Life Extension Forums dotNetBB Forums : Join the Revolution dotNetBB Forums : Join the Revolution dotNetBB Forums : Join the Revolution dotNetBB Forums : Join the Revolution
Announcement Attention: Important Forum Announcement
 
The Life Extension Foundation Forums > LEF Public Forums > Miscellaneous Topics > Nanobacteria and Calcification  Forum Quick Jump
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum. You cannot reply to topics in this forum. Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

jjohn
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 8
 
   Posted 7/21/2002 2:22 AM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
'I have been reading about Nanobacterium sanguineum and a treatment protocol offered by Nanobaclabs which is supposed to effectively expose and kill nanobacteria which, over one's lifespan,have accumulated calcified remnants which may be responsible for many of the diseases that accompany old age. According to the literature, coronary calcification scores of patients as measured by the Ultrafast CAT Scan, were reduced an average of 581/2 percent after 3 months of treatment. The topic is controversial but the proponents present compelling research. Before embarking on this (expensive) protocal I would like to hear from anyone who has actually participated in the protocol.'


Nanobacterium sanguineum has been implicated by many nanobacterial researchers to be the cause of calcification in various human pathological states (Cataracts, Coronary Artery Calcification, Calcific Atherosclerotic Vascular and Cardiovascular Disease, Scleroderma, Arthritic Spurring, Soft Tissue Calcification in Breast and Prostatic Tissue, Pineal Calcification and Brain Sand, Calcification of Cancer Tissue, Nephrolithiasis and Polycystic Kidney Disease) and some nanobacterial researchers have suggested that Nanobacterium sanguineum is the cause of all pathological extraskeletal calcification in humans. One nanobacterial researcher has shown Nanobacterium sanguineum to be a cause of the calcification in calcified atherosclerotic coronary artery plaque. It is firmly established that atherosclerosis is the main underlying cause of Coronary Artery Disease and Coronary Heart Disease in the United States and many other countries. Calcium deposits within coronary artery atherosclerotic plaque have been widely shown by cardiovascular researchers to be a determinant in the instability of calcified atherosclerotic coronary artery plaque. It is the above facts and hypotheses that caused NanobacLabs to develop a proprietary prescription therapy (NanobacTX) as a treatment to eradicate calcification from atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. Results: In 77 patients participating, there was an average decrease in HeartScan Coronary Artery Calcification Scores of 57.2% after treatment with NanobacTX therapy for 3 months. 14 patients showed 100% eradication of Coronary Artery Calcification after 3 months of treatment with NanobacTX. Assumption: Using the HeartScan as the most objective available assessment tool to measure coronary artery calcification, NanobacTX is effective in eradicating Calcification from Atherosclerotic Coronary Artery Plaque.

Nanobacteria grow so slowly that they require a niche cleaned with heat, radiation or immunodefence. For survival they cloak themselves in apatite, a normal constituent of mammalian body. This may link nanobacteria to nannobacteria discovered from sedimentary rocks by Dr. Folk. Both have similar size, size variation, clustering and mineral deposits. They may resemble the probable ancient bacterial fossils in the Martian meteorite ALH84001
Nanobacteria have been found in various serum-derived cell culture products. As these organisms pass through most sterilization filters in use today, novel sterilization techniques are needed. These may include improved filtration, radiation and chemical treatments.

The eradication of nanobacteria from human blood, tissues, calcifications and stones focuses on antibiotic therapies. Nanobacteria are highly sensitive to tetracycline antibiotics. Agents that block mineralization or dissolve apatite also look promising for the treatment of nanobacteria and kidney stones.

It's mostly in the Scandinavian literature.




WOW! now , how are we going to make a decision about this?

Personally, I'm not surprised. It's analogous to what the physicists keep doing everytime they break an elementary particle: smaller particles erupt.

Note: In high US academic circles, the Scandinavian literature is considered questionable science. Keep that in mind, both ways.

MAL
Back to Top
 

jjohn
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 8
 
   Posted 3/2/2003 9:12 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
'Recently I received an inquiry asking if I had undergone the Nanobaclab procedure. I sent the following response:



I didn't do the procedure. I initially heard of nanobaclabs from an acquaintance who was beginning the therapy with high expectations. When I checked back with him a couple months later he cryptically indicated that it might be a fraud. This was enough to cause me pause. Later, I asked one of the three doctors who had indicated that they would oversee the program what he knew about it. He said that to date he had not used the procedure but that it had been brought up at a recent ACAM Conference he had attended... a show of hands was asked from those doctors who had experience with it. Out of 40 or so, only a few so indicated. Of these only a few had positive results..like 3 out of 10 patients treated by one doctor.

Like you, I still read some encouraging things about it but there is controversy about whether Nonobacterium sanguineum actually exist. It is, I believe, being explored at Cornell Univ. having to do with felines. (I expect to visit with an old classmate who, I believe, is still on the Cornell staff and plan to ask him to talk to some of those involved). There is, as you probably know, a lot of theory and non-traditional treatment revolving around the possible presence of tiny unknowns in the blood (CMV, Chlamydia, Microplasma, Nonobacteria, etc.)

I have a retired MD friend who used ultraviolet blood irradiation for over 20 years in his practice. He gave his machine to another doctor and now has the procedure done to himself once a month (his wife goes twice a month). The literature is compelling that this procedure is effective against bacterial, viral and parasitic organisms. I did have 2 sessions when I came down with a bad cold that had taken 3 weeks to run its course in others. Since we were going to fly to Atlanta to visit our son and family I thought it was worth a try. My cold lasted 3-4 days. I really don't know if it was due to uvbi, but... The same doctor who treated me has a website at www.paracelsusclinic.com where you can read about this and other matters (In the article on uvbi the fictitious "Dr. Peter" is really my MD friend.) This doctor also remarked that the Nanobacterium sanguineum theory had a lot in common with the Enderlein theory which he uses in his practice. You may be interested in learning more about this. I intend to explore it further with him since it is likely that I will go to him for chelation treatments in the near future.

As a lay person I find this whole area quite confusing. It is too easy to be duped or misled. However, I have concluded that many of our problems as we age are due to calcification...this seems to correlate with C-Reactive Protein and Homocysteine testing and recognition that long term damage may be caused by chronic inflammation over decades (This, of course ignores the probable role of hormonal balance, etc.).

You can see that I have a lot more questions than answers. I'll let you know if anything I do has positive results.

(The only addition I would make is that the person who tried it said he did so for 6 months...with no improvement in his scans.)
'


Mod: Your questions and concerns are much appreciated. LEF does not have a specific position on Nanobacteria, but I offer two concepts to consider: 1) we certainly agree with the concept that inflammation is an essential part of calcification and needs to be reduced, but is it cause or effect? 2) If a bacteria were the cause of a disease, what reputable or honest physician would withhold liberal publication of the treatment?
I'd like to hear more about the UV Blood treatment.

MAL
Back to Top
 

jjohn
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 8
 
   Posted 3/4/2003 11:07 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
'Since my 3/03/03 posting I've heard from two individuals. One had been on the Nanobac therapy for 5 Mos. and felt much improved. He cited new (to me) information mostly from www.heartfixer.com which prompted me to write the following:

"
Thanks for your input. I had reviewed the heartfixer website last year but in looking at it today I am impressed by how much more is on it, especially the "dissent" section. Obviously, there is a lot of it at very high academic levels and among the practitioners themselves. Dr. Roberts statement that he has started over 350 patients on Nanobiotic therapy is impressive. Your statement that you have had a substantial deduction in angina is encouraging. I had written this therapy off as a "scam" based in large part on the experience of another individual who underwent the therapy for 6 months and had literally no improvement in his EBTC calification score...but, then I note that Dr.Roberts says:"Often, but not always, their calcification scores dropped." And, in Dr. Cranton's rebuttal of the theory he talks about the inconclusiveness of EBTC scans...???????"

The second individual (who had made the initial inquiry to me) said the NIH had authorized a study by the Mayo Clinic which had contacted him asking that he participate in it at the Clinic in April.

I thought it necessary to update my last post because of this new info.


Mod; Keep us posted. Cause and effect have not yet been demonstrated. That the NIH is now involved is important. I have a suspicion-- more like intuition-- that the results will be inconclusive.

If they have a treatment, why aren't they releasing the details?

MAL
'
Back to Top
 

katja
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 1
 
   Posted 3/9/2003 7:28 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
'The Mayo Clinic and University of Texas published an abstract half a year ago describing their successful repetition of a European experiment that found nanobacteria in atherosclerotic plaque. McGill University in Montreal announced in a published paper in December that they have isolated nanoscale bacteria, but did not name them as nanobacteria. One question I have is this: was the Cranton paper published in a peer reviewed journal like other works on nanobacteria have been? I can't seem to find a journal reference.

Regarding the treatment: While scientists discuss what DNA characteristics these entities have, along with cause and effect, it seems that cardiologists are beginning to weigh in with significant results. It is remarkably open for a cardiology website such as that of Dr. Roberts to carry so many case histories and to make them available to the public without requiring registration.

Fox News has further reported that results of a clinical trial supervised by cardiologist Dr. Benedict Maniscalco (who has been voted by peers as one of the "best doctors in America" in an independent poll supervised by Pulitzer Prize winners) and regulated by the western IRB, are about to be completed. Maniscalco also told reporters of significant improvements among his patients.'


Mod: We all await results of this controversial study. MAL
Back to Top
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum. You cannot reply to topics in this forum. Printable Version
 
Forum Information
Currently it is Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:59 AM (GMT -4)
There are a total of 38,084 posts in 7,744 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
Who's Online
This forum has 9706 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, LivingLongHopefully.
1 Guest(s), 0 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details