Posted on 08/26/2011 1:12:38 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Alzheimer's disease - a neurospirochetosis. Analysis of the evidence following Koch's and Hill's criteria.
Judith Miklossy
Correspondence: Judith Miklossy judithmiklossy@bluewin.ch
Journal of Neuroinflammation 2011, 8:90 doi:10.1186/1742-2094-8-90
Published: 4 August 2011
Abstract (provisional)
It is established that chronic spirochetal infection can cause slowly progressive dementia, brain atrophy and amyloid deposition in late neurosyphilis. Recently it has been suggested that various types of spirochetes, in an analogous way to Treponema pallidum, could cause dementia and may be involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Here, we review all data available in the literature on the detection of spirochetes in AD and critically analyze the association and causal relationship between spirochetes and AD following established criteria of Koch and Hill. The results show a statistically significant association between spirochetes and AD (P = 1.5 x 10-17, OR = 20, 95% CI = 8-60, N = 247). When neutral techniques recognizing all types of spirochetes were used, or the highly prevalent periodontal pathogen Treponemas were analyzed, spirochetes were observed in the brain in more than 90% of AD cases. Borrelia burgdorferi was detected in the brain in 25.3% of AD cases analyzed and was 13 times more frequent in AD compared to controls. Periodontal pathogen Treponemas (T. pectinovorum, T. amylovorum, T. lecithinolyticum, T. maltophilum, T. medium, T. socranskii) and Borrelia burgdorferi were detected using species specific PCR and antibodies. Importantly, co-infection with several spirochetes occurs in AD. The pathological and biological hallmarks of AD were reproduced in vitro. The analysis of reviewed data following Koch's and Hill's postulates shows a probable causal relationship between neurospirochetosis and AD. Persisting inflammation and amyloid deposition initiated and sustained by chronic spirochetal infection form together with the various hypotheses suggested to play a role in the pathogenesis of AD a comprehensive entity. As suggested by Hill, once the probability of a causal relationship is established prompt action is needed. Support and attention should be given to this field of AD research. Spirochetal infection occurs years or decades before the manifestation of dementia. As adequate antibiotic and anti-inflammatory therapies are available, as in syphilis, one might prevent and eradicate dementia.
The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.
You say I impugned Miklossy's reputation and suggest "dark motives," no, actually you started that with your repeated assertions that any researcher who's found null results vis a vis Miklossy is engaged in shoddy science.
This, coming from someone who has made one non-scientific claim after another.
I'll repeat what I said, and maybe you'll eventually get around to answering it: Your claims that you see this or that in a dental practice and this correlates to oral spirochetosis, IS NOT SCIENCE. It's just some stories. A lot more is required to make it science.
You seem to think that only people with diagnosed, and symptomatic AD have spirochetes... and that they have to be required therefore to be symptomatic
This is from Miklossy's own control group, in which spirochetes are found in 30+% of cases with no symptoms of AD. Take it up with her.
It's remarkable that with the observed oral infections in the mouths, that the rate is not higher!
It would be remarkable, if a link had been established, but since one hasn't been, it isn't even noteworthy, let alone "remarkable." Again, these people all drink water also. But there is no proven link to water, so the fact that 100% of them drink it means nothing whatsoever.
In addition, these studies did not include histories that determined the condition of their hearts, arteries, or whether these people might be type 2 diabetics or pre-diabetics.
Here we go again, with an unproven claim. You have a citation that establishes a link between oral spirochetes, diabetes and heart disease? Or is this just another story comparing senile old Mrs. MCgillicutty and your bright eyed grandma?
You make a number of claims about epidemiology which are complete nonsense. To the extent that you embarrass yourself with these assertions, I'm content to let anyone reading your post decide for themselves. Epidemiologists make delicate statistical inferences about heritability and transmissible on the basis of extremely noisy data. You have no one to back you up on your baseless denials.
Finally: what I fear. I fear quackery. I fear a number of interesting and intriguing correlations being asserted as a scientific fact. That's what I fear. I wouldn't recommend anybody start gargling with dilute Clorox on the basis of one paper and a handful of anecdotes. If you look at most of Miklossy's citations that impinge directly on her statistical correlations, they are SELF cited. There has been ample time to examine these assertions and so far, this theory IS NOT regarded as mainstream science by Alzheimer's researchers. Maybe someday it will be. It isn't now, so please stop making medical recommendations on the basis of it.
You say I impugned Miklossy's reputation and suggest "dark motives," no, actually you started that with your repeated assertions that any researcher who's found null results vis a vis Miklossy is engaged in shoddy science.
This, coming from someone who has made one non-scientific claim after another.
I'll repeat what I said, and maybe you'll eventually get around to answering it: Your claims that you see this or that in a dental practice and this correlates to oral spirochetosis, IS NOT SCIENCE. It's just some stories. A lot more is required to make it science.
You seem to think that only people with diagnosed, and symptomatic AD have spirochetes... and that they have to be required therefore to be symptomatic
This is from Miklossy's own control group, in which spirochetes are found in 30+% of cases with no symptoms of AD. Take it up with her.
It's remarkable that with the observed oral infections in the mouths, that the rate is not higher!
It would be remarkable, if a link had been established, but since one hasn't been, it isn't even noteworthy, let alone "remarkable." Again, these people all drink water also. But there is no proven link to water, so the fact that 100% of them drink it means nothing whatsoever.
In addition, these studies did not include histories that determined the condition of their hearts, arteries, or whether these people might be type 2 diabetics or pre-diabetics.
Here we go again, with an unproven claim. You have a citation that establishes a link between oral spirochetes, diabetes and heart disease? Or is this just another story comparing senile old Mrs. MCgillicutty and your bright eyed grandma?
You make a number of claims about epidemiology which are complete nonsense. To the extent that you embarrass yourself with these assertions, I'm content to let anyone reading your post decide for themselves. Epidemiologists make delicate statistical inferences about heritability and transmissible on the basis of extremely noisy data. You have no one to back you up on your baseless denials.
Finally: what I fear. I fear quackery. I fear a number of interesting and intriguing correlations being asserted as a scientific fact. That's what I fear. I wouldn't recommend anybody start gargling with dilute Clorox on the basis of one paper and a handful of anecdotes. If you look at most of Miklossy's citations that impinge directly on her statistical correlations, they are SELF cited. There has been ample time to examine these assertions and so far, this theory IS NOT regarded as mainstream science by Alzheimer's researchers. Maybe someday it will be. It isn't now, so please stop making medical recommendations on the basis of it.
BFLR.
Fred. Use some logic. Every disease has the causative agent present prior to presentation of symptom. Or do you believe that cause follows effect? Especially one that requires 20 years to develop symptoms after exposure.
You make a number of claims about epidemiology which are complete nonsense. To the extent that you embarrass yourself with these assertions, I'm content to let anyone reading your post decide for themselves. Epidemiologists make delicate statistical inferences about heritability and transmissible on the basis of extremely noisy data. You have no one to back you up on your baseless denials.
And all we have is YOUR unsupported word on these magical inferences that epidemiologists can make that I and the doctors I have talked to tell is BS in a population where 85-90% of the population already endemically carry the bacteria that is the causitive agent! Again, I ask you, who are you? What is YOUR expertise! I know the doctors and researchers I'm talking to. You are an anonymous guy on the Internet throwing brickbats that most times has said things about this paper that can easily be checked that I've found not to be the case, such as b. burgdorferi being her primary focus and the spirochete with the greatest correlation in the 2011 paper, which makes me think you did not even bother to read the paper before jumping in with both feet to denigrate it, or make arguments that simply do not follow logically, such as your argument that asymptomatic controls must a priori not have spirochetes in their systems as absolute evidence disproving the case on a disease with such a long time between exposure and first diagnosis when symptoms are noticed!
You've used ad homonym argument, a logical fallacy to attack the author of the paper, and now me, and my office, the researchers, and the dozens of dental offices that have been participating in the research when you use terms such as "quackery" referring to peer reviewed research and work done by medical professionals and well regarded people at the top of their fields who are also peer-reviewed published researchers.
Insults and ad homonym attacks are a sure sign you really have no case. You've been repeating the same nonsense with outdated references. You do not speak for the AD researchers. This paper has been out for less than a month. You've given no sign you even bothered to read it beyond the abstract, and you dismiss the author and any who support its conclusion out of hand, as "Quacks," for suggesting an extremely safe protocol—used in dentistry for over fifty years to kill oral bacteria—as a reasonable prophylactic approach to preventing a potential spirochete infection? You've apparently decided the last word on this issue was written in 1993 or 1999. What IS your agenda Fred???
Ping to read full thread later & to bring a copy of the study to my dentist this coming week. Thanks, swordmaker for bringing it forward.
ph
Swordmaker wrote:
“... We do NOT yet know the life cycle of the Spirochetes... we think they have to reproduce in the mouth... but we are not certain. Dr Miklossy, and other scientists looking at this, hypothesizes the plaques in the brain, Islets of Langerhans, and in the arteries and blood vessels are the left over bodies of dead, twisted entertwined spirochetes... mixed with who knows what... and no one knows if the body can clean up the mess of twenty to thirty years of that build up... but we gotta start somewhere. Cleaning up the source in the mouth seems like a good place!...”
____________________________________________________
Swordmaker, thanks for posting.
Please would you (and anyone else reading this) speculate further on ANY other possibilities (in addition to the baking soda & Clorox protocol) that just MIGHT help to improve the condition of older people who are already in early stages of Alzheimer’s or other dementia?
Is there any possibility of reversing or cleaning up the brain damage already done?
Any antibiotic or other regimen?
Any possibility of mental improvement from so-called natural (OTC) substances with antibacterial properties? Numerous things have been touted as “natural antibiotics.”
Maybe the dental experts with whom you work might have some theories/speculations about what else (in addition to good oral hygiene) just might really help people in early dementia?
And have you ever seen (or heard of) an older person’s memory or cognition improving after they implemented your oral hygiene protocol??
Thanks.
I won't speculate beyond where the science has gone. We are looking at some over the counter methods that will raise the Chlorine level in the blood serum enough to kill spirochetes safely. When I know more, I will post it... but not before I know it's effective and safe.
Is there any possibility of reversing or cleaning up the brain damage already done?
As far as I know, the damage of Alzheimer's appears to be irreversible and permanent. Sorry. I wish I could say otherwise.
Any antibiotic or other regimen?
There are others, but they are either more complicated, more expensive, or less effective. . . or a combination of those.
Any possibility of mental improvement from so-called natural (OTC) substances with antibacterial properties? Numerous things have been touted as “natural antibiotics.”
Miklossy noted that Alzheimer's patients responded to initial rounds of massive doses of antibiotics but then the disease went on its progression because the damage had been done. The plaques continue to accrete junk.
Maybe the dental experts with whom you work might have some theories/speculations about what else (in addition to good oral hygiene) just might really help people in early dementia?
We are looking... but dentists don't treat the body.
And have you ever seen (or heard of) an older person’s memory or cognition improving after they implemented your oral hygiene protocol??
We are only preventive of the problem developing... so no.
One question, after the Baking Soda scrub, how long would you wait to use a mouthwash (was thinking one that had fluoride). 30 minutes perhaps? Would that give the BS time to do its trick? Or would it be best to leave the BS in there for as long a time as possible, to keep the PH up.
thank you for the information,please post again with any new updates.
Thanks for this, I have brushed my teeth with Arm & Hammer baking soda for most of my life. Just recently I tried A&H toothpaste and had an allergic reaction in my mouth. So I went back to just plain A&H. How about gargling with hydrogen peroxide to kill germs in the mouth and throat?
It's fairly innocuous, but there are several drawbacks to hydrogen peroxide. One is that it will sensitize your teeth to cold and heat. Secondly, it can bleach your teeth... Too frequent usage can result in transparent teeth. Some bacteria thrive in the oxygen left from the disproportionation of the hydrogen peroxide into water. The clorox is much better as a bactericide; it will kill everything.
Thanks again, I’ll switch to Clorox. I guess I could keep a small bottle of Clorox and water mixed up and ready for use in the bathroom.
You can't keep it around. Sorry. At this low a concentration (20 to 1) it decomposes rapidly into salt and water. . . literally in minutes. You have to make up the mixture every time you use it.
LOL! OK thanks one more time! :D
Sorry I’m a little late to the party, but I have a couple questions if you don’t mind.
1. Has your dentist studied any of the “alternative” tooth pastes that are fluoride free? For example there are some that use Neem and/or Xylitol.
2. Any reason I couldn’t mix my toothpaste with the baking soda at each brushing instead of using straight baking soda?
3. My gums don’t ever bleed while brushing, but when I go for my cleanings they always tell me that my gums bleed “excessively”. Do you know if there’s a difference between the two as far as possible damage from spirochetes?
Grapefruitseed extract toothpaste (Nutribiotic, citrucidal) is what I use. It does all you mention. I may try the bleach thing.
No, it does not. It is no where near sufficient. Trust the scientist who are LOOKING at the bacteria through microscopes after trying various antimicrobial approaches. No toothpaste is. You have to pack the backing soda down into the gums. The sodium bicarbonate kills the bacteria by a chemical process called crenation, the same process that kills slugs when you dump salt on them. Essentially, the conditions around the bacteria are rapidly changed to a hypertonic solution and the water inside the bacteria's cellular structure rapidly leaves its body by osmosis and it dies by desiccation almost instantly. In the case of the spirochetes, the do not have time to "ball up" and form their protective "spore" form to survive the harsh conditions.
(( ping ))
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.