Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 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 By the way, in case anyone needs to be told this... this is a highly experimental and potentially dangerous treatment idea... not something anyone should consider acting on without a doctor's advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Tony did it. He should chime in some time. penny <usenethod@...> wrote: Years ago, I saw this page and then couldn't relocate it. Well I just found it:http://www.ncf-net.org/forum/arsenic.html"At this time, scientists from Denmark are treating patients using Dr. Tarello's protocol."Anyone update us on that? The page is dated 2001. I am still interested in this idea myself."I have also corresponded and spoken with two individuals who have undergone arsenical treatment. One is substantially better while the second recently completed therapy and felt 'metabolically better.'" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 I have also gotten arsenic from tarello and understand it very well. This can also develop resistance ... I would think if you used it early in the disease processs before you get lots of cysts and some serious endometreosis burnt to a crisp stuff(due to toxins) going on, you can win with arsenic. You need to have the ability to hydrate and stay that way- I feel we can hydrate but can't hold it and spend most of our time dehydrated- due to the state of our veins and arteries/ skin/ and organs, being in bad shape. tony > > Years ago, I saw this page and then couldn't relocate it. Well I just > found it: > > http://www.ncf-net.org/forum/arsenic.html > > " At this time, scientists from Denmark are treating patients using Dr. > Tarello's protocol. " > > Anyone update us on that? The page is dated 2001. I am still interested > in this idea myself. > > " I have also corresponded and spoken with two individuals who have > undergone arsenical treatment. One is substantially better while the > second recently completed therapy and felt 'metabolically better.' " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 I've got some old stuff left. tony > > 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 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Where did you get that much arsenic from? I think people have to understand how it works and what against, to appreciate the stuff. Like anything you need to deliver correctly, it may be IV and 4 times the original tarello recommendation in strength to get someone over the cfs hump IMO...I say this because long term cancer treatments with this substance are 20 times greater than tarello's and last a lot longer. The other truth about arsenic is that they'd inject a horse and for a few days at least, it's coat would shine and it glowed with good health. They actually had a term for this approach of getting a horse ready for sale. Now if you took the science of getting something up and glowing and used it correctly by making sure it went deep into where it was required, which arsenic does by the way, it distributes amazingly well.You should have a cure for these diseases. tony > > Dear > I recently had to dispose of 5 Kg of arsenic trioxide, I should have saved you some and we could have reminisced while in jail together. > On another note, a quick search on Arsenic + pharmacology in Google scholar brings up some pretty depressing reading. > Regards > Windsor > [infections] Re: Arsenic - Tarello > > > By the way, in case anyone needs to be told this... this is a highly > experimental and potentially dangerous treatment idea... not something > anyone should consider acting on without a doctor's advice. > 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.