Above and Beyond Antibiotics

Antibiotics are not enough to treat Lyme disease according to a new study in mice by Columbia University. Doctor Brian Fallon, director of the Lyme and Tick Borne Diseases Research Center at Columbia University, conducted a shocking experiment. The experiment was with lab mice that were infected with spirochetal bacteria (the underlying cause of Lyme disease). The mice were treated with antibiotics and later exposed to non-infected ticks. The ticks, after being exposed to the antibiotic treated mice still became carriers for the infection. The findings pointed to the fact that antibiotics don’t cure Lyme disease. We understand that studies in mice do not always correlate to human studies but in over a decade of treating Lyme disease patients this data matches exactly what we have found clinically in our practice. Antibiotics are not enough. However, our medical group has discovered a revolutionary solution for patients to improve their quality of life.

We have found that Biofilm impedes the ability for antibiotics and other treatments to help patients. Biofilm is any group of micro-organisms whose cells stick to each other on a surface, kind of like a slime that protects infections. New research according to the University of New Haven suggests that Biofilm is protecting the Lyme disease spirochete from antibiotics and any therapy not containing a method to strip this biofilm may prove to be inferior. This is why a more comprehensive approach to medicine and treatment is required to help patients with Lyme disease. We have found a targeted method of delivering antibiotics and penetrating the biofilm makes treatment much more effective for our patients.

There are many other reasons why antibiotics alone are not enough to cure Lyme disease. One reason is that most patients have multiple infections including viral, fungal and parasites along with other co-infections of tick borne illnesses – antibiotics only fight bacteria. Another reason is that some patients are immune compromised to begin with and they have other functional medicine disorders which predispose them to developing chronic Lyme disease complex – antibiotics do not strengthen the immune system. Bottom line, patients need a more comprehensive treatment plan to better combat the disease.

The CDC and infectious disease community have been underplaying this disease for decades by claiming that all a patient needs is antibiotic to be cured. The data from Columbia University flies in the face of the current treatment philosophy for Lyme disease but our group agrees with the findings and has made the appropriate adjustments to help patients. Most patients follow the standard recommendations that have been set forth by the CDC.The CDC claims on their website, “Most cases of Lyme disease can be treated successfully with a few weeks of antibiotics.” They also say, “Approximately 10-20% of patients (particularly those who were diagnosed later), following appropriate antibiotic treatment, may have persistent or recurrent symptoms and are considered to have Post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS).” Based on the study from Columbia University, those numbers might be much greater than stated by the CDC, and these patients might resurface with fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. In our clinical experience a high percentage of patients that we come across have chronic infections that are untreated.

For more see Shea Medical …

Doctors Housecall, Al Sears, MD, 21 July 2014

We have plenty of scientific evidence that proves the value of nutrients and health supplements … but look at what happens when you take that evidence to a standard doctor.

A patient of mine didn’t want to make a long drive to my office for a little cold. So he went to see his primary care doctor. When he got to the physician’s office, his doctor was hassling him. “You haven’t been here for a visit in over 2 years.”

“But I never get sick,” he said. “I take Dr. Sears’ supplements and they work. I’ve shown you the research…”

“Look,” his doctor said to him, “I will give you any drug you want, but I don’t care about these natural supplements. And all those research articles that you’re bringing to me? They mean nothing to me.”

How can you tell a patient scientific research means nothing to you? It’s as if he thought the subject matter was not his concern. It’s as if he were saying, “This means nothing because it’s about supplements and that’s something I don’t and shouldn’t care about.” So he left and came to see me.
He had an acute viral syndrome or possibly even flu. He got the symptoms midway through a cruise, and it had been hanging around for 2 weeks. It’s nothing a good dose of vitamin C and eucalyptus can’t cure. And that’s the very least of the benefits of vitamin supplements.

The evidence that supplements are not only effective, but necessary to combat deficiencies caused by our unnatural environment are so plentiful they fill entire medical journals. Look at meta-analyses of saw palmetto. You can clearly prove, better than any drug that’s ever been sold, that saw palmetto is an effective treatment for prostate enlargement (BPH – benign prostatic hyperplasia). And the evidence comes from a lot of varied sources that don’t have a commercial interest.

So instead of a drug company doing one study, we’ve got over 60 studies from around the world on saw palmetto’s effectiveness. Vitamin C been marginalized as unnecessary and ineffective. But it has over eighteen thousand studies showing its benefits just in the PubMed database alone. Studies also find a link between low levels of vitamin C and risk of stroke.

Men with the lowest vitamin C in their bodies have a 240% greater chance of stroke than men with higher vitamin C levels.¹ Researchers at the University of California analyzed the vitamin C intakes and death rates of more than 11,000 men and women.² The study showed a dramatic decline in death from heart disease among the men with the highest vitamin C intake, especially among those who took a vitamin C supplement. And vitamin C, like vitamin E, has another benefit that we’ve only discovered recently, but which could be one of the reasons these antioxidants help you live better for longer.

Raising the level of vitamin C in the cells could slow down the shortening of telomeres up to 62%.³ A landmark study from a university in Nebraska found that vitamin D has the potential to lower the risk of all cancers in women by 77 percent.⁴ One study gave over 1,000 people either vitamin B3 (niacin) or a placebo and followed them for 15 years. 10 years after the end of the trial, doctors followed up and found that niacin had reduced the people’s chance of dying from any cause by 11%.⁵

In a study on the mineral selenium done at Harvard, the men who had the most selenium saw their prostate cancer risk dropped by 50%.⁶ Recent research shows that people who get the least amount of magnesium have a 50% higher risk for heart problems.⁷ These are some of the vitamins and nutrients that have the most evidence behind them, and you can find them all in a good multivitamin.

As readers of this blog know, the swine flu epidemic is still with us. Swine Flu Frequencies 2014 Version 1.1 was published yesterday on the subscribers blog.

What you may not know is who made billions of dollar off the epidemic or how WHO decisions are often controlled by members of their committees secretly on the payroll of the drug industry.

The British Medical Journal has done us all a service by digging into the business interests manipulating swine flu decisions. A free analysis of their findings can be found here or you can buy the BMJ journal article.

Key points on Conflicts of Interest
– A joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has uncovered evidence that raises troubling questions about how WHO managed conflicts of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning
– The secrecy of the committee is also fueling conspiracy theories, particularly around the activation of dormant pandemic vaccine contracts. A key question will be whether the pharmaceutical companies, which had invested around $4bn (£2.8bn, 3.3bn) in developing the swine flu vaccine, had supporters inside the emergency committee

– Was it appropriate for WHO to take advice from experts who had declarable financial and research ties with pharmaceutical companies producing antivirals and influenza vaccines?
– Why was key WHO guidance authored by an influenza expert who had received payment for other work from Roche, manufacturers of oseltamivir, and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of zanamivir?
– Why does the composition of the emergency committee from which Chan sought guidance remain a secret known only to those within WHO?
–  Our investigation has identified key scientists involved in WHO pandemic planning who had declarable interests, some of whom are or have been funded by pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were drafting
– FDA’s advisory committee voted by 13 to 4 not to approve zanamivir on the grounds that it was no more effective than placebo when the patients were on other drugs such as paracetamol. He said that it didn’t reduce symptoms even by a day.
– conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as “conspiracy theories.”
– the advisory committee decided not to recommend zanamivir, the FDA’s management reassigned the oseltamivir review to someone else. Dr Elashoff believes that the approval of zanamivir paved the way for oseltamivir, which was approved by the FDA later that year.
– “WHO never publishes individual DOIs [declaration of interest], except after consultation with the Office of the Director-General.

Deborah Cohen, features editor, BMJ, Philip Carter, journalist, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, London