty strong stuff all summer and > > did recover. I have often wondered if any of us got something > chronic > > we caught from her. But that is probably being paranoid. > > > > a Carnes > > > Apparantly one quite dangerous arsenical treatment is still used for > trypanosomiasis: > > Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1997 Jun;56(6):632-6. Links > Attempt to correlate urine arsenic excretion with clinical course > during melarsoprol therapy of patients with ian trypanosomiasis. > PMID: 9230794 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > > Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1999 Jul-Aug;93(4):439-42. Links > Risk factors for treatment failure after melarsoprol for Trypanosoma > brucei gambiense trypanosomiasis in Uganda. > PMID: 10674099 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > > ...although a much safer (but very expensive) drug has been around > for at least 20 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eflornithine > > This actually may have created a more useful (non)safety record for > arsenicals generally than the use against cancer. Surely many/most of > the cancer patients receiving arsenicals are moribund. If such > patients die with a few years of the treatment, that makes it hard to > infer much about whether it was significantly carcinogenic (which > arsenic apparantly is believed to be). Needless to say, various > arsenical compounds cannot be considered interchangable. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 The big issue with arsenic is the amounts people are exposed to and the way there exposed. I would also feel that consuming large amounts thru the stomach may not be intelligent at all, when I have personally noticed the instant relief a shot would deliver... So there is a reason for doing it right instead of holding it back due to stupid uses. > > Basically I'm interested in seeing whether there is some > reason why > > arsenicals might be particularly lethal against semi-dormant > bacteria > > difficult to kill with most antibiotics. > > > > I am even more interested in testing the idea empirically myself. > > This could be explored using a simple model such as starved E coli. > > If anyone has a source of potassium arsenate or arsenic trioxide, > I'm > > very interested. I assume they're legal to posses in the US though > I > > haven't checked. > > > > This paper is a start. But it doesn't look like the mechanisms of > > toxicity are terribly clear: > > > > http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S037842740200084X > > > > However, one *possible* major mechanism - reduction of disulfide > > bonds in existing proteins - looks interesting. This could be quite > > harmful to a non-growing bacterial cell where protein turnover is > > very limited. Insults of all kinds are probably harder for fast- > > growing cells to adapt to... but in this case, the fast-growing > cells > > is producing new proteins at a high rate, so damage to a number of > > proteins at a fixed rate might not create quite so much of an > insult > > in the first place. > > > > But - *will* that damage occur at a fixed rate? Or will it instead > > occur at a rate dependent on the rate of the bacterial metabolism? > > > > Protein turnover in relatively static/dormant bug would be limited > > further if tetracyclines and macrolides were applied, and perhaps > > rifampin. These agents would also impair the induction of arsenic > > detoxification proteins. > > > > I do see some web page out there claiming that arsenicals were used > > to treat neurasthenia, which is, roughly, CFS. Maybe not true, but > if > > true it wouldn't surprise me. Immunosuppressive effects might > > possibly be at play here as well as antimicrobial and perhaps other > > effects. > > > > I haven't yet looked into whether there is any dose which can be > > considered to probably be wholly non-carcinogenic. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.