Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
I could not find any such info in Dr Markov's CBIS Report 8. Toxicological Diagnosis document (but it is quite a long document, 21 pages, so I might have missed it).
By the way, If anyone wants a copy of this document, let me know and I can send it by a PM Conversation. I asked Dr Oleg Markov if I could post this doc on PR, but he's not replied to that question yet. It's unpublished, so he may not want me to put it online yet.
Neither could I find any info about the Toxicon lab test online. But presumably that Toxicon test must have been calibrated before it was commercialized.
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,
Apologies if this has already been explained, but how is Dr Markov confirming the presence of bacteria in the kidneys? My understanding was that he hasn't been performing kidney biopsies, so am I right in thinking he's deducing this information based on the fact he's finding certain bacteria toxins in the urine? And if so, how does he know this bacteria is present in the kidneys and not elsewhere, say the bladder or intestines?
the only time my brain fog disappeared, in the last 3 decades, was when I was on Rocephin. I wondered if it was acting on enterococcus or streptoccocus cuz i have massive overgrowth...but from what I have read, E. Faecialis is usually resistant to that drug..... I never had a strain specific test though. And the drug could have been acting on glutamate in the brain, too
how is Dr Markov confirming the presence of bacteria in the kidneys? My understanding was that he hasn't been performing kidney biopsies, so am I right in thinking he's deducing this information based on the fact he's finding certain bacteria toxins in the urine? And if so, how does he know this bacteria is present in the kidneys and not elsewhere, say the bladder or intestines?
The urinary tract is not internally connected to the intestines, so intestinal bacteria cannot get into the urinary tract directly. The urinary tract consists of kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra. I believe bacteria from infections in the prostate gland can also get into the urinary tract, and so show up in a urine test.
Dr Markov commented that bacteria present in the intestines and nasopharynx can find their way into the urinary tract and kidneys, and then set up and infection/dysbiosis there. So an infection/dysbiosis in the kidneys may have originally come from the intestines and nasopharynx.
But if you are detecting bacteria in a urine culture as Dr Markov does, I believe the infection or dysbiosis would have to be in the urinary tract or prostate.
As I understand it, the evidence that Dr Markov has for the infection being in the kidneys comes from the fact that:
(1) bacteria are found in the urine
(2) toxic bacterial proteins from the bacteria are found in the blood
(3) patients get better when given autovaccines produced from these bacteria
Of course, the same evidence might also support the theory that the problematic infection or dysbiosis resides in the nasopharynx, intestines or in another part of the body, and although bacteria are being taken from the urine and made into autovaccines, the therapeutic effect of those autovaccines arises from their action against bacteria in this other part of the body, such as the nasopharynx for example. I believe Dr Markov himself does not rule out this possibility.
From the treatment perspective, I guess it does not matter too much where the infection is, as long as the autovaccine treatment addresses this infection and makes the patient better. But from the ME/CFS research point of view, we would want to know where the infection is located.
Regarding a kidney biopsy, I am not sure how easily a biopsy would be able to demonstrate dysbiosis. We now know even healthy people have a small amount of bacteria in their kidneys, and according to Dr Markov's theory, with kidney dysbiosis, it's just an imbalance of these bacteria, where bad bacteria have outgrown the good bacteria.
In any case, from Googling I found out that kidney biopsies are not without risk. Bleeding is complication, with a small percentage of patients having serious enough bleeding to require a blood transfusion.
The urinary tract is not internally connected to the intestines, so intestinal bacteria cannot get into the urinary tract directly. The urinary tract consists of kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra. I believe bacteria from infections in the prostate gland can also get into the urinary tract, as so show up in a urine test.
Mycotoxins can get into the urine though, in significant numbers, and the mould that produces them is almost certainly not located in the urinary tract. And if mycotoxins from, say, the lungs, can bypass the liver detoxification system in large numbers I see no reason why bacterial toxins (from the intestines or elsewhere) wouldn't otherwise.
I'd be interested to hear Markov's take on this, I might ask him in his thread.
I did some experiments on myself along these lines, using antibiotics to boost EAAT2 (aka: GLT-1), after hearing about Daffodil's experience with ceftriaxone. See this post and this post for details. Did not notice any great benefits.
Mycotoxins can get into the urine though, in significant numbers, and the mould that produces them is almost certainly not located in the urinary tract. And if mycotoxins from, say, the lungs, can bypass the liver detoxification system in large numbers I see no reason why bacterial toxins (from the intestines or elsewhere) wouldn't otherwise.
I have been trying to find studies which have examined the levels of bacterial toxins in the blood of ME/CFS patients, but so far cannot find any studies, apart from one study which looked at LPS levels in ME/CFS (and found them elevated).
But LPS is just one of many bacterial toxins. It seems strange that nobody has checked to see if there are any other bacterial toxins in the blood of ME/CFS patients.
Has Dr Igor Markov really been the first person to check ME/CFS patients' blood for bacterial toxins, and the first person to find these toxins severely elevated in ME/CFS?
A little anecdote to show the power of bacterial toxins: decades ago, a friend of mine, when he was young and foolish, had a piece of steak in the fridge for 10 days. He was wondering whether it would be safe to cook it, and decided that the steak should be fine to eat, as long as he fried it at a high temperature to kill all the bacteria.
So he did that. And boy was he sick for the next few days! And that sickness was all down to bacterial toxins alone, not a bacterial infection.
Bacteria can grow on the surface of meat, and while they grow they create toxins. When you cook the meat properly, you kill the bacteria, so you cannot get an infection from eating the meat. But cooking does not destroy the bacterial toxins on the meat, so that is how you can still become sick with food poisoning, even when cooking has killed all the bacteria.
Bacterial toxins alone can have potent effects in the body. Yet I have not been able to find any study which has looked for a broad spectrum of bacteria toxins in the blood of ME/CFS patients, apart from Dr Markov's toxicological study.
But cooking does not destroy the bacterial toxins on the meat, so that is how you can still become sick with food poisoning, even when cooking has killed all the bacteria.
A few days ago I bought some CLED and MacConkey urine test dipslides, very similar to the dipslides used by Dr Markov to detect bacteria in the urine.
Dr Markov uses the Diaslide® brand of dipslide from Israel, but I think any brand of CLED and MacConkey urine dipslide should be fine.
Dipslides are a convenient way to test for the presence of bacteria in fluids such as urine. Dipslides consist of a plastic strip with a different type of agar on its two sides, on which bacteria can grow. You dip the dipslide into the fluid, and then place it in a warm place to grow the bacteria on the agars.
I bought a dipslide which has CLED agar on one side and MacConkey No.3 agar on the other, corresponding to the agars used by Dr Markov.
I exposed my dipslide to urine for three days in a row, following Dr Markov's instructions of using warm fresh urine taken in the morning, and using near the end of the stream urine.
This is simple to do: basically you hold the dipslide under the stream of urine when you go to the toilet.
EDIT: @Cipher found (see this post) that you can substantially increase the test sensitivity by urinating into the plastic tube container that dipslide comes with, and then placing the whole dipslide in the urine for 20 seconds or so. This approach thus looks better than just placing the dipslide agars in the stream of urine.
I incubated the dipslide at body temperature (37°C) as per the dipslide instructions (I placed the dipslide at a point on my hot water tank cupboard where I had previously measured the temp to be around 37°C). Note however that Dr Markov allow patients to incubate dipslides at room temperature.
Today I noticed some bacterial growth on my dipslide, indicating the presence of bacteria in my urine.
The picture below shows the little specks of bacterial growth on the green CLED agar of the dipslide which was exposed to my urine. There was no bacterial growth on the red MacConkey No.3 agar, on the other side of the dipslide.
Bacterial Growth on Green CLED Agar on Dipslide After Being Exposed to My Urine
The hundreds of little dots on the agar are bacteria growth.
The picture below shows what displides look like. They come in a plastic tube, and the plastic strip pulls out of the tube, so that it can be exposed to fluids like urine. After exposure, you then place the strip back in the bottle, and incubate overnight at the right temperature.
I used the same dipslide all the way through: exposing it to urine to begin with, then incubating for 24 hours, and re-exposing the same dipslide to urine on the next two days to more urine. Dr Markov however I believe uses a different fresh dipslide each day.
CLED agar and MacConkey No.3 Agar Urine Dipslide
Here are the instructions for use of the urine dipslide, in case anyone wants to read them:
My positive result shows that it is quite easy to cultivate bacteria from your urine on agar at home. In principle, I believe the bacterial culture that I grew on the dipslide agar could be used to make an autovaccine.
I am not sure that this single positive result in the Markov high-sensitivity urine test proves much on its own, in terms of providing evidence for nephrodysbacteriosis in ME/CFS.
But if we conducted many such tests on a number of ME/CFS patients and healthy controls, then we might be able to confirm what Dr Markov has found, which is that ME/CFS patients are usually positive in this high-sensitivity urine test (which to Dr Markov indicates nephrodysbacteriosis), whereas healthy controls are usually negative.
Dr Markov finds a positive urine test in more than 95% of ME/CFS patients. By contrast, in 70 adult healthy controls, Dr Markov found only 7% have this nephrodysbacteriosis kidney infection. Refs: 12
I believe when making autovaccines, Dr Markov starts with the bacterial colonies on the urine test agar, taking a sample of those bacteria and transferring them to another growth medium, in order to grow sufficient bacteria to make the autovaccine.
So I suspect in principle one might be able to ship one's urine test agar by fast courier to the Ukraine, and Dr Markov may then be able to make autovaccines out of the bacteria on that agar.
(I am not sure if Dr Markov is able to work remotely like this; it's something we would need to clarify with him. But I suspect in principle it could be done.)
o I suspect in principle one might be able to ship one's urine test agar by fast courier to the Ukraine, and Dr Markov may then be able to make autovaccines out of the bacteria on that agar.
Finding some bacteria in the urine isn't enough. Taking an aseptic sample is impossible.
If you search about the result of a normal bacteriologic exam of the urine you'll see that a negative test has bacterias but it doesn't exceed a certain threshold depending on the species.
Logically speaking, the probabilty of a disease as ME to be caused by one cause if nill.
I believe in order to comply with regulations, Dr Markov has to create an autovaccine from the patient's own bacteria.
Dr Markov mentioned his desire to create ready-made vaccines from the stock bacteria he has isolated, and indeed, he lodged some patent applications for this. A ready-made vaccine would make life easier, as then as soon as the bacteria in the patient's urine were identified, he could prescribe a ready-made stock vaccine.
But developing a ready-made stock vaccine requires investment and research from pharmaceutical companies, as the vaccine would need to go through clinical trials before being licensed by national regulatory authorities and brought to market.
No such licensing is required when you use autovaccines made from the patient's own bacteria.
Finding some bacteria in the urine isn't enough. Taking an aseptic sample is impossible.
If you search about the result of a normal bacteriologic exam of the urine you'll see that a negative test has bacterias but it doesn't exceed a certain threshold depending on the species.
Yes, I think you may be right that urine will always contain a tiny amount of bacteria.
If you look at the instruction sheet for the urine dipslide test which I uploaded above, it shows various pictures of the bacterial growth spot density on the agar. If the spot density is low, it is considered a negative result. If the spot density is above a certain threshold, then it is considered a positive result.
