Alzheimer's disease - a neurospirochetosis.

I try to point out where the Palin fanatics are not dealing in reality.

First tactical error right there, calling the backers of a geniune conservative candidate with executive experience and experience in the energy industry and with stopping corruption even within her own party, by the perjorative term "fanatics."

And a nice smear campaign in the following sentence, too.

I haven't heard outrageous things out of Palin supporters here on FR; and the Palin fans I've run into have been big on evidence rather than "the sound of her voice" or poorly constructed push-polls whose internals somehow never get examined.

Perry "says" the right things to the conservatives, just as Obama did to the left. But he is not a movement conservative.

Time for the RINOs to get in the barrel this election.

Cheers!

>>Nice. Swordmaker quite rightly refuses to let an uninformed poster invent his own facts, so you call him “a smarmy ass,” because he’s “insulting people.” Which he didn’t. And you did.<<

Yes, he did and Trisham took it as such. She didn’t deserve it. Then instead of saying there is a misunderstanding he came back again.
Along with these darling tidbits

“.. but he is an engineering idiot who apparently slept through class. “

“Bull Pucky... It’s softer than the material of the veneers! Don’t use salt. What did they make their veneers out of? Plastic??? “

etc.

Smarmy is not becoming and insulting other posters might work on Reddit, but we’re better than that. Great information, horrendous presentation of the facts.

You’re a smarmy ass, who while attempting to pass along good science, is showing the elitist tendencies of our President. Good job, Watson. You’ve spent half the thread insulting people. What exactly IS your job in this dental office? You’re not a dentist, what are you?

I've only tried to help you. I've NOT insulted you. I've told you the truth. YOUR dentist told you falsehoods. I've corrected the situation and provided truth. As to my job, I'm the manager. YOU don't want to listen. Fine. Ignore the best advice about how to prevent a killing disease because YOU were told twaddle, and prefer the twaddle, fine. I have no patience for falsehoods, masquerading as advice! I will state again, Baking Soda is not abrasive to your veneers! I checked this with my dentists and both of them said your dentist is an idiot for telling you that!

Are these issues actually addressed in the full article?

Yes. Download the full article.

You'd better re-read the article. The criticisms offered in my post ARE NOT addressed. In fact, after reading the article, I would say that your claim that periodontal spirochetosis is an AD cause is the most tenuous of the conclusions offered. There are plenty of alternative explanations and causality is not really demonstrated. 10% of AD patients even in this very small study showed no evidence of neurospirochetosis.

Furthermore, the absence of evidence of spirochete infection in the control is very compelling in the Lyme case, but again, this doesn't establish necessarily that Lyme disease is a cause of AD, so much as the formation of senile plaques may be caused by multiple inflammatory agents, which manifest themselves in forms so similar that they're indistinguishable from AD [very much like the current controversy concerning brain trauma and what may or may not be an ALS spectrum.]

Unfortunately for the claims you make in your follow-up to the article, in the control group, >30% of patients in the control without AD have oral spirochetosis, with no evidence of AD or neurospirochetosis. How do we infer oral bacteria are the cause of an illness that >30% of positive patients do not display, and that 10% of symptomatic patients do not suffer from?

Sorry, but the abstract effectively does abstract the article, and while the association is strong, the application of the standard epidemiological axioms to bring association to causality does not appear to be as strong as you suggest. The author herself says, "indicative." That is a great basis for a lot more research. But it isn't a smoking gun.

Fascinating information. Thank you.
I will tell my children about this. They’re young enough, that the baking soda regimine might prevent dementia. But what about all us old parents who’ve used toothpaste all our lives? I’m thinking the baking soda certainly can’t hurt ...and, at least, we won’t be adding to the spirochetes already in our systems. Assuming many spirochetes are already in the bodies of 40 - 60 year old toothpaste users...do you believe that switiching to baking soda might lessen the effects of dementia OR eliminate it for them? Also, would you advise an elderly person, say over 75, who suffers from type 2 diabetes, heart disease and early signs of dementia to switch to baking soda? IOW, do you think it would make much of a difference once the alzheimers/dementia has started?

Also, how do we typically kill spirochetes in the body?

Once again, thanks. This is truly fascinating.

Swordmaker, I would highly suggest you also re-read the critique pointed out to you by BlazingArizona, as well as the original preprint you linked to me.

The principle objection of the letter does not deal with the apparent lack of transmissibility as the only criteria for rejecting the hypothesis. Furthermore, inasmuch as spirochetosis is transmissible, the high sensitivity of epidemiological analysis in infectious diseases should reveal a correlation. You have simply no scientific basis to dismiss this lack of correlation on the long-term nature of the infection. There are plenty of other conditions, quite easily identified as contagious by epidemiologists with exactly the same characteristics. [And the criticisms found in this letter have nothing to do with medical researchers ignoring dentists or any other competent scientifically trained observers simply because they aren't MD's. Given the peer nature of the criticism, that particular ad hominem is simply irrelevant.]

It's fascinating, but it isn't new, and it is not taken as seriously as Swordmaker is taking it among Alzheimer's researchers.

The author of this paper, Miklossy, has been beating this particular drum since 1993. Her results have not been replicated. There are at least two citations in the literature, and one peer letter that you can find very easily that repudiate the earlier work completely.

It's intriguing, but a lot more work needs to be done.

Here are two earlier abstracts that trashed her work after the 1993 paper. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/182/3/1006.short and http://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/Abstract/1999/05140/Alzheimer_s_disease_may_not_be_a_spirochetosis.18.aspx

I assure you that after five years of researching this issue, we are quite familiar with this literature, Fred. The research you claim was "trashed" was done 18 years ago and the science has moved on from these papers!

The first you linked to apparently did a search for the DNA of just one specific spirochete, borellea burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme Disease, in the bodies of AD victims. . . plus the other Borellea members that share that gene sequence that causes Lyme disease. This test is capable of recognizing only the fourteen species of spirochetes that cause Lyme disease, out of more than two hundred so far identified and named species of spirochetes! None of those happen to be oral spirochetes. The borellea family is not really implicated in this set of hypotheses, although I believe some suggested it, along with the one that causes Syphilis, as a candidate back then. It is merely a spirochete, among hundreds, if not thousands, of other species of yet to be identified and classified spirochetes..

The second 1999 paper refers to a study that attempted to find spirochetes by looking with a microscope at the blood of living patients, and a few autopsied brain samples (n=7). I could not read the entire report, but I am aware of the extreme difficulty most microscopy studies have of even SEEING spirochetes because spirochetes are transparent!

We continually run into doctors who buy an inexpensive, standard microscope, thinking they are being economical, who then look and fail to see the spirochetes in the mouths' of their patients. You have to use a Phase Contrast Microscope or you simply won't see them unless you properly prepare the slide by staining! That's a time consuming task. We know of microscopic studies that were reported negative, that when duplicated with PCMicroscopes were found to be positive, with thousands of spirochetes that were literally invisible under the normal light of a regular microscope. Monday, I will look to see if we have a copy of this paper and see what their microscope protocol was. I know that some work was critcized for what I described. I don't know if this was one of those. But, again, the science has moved on since 1999, 12 years ago.

I will tell my children about this. They’re young enough, that the baking soda regimine might prevent dementia. But what about all us old parents who’ve used toothpaste all our lives? I’m thinking the baking soda certainly can’t hurt ...and, at least, we won’t be adding to the spirochetes already in our systems. Assuming many spirochetes are already in the bodies of 40 - 60 year old toothpaste users...do you believe that switiching to baking soda might lessen the effects of dementia OR eliminate it for them? Also, would you advise an elderly person, say over 75, who suffers from type 2 diabetes, heart disease and early signs of dementia to switch to baking soda? IOW, do you think it would make much of a difference once the alzheimers/dementia has started?

I think the "can't hurt" and "not adding more" spirochetes are what we old people have to hang our hopes on. One of the things we don't know for sure about spirochetes is their life cycle. We don't know where or how they reproduce. There is a "spore" form in which the spirochete balls up for protection when environmental conditions are not conducive for it, but then unballs or comes out of the protective form, when things are more to its liking. How can we kill it when changing its environment causes it to go dormant in its "spore" form only to reappear later when we've stopped trying to kill it? Good thing the five second kill time of the sodium bicarbonate does not give it time to "spore up!"

I think that existing plaques in the brain, heart, arteries, veins, and Islets of Langerhans are HARD to remove, but perhaps the body will take care of them if you stop adding to them. The main article says that Alzheimer patients DO initially respond to large doses of antibiotics but then the progression of the disease continues. I think it may be that by the time one sees obvious symptoms of dementia, and give dosages of antibiotics, the damage the plaques have done and the physiological damage is irreversible. The time for antibiotics to kill the existing spirochetes in the blood and cells is long past time it may have done some good. . . It should have been given when the victim was first infected back when the victim was still asymptomatic.

I think it might be a good idea for EVERY dentist who sees a case of bleeding gingiva to order a round of routine antibiotics until the gingiva are healed... and to take a sample assay of the fauna of the mouth to see what nasties are living there. And for every MD to either refer patients they see to a dentist for gingival treatment when THEY see such problems, or order a round of routine antibiotics targeted toward oral spirochetes.

The key is to prevent the invasion in the first place. Keep your mouth clear of bacteria as best you can, with a good antibacterial protocol, and keep the seals of your teeth, your gums, healthy so they can keep the bugs OUT!

MDs and dentists need to start working in concert! This wall between the two disciplines needs to be torn down!

Yes, he did and Trisham took it as such. She didn’t deserve it. Then instead of saying there is a misunderstanding he came back again. Along with these darling tidbits

“.. but he is an engineering idiot who apparently slept through class. “

How is it that YOU are offended that I am insulting a dentist that clearly DID NOT PAY ATTENTION IN CLASS???? He told you clearly erroneous information! Ergo, he either LIED to you, is stupid, or he slept through the class! But, NetmilsMom, how in hades, does that insult YOU?

I think an explanation is in order. You are misunderstanding my position.

I never meant to insult you. I have only intended to help you.

Frankly, I was shocked that ANY supposedly competent dentist COULD say such a thing to a patient! To me, NetmilsMom, it displayed a basic lack of knowledge that made me doubt your dentist's ability to meet the standards of care in the profession! Any insult was not directed toward you, but it was certainly directed toward your incompetent dentist! I stand by that. He hasn't a clue about relative hardnesses. . . and if he doesn't, he has no business making teeth! And certainly none in giving advice about how to clean them!

Now, Trisham is another issue entirely. She or he entered this discussion and offered his or her unsolicited and ERRONEOUS opinion that baking soda was not just abrasive, but is "very abrasive" which is not only false, it is a LIE!

This is a lie in my field of business and expertise... A field I've worked in for years.

He/she is essentially arguing with me and denying the facts.

I had already presented you with the MOHS hardness scale data showing the relative hardness of the enamel of your teeth, porcelain, pumice (in toothpaste), plastic (if that is what your veneers are made out of), and baking soda, and by far, baking soda was the softest and least abrasive of all of them and COULD NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, scratch any of them. A softer substance cannot scratch a harder substance.

And then here comes Trisham, uninformed, speaking ex cathedra, declaring, in her/his completely uninformed opinion, baking soda as "very abrasive" ... essentially validating the mis-information that was possibly preventing you from doing something that just might help you save your life. Yes. NetmilsMom, that made his/her opinion LESS than worthless! It made made it dangerous to you! That made me angry. What she/he did was stupid! I cant abide stupid. . . Especially when it puts an innocent party, YOU, in danger! She/he deserved what I posted!

I am the expert here, NOT Trisham. My statements of facts were validated by another materials scientist after the fact. TXnMA. Trisham, in pushing a false statement of fact, deserved to be shot down quickly... She put you in danger by supporting the FALSE DATA!

When you are standing on the ledge of a building, would you appreciate someone telling you to go ahead and jump? When you support Trisham's interjection of unfactual twaddle, you basically are pilloring me for telling that person to "shut up!" Why? Not all opinions are equal, NetmilsMom, some are worthless and deserve to be so labeled! Should I have let that lie stand? Do you want to jump? I don't want you to; I want to save your life. It's why I posted this thread. I want you to use the baking soda. Kill those damn spirochetes. Your veneers won't be scratched.

Swordmaker, I would highly suggest you also re-read the critique pointed out to you by BlazingArizona, as well as the original preprint you linked to me.

The principle objection of the letter does not deal with the apparent lack of transmissibility as the only criteria for rejecting the hypothesis. Furthermore, inasmuch as spirochetosis is transmissible, the high sensitivity of epidemiological analysis in infectious diseases should reveal a correlation. You have simply no scientific basis to dismiss this lack of correlation on the long-term nature of the infection. There are plenty of other conditions, quite easily identified as contagious by epidemiologists with exactly the same characteristics. [And the criticisms found in this letter have nothing to do with medical researchers ignoring dentists or any other competent scientifically trained observers simply because they aren't MD's. Given the peer nature of the criticism, that particular ad hominem is simply irrelevant.]<

Fred, we don't think this is the entire answer. However, perhaps I haven't made myself clear on what I meant about the long term nature of the infection. We are not so certain it is as transmissible as all that, while it is still infectious. It IS an infection, but the exposure is extremely long term. We think the intra-body spirochetes must be continually be re-supplied from the oral source over a long term through the gingival bleeding they themselves engender. This supply chain can be broken for periods by good oral health. . . oral hygiene care, change in diet, regular brushing and flossing. . . all can break the resupply chain for a time. To be transmissible, the vector would be oral, but the receiver would also have to have active gum disease.

We do know that 85-90% of the patients we see have been exposed because we SEE the spirochetes in their mouths! We especially see them in extremely high numbers in those patients who have type 2 diabetes, chronic heart or artery disease, and Alzheimer's disease. We see high levels of them also in our elderly patients who have old age dementia. My own mother, who just passed away at 95 and a half on May 1st, and was sharp as a tack right up to the last, showed no signs of spirochetes, until her last test in December when a very few started showing up in her mouth... (We also saw that her last cellular regeneration had not been a good one and her leukocytes were essentially moribund, looking deformed and listless. My dentist said she won't survive the next illness! She didn't! But she was one who had had NO spirochetes before and none of the chronic diseases and was sharp and fully functional) However, very few of our patients are experiencing active bleeding gums because we have trained them to brush regularly to keep their gums fairly strong and healthy. The spirochetes they have cannot get a foothold to get the bleeding going to gain access to the bloodstream for a sufficient time to reach a saturation point, if that's what's required, or to keep the access open long term to keep the "supply chain" going, before better oral hygiene, a change in diet, or what have you, closes the door of opportunity.

Basically, what I'm saying is that to GET these chronic diseases, the exposure must be almost continual AND long term over the 20-25 years. . . and the exposure is entirely internal from the victims own mouth, through the gingiva, to the bloodstream, to the internal organs. Person to person transmission occurs, but exposure and infection occurs separately, and personally. . . Intra-orally! So transmissibility may NOT be so obvious.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.