Re: Cholesterol and microbes which feed on it

[Guest guest]

Just briefly, if you look up ozone therapy, there is some evidence

that it restores the ability of the blood to contain oxygen, thus

eliminating a lot of the bacteria that thrive in a low-oxygen (acid)

environment. Of course, it works so well it's outlawed in the U.S.,

but gaining acceptance in Europe.

Vitamin B-15 seems to help reoxygenate the blood, and may have some

similar effects.

Mycobacteria seem to be resistant to many antibiotics, in fact the

polysorbate added to the medications may enhance the growth of

mycobacteria.

I read one study that said some blood-borne pathogens like to take

hemoglobin from the blood, sometimes reducing the amount by as much

as 25%.

Artemisinin is an interesting one to wipe out parasites. It is

taking the malaria treatment world by storm, in fact there are

lawsuits not against clinics for NOT using artemisinin. If the

mycoplasma infection is a result of or related to parasitic

infection, it could be very valuable, though it causes some nasty

effects from the die-off if the person is heavily infected, and

detoxing/liver strenghening measures are recommended. By the way,

it is also showing promise as an anticancer drug, especially

effective for the fast-growing cancers. You get some of the more

interesting studies by mis-spelling the word, replacing e's for i's

when you google.

The military recently admitted to weaponizing mycobacteria, the

information has made the circuit of the lyme groups. I believe

there is some value to increasing the salinity of the blood to fight

mycobacteria, as well as increasing the enzymes, by consuming them

and upping vitamin C intake, which the body will use in the

manufacture of enzymes.

There are other treatments folks have used to increase the health of

their blood, including uv radiation where the blood is run out of

the body through uv light, then back in, sometimes used in

conjunction with ozone therapy, and Hulda 's parasite cleanse

and zapper.

People with ALS are getting better on the salt/c protocol in the

lymestrategies group. Moderator, Marc Firefox has listed

supplements that help restore damaged neurons, etc... ALS is one of

the symptoms of advanced lyme.

I strongly disagree with the Marshall Protocol, nutrients should not

be avoided, that just weakens the body and it's defenses. Keep the

body strong while you fight the infection.

--- In , Idol <paul_idol@y...>

wrote:

>

> I'm curious to see whether anyone has any ideas for a treatment

> regimen for someone infected with something along the lines of a

> mycoplasma (e.g. m. fermentans) which causes neurological and

other

> problems via a variety of mechanisms such as

>

> - choline depletion leading to cell death

> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=11470355 & query_hl=25 & i

tool=pubmed_docsum>

>

> - competition for and depletion of a wide variety of other host

> nutrients, including cholesterol

> <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no1/baseman.htm>

>

> - direct creation of peroxide and superoxide radicals by attached

> mycoplasmas, inducing oxidative stress and cell membrane damage

> <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no1/baseman.htm>

>

> - excitotoxicity caused by glutamate release upon cell death

leading

> to damage to motor neurons' mitochondria and causing ALS-like

> symptoms

<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_252/ai_n6110580>

>

> Nourishment seems to be something of a catch-22, because feeding

the

> host essential nutrients also feeds the infection.

>

> Any thoughts?

>

>

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

,

I'm curious to see whether anyone has any ideas for a treatment

regimen for someone infected with something along the lines of a

mycoplasma (e.g. m. fermentans) which causes neurological and other

problems via a variety of mechanisms such as

- choline depletion leading to cell death

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstr\

act & list_uids=11470355 & query_hl=25 & itool=pubmed_docsum>

- competition for and depletion of a wide variety of other host

nutrients, including cholesterol

<http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no1/baseman.htm>

- direct creation of peroxide and superoxide radicals by attached

mycoplasmas, inducing oxidative stress and cell membrane damage

<http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no1/baseman.htm>

- excitotoxicity caused by glutamate release upon cell death leading

to damage to motor neurons' mitochondria and causing ALS-like

symptoms <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_252/ai_n6110580>

Nourishment seems to be something of a catch-22, because feeding the

host essential nutrients also feeds the infection.

Any thoughts?

You'll probably not agree with this but I see a metabolic protein type deficient

of that type's benefical supplements aggravated by gluten intolerance. Reasons

why, without sufficient choline and inositol in a MPT's diet they aren't going

to produce acetate, their energy source. Choline, inositol vital to cholesterol

process. Quick search on ALS gluten linked gluten intolerance to mimic ALS and

Parkinson's. Between phytates blocking absorption of calcium especially and

gluten intolerance expressing itself as neurological symptoms, no wonder there's

a domino deterioration. Dr. Sherry 's protocol to heal leaky gut with

l'-glutamine wouldn't hurt. That's controversial too, although she has used it

for years. In my experience, it does work. Olive leaf extract could work on

mycoplasma.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Wanita-

>You'll probably not agree with this but I see a metabolic protein

>type deficient of that type's benefical supplements aggravated by

>gluten intolerance. Reasons why, without sufficient choline and

>inositol in a MPT's diet they aren't going to produce acetate, their

>energy source. Choline, inositol vital to cholesterol process. Quick

>search on ALS gluten linked gluten intolerance to mimic ALS and

>Parkinson's. Between phytates blocking absorption of calcium

>especially and gluten intolerance expressing itself as neurological

>symptoms, no wonder there's a domino deterioration. Dr. Sherry

>'s protocol to heal leaky gut with l'-glutamine wouldn't hurt.

>That's controversial too, although she has used it for years. In my

>experience, it does work. Olive leaf extract could work on mycoplasma.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but sometimes I get the

feeling that metabolic typing is your answer to everything. My

question is specifically about disease microbes which directly

consume essential nutrients such as choline, cholesterol,

neurotransmitters, etc. In the rat study I cited, for example, m.

fermentans sequestered so much choline that rat neurons died unless

extra choline was added to the medium. The problem is that no

research I've looked at has considered the long-term results of such

supplementation. It's necessary, surely, but all else being equal

I'd think it would just create a bigger infection load, as the same

food is being used by both the host and the infection.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but sometimes I

> get the feeling that metabolic typing is your answer to

> everything.

Been thinking about this lots lately. And I would just say that if

Metabolic Typing is correct then it _must be the first consideration_ in any

nutritional problem. So, bugs eating nutrients would behave differently in

a body that is eating the foods that are proper for it than they would in a

body that is eating foods that are improper for it. As no study controls

for this, all study data would be pretty worthless.

Let me re-iterate -- this is only true if Metabolic Typing is correct. And

Sally's arguments against it in the new Wise Traditions were pretty weak,

IMO.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron,

> Been thinking about this lots lately. And I would just say that if

> Metabolic Typing is correct then it _must be the first consideration_ in any

> nutritional problem. So, bugs eating nutrients would behave differently in

> a body that is eating the foods that are proper for it than they would in a

> body that is eating foods that are improper for it. As no study controls

> for this, all study data would be pretty worthless.

Not necessarily. This is only true to the extent that MT determines

everything. The parasites could be feeding on something not affected

by MT.

No doubt SOME form of MT is correct. But all of the individual MT

systems conflict with each other, and the ones I have seen are not

particularly heavy on providing evidence for their claims. (Admittedly

my view is primarily informed by the _Metabolic Typing Diet_, which I

thought was an attrocious book. I have also read _Metabolic Man_ but

it only reviewed the different MT theories so it didn't have room to

support each of them. One thing it made clear is that all of them

conflict with each other.)

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

For some reason I'm getting weird formatting changes with my incoming

groups emails which makes them hard to respond to. I'll put the original

text in brackets.

[[[[[> Been thinking about this lots lately. And I would just say

that if

> Metabolic Typing is correct then it _must be the first

consideration_ in any

> nutritional problem. So, bugs eating nutrients would behave

differently in

> a body that is eating the foods that are proper for it than they

would in a

> body that is eating foods that are improper for it. As no study

controls

> for this, all study data would be pretty worthless.

Not necessarily. This is only true to the extent that MT determines

everything. The parasites could be feeding on something not

affected

by MT.]]]]]

Agreed. I was a little bit too strong. Perhaps " may behave differently "

would have been more accurate. I still think that if Metabolic Typing

applies and is a valid theory that anything that happens in the body must be

viewed from within its constraints, though.

[[[[[[No doubt SOME form of MT is correct. But all of the

individual MT

systems conflict with each other, and the ones I have seen are not

particularly heavy on providing evidence for their claims. ]]]]]]

Yes. This is a problem. But there is little impetus in the academic or

business world to actually study these concepts, so until they do we have

fly by the seat of our pants to some degree. Dr. Kelley reportedly has the

most comprehensive body of work in which he did many studies of his own

making. Because he was a difficult man, particularly at the end of his

life, his work is pretty well unavailable.

[[[[[(Admittedly

my view is primarily informed by the _Metabolic Typing Diet_, which

I

thought was an attrocious book.]]]]]

Completely agreed. I have actually worked with one of the people who helped

Wolcott write the book and she is very proud of what they accomplished. LOL.

She's actually a vastly experienced PhD nutritionist who has worked with

almost every diet modality available and wasn't actually able to heal

herself until she started eating as a protein type. Interesting story and

she's been very helpful to me. I just haven't mentioned my opinion of the

book to her.

[[[[[[i have also read _Metabolic Man_ but

it only reviewed the different MT theories so it didn't have room to

support each of them. One thing it made clear is that all of them

conflict with each other.)]]]]

I was not aware of this. Interesting.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Ron [[[[[> Been thinking about this lots lately. And I would just say

that if

> Metabolic Typing is correct then it _must be the first

consideration_ in any

> nutritional problem. So, bugs eating nutrients would behave

differently in

> a body that is eating the foods that are proper for it than they

would in a

> body that is eating foods that are improper for it. As no study

controls

> for this, all study data would be pretty worthless.

Not necessarily. This is only true to the extent that MT determines

everything. The parasites could be feeding on something not

affected

by MT.]]]]]

May or may not be in the 10% of non responders either or Wiley found. Not

necessarily specific to parasites, immunity and MT, more pertinent to 's

original post in this thread and my reply is Dr. Walsh's MT work at

Pfeiffer Treatment Center

Commentary on Nutritional Treatment of Mental Disorders

http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/articles/walshMP.htm

Walsh's research looks to come from the physical/mental interconnectedness of

& Wiley's work other MT researchers don't address or use for specific

disease like Kelley and .

[[[[[[i have also read _Metabolic Man_ but

it only reviewed the different MT theories so it didn't have room to

support each of them. One thing it made clear is that all of them

conflict with each other.)]]]]

Ron-I was not aware of this. Interesting.

The major disagreeent between the researchers is between A,C, D and E. Wheather

they are indicated or contraindicated for both fast and slow metabolizers, are

specific to one and the form of A. One researcher, Watt's I haven't read,

contends on phosphorus, magnesium, manganese and iron. Consensus of all on B

components and other minerals.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Ron,

> Yes. This is a problem. But there is little impetus in the academic or

> business world to actually study these concepts, so until they do we have

> fly by the seat of our pants to some degree. Dr. Kelley reportedly has the

> most comprehensive body of work in which he did many studies of his own

> making. Because he was a difficult man, particularly at the end of his

> life, his work is pretty well unavailable.

Science thrives on open publication of data, so that it can be

reviewed by other scientists and replicated. That's certainly an

interesting notion to consider, but it's also highly convenient for

people who want to promote his theories exempt from criticism and not

have to defend any of his data or his arguments.

> Completely agreed. I have actually worked with one of the people who helped

> Wolcott write the book and she is very proud of what they accomplished. LOL.

That's too bad. The book is sheer idiocy.

> She's actually a vastly experienced PhD nutritionist who has worked with

> almost every diet modality available and wasn't actually able to heal

> herself until she started eating as a protein type. Interesting story and

> she's been very helpful to me. I just haven't mentioned my opinion of the

> book to her.

I guess that would be the more gentle approach. ;-)

> [[[[[[i have also read _Metabolic Man_ but

> it only reviewed the different MT theories so it didn't have room to

> support each of them. One thing it made clear is that all of them

> conflict with each other.)]]]]

> I was not aware of this. Interesting.

They do have some agreements -- some of which they are most definitely

all wrong on: for example, they all have a maximum of 30% of calories

as fat! -- but the degree to which they have entirely different, or

even directly conflicting, models doesn't make a compelling case that

any of them are correct.

Personally, I find the more general concept of biochemical

individuality much more compelling. It's a subtle difference, but I

would say that biochemical individuality considers everyone as a

unique individual whereas metabolic typing considers people in

categories.

I know there is considerable conceptual overlap, but it is the broad

categories that tend to simplify things and tend to conflict with each

other in the different models, which are the unique contributions of

the authors. So my opinion of all the models is basically that they

are trying to make a unique contribution so they can write a book, but

their unique contribution to the very true core concept that everyone

is a little different is total crap.

I don't know about the others, but _MTD_ requires a " tweaking " phase

with a food journal at the end. You could just start with the food

journal, skip the whole enitre book and all of Walcott's stupid

categories, and you'd wind up with just as successful a result, I

think.

And the test is an obvious joke. No one can take the test and not

know which type each answer will make them, so it is impossible to

take it without profound bias if you approach it with any inkling of

an opinion of what type you are.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

> Science thrives on open publication of data, so that it can

> be reviewed by other scientists and replicated. That's

> certainly an interesting notion to consider, but it's also

> highly convenient for people who want to promote his theories

> exempt from criticism and not have to defend any of his data

> or his arguments.

Without a doubt. A true sign to question Kelley's stuff. Unfortunately we

have innumerable reports of actual positive result over 30 years of his

implementing his ideas to muddy up our suspicions about him.

> They do have some agreements -- some of which they are most

> definitely all wrong on: for example, they all have a maximum

> of 30% of calories as fat!

Yes. And the bizarre thing is that the aforementioned woman who helped

Wolcott write the book was recommending that I eat 60% of my calories from

fat within five minutes of my getting on the phone with her. So they

clearly understand the implications of being a hard protein type with a

strong fat metabolism but were unwilling to write about it. Same with Barry

Sears, as I've mentioned before. When we first did the Zone back in '95 we

were having a little trouble with my son's version of the program. Upon

talking to Sears' support people they told us to increase his " good " fats.

We were shocked!

> Personally, I find the more general concept of biochemical

> individuality much more compelling. It's a subtle

> difference, but I would say that biochemical individuality

> considers everyone as a unique individual whereas metabolic

> typing considers people in categories.

>

> I know there is considerable conceptual overlap, but it is

> the broad categories that tend to simplify things and tend to

> conflict with each other in the different models, which are

> the unique contributions of the authors. So my opinion of

> all the models is basically that they are trying to make a

> unique contribution so they can write a book, but their

> unique contribution to the very true core concept that

> everyone is a little different is total crap.

>

> I don't know about the others, but _MTD_ requires a

> " tweaking " phase with a food journal at the end. You could

> just start with the food journal, skip the whole enitre book

> and all of Walcott's stupid categories, and you'd wind up

> with just as successful a result, I think.

It would take longer. The broad groupings are consistent and the tests are

pretty accurate. So starting with foods that are most likely healthy for

you gets you down to where you want to go more quickly. The food journal is

the power of the program -- implicit in it is the very concept you are

discussing -- each of us are unique.

>

> And the test is an obvious joke. No one can take the test

> and not know which type each answer will make them, so it is

> impossible to take it without profound bias if you approach

> it with any inkling of an opinion of what type you are.

Sure. But since there is no passing or failing of the test why would you

want to answer it in any way other than truthfully? Where would be the

interest in that? I've seen that test work wonders for a fair number of

people. And the short test in the book has matched exactly with the results

that I've seen from people who have taken the very complicated test that you

can pay for on the Metabolic Ed website.

Ron

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Not necessarily. This is only true to the extent that MT determines

>everything. The parasites could be feeding on something not affected

>by MT.

This strikes me as so self-evident I don't understand why it's being

questioned. Cholesterol itself, after all, as the prime nutrient in

question in my original post, is necessary for life for people of all

metabolic types, whatever exactly those may prove to be.

Of course it could be argued that someone who's eating the wrong diet

for his or her type won't be in good enough health to combat

infections, and there's of course plenty of merit to that position,

but if certain microbes are atypically equipped to consume and thrive

on some of the nutrients which are key to establishing a state of

good health, it strikes me they pose a legitimate conundrum which

can't be answered by a simplistic resorting to the bible of metabolic typing.

>(Admittedly

>my view is primarily informed by the _Metabolic Typing Diet_, which I

>thought was an attrocious book.

It's quite interesting, in a sense, but I agree -- it's

horrible. Even the good arguments are unsupported, and absurd claims

are made left and right without even a semblence of justification.

> I have also read _Metabolic Man_ but

>it only reviewed the different MT theories so it didn't have room to

>support each of them. One thing it made clear is that all of them

>conflict with each other.)

One possibility that occurred to me when reading _Metabolic Man_ is

that some of the confusion over " typing " may be due to the likelihood

that stable populations evolved adaptations to their local conditions

and food supply, but now that modern civilization complete with easy

long-range transportation have been upon us for quite awhile, our

genetic heritage tends to be a jumble of different adaptations to

different conditions, many of which may even tend to conflict with each other.

Of course there's no way at present to tell whether that's true, but

it at least seems like a plausible theory.

-

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>I still think that if Metabolic Typing

>applies and is a valid theory that anything that happens in the body must be

>viewed from within its constraints, though.

If some form of metabolic typing is correct, then sure, it's an

important factor, but to employ a bit of reductio ad absurdum for a

moment, eating the right diet isn't going to affect the immediate

outcome if some industrial machinery cuts off your leg. Your leg is

going to be cut off provided the force exerted by the machinery is

above the maximum amount of resistance that a leg can provide. So

clearly there are some phenomena which are at least under some

conditions effectively independent of metabolic typing.

And if certain microbes have evolved defensive techniques which are

effective against all modes of human immune function, then metabolic

typing is going be a relatively smaller factor in dealing with

infection by those microbes than it will in dealing with infections

by more " normal " microbes.

> [[[[[[i have also read _Metabolic Man_ but

> it only reviewed the different MT theories so it didn't have room to

> support each of them. One thing it made clear is that all of them

> conflict with each other.)]]]]

>

>I was not aware of this. Interesting.

If you're interested in metabolic typing, I really recommend that

book. It's interesting for a whole range of reasons, not just for

illustrating some of the problems with the many typing theories out there.

-

[Guest guest]

-

It's sitting on the shelf, unread. Too many books ahead of it on the list,

at the moment.

Ron

> If you're interested in metabolic typing, I really recommend

> that book. It's interesting for a whole range of reasons,

> not just for illustrating some of the problems with the many

> typing theories out there.

>

[Guest guest]

,

> One possibility that occurred to me when reading _Metabolic Man_ is

> that some of the confusion over " typing " may be due to the likelihood

> that stable populations evolved adaptations to their local conditions

> and food supply, but now that modern civilization complete with easy

> long-range transportation have been upon us for quite awhile, our

> genetic heritage tends to be a jumble of different adaptations to

> different conditions, many of which may even tend to conflict with each

> other.

>

> Of course there's no way at present to tell whether that's true, but

> it at least seems like a plausible theory.

I agree. That seems pretty likely to be true, too, given the way

genes shuffle around in reproduction.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

>>Not necessarily. This is only true to the extent that MT determines

>>everything. The parasites could be feeding on something not affected

>>by MT.

>

>This strikes me as so self-evident I don't understand why it's being

>questioned. Cholesterol itself, after all, as the prime nutrient in

>question in my original post, is necessary for life for people of all

>metabolic types, whatever exactly those may prove to be.

This reminds me that there's a member of the GFCFNN list who was on the SCD

but found that she was infected with a microbe that feeds on *meat*. She

said something to the effect that this didn't go over well with the SCD

crowd and she felt like they simply didn't want to hear that there are

problematic microbes that feed on things that the SCD promotes. I don't

remember how she knew she had the meat-eating microbe though. But I can't

imagine having to worry about pathogenic microbes that feed on one of my

foundational foods!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I agree. That seems pretty likely to be true, too, given the way

>genes shuffle around in reproduction.

It would certainly seem so, but it doesn't change the fact that in

micronutrient terms, Price found that all the healthiest people were

eating very much the same even if the foods they were using to get

those micronutrients were different and even though there were some

differences in macronutrient ratios. None of the metabolic typing

people out there seem to understand or acknowledge that fact.

So while some people might do better or worse on dairy or seafood or

even potatoes, they still need lots of fat, lots of minerals, lots of

fat-soluble vitamins, etc. If essentially everyone in the modern

world is severely to grossly malnourished, certain nutrients may seem

" bad " for certain people or types only inasmuch as making a few

superficial micronutrient adjustments still leaves them extremely

malnourished and out of balance, nutritionally speaking -- and only

to the point there's any validity to the many varied claims of

metabolic typing in the first place.

-

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>This reminds me that there's a member of the GFCFNN list who was on the SCD

>but found that she was infected with a microbe that feeds on *meat*. She

>said something to the effect that this didn't go over well with the SCD

>crowd and she felt like they simply didn't want to hear that there are

>problematic microbes that feed on things that the SCD promotes.

Well, there are flesh-eating microbes out there too. I don't know

that any of them can attack from within, but it's not like it's impossible.

I seem to remember Elaine talking about the problem once (and not in

a dismissive way) but darned if I can remember what she said. I

expect it would have been something along the lines of 'use

appropriate abx and other antimicrobial remedies, go hard on the

probiotics, and follow the SCD, perhaps initially using a low-protein version'.

> I don't

>remember how she knew she had the meat-eating microbe though. But I can't

>imagine having to worry about pathogenic microbes that feed on one of my

>foundational foods!

They're out there. Mycoplasmas, for example, all consume and

sequester host nutrients.

-