Noon talk in room 301 at NUNM
"Biofilms == What has the last 200-Million Dollars in Research Taught Us"
copyrighted powerpoint--PS anderson
www.consultDrA.com

his presentation:
evaluation of biofilm research
clinical relevance

10 yrs ago involved in cancer research at Bastyr, 5 yr NIH trial
next research--undiagnosable nonhealing illnesses
junk drawer dxs: fibromyalgia, rheumatologic conditions not well differentiated
what were impediments to cure?
nutrigenomics
multiple causes, multiple organ systems involved, often dxd as rheumatologic condition
most had lab verifiable infections, not cleared by usual treatments

research review 20 years later
NIH and CDC have ID'd biofilms as highest threat to human health
but haven't publicized it because they don't know what to do about it

clinically trying things, some worked, some didn't
doing OK
a few years forward--at oncology think tank meeting
met a guy doing biofilm research, 12 million dollars funding, 11 million in Anderson's Q's
last million will be FDA approved interventions for biofilms
government "disappears" some of the research
he got more sources from this guy, looked at the research, is sharing sources with us in his powerpoint

biofilm becomes a resistance factor for the microbe
resistant to antibiotics

lives "anyplace wet": blood vessels, mouth, (me: what about gut, lungs/bronchi, sinuses?)
biofilms start in the gut and get more severe, cause significant immune response when disrupted
sick long enough: more microbes migrate there
it gets bigger, from thin to thick, from low diversity to high
the worst biofilms are "phase 2" become their own microbe
can contain bacteria, parasites, viruses, fungi--they share DNA
treatments don't work: kill one but the rest survive
cure one thing and another thing pops up

clinically relevant in sicker population, chronically ill
lots of suppressive treatments, incomplete treatment
many microbes involved
pseudomonas and gram negatives
mycoplasma
H. pylori (symptomatic)

treatments for phase 1 are enzymes and such
work pretty well
patients usually not that sick

Biofilm summary from Stephen E. Fry MD (in power point)
Biofilms are considered the rule in nature rather than the exceptoin.  If you have chronic infection, biofilms may be an underlying cause.  Many, if not most, ....

testing for biofilms
can't really?

prevention - phase 1 agents
goals: inhibit quorum sensing, initial attachment, organism efflux pump
MORE ON THIS SLIDE
enzymes
aromatics--oregano, garlic, olive, etc (daily consumption of these = best prevention)
tannins
phenolics
xylitol, stevia
nigella = black cumin--can be used for phase 2 as well, plant immune modulators, wedges into biofilms

phase 2 later biofilm
not treatable with phase 1 agents except black cumin
synthetic antimicrobials
direct biofilm disruption--agents - ?? PO, IV
product: biocidin, he likes it, goes to phase 1.5 ish

oral bismuth (ionic)
EDTA, calcium-disodium EDTA and Na2-EDTA as additive to immune and abx IV formulas for pts who may have biofilm
silver nanoparticles, low 23 PPM nasal spray or 200-500ppm for other systems, hydrosol not colloidal
anti-infective: H2o2, HDIVC, Ge, Zn, etc

BEG bactroban, e and gentamycin

thiols (mono-) ALA (Oral or IV), NAC (oral or IV, or nebulized for resp), glutathione (IV or nebulized)
(ala and nac will cause strange gut reactions when added, this indicates that there's a biofilm)
thiols (di-) DMSA (oral, 300-500mg po away from food bid day prior to and of the IV anti-infective), DMPS (IV and oral)

oral bismuth-thiol complex--neither alone, a new molecule (do not use IV bismuth at this time, heavy metal)
combo: the last million he hadn't figured out yet
little to no chelation effect.  dithiol is bound to bismuth so toxicity of bismuth and chelating ability are "negated"
bismuth nontoxic in this form, new mol will show up on heavy metal testing as bismuth
wedges into the biofilm and reacquaints the immune system with what's in there: the "wedge effect"

HIS FORMULA:
DMPS 25mg, ALA 100mg, bismuth subnitrate 200mg per cap
ideally no substitutions
DMSA 100mg can sub for DMPS
bismuth subcitrate can sub for subnitrate (weaker product)
this is the strongest formula that can be made, stronger products have been sequestered by the govt

take for 60 days---more on slide

other supports needed for about a month
many need adrenal support
if on low dose hydrocrotisone and adrenal support they will probably need 2-4x more hydrocorisone
if on non-rx adrenal support they may need 5-10x the dose for "a time"
some need thyroid support

his otc version
Bis-thiol plus buck cumin

support immune system during tx
support healthy microbiome

when biofilm opens up you get an immune response
achy, headache, fever, possible psych sx
can be big crisis if you are not ready for it
very acute
must warn patient ahead of time--if they start feeling terrible that's a good sign
return of early sx is likely: sign of treatment success
if healing crisis does not subside: bugs dying releasing metallotoxins or broad spectrum herbals aren't heavy duty enough
duration of treatment relates to duration of illness, up to 2 years

immune suppressed patient
won't get fever, cytokine storm
treat presumptively, prescription anti-infectives to hedge bets

this article has all the same references as this talk
http://ndnr.com/gastrointestinal/biofilms-what-have-we-learned-from-the-research/
and webinar on priority one

fasting?
get stronger/faster reaction with it

"A single dot on a canvas is not a painting and a single bet cannot resolve a complex theoretical dispute.  This will take many questions and question clusters.  Of course it's possible that if large numbers of questions are asked, each side may be right on some forecasts but wrong on others and the final outcome won't generate the banner headlines that celebrity bets sometimes do.  But as software engineers say, that's a feature, not a bug.  A major point of view rarely has zero merit, and if a forecasting contest produces a split decisions we will have learned that the reality is more mixed than either side thought.  If learning, not gloating, is the goal, that is progress."
--Tetlock, Philip and Gardner, Dan, in p269 in Superforecasting; The Art and Science of Prediction 2015.

He spoke tonight at Portland State University, sponsored by the Oregonians for Science and Reason.  The popular assumptions he challenged were the idea that fish fall from the sky because of waterspouts, swamp gasses cause lamplike lights, prevalent anti-government conspiracy theories,  the reliability of polygraph testing and the Myers Briggs personality inventory, the Rohrshach ink blot test, the idea that we repress memories and that vitamin C helps with a cold, the usefulness of alternative medicine, the use of dowsing rods in Iraq to detect bombs, the dangers of nuclear meltdowns, and the origins of the Yeti.  In general I agreed with him but I found his take to be simplistic.  He says a lot of things that I don't believe, and is clearly quite biased.  Don't listen to anyone, including Brian Dunning: do your own damn homework.

I understand that it is necessary to study up on things, figure out where your position must be, and then to move forward.  I do it too. Sometimes things require re-study.  Sometimes new information intrudes and require that the thoughtful person apply critical thinking a second time to update their opinions.  This is where he appears to fall short.  He is so busy producing a weekly podcast that he can't be bothered to rethink anything, he has to keep moving.  He has a fine radio voice though, and 200,000K podcast subscribers if I am to believe what I am told.

Mind you, his science background is that of a computer scientist.  That lady who wrote that pro-homeopathy book that is so popular at NUNM was also a computer scientist.  I just want to say that a computer scientist is NOT A SCIENTIST.  A computer scientist is a programmer, a person who is good at the most basic kind of logic.  Logic is not science.  Science involves the scientific method, and requires a whole different level of neutralization of all our natural cognitive biases than simply applying logic to make a program do what it is supposed to do.  I'm getting pretty tired of being lectured to about science by so-called computer scientists.

I think my biggest beef with Dunning is his simplistic take on medicine.  His opinion jives with all of that in the skeptical world which is that "alternative medicine has failed all tests" and that is why we call it alternative, and by extension I presume that he means that conventional medicine has passed all tests.  This is utter nonsense.  It is obvious that there is plenty of evidence that has bearing on human health that has not been integrated by conventional medicine, and that there is plenty of conventional medicine that is based on outdated notions that were never very scientific to start with.  His worship of MD's and disparagement of herbs is an indication of his ignorance about medicine.

Then I had the bad luck to sit down between a retired MD and a retired nurse for a drink after the talk.  The MD told me about his Catholic upbringing and his X many years in the "skeptical community".  He asked me about vaccines and I told him I didn't agree with the ACIP schedule.   Then he told me about his N=1 experience of getting hep B (because he was not vaccinated) and what a bad experience that was.  I would have vaccinated him because he was a doctor working with needles but somehow he didn't get that done and had to learn the hard way. The RN told me that there is "science" that backs up the use of vaccines and that there is nothing I can say that will change her opinion in the least.  There was ZERO opportunity to have a nuanced discussion about where we do and do not have evidence, which vaccines are effective and which are not, how we can obtain the best herd immunity when it really matters, and how we can protect the people most at risk. They had pegged me for a vaccine denier before I even said a word, based on the fact that I have an ND degree and license.  These people, Dunning included, congratulate themselves on their critical thinking because they have debunked some popular assumptions for themselves, and then they take it no farther.

The truth is complex.  Medicine is a work in progress.  If we can take it to the level of talking about actual science, individual findings and studies about vaccines or vitamin C, then we will be able to talk.  If we can talk, discuss new findings and figure out what to study next, we might be able to devise studies to answer the new questions and eventually to refine our evaluation and treatment approaches.  If we can change those based on evidence, we can most likely improve outcomes.

I have HAD IT with being told that "the science says" WHATEVER by people who never actually read a study. Heck, they don't even read the abstracts or the summaries, they just parrot what they are told.  It's like "Simon Says" more than science.  Have you read a study about that in the last year?  In the last decade??  Have you taken a CE course about vaccines?  Or have you just lived inside that same damn bubble for the last 40 years. All you know is the news headlines, that vaccination rates are down and measles outbreaks are increasing? At least there's a little current events knowledge. That MD and that RN have worked in the field long enough to be brainwashed beyond any chance of critical thinking or new learning.  Now they are retired and they don't even study on it any more. They just know what they know.

This is the problem.  Medical professionals, and Dunning, your blind spots are getting bigger with each new study that comes out.  And all you who think you know the truth about vaccines; how about read up on it a little bit rather than assuming that everyone who disagrees with conventional practice is an idiot.  If we can't disagree and talk about it, then it will never get better.

I was registered and attempted to attend some of it. I have never been to this event before, and it was free for me because I work for the University that hosted it. The keynote talk was Friday night, and the speaker was intriguing and beautiful, but it was held in Radelet Hall which holds about 200 people, but has air exchange sufficient for about 20. When I went in the room was very warm already, and the talk was just beginning. The O2 content had to be low, because I immediately felt sleeply. Perhaps all those young brains can withstand a high CO2 environment for 2 hours to get the wisdom, but I cannot. The University should improve the ventilation systems for that space, as it has no windows to open and doors only on one side.  It is stuffy even with a small crowd.

I hung out near the back door long enough to hear the theme of Ola Obasi's talk which was Deconstructing Reductionism. The theme continued to resonate from the entire gathering. I went to Paul Bergner's talk because his was a name that I have long heard in herbalist circles. I had no conscious expectation, but his appearance surprised me. Most famous herbalists are gaunt and woodsy looking, and he had a pot belly on a stocky frame and a collared shirt that made him look like a gas station attendant. Bergner was perhaps a little surprised at the turnout, for he was in a room that held 40 and there were 60 of us in there. I was stationed near the door because that is my rule when inside the academic building which is an old masonry structure that is likely to crumble in a quake. They're planning to replace it but that's years out.

Bergner talked a bit about how science is applied to herbal medicine. "A scientific trial is like a serial killer" he said, "because it kills the complexity of the herb." He said that all botanical science falls into one of two groups, 1. pharmaceutical companies prospecting for useful constituents, and 2. supplement manufacturers shoring up the plausibility of their formulations. In other words, the profit motive is always at hand. When Big Pharma finds a useful constituent, they extract or synthesize it and sell it as a drug. They are always looking for another blockbuster drug. When supplement companies conduct their own studies, they are usually trying to prove that one of their products works for a particular condition. In both groups the tendency is to bury negative results and exaggerate positive ones in order to generate sales and profits. It is no wonder that herbalists in general have a bad attitude about science when it is said to be reductionistic and corrupt.

What I hope that the herbalists will integrate is the fact that each one of those studies that does give us a result--this plant has that constituent which has such and such an effect--gives us an evidence base upon which we can build a case for herbal medicine. Sure, the studies are not done for our benefit. But we can learn from that and build upon it, even while keeping close the traditional knowledge upon which the studies are built. If we know from all that corrupt research that Scutellaria baicalensis lowers inflammation in the liver and the brain, awesome! We can use it for those purposes, and extrapolate that it might help with inflammation systemically. We can also remember all the indications for that herb in ancient Chinese and western eclectic traditions, and extrapolate beyond what the science says as to what the herb in its fullness (and not just one constituent) might do.

We need both. We need the subjective and the objective. Science does not have to be reductionistic. I suppose there are scientists that will say that everything is reducible to chemistry and physics. But there are just as many scientists who will tell you that we just don't know everything that is out there, and there could be surprises. The fact that we just don't know is not a rational reason to believe in nonsense, but it is a reason to stay humble and reject reductionism. Everything is more complex than we know. When we find out one detail about something through the scientific process, we know one tiny piece in a very big puzzle. Nobody knows how complicated things are better than scientists.

Berner's talk was officially about herbal pairings (and triplets). To him this means pairs of herbs with complimentary actions which he can see no contraindications for giving together, and no situations in which he would want one and not the other. One of the pairs he mentioned was dandelion and Oregon grape, aka taraxacum and mahonia. In general his pairings have a function so that he can grab that mixture off the shelf and add it to a more complex formulation, saving time in the formulation process.

I tried to go to a couple of other lectures but ended up walking out. One speaker's voice was practically sedating--though I imagine some in his audience might have been hypnotized. Social justice is a major theme for this group, and there was a lot of talk about finding our roots so that we could extract ourselves from the white supremacy paradigm.  I imagine the goal would be to begin to operate as a conglomeration of cooperative and complimentary minorities; a modern civil society. I appreciate this message, and I do not need to sit through another 2 hour lecture in which someone recites their entire lineage and teaches us their family traditions. I am fully aware that there is great variety in human life. And I have been quite educted enough about the advantages I have in this society because of my pale skin tone and heterosexuality. Berate me no more, instead go out into the world and be awesome. Run for office and help us bring nuance back to government. Model your own kind of success.

After I left the lectures I went home and processed my own herbs. I learn more from handling the plants than I do from lay-level herbal lectures. It makes me appreciate the difference between CE and not.  At least continuing education classes allow for the possibility that we might actually talk about how to treat a condition, because we have licenses that allow us to practice medicine. I believe I need to offer an herbal class, and I'm sorting out a topic.  Probably herbs for the mind, perhaps herbs for the aging mind.  The kiddos won't be interested yet but I'm interested.

I read this morning about a doctor who went mad and shot people in a hospital. As a doctor myself, I know that docs have terrible stresses trying to deal with a corrupt medical-industrial system that impairs our ability to help people regain their health. Then I went to look at the NY times article, here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/nyregion/bronx-hospital-shooting.html. He's richly melanated, that is to say, he has lived a life of fear because of his skin color. I infer from his violence that he may have been guilty of the accusation--sexual misconduct. He was a man, and he was angry enough to shoot others and hopeless enough to set himself on fire and shoot himself. He did not see any way out. He knew he would not receive compassion.

What people forget when they demonize any group of humans is that they are human. Dark skinned people. Doctors. Men. Gun owners. Murderers. Whatever group. All humans share the same basic needs. When those needs are not met, we have the same basic emotions. Driven hard enough, any of us could become dangerous. Hitler had reasons. The Arabs that flew airplanes into buildings had reasons. No one is pure evil, we are simply human and if tortured we can lash out, or become cunning.

My hope that that everyone who reads this will take a deep breath or three and think about the kind of pain that drives a person to such horrors. My hope is that compassion will rise in spite of the poisonous atmosphere of shame and blame that dominates our political world. We all deserve an opportunity to be free from fear, long enough to find our centers and our hearts and reach out into the world from that place. It will take a lot of us finding compassion to heal these wounds.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is just that, concerned.  They've created a system by which any government-funded scientist can report the situation or the data if their science is challenged by politics.  The UCS is not partisan, they are simply interested in maintaining this process by which we approach the truth in an objective manner.  They want to see science continue in spite of the increasingly anti-science culture of our nation.  Anyone who is not science trained is increasingly likely to have a negative opinion of science.  Scientists in general are working to understand how things work which allows us to develop medicines and technologies that improve our lives.  But television appears to be more entertaining when the doctor is the devil.

Recently my partner and I have watched almost two seasons of a series on Netflix called The 100.  The premise is that a nuclear holocaust has occurred on earth, and the only humans surviving are the residents of the space stations that were in orbit when the earth was irradiated.  The leaders there decide to send 100 (young and beautiful) criminals down to earth's surface ("the ground") after 200 years of waiting for the radiation to dissipate.  The pretty criminals are outfitted with bracelets that transmit vital medical data back to the Ark (a composite of many space stations), so that those who stay in orbit can tell if they are dying of radiation poison or something else.  It turns out there are some humans who've survived the radiation and are living on the earth's surface.  There are also a set of humans who've survived because they are inside a radiation-sheltered palace underground.  The evil elites living underground have been surviving by tapping the blood of the "grounders" who survive outdoors, and by enslaving them by way of addiction.  The violence escalates as these groups all battle for dominance, rendering the show almost unwatchable by yours truly.  I have never been habituated to bloodshed.  I don't want to be.

The evil elites in their underground palace use science and medicine to live well, with infinite hydropower, delicious food, and vicious defenses from the humans on the surface. They only care about themselves, and consider that they have a right to the planet.  They do not care about human suffering or life.  Captured humans are either "harvested" for their blood or bone marrow or converted into slaves called "reapers" who do the work of fetching more humans to be harvested.  The reapers are also cannibals, disposing of the harvested bodies.  The medical scenes have two sides.  One side of the wall shows white sheets and fluorescent lights like a hospital, and the other side of the wall is inhumane, with people in cages waiting to be used, giant needles penetrating people's necks and limbs, bone marrow being harvested without pain management or concern for the survival of the source person, and humans being scrubbed down like animals before a slaughter so that they can be hung upside down and drained of blood.  It is utterly sickening.

The good people in the series are the "grounders"--barbarians who hack at each other with swords--and the "sky people" who crashed to earth and didn't die because they were smart and found a stash of guns.  This series creates a world in which the educated are hateful and the barbarians and criminals are reasonable.  It is a populist story without the overweening power of big business, and without the inquisitive media.  The only media in sight is the television series itself.

This series is targetted at the young, and it is perpetuating a worldview in which science and medicine are evil and bad.  Education is not valued except for the mandatory techie in each group who saves the day by being smart.  Heartless "strength" is valued over and above love.  This is the kind of television that sets us up culturally for longterm rebellious ignorance.  If this one series has this perspective, how many more are there?

I just saw something advertised under that title, and I clicked the link and was disappointed that the page did not come up.  I could use some help regaining mine.  I'm glad that there's been a shake up, hopefully it will get people talking across some lines again.  I'm aggravated by the ascendancy of self righteous ignorance.  What do you call it when you don't even know how much you don't know?  Unconscious Imcompetence.  Like the guy who told an MD/PhD infectious disease researcher "you should study microbes" because antibiotic resistance is no big deal.  I'll take conscious incompetence any time, or even better conscious competence.

I've come to a bit of am impasse with my medical practice, writings, even studies.  I'm losing interest.  It seems so fruitless.  I learn all this stuff and then nobody cares what I have to teach them.  If they want it they think it should be free like what they get from wikipedia.  Dr Google will be the death of me.

The more I read and study I am affronted by the tendency of humans to believe.  We want to believe.  We look for excuses to believe.  It saves us a whole lot of trouble just to believe in something, that way we can ignore all evidence to the contrary and enshrine every tidbit that supports our belief, and voila, the world is meaningful and live is worth living.  Just because we were believers.

Atheists and agnostics really have a hard row to how.  How do you create meaning in life, how do you form a community or tribe, without a belief-based grouping?  Can there be such a thing?  I have seen skepticism elevated to dogma.  Anything can be dogma.  If you think you are not dogmatic, look again.  Everyone is a hypocrite.

Facts are stubborn things;
and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations,
or the dictates of our passion,
they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
--John Adams