HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

UC-Why there is no current medical cure.

Support Forums
>
Ulcerative Colitis
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1 23
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 11/14/2014 5:03 PM (GMT 0)
i think what she meant to say was >

"i think you're delusional OM"

;-)
Posted 11/14/2014 5:09 PM (GMT 0)
so OM, is what you are saying the same as i'm always thinking, which is " no matter what we do, we're still screwed" ?
Posted 11/14/2014 5:43 PM (GMT 0)
Would it even be theoretically possible to surgically remove the biofilm, as in scraping it off or maybe hitting it with a laser or radiation, like they do in some cancers? I'm still not getting my head around all of this. If you have a bad biofilm, wouldn't it show up during a colonoscopy and the pathology report would say something like biofilm located from such and such area to such and such area? I never hear of colonoscopy reports mentioning biofilms or hear of biofilms studied in surgically removed colons.
Posted 11/14/2014 5:58 PM (GMT 0)
That's why I asked the question.

I hope we are not screwed.
I still don't know if everybody understands what I am saying.
No current medical cure.
Cure and remission are two different things.
Why.
The medications are not addressing a possible cause of the chronic nature of the disease.
The docs and the medications are treating the disease,but not eliminating the biofilm.
5-asa and antibiotics knock down the bacteria in the biofilm, but it is still attached to the mucosa,
the immune system calms down and you go into remission.
Biologics,or other immune modulaters suppress the immune system, and you go into remission,but
the biofilm is still there.
You can both suppress the bacteria,and at the same time the immune system and go into remission,
but the biofilm is still there.
The next step is to eliminate the biofilm.
Once this is done somehow,a cure might be achieved.
But and a big but, it might come back,your innate immune system might be defective,mucus might
be defective,the inflammation may have damaged your colon so much that it cannot regenerate,protective mechanisms again.
But until the doc's go after the biofilm, or some alternative method is found,that really works, to
eliminate the biofilm.
We will never know.
I wish I could find the reference that 5% of people that have had a bowl prep go into remission,
otherwise known as colonic lavage,colon washout, whatever you want to call it.


Gary:It only takes a short mental leap from all the pictures to realize the biofilm is still there before

during and after treatment of UC. The docs seem to not have made this.

The biofilms are only say 50 microns thick.
Old Mike

Post Edited (Old Mike) : 11/14/2014 12:15:30 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 11/14/2014 6:10 PM (GMT 0)
This throws up some interesting points...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2000251/

OM - this definitely makes sense. I get the impression sometimes the biofilm isn't needed to start UC. Nasty hard-to-get pathogens like MAP that can survive inside cells are probably just enough to begin the cycle but it's likely biofilms containing pathogens are more prevalent in those with UC. Nevertheless, biofilm is definitely a big reason why it's hard to treat. I'm looking into treatment protocols for removing biofilms and I did find this in my search...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250462/
Posted 11/14/2014 6:20 PM (GMT 0)
Kevin I have the 251 linked in an earlier post.
MAP is of course a possible,may mess with the immune response.
Regardless of anything else going on,with or without current drug treatment the biofilm is there.
OM
Posted 11/14/2014 6:21 PM (GMT 0)
Bacterias like MAP and AIEC were also found in some healthy persons digestive system. They don't show signs of ibd. I wonder what would happen if these people take oral DSS. Would their immune system be able to clear the bacterias , would their mucus heal in time if they stop taking DSS?

Post Edited (xy123) : 11/14/2014 11:24:17 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 11/14/2014 6:54 PM (GMT 0)
This guy seems to be doing some UK funded research on AIEC at the moment - pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~bjcampbl/ (scroll down to current research), in relation to Crohn's and colorectal cancer. I suppose it also begs the question as to why some people proceed direct to CRC without IBD yet there seems to be a lot of similarity in the conditions found - low butyrate, dysbiosis for instance.

As to no medical cure - well it is at least hopeful that they are now identifying that something is going on with bacteria because until recently the medical model said bacteria were not implicated in IBD as standard analysis did not find the standard food poisoning pathogens in stool samples of IBD people.

Pathogen Killer posted a lot about biofilms I seem to remember.
Posted 11/14/2014 7:01 PM (GMT 0)
I guess if the biofilms are not that thick then that brings me back to my original question of why can't we just scrape them off, or laser or radiate them?
Posted 11/14/2014 7:31 PM (GMT 0)
They are sticky,stuck,attached to the mucosa.
Some can be washed off by colonic lavage if your lucky.
Most none medical approaches are to dissolve the matrix, by EDTA or other means.
Does this work for sure,dont know.
Scraping, laser,or radiation, perhaps not practical.

You brush your teeth every day,still have biofilms on them.
'Radiation induced colitis.
The docs have not made the mental leap,for some reason in IBD, but they know about biofilms in
sinusitis , and prostheic devices,gum disease.
OM

Post Edited (Old Mike) : 11/14/2014 12:40:54 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 11/15/2014 11:44 AM (GMT 0)

Old Mike said...
Adrina:
I don't understand the meaning of your comment.
This is disillusioning
Old Mike


I'm sorry, I'm just a stupid German. haha
I meant that's sad because deep down I was still hoping there'd be a cure someday. I know we cannot hope for one anytime soon. But never?
Posted 11/15/2014 11:53 AM (GMT 0)
don't ever stop hoping A -

but ya, uc does fall under the category of a nuisance, not deadly - so the need for a cure is not as ..... urgent ;-)

there are just too many viable treatment options out there - drug induced remission & surgery for sure, drop the need for a cure significantly -
Posted 11/15/2014 12:12 PM (GMT 0)
There may not be a current medical cure for IBD but at this point I would be satisfied with knowing what someone can do to prevent it in the first place. It may be too late for me personally but it would help others from getting it and satisfy my curiosity.
Posted 11/15/2014 12:17 PM (GMT 0)
Adrina:

No this perhaps means the opposite, that a cure might be possible.

This is due to the fact that when current medications are used on people with UC, the biofilm is still
present on the mucosal tissue, regardless of the treatment type.

In addition to the current medications, the Dr's need to develop a way to also remove the biofilm.

With lot's of luck, our genetics and immune system will not get in the way of healing for good.

Is there anyone else who does not understand the concept.

Old Mike
Posted 11/15/2014 12:48 PM (GMT 0)
Now taking a quick look at mice and DSS and biofilms,perhaps not to much out there.

Still trying to figure out why the mice get better.

Old Mike

Again note healthy human controls have no biofilms on the mucosal surface.

http://www.charite.de/arbmkl/vortraege/2004lph_edited_model.pdf

Posted 11/15/2014 1:30 PM (GMT 0)
hey OM - first, I don't try to be dumb, I just am - so please bear with me - second, again, thank you for the time you spend researching and providing ALL this information -


my question> is the biofilm bad ? do the facts show for certain that it is not there for a beneficial purpose ?
Posted 11/15/2014 1:53 PM (GMT 0)
Soystud: Thanks for the thanks.

Let me again quote Dr. Swindinsky, the doc who took most of the nice pictures.

"Healthy human controls have no biofilms on the mucosal surface."

You bet your ass the biofilm is bad. It should be on top of the mucus,if the mucus is low viscosity,or denuded,then the bacteria get to the mucosa/mucosal surface, then all hell breaks loose.
OM

Post Edited (Old Mike) : 11/15/2014 6:58:17 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 11/15/2014 2:03 PM (GMT 0)
so my little miniature pea brain keeps aksing the question = which came first ? the biofilm or the "problem" i.e., uc, autism, whatever ???

or put another way, does biofilm come along to protect or fix in a way we/they don't quite understand yet ?
Posted 11/15/2014 2:45 PM (GMT 0)
Sostud:

My current understanding which may be flawed.

The problem had to come first,before the biofilm.

The biofilm shields the bacteria from the immune system.

For what ever reason the bacteria penetrate the mucus, and get to the mucosal surface,the infection yes infection,

is not cleared by the innate immune system,the rest of the immune cascade then starts,and still the infection is not cleared. In other words the immune system is overwhelmed by the continued polymicrobial infection,colateral damage occurs too the colon itself.  This may happen pretty much at once, don't know.

At some point in the process the bacteria set up the biofilm, which then is really difficult to remove.

Since the biofilm is still present, there is a continued immune response.

Suppress the immune system,you go into remission,but the biofilm is still present.

Suppress the biofilm, you go into remission,but the biofilm is still present.

Suppress both the biofilm and immune system you go into remission, but the biofilm is still present.

Destroy the biofilm and who knows, hopefully that's the cure.

Don't know why the mucus is penetrated in the first place, could be a zillion reasons.

If the reason is totally genetic, might be screwed,but don't believe the problem to be totally genetic.

Old Mike

 

Post Edited (Old Mike) : 11/15/2014 7:52:26 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 11/15/2014 3:09 PM (GMT 0)
"What's the cause. Persistent and probably a poly-microbial biofilm on the mucosa.
Not saying this is the initial cause, but why there is no medical cure.Biofilms on top of or in the outer mucus, probably ok."

What does this mean? A cause but not a cause? On bad. On top of or in, OK?

"You can obtain remission, one way or another, but the cause of chronic UC is still present."

How have you shown this to be true? Cause or effect? There are many effects of UC. There existence doesn't make them a cause. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE CAUSE IS.
Posted 11/15/2014 3:12 PM (GMT 0)
so does every alive person with uc have biofilm ?

or does it depend on which type of uc a person has ? i.e., proctolitis, pancolitis, etc. or in my case, some sort of quasi grain intolerance induced uc ? do I have a biofilm going on ?
Posted 11/15/2014 3:21 PM (GMT 0)
Well in Dr. Swindinsky's work the bulk of the boifilm is mainly Bacteroides fragilis.

There are a gazillion different versions of these little guys, some good, some bad depending on the gene's they carry. Some are anti-inflammatory when placed in germ free mice (induce IL-10) some are inflammatory.

In any case "good or bad" does not matter... Most likely all or the majority of bacteria are going to be highly inflammatory if they come in direct contact or very close to the epithelial barrier - Though there is some evidence this is not always the case.

Regardless, to treat or "cure" or induce sustained remission according to Swadinski's work one needs to either:

1) Get on top of the B.Fragilis biofilm.
2) Figure out what allows the biolfilm to form in the first place.

etc.

--------
Personally, and I have a post on here somewhere where I mentioned this a while ago - I think they (B.Fragilis) use the organic sulfur produced from the inflammatory state/mucus secretion as a carbon source - so either they trigger inflammation or take advantage of the inflammatory state as an "energy source" (organic carbon source) which allows them to thrive.

MAP, a virus, autoimmune, dysbiosis etc could trigger a low grade inflammatory state and these guys take advantage as they utilize organic sulfur as a carbon source.

According to Swindinsky's work all IBD IBS patients have biofilms. Just the makeup is slightly different but still with B.Fragilis as the dominant bacteria.

Just some thoughts..
Posted 11/15/2014 3:26 PM (GMT 0)
So even if we were able to get rid of the biofilm, the mucus barrier could still be breached and another biofilm might be developing. Did I understand this correctly? If that's the case, I rather just keep suppressing my immune system or get a colectomy later and don't really bother with the biofilm issue.
Posted 11/15/2014 3:40 PM (GMT 0)
Mark are you and Mike related or something? Your writing style and thoughts seem so similar.
Posted 11/15/2014 3:42 PM (GMT 0)
Soystud:

Yes it would appear most likely, that you have a biofilm.

But I don't know the answers to all your questions.

But this might help.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1169142/

Old Mike

 

✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
123