Dr Igor Markov Says ME/CFS Is Caused by a Bacterial Dysbiosis in the Kidneys, and Says Autovaccine Therapy Cures 93% of ME/CFS Cases

[Hip]

the kidneys are supposed to selectively pass toxins one way - so the question still exists - why aren't they doing this with the bacterial toxins

Bodily organs are supposed to function in a specific way, but when they become diseased, they often fail to function properly. So I guess the fact that a healthy kidney filters toxins from the blood would not preclude the possibility that an unhealthy kidney, containing bacterial dysbiotic growth (and maybe viruses too), might become dysfunctional, and actually plant toxins in the bloodstream.

To find a precise scientific explanation, we would need to do more reading about kidney function, and try to figure out how pathogens in the kidney could cause kidney dysfunction.

I found some studies showing that coxsackievirus B and cytomegalovirus (two common ME/CFS viruses) can chronically infect the mesangial cells of the glomeruli. Maybe this might explain how viruses can trigger ME/CFS.

 

[Garz]

Bodily organs are supposed to function in a specific way, but when they become diseased, they often fail to function properly. So I guess the fact that a healthy kidney filters toxins from the blood would not preclude the possibility that an unhealthy kidney, containing bacterial dysbiotic growth (and maybe viruses too), might become dysfunctional, and actually plant toxins in the bloodstream.

To find a precise scientific explanation, we would need to do more reading about kidney function, and try to figure out how pathogens in the kidney could cause kidney dysfunction.

I found some studies showing that coxsackievirus B and cytomegalovirus (two common ME/CFS viruses) can chronically infect the mesangial cells of the glomeruli. Maybe this might explain how viruses can trigger ME/CFS.

can't argue with that as a possibility hip - after all there are always many possibilities - but that explanation would require another aberrant mechanism to be in play - other than only bacterial dysbiosis in the kidney. ie that dysbiosis would have to impact the kidneys' function dramatically - and to my knowledge we do not see that generally in CFS patients.

I'm not sure there is compelling evidence either way on this at present

kidney biopsy or autopsy would be definitive i would think

 

[BrightCandle]

Everything ab

that dysbiosis would have to impact the kidneys' function dramatically - and to my knowledge we do not see that generally in CFS patients.

Actually we do. The CDC used to list Kidney failure as the second way in which ME/CFS patients died with their heart stopping as the first before they unfortunately removed the entire informational page on morbity with the disease (which has a life expectancy of 58). Most of us have talked about our reduced and fluctuating GFR results, there is at the very least a significant comorbity with Kidney disease but if its chronic doctors are going to have to explain why it gets better and worse inline with the state of the individuals. There is definitely a common and dramatic effect on kidney function in ME/CFS.

 

[Hip]

Myself and @BrightCandle have a fluctuating glomerular filtration rate (see our discussion in this post onwards), suggesting something unusual is going on in the kidneys.

 

[Garz]

Myself and @BrightCandle have a fluctuating glomerular filtration rate (see our discussion in this post onwards), suggesting something unusual is going on in the kidneys.

interesting - thanks for that - its new to me

on the one hand - this shows that something is going on with the kidneys of people with CFS
on the other - that would be also no surprise since so many body systems seem to be effected by CFS, and its well known that chronically ill people in general have suppressed organ function.

i checked and could only find 2 eGFR results - over the last few years - one was 83 and the other greater than 90
( edit: i rechecked my records and found 7 total dating back to 2012 - all were 90 or above except the one at 83 )

i have positive test results for Lyme disease and now have Bartonella found in my blood - but i also have CFS like symptoms - in fact my worst symptom was overwhelming fatigue and PEM for several years - now much improved after antimicrobial treatments and some lifestyle changes.

 

[Garz]

i do also think conventional dialysis would be a useful test of this theory - at least to build evidence one way or another.

as i do not think one would need to stop blood flow from the kidney to achieve a dramatic reduction in blood levels of toxins - that is after all what dialysis does.

a dramatic reduction should still result in a noticeable improvement in symptoms

blood tests could presumably be done before and after to confirm the reduction in the blood

both dialysis and blood tests for bacterial toxins seem to be available already in a private medical setting
so this would seem to be something that could be done if an individual were interested to do so for their own understanding / finding their path forward - and for the greater good

if bacterial toxins are really the cause of overall CFS illness - then even a 50% reduction of toxins would be expected to result in significantly reduced symptoms

if even 2 or 3 people did this - and symptoms correlated with blood toxin concentrations - it would add a significant weight of evidence to the theory

 

[Hip]

i do also think conventional dialysis would be a useful test of this theory - at least to build evidence one way or another.

as i do not think one would need to stop blood flow from the kidney to achieve a dramatic reduction in blood levels of toxins - that is after all what dialysis does.

I like your angle, trying to find ways to test the theory. I thought about dialysis myself, but I don't think dialysis bypasses (or partially bypasses) the kidney. You cannot really take the kidney out of the circuit of blood flow. If you could, I agree it would be a great way to test the theory.


Something like this biospleen device being developed, which can remove both bacteria and certain bacterial toxins from the blood, might work. This device is intended for treating sepsis, where there are bacteria and their toxins in the bloodstream. But this does not seem to be available as yet.

It's interesting that four independent ME/CFS research groups have each discovered that there is "something in the serum" of ME/CFS patients which makes healthy cells sick. See this thread. These groups found that when the blood serum of ME/CFS patients is added to a cell in vitro, those previously healthy cells start to develop energy metabolism dysfunctions.

So clearly there is a pernicious factor in the blood of ME/CFS patients. But nobody is sure what this pernicious factor in the blood might be. In the light of Dr Markov's theory, it makes me wonder whether it could be one or more bacterial toxins.

You might ask: if ME/CFS is driven by bacterial toxins in the blood, why hasn't this been discovered previously? Well, it seems that bacterial toxins are a kind of blind spot in medical science. We do not really have any good tests which can detect these proteins.

It's amazing that we can detect and identify the most minute amounts of genetic material, DNA or RNA, but cannot easily detect bacterial toxins. I could not find any test which can detect bacterial toxins in the blood, apart from this Toxicon test developed by toxicologist Professor Sheiman Boris Semenovich in the Ukraine.



Note that Dr Markov says himself that he cannot 100% certain that the dysbiosis comes from the kidneys.

The only thing we know for sure (if one accepts the data in Dr Markov's published study) is that if you isolate the bacteria found in ME/CFS patients' urine, and produce autovaccines for the patient which stimulate the immune response against these bacteria, then in 2 to 3 years, the patient becomes fully cured.

The other piece of data we have is the high levels of bacterial toxins found in ME/CFS patients in the Toxicon test.

How you interpret that empirical data then takes you into the realm of theory, and Dr Markov has theorized that there is a bacterial dysbiosis in the kidneys which is leaking bacterial toxins into the bloodstream.

 

[Garz]

I like your angle, trying to find ways to test the theory. I thought about dialysis myself, but I don't think dialysis bypasses (or partially bypasses) the kidney. You cannot really take the kidney out of the circuit of blood flow. If you could, I agree it would be a great way to test the theory.

but this exactly my point Hip - i don't think you have to take the kidneys out of the equation -

although i agree it would be nice from a scientific purity of experiment point of view - but also impractical and dangerous and ultimately unnecessary to get a decent signal from the experiment

i think we can consider a person with CFS as pretty much a steady state system

by which i mean its a chronic condition
does not tend to kill people quickly like an acute infection or disease - so its not a run-away-train-effect
instead people with CFS by definition stay sick for years with out ( usually ) getting better - just some up and down fluctuations and exacerbations

his also fits with the "pernicious factor" experiments - not enough to kill cells - just sicken them

so it follows that the ongoing levels of toxins in the body are the result of several factors - something like this:

T=(total inflow of toxins from source - less total outflow of toxins via detoxification pathways )/Volume

where T is the bacterial toxin concentration - and Volume is the total volume of the system

so changing any one of these factors significantly would result in a significant change in bacterial toxin concentration

I am sure there are some variations from this simple model - but still overall if you double the outflow of toxins eg by dialysis - then you drop the concentration in the blood significantly - even if the kidneys ( or wherever the source is) continue to leach more into the blood at the same rate as before

 

[Hip]

if you double the outflow of toxins eg by dialysis - then you drop the concentration in the blood significantly - even if the kidneys ( or wherever the source is) continue to leach more into the blood at the same rate as before

I see what you are saying. Dialysis however, as far as I am aware, will not remove or filter the bacterial toxins (if dialysis were able to remove bacterial toxins, presumably it would be employed during sepsis treatment; sepsis is a severe medical emergency involving bacterial toxins where around 1 in 5 patients will die).

 

[Garz]

I see what you are saying. Dialysis however, as far as I am aware, will not remove or filter the bacterial toxins (if dialysis were able to remove bacterial toxins, presumably it would be employed during sepsis treatment; sepsis is a severe medical emergency involving bacterial toxins where around 1 in 5 patients will die).

thanks Hip

i did some more reading into dialysis machines and methods and you are right - they are not particularly good at removing lipoproteins from the blood - in fact there's a well documented issue where dialysis actually transfers endotoxins the wrong way - from contaminated water distribution systems into the patient - with inflammatory effects. . so that's out.

i did find that there is a type of blood filtration process called - hemoperfusion by means of polymyxin B-based cartridges (PMX-DHP) - that is used in sepsis patients to remove endotoxins - with useful results. often in ICU setting as a rescue treatment in life threatening cases.

https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/356831

 

[BrightCandle]

I have been improving quite gradually over the past 6 months, unclear entirely what is causing it as I pursued 3 different things at the same time but I got an interesting signal this week. I ran out of Cranberry supplement, I was going to end up missing it for about 5 days but I didn't consider it a big problem as I wasn't sure it did much. Well I got unwell super fast after I missed the second dose including back pain and severe muscle lethargy along with feeling very poisoned and dizzy. Starting again on the third day reduced symptoms and restored me within about 2 hours. Interesting to say the least. So I am upping the dose beyond that listed on the packet, I'll try about 2-3x total spread across the day and see if it has a bigger impact. Bad timing to hit the point where I am now convinced trying auto-vaccines is the way to go!

 

[BrightCandle]

I have been looking into how to go about making autovaccines. I came across a paper from 1897 on Typhoid autovaccine creation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2432850/pdf/brmedj08649-0008.pdf) which goes into the process which seems to be growing the bacteria for 24 hours at body temperature, sealing in a sterile liquid in a glass pipette that is sealed and put into cold water warmed to 60C for 5 minutes. Its then tested with another agar to confirm no growth. What is interesting is they talk about dosage where 1/6th to 1/20th of that is about the right amount for a strong immune response but there is also some discussion about lethality at least to guinea pigs.

So while the process is relatively simple as well as a test process to confirm the heat killed the bacteria dose is a critical question that we need more detail on. The challenge is different bacteria could have quite different growth potential within a 24 hour window and the final amount that is disabled and put into an autovaccine might very well differ substantially. The last thing I need to be doing is giving myself a dose that gets my immune system to kill me. More to do but I thought it was an interesting find.

 

[Hip]

I have been looking into how to go about making autovaccines.

@Cipher, @dday and I spent a lot of research hours looking into the possibly of making our own autovaccines. There's scant information available about autovaccine production, but we managed to piece together a plan.

Basically we discovered that mucosal autovaccines (those which are applied sublingually or intravaginally for example) might be as good as injectable vaccines, and mucosal autovaccines may be safer to make DIY than injectable vaccines. Mucosal vaccines trigger IgA antibody responses on the mucous membranes.

The idea was that if it turned out not to be possible to become remote patients of the Markov Clinic, then we would have considered homemade mucosal autovaccines as an alternative. But now that remote patient treatment is demonstrated, the mucosal vaccine project has been place on hold.

Of course the Ukraine war is a new issue, and I understand from @Hipsman that the Markov Clinic has for the moment been shut down.

 

[GlassCannonLife]

@Cipher, @dday and I spent a lot of research hours looking into the possibly of making our own autovaccines. There's scant information available about autovaccine production, but we managed to piece together a plan.

Basically we discovered that mucosal autovaccines (those which are applied sublingually or intravaginally for example) might be as good as injectable vaccines, and mucosal autovaccines may be safer to make DIY than injectable vaccines. Mucosal vaccines trigger IgA antibody responses on the mucous membranes.

The idea was that if it turned out not to be possible to become remote patients of the Markov Clinic, then we would have considered homemade mucosal autovaccines as an alternative. But now that remote patient treatment is demonstrated, the mucosal vaccine project has been place on hold.

Of course the Ukraine war is a new issue, and I understand from @Hipsman that the Markov Clinic has for the moment been shut down.

I would love to see the homemade project finished by you guys at some point..! Seems like a great and safe option for us

 

[Garz]

this may be of interest - again an old paper - that showed the effects of heating of vaccines to different temperatures for sterilization vs other methods and their respective effects on antigenic actions - bottom line boiling worked fine for sterilizing - with no ill effects on vaccine performance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2206935/?page=1

 

[Hip]

this may be of interest - again an old paper - that showed the effects of heating of vaccines to different temperatures for sterilization vs other methods and their respective effects on antigenic actions - bottom line boiling worked fine for sterilizing - with no ill effects on vaccine performance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2206935/?page=1

That's an interesting paper, which I've come across before.

An issue with the DIY mucosal autovaccines is that some methods of autovaccine preparation seem to use lower bacterial kill temps, around 60°C. I think the idea is to use the lowest kill temp possible, in order to minimize damage to the bacterial proteins (as such damage would affect their antigenic properties).

Here are a some autovaccine preparation methods which used temperatures well below 100°C:

According to Wright's method the bacteria employed in the preparation of a vaccine are killed by heat, the temperature actually employed ranging from 53° C. to 65° C. for one half to two hours.

Source: the paper you linked to.

The so-prepared suspension of S. aureus was inactivated in 56°C water bath for one hour, placed in ampoules and inactivated again in a water bath at 56°C for one hour, using 2 ml sealed and sterilized vials

Source: here

Inactivation step was applied by placing the obtained solutions in the water bath at 70℃ for 40 min. To insure that all of the bacterial cells were killed, a cultured plate of bacteria was provided and incubated overnight.

Source: here


There's scant information about autovaccine production, so it is not clear whether 100°C bacterial inactivation temperatures would be acceptable, or whether this high temp might weaken the antigenic effect of the bacterial proteins.

Dr Igor Markov's various vaccine patents show that he uses autoclave temperature of 115-125°C to inactivate bacteria (but note these patents refer to his off-the-shelf vaccines, like his Staphylococcus vaccine, rather than to his autovaccines; so the autovaccines might have different production methods).



As an aside: Dr Markov seems to have figured out how to prevent the allergic response that bacterial vaccines can cause. If you read his patents (such as the Staphylococcus vaccine patent), you see that he talks about other Staphylococcus vaccines on the market causing allergic issues, whereas in his vaccine, this actually has an anti-allergic effect:

there is no development of allergic reactions, moreover, the vaccine has a hypoallergenic effect with a significant decrease in the levels of IgE elevated before treatment.

 

[Garz]

An issue with the DIY mucosal autovaccines is that some methods of autovaccine preparation seem to use lower bacterial kill temps, around 60°C. I think the idea is to use the lowest kill temp possible, in order to minimize damage to the bacterial proteins (as such damage would affect their antigenic properties).

but that's why i thought the paper i linked would be of interest - as its findings were that boiling had no ill effects on the vaccine effectiveness - vs lower temperatures or other methods of sterilisation. And boiling would be much easier to control in a DIY setting.

ref mucosal application of vaccines

i think we need to understand how these auto-vaccines actually work

after all - with a mucosal autovaccine approach - are we not simply applying antigens to the mucosa from organisms that already have an abundance of their antigens in contact with the gut mucosa in these patients ( as in most cases the source of these bacteria seems to be the gut microbiome - occasionally the nasopharyngeal region - which are already in contact with the mucosa there ) - and if so, would we expect an increased immune response from this approach ?

in veterinary practice - autovaccines is often given as a direct injection of live blood from the same animal subcutaneously - this results in a much strengthened immune response to the organisms who's antigens are in that blood - despite these exact same antigens already being in the blood and presumably in contact with the immune system - but where they do not seem to be triggering the same degree of response.
so, why exactly is this ?

an explanation i can see is that its the translocation of the antigens from a zone where the body appears to tolerate them ( the gut or the blood ) - to a new zone - where it is not tolerated - eg the subcutaneous tissues. Is this because its seen as a greater risk by the immune system in this region ? and hence the heightened response?

this part is unexplained so far to me - i can see mucosal vaccines working for live weakened viruses or bacteria - but unless i am missing something - it would make me lean towards an injectable sterile, rather than mucosal sterile autovaccine

 

[BrightCandle]

but that's why i thought the paper i linked would be of interest - as its findings were that boiling had no ill effects on the vaccine effectiveness - vs lower temperatures or other methods of sterilisation. And boiling would be much easier to control in a DIY setting.

ref mucosal application of vaccines

Another possibility is not that its the deactivated bacteria but the total contents of the liquid that is the issue. Growing bacteria are in agar which is a bunch of bacteria food and then we are putting those bacteria and food and whatever other chemicals identify the bacteria etc. Then on top of that the bacteria are killed with heat, as bacteria die they release various toxins, in this case heat seems to break down the proteins that feed energy into the cell and we are misfolding them until they don't function. This is a whole vile of dead bacteria grown in ideal conditions away from the immune systems so its a lot of them and its all dead so full of toxic material. It is very fair from just dead bacteria in water.

Potentially a higher temperature is safer for that purpose, it would maybe break down some of the toxic elements. I found some reference (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/heat-kills-cells/526377/) to the type of damage done to a cell by heat and why there are at least different minimum temperatures based on protein lengths to kill them. Does heat do anything to the types of toxins bacteria leave when they die?

 

[Garz]

LPS is relatively heat stable
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2926344/
other toxins will vary by species are there are many

but overall i do not believe the dose needed in a vaccine is such that this would be a great concern

 

[Hip]

but that's why i thought the paper i linked would be of interest - as its findings were that boiling had no ill effects on the vaccine effectiveness - vs lower temperatures or other methods of sterilisation. And boiling would be much easier to control in a DIY setting.

Yes it is interesting, though since the paper is from 1915, it's not clear whether its results would stand up to modern scrutiny. I wanted to find more current information about bacterial inactivation for vaccines, but there is surprisingly little to be found.

Doing bacterial inactivation is critically important for safety too: some professional microbiologists I spoke to who regularly work with such biosafety level 2 pathogens said that if some bacteria were still alive after the heat treatment, and you placed these under your tongue, they could potentially cause a serious lung infection (pneumonia) requiring hospitalization.

So making a mucosal vaccine would be risky for those without microbiology background. You ned to use certain tests to ensure all your bacteria are really dead. That's in part why our project was halted, as it could be a risk to ME/CFS patients. I would not want to place online details of my experiments if they carried a risk.


Also, it's not clear whether we need to remove the bacterial toxins. This can be done, but it requires a lab centrifuge machine. Many common bacterial toxins, including LPS, are lethal to humans in amounts as low as 1 or 2 micrograms, if they get into the systemic blood circulation. Some bacterial toxins are heat stable, and can survive 100°C. I am not sure if autoclave temps of around 121°C will destroy all of them. Some Staphylococcus toxins are particularly heat stable. By contrast, some toxins are quite heat labile, and are destroyed by heat.

Sometimes women die from toxic shock syndrome, which occurs when a tiny amount of a Staphylococcus toxin called TSST-1 from sanitary towel use gets into the bloodstream via tiny lesions in the vagina. So this indicates that bacterial toxins on the mucosal could be dangerous if they get into the blood via lesions.


Mucosal vaccines applied sublingual and intravaginally are proven to have strong effects in the urinary tract: Uromune (MV140) is one bacterial vaccine we found which is applied daily as a sublingual spray, and greatly reduces the recurrence of UTIs in those who suffer from repeated urinary infections. It contains 4 common UTI bacteria that are heat killed.

There are at least 5 published studies on Uromune, some here and here. Unfortunately Uromune is only obtainable under doctor's supervision, and history of UTIs. However, Cipher found some alternatives here.

Dr Markov also prescribes his autovaccine patients a mucosal bacterial product: IRS-19.

mucosal application of vaccines

i think we need to understand how these auto-vaccines actually work

This is a good paper showing how application of antigens on one mucous membrane can induce an IgA antibody response on other mucous membranes in the body. As you can see from table 2 of the paper, copied below, there is an immune interconnectivity of the mucosa, and the sublingual mucosa are strongly interconnected with other mucosal.

So that's why applying bacterial antigens sublingual can have potent immune effects in the urinary tract.

The same table as above can be found in this paper: Buccal and sublingual vaccine delivery, in table 1.

Note that "blood" in the above table is equated to "systemic response" in the Buccal and sublingual vaccine delivery paper table 1. So "blood" should be read as a "systemic immune response".