Dr Markov CBIS Theory of ME/CFS - General Discussion

Messages
245
Likes
598
Viral infections could well be part of the central cause of ME/CFS. I have long suspected that ME/CFS has a dual-factor etiology, involving viruses like enterovirus or EBV, but also other secondary factors which allow that viral infection to create the symptoms of ME/CFS, and/or prevent the immune system from clearing the virus.

Mold for example has often been considered one of these secondary factors which plays a role in ME/CFS. Mold releases biotoxins which have known detrimental effects on the immune system, and/or modulate immunity. In the CBIS theory of ME/CFS, it is biotoxins released by bacteria in the kidneys that are posited to play a causal role.

Good evidence for a dual factor theory comes from the historical outbreaks of ME/CFS: these involved an infectious virus, but it was always found that once the virus travelled outside the area of the outbreak, it lost most of its ability to trigger ME/CFS. In my mind, the only thing that can explain that is a dual factor theory, where some biotoxins or a similar secondary factor exists only in the area of the outbreak. So it is only within that area that you can get exposed to both the virus and the secondary factor, and in this dual factor theory, both are required to trigger ME/CFS.

Dr Markov does not seem to think ongoing viral infections play a role in ME/CFS; he thinks it is just the biotoxins coming from the kidney infection that is the cause. But it could be that both these biotoxins and a viral infection act in concert to cause ME/CFS, via something like immune priming, which was mentioned earlier.
Thats what I have been thinking too, I have learned how to get a fever under certain conditions, it seems enough to suggest that I might have a chronic virus but the fever is never intense enough to suggest that its the root cause of the disease. I have seen mild benefit from this antiviral treatment but of course it could just be a coincidence with the natural ups and downs, would need clinical trials to know for sure.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,787
Likes
37,018
Is it possible that none of them speak english ? think about how many millions of people has the disease, and what percentage of that total actually uses a website like this, multiply 4000 by that percent then multiply it by the percentage of people in the ukraine that can speak english good, it will be a low number surely.
We Google searched in English, Russian and Ukrainian, so we covered the relevant languages.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,787
Likes
37,018
In one of his latest answers in this post (copied below), if I understood correctly, Dr Markov said that CBIS also involves dysfunction of certain detoxification systems, particularly the reticuloendothelial system (which is more commonly known as the mononuclear phagocyte system).

Mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS) cells are primarily monocytes and macrophages.

MPS cells eat up bacteria, viruses and foreign substances like toxins. So a dysfunction in the MPS means that bacterial toxins entering the blood from the kidneys will not be cleared from the blood as rapidly as they should be.

If I understand his comment correctly, he says tests indicate CBIS patients have a dysfunction of the MPS, and so these patients use a different system to detoxify bacteria toxins, namely macrophages of mesenchymal origin.

I am not sure of the significance of this, nor how or why the MPS becomes dysfunctional in CBIS.


Physiological elimination of toxic proteomes in the body of patients, regardless of age, was carried out mainly through the cells of the reticuloendothelial system (RES) - in 614/818 or 75.06% of cases, less often - through the liver (189/818 or 23.11%) and only in some cases (15/818 or 1.83%) - through the kidneys.

Apparently, it is with this in patients with Nephrodysbacteriosis / CBIS that the rapid absorption and subsequent accumulation of bacterial toxins from the kidneys in the bloodstream are associated, which practically do not perform the detoxification function of elimination / excretion in this pathological state.

And then their very slow subsequent excretion in a completely different way through the macrophage system of cells of mesenchymal origin, united by a common functional property - the ability to phagocytosis.

In the vast majority of patients with CBIS (738/818 or 90.22%; in children - 93/96 or 96.88%, in adults - 645/722 or 89.34%, p> 0.05), there was determined the hyperergic type of reactogenicity of the systemic response to toxic proteomes.

The normalization of toxicological blood tests after treatment (at repeated determination), unfortunately, lags behind clinical improvement and recovery. We consider the conducted toxicological studies as preliminary.

A separate group of researchers should continue to study directly bacterial toxins, including LPS, in children and adults, taking into account the existing clinical differences in the course of CBIS in adults and children of different age groups (see Report 6 “CBIS. Clinical diagnosis” of the study “Chronic Bacterial Intoxication Syndrome under the mask of CFS/ME”).
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,787
Likes
37,018
Flnn posted the following question for Dr Markov, on the Markov Q&A thread:
I have made a basic urine culture analysis for the detection of bacteria, and they have not found anything!

My questions for you are the following, please:

1. I know you have mentioned a specific type of agar plates:

I do not know what type of agar plate they've used! Should I call and ask them?

2. Is it really necessary to collect the sample on three consecutive days? Is this detail very important?

3. Can you confirm that you have tried on your patients to use the basic urine culture analysis and you haven't found anything suspicious, but when you did the 3 days procedure with those specific agar plates, you did found the overgrowth of those bacteria?

You may get a more detailed response from Dr Markov, @Flnn, but he has posted some info already which may in part answer your questions. In the section entitled "Detection of Nephrodysbacteriosis and CBIS" in this thread, I summarized what Dr Oleg Markov has told us so far about urine testing.


Basically Dr Markov said that if you have a regular urinary tract infection (that is normally treated with antibiotics), then there will be enough bacteria in the urine to be able to detect the bacteria via a regular urine test.

But because the nephrodysbacteriosis in the kidney that Dr Markov describes is not a regular infection, but a bacterial dysbiosis, there will be fewer bacteria floating about in the urine. So then you need to try to increase the sensitivity of your urine test, in order to try to increase your chances of detecting these more sparse bacteria.

To increase the urine test sensitivity, Dr Markov first requires fresh warm urine to be added to the agar plates (rather than cold urine sample which has been standing around for a few hours or days). This he says increases the test sensitivity by at least 2.5 times.

Then testing for three consecutive days also increases your chances of detecting the bacteria. No doubt if you tested for even more days, sensitivity would be further increased.


I don't know the specifics of why Dr Markov uses the three agar plates that he mentioned (CLED agar, MacConkey agar, and chromogenic agar), but I imagine they are chosen to again increase the urine test sensitivity.

Apparently in a standard urine test, they will typically use MacConkey agar (to detect gram-negative bacteria), and blood agar. This is the norm.

Sometimes CLED agar and chromogenic agar may be used in standard urines tests. See this paper.


I hope the above is helpful, but Dr Markov may say more.
 
Messages
68
Likes
144
You may get a more detailed response from Dr Markov, @Flnn, but he has posted some info already which may in part answer your questions. In the section entitled "Detection of Nephrodysbacteriosis and CBIS" in this thread, I summarized what Dr Oleg Markov has told us so far about urine testing.
Thanks, @Hip, I have read that summary, great job! I am also reading his paper, which is quite badly formatted and hard to read! I will read again your summary, my brain fog is playing tricks with me, maybe I miss something, and to be sure I am not asking Dr. Markov something which has already been answered!

To increase the urine test sensitivity, Dr Markov first requires fresh warm urine to be added to the agar plates (rather than cold urine sample which has been standing around for a few hours or days). This he says increases the test sensitivity by at least 2.5 times.
My sample was taken first in the morning and in max 1hour has arrived at the lab...

I hope the above is helpful, but Dr. Markov may say more.
Thanks a lot for your help, it definitely is!
 

godlovesatrier

Senior Member
Messages
1,755
Likes
4,001
Location
United Kingdom
I do wonder if long term use of something like cryptolepis powdered capsules or tincture would clear staph/strep completely from the body. It seems to be the only systemic natural anti biotic. I have no idea what I have had over the last 4 weeks but it was probably a combination of reactivated mono and strep. Can't afford either blood test currently, privately it would cost me about £300 to get both. ebv 4 anti bodies and ASO testing.

At any rate, cryptolepis appears to be very safe and highly dispersed in the body. Unsure if it gets as far as the bones or not. I am currently experimenting with it, I've got some powdered capsules on order which will allow me to incease to a max dose for 9 days and then taper off to a maintenance dose.

I do think bacterial strains play a big role in this disease too, as our bodies just don't seem to be able to get rid of them.
 

Fogbuster

Senior Member
Messages
268
Likes
207
Question for Dr Markov:

Dear Dr Markov,

Thank you for responding again.

You have made several positive claims about treatment of ME/CFS with autovaccines, for example in your most recent post:




To date though, we only have your word to go on that this is a "proven treatment". We do not have a single account of a patient even having undergone your autovaccine treatment for ME/CFS, let alone having recovered, even though you claim that your clinic has treated thousands of patients, with recovery rate of over 90%.

It strikes me that the most effective way of building international credibility and awareness of your autovaccine treatment is by providing patient testimonials. Indeed, on this site, the fact you are unable to provide any such testimonials seems to be the biggest red flag about your theory.

In light of this, could you please provide some patient testimonials? Or would you be able to contact some of your former ME/CFS patients to see whether they would be willing to provide one, or to reach out to the wider ME/CFS community to talk about their experiences?

You have suggested that your recovered patients might not like talking about their prior illness, I find that highly unlikely - as we've seen on this forum, the first thing people generally do once they recover is share their experience with the rest of the community in the hope it helps someone else.

I understand you might be unwilling to contact your former patients. But unless you do I struggle to see how you can proceed in any significant way to convince the wider health community to take your claims seriously. The ME/CFS community could be your biggest advocate, but it is incredibly unlikely to help promote your treatment without at least some evidence of it actually working.
This is a very well articulated post and an extremely important point to make. Thankyou.
 

hb8847

Senior Member
Messages
430
Likes
683
Location
United Kingdom
Has @Hipsman started treatment yet?
He has yes, I think he posted here a while ago that he had started on autovaccines and the first one went fine?

But yes very interested to hear how it's going @Hipsman . Also what's your general impression of the practice, do they seem credible, is it professional, etc. Any info you have would be great.
 
Messages
68
Likes
347
There are no reports because this is a scam. Come on people.
We’re all acutely aware of the dearth of reputable clinicians in the ME universe, but we are blessed with a few earnest and steadfast folks forging ahead, I.e Davis, Hanson, Komaroff, Younger, VanElzakaar, etc.

Have any of these luminaries heard of or engaged with the brothers Markov regarding their theoretical framework? I agree wholeheartedly that the inability to locate a single patient testimonial is beyond problematic, but given that Ron Davis has such a personal investment in discerning a cure, it seems specious that someone allegedly curing thousands with such a remarkable rate of success would be totally foreign to him.
 

hb8847

Senior Member
Messages
430
Likes
683
Location
United Kingdom
@The Bard Agreed. We basically need more external validation, ideally from patient testimonials, but failing that some proper medical evaluation from CFS experts would be nice. Anyone have a suggestion of how to do that? Do any of them have a presence on this forum? I'd be happy to reach out to people myself.
 

Hipsman

Senior Member
Messages
506
Likes
1,462
Location
Ukraine
Update: I had 5 vaccine shots so far, 5th shot was today, no significant improvements so far, maybe a bit of an improvement in energy levels, but honestly it's hard to tell whether it's just placebo or not.

I will have 2 more vaccine shots, one on July 13 and one on July 18. 7 days after last vaccine shot I will have consultation with Dr. Igor Markov, lab tests and continuation of autovaccine treatment.

By the way, I have posted previously that I started the treatment here:
Ok, so things moved allot quicker then I thought, I had my second consultation today and after that my first vaccine shot, my lab test results came back much earlier, and from what I understood, they only found Staphylococcus Aureus in my kidneys, but they will retest kidneys for bacteria after first vaccine cycle to see if they missed anything...
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,787
Likes
37,018
Just reading Dr Igor Markov's as yet unpublished study "CBIS Report 8. Toxicological Diagnosis".

This is a study in which Dr Markov performed a toxicological analysis of the blood of 818 patients with CBIS and nephrodysbacteriosis, and found that CBIS patients have high levels of toxic proteins originating from bacteria in their blood.

The analysis of bacterial toxins in the blood was done by means of the Toxicon diagnostic system, a lab test which was developed by a group of Ukrainian scientists led by pediatric toxicologist Dr Borys S Sheiman.

The Toxicon lab test detects what are called toxic proteomes of bacteria (toxicoproteomics).

According to the Toxicon test, Dr Markov found the majority of CBIS patients (81%) have severe toxemia, and 17% have moderate toxemia. Toxemia is blood poisoning from bacterial toxins.



In terms of the bacterial species that these bacterial toxins originated from, in 50% of CBIS patients, the toxins came from Enterococcus faecalis.

So Enterococcus faecalis toxins are the ones most commonly found in the blood of CBIS patients. And this matches with Dr Markov's urine tests for kidney dysbiosis infection, which find that Enterococcus is the most common pathogen isolated from the urine in CBIS patients.


Furthermore, the frequency that other bacterial toxins were found in the blood in CBIS roughly corresponds to the frequency these bacteria are found in the kidneys, as the following data indicates:

The table below shows the bacteria whose toxins are found in the blood of CBIS patients, and the percentage of CBIS patients who have these toxins:

Bacterial Toxins Found in the Blood of CBIS Patients:
  • Enterococcus faecalis — in 50% of patients
  • Escherichia coli — 12%
  • Enterococcus faecalis + Escherichia coli (both together) — 27%
  • Staphylococcus aureus or Staphylococcus haemolyticus — 6%
  • Klebsiella pneumonia — 4%
  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa — 1%


The table below shows the bacteria found in the kidneys of CBIS patients, and the percentage of CBIS patients who have these bacteria:

Bacterial Species Found in the Urine of CBIS Patients: 1
  • Enterococcus + Escherichia coli (together) in 93% of patients
  • Enterococcus — 37%
  • Escherichia coli — 25%
  • Staphylococcus — 10%
  • Klebsiella — 9%
  • Streptococcus — 5%
  • Enterobacter — 4%
  • Morganella — 2%

So this data certainly seem to corroborate Dr Markov's CBIS theory of ME/CFS, as not only does he find bacteria in the kidneys in CBIS patients, but he also finds high levels of toxins from those bacteria in the blood of these patients.


The Toxicon test is not able to identify specific bacteria toxins, but it is able to determine the biological activity of the toxins, and the test found the toxins have cytolytic and autoimmune activity.


The Toxicon lab test found that the detoxification and elimination of toxic proteomes from the blood of CBIS patients was mainly carried out through macrophages of mesenchymal origin in 75% of patients, through the liver in 23% of patients, and via the kidneys in 2% of patients.

So macrophages are the main route of detoxification. (I would guess that the route of detoxification might perhaps depend on the nature of the bacteria toxins present).

Since the macrophage system seems to be the main route of toxic bacterial proteome detoxification, if we could find some drugs or supplements which would stimulate the macrophage detoxification process, then might reduce levels of bacterial toxins in the blood, which in turn may improve ME/CFS symptoms.

I wonder if the benefits some ME/CFS patients have experienced from the macrophage activating factor GcMAF might be explained in terms of GcMAF stimulating macrophage detoxification activities? Though I am not sure if there is a connection between GcMAF and the speed of the macrophage detoxification process.
 
Last edited:

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,787
Likes
37,018
One thing that occurs to me after reading Dr Markov's CBIS Report 8. Toxicological Diagnosis document:

If CBIS patients do indeed have severe levels of toxemia (blood poisoning from bacterial toxins) as the Toxicon blood analysis found, then hopefully we should be able to find a commercial lab test somewhere to verify this.

Some of us ME/CFS patients could then send blood samples to a lab to check for toxemia. Although from a quick Google search I did just now, I could not find any lab tests for toxemia.

You can find lab tests for LPS levels in the blood, but LPS is just one of many bacterial toxins. We want a test like the Toxicon test which covers all bacteria toxins. The most common bacterium found in CBIS is Enterococcus faecalis, and being a gram positive bacterium, it does not produce LPS.

We need a lab test which can detect any bacterial toxin, particularly toxins which have cytolytic or autoimmune activity (as the Toxicon test found the toxins in CBIS have cytolytic and autoimmune activity). Cytolytic means damaging or disruptive to host cells.

I tried to find the Toxicon test itself online, searching in English, Ukrainian and Russian, but could not find it.


Note that toxemia (bacterial toxins in the blood) is not the same as septicemia (both bacteria and their toxins in the blood). Markov finds CBIS patients have toxemia, but not septicemia.

Note that "toxemia of pregnancy" is the old name for preeclampsia, a pregnancy-related condition which was once believed to be caused by a toxin. But the toxemia we are talking about in CBIS is unrelated to preeclampsia.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,850
Likes
13,817
Location
South east England
Since the macrophage system seems to be the main route of toxic bacterial proteome detoxification, if we could find some drugs or supplements which would stimulate the macrophage detoxification process, then might reduce levels of bacterial toxins in the blood, which in turn may improve ME/CFS symptoms.
Yes might help, but killing the pathogen is probably the only long term solution. If the pathogen is the root cause of me/cfs.
 

Cipher

Senior Member
Messages
337
Likes
752
The analysis of bacterial toxins in the blood was done by means of the Toxicon diagnostic system, a lab test which was developed by a group of Ukrainian scientists led by pediatric toxicologist Dr Borys S Sheiman.

The Toxicon lab test detects what are called toxic proteomes of bacteria (toxicoproteomics).

According to the Toxicon test, Dr Markov found the majority of CBIS patients (81%) have severe toxemia, and 17% have moderate toxemia.
Is there any information regarding what percentage of healthy people this Toxicon test classify as positive for severe/moderate toxemia?