Dr. Shoskes web site - Nanobacteria

[james-d]

Dr. Shoskes posted a while back about a study he was participating in.
I noticed the following from his web site - so I guess there is some empirical evidence at least that this may be onto something:
----------------------------------------------------------
Medical Treatment of Prostate Stones
The role of prostatic stones in producing the symptoms of prostatitis is controversial, especially since many older men without symptoms are found to have these stones. Nevertheless, younger men with extensive prostatic calcification are often improved when these stones are eliminated. We have a limited but very positive experience treating these men with combination therapy against nanobacteria, a type of stone forming bacteria impossible to detect using typical culture techniques.Therapy consists of a daily antibiotic (tetracycline), an oral supplement and an EDTA rectal suppository and typically lasts 3 months

[webslave]

1) Where are the studies proving that "elimination of these stones" leads to improvement?

2) Are we even sure these nanobacteria exist? See this -->

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Oct

An alternative interpretation of nanobacteria-induced biomineralization.

Cisar JO, Xu DQ, Thompson J, Swaim W, Hu L, Kopecko DJ.
Oral Infection and Immunity Branch, and Cellular Imaging Core, National
Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of
Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.

The reported isolation of nanobacteria from human kidney stones raises the intriguing possibility that these microorganisms are etiological agents of pathological extraskeletal calcification [Kajander, E. O. & Ciftcioglu, N. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 8274-8279]. Nanobacteria were previously isolated from FBS after prolonged incubation in DMEM. These bacteria initiated biomineralization of the culture medium and were identified in calcified particles and biofilms by nucleic acid stains, 16S rDNA sequencing, electron microscopy, and the demonstration of a transferable biomineralization activity. We have now identified putative nanobacteria, not only from FBS, but also from human saliva and dental plaque after the incubation of 0.45-microm membrane-filtered samples in DMEM. Although biomineralization in our "cultures" was transferable to fresh DMEM, molecular examination of decalcified biofilms failed to detect nucleic acid or protein that would be expected from growth of a living entity. In addition, biomineralization was not inhibited by sodium azide. Furthermore, the 16S rDNA sequences previously ascribed to Nanobacterium sanguineum and Nanobacterium sp. were found to be indistinguishable from those of an environmental microorganism, Phyllobacterium mysinacearum, that has been previously detected as a contaminant in PCR. Thus, these data do not provide plausible support for the existence of a previously undiscovered bacterial genus. Instead, we provide evidence that biomineralization previously attributed to nanobacteria may be initiated by nonliving macromolecules and transferred on "subculture" by self-propagating microcrystalline apatite.

PMID: 11027350 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[james-d]

I have no answers to those questions - I was just passing on an update that I noticed at Dr. Shoskes web site.

Perhaps the Dr. can provide some input if he feels it is appropriate.

[dshoskes]

1) Where are the studies proving that "elimination of these stones" leads to improvement?

2) Are we even sure these nanobacteria exist? See this -->

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Oct

Of course there are no studies because we only have an initial anecdotal experience, just like we did when we tried quercetin in a few men and a few got better prompting us to do a proper study.

There are 43 medline listed journal articles about nanobacteria. A handful are brief reviews or commentaries that may or may not support the existence of nanobacteria. The one paper quoted questions their existence. The 35ish other papers do support their existence and show some pathogenic possibilities in human disease. The exact type of mineralization that occurs around nanobacteria (Calcium phosphate) is the same substance found at the core of prostatic calculi.

In a couple of months I should have all 16 patients finished a full 3 months of therapy and will then be able to properly analyze the data. I can say that so far the incidence of positive nanobacterial antibody and/or antigen in blood and urine in chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome patients is much higher than in published control populations. I also have a few patients who had failed EVERY other type of treatment with severe symptoms whose symptoms are completely resolved with Urobac treatment and who have gotten their lives back (from full disability to resumption of regular work).

[webslave]

Scepticism indeed seems warranted here. Behaviour as shown by "nanobacteria" can also be interpreted as being the consequence of conformational changes of proteins in solution induced by the particles. Mutated prions are also capable of doing so (they change the prion normal structure into a beta-sheet), thereby causing disease. Self-assembly of macromolecules also comes to mind as a potential explanation. It is therefore way too early to describe the structures found as "living". Do viruses live? Do prions "live"? They do not, but bacteria certainly do. Craig Venter has rather convincingly shown that most currently known living organisms require a minimum set of genes for metabolism and so on, i.e. a minimum amount of DNA, organelles, proteins and so on. If the nanobacteria are too small to contain all of that, which they are, I very much doubt they deserve the name bacterium. Their disease-causing potential is a different matter altogether, see the prion diseases. If these structures can accelerate atherosclerosis in model animals I would certainly be intrigued to say the very least.

[webslave]

Nanobacteria Myth Disproved?:
http://drcranton.com/nanobacteria.htm

[dshoskes]

Nanobacteria Myth Disproved?:
http://drcranton.com/nanobacteria.htm

Heh, Heh. Did you actually read Dr. Cranton's website and what he is selling? He runs IV EDTA chelation clinics and is attacking nanobacteria therapy on the basis that it uses rectal EDTA suppositories which, if effective, would presumably cut into his profits. Well, I guess he can always fall back on his mercury detoxification, chronic fatigue immune dysfunction treatment (it's all caused by those nasty yeasts, don't you know?), hyberbaric oxygen therapy and anti-aging hormone business.

Are you sure this is the guy you want to be gettng your scientific insight from?

In any case, I saw 2 more patients last week who completed 3-4 months of therapy whose NIH-CPSI scores improved by 39% and 70% respectively. Only 2 more patients to complete therapy in the next month and I will be able to analyze my data on the entire group. Quite frankly, whether nanobacteria exist or not is of far less interest to me than whether this treatment works (for whatever reason).

[dshoskes]

Oops, one thing I thought I had originally posted and now don't see anywhere. After treating our initial cohort of patients and seeing the surprisingly positive results (I was, to say the least, extremely sceptical at the outset) I was invited to join the medical advisory board of Nanobac Labs to consult on potential urological applications (there are many more besides prostatitis). I am reimbursed for my consulting time and should therefore correctly be identified as having a financial interest (however small) in the company's fortunes. I do also own some of their stock (NNBP), which currently represents a whopping 0.28% of my investment portfolio. This is all a matter of public record:

http://www.nanobaclabs.com/Newsroom/Pre ... 2004-02-05

[webslave]

A May 2004 article in New Scientist reports:

"I just don't think this is real," says Jack Maniloff of the University of Rochester in New York. "It is the cold fusion of microbiology." John Cisar of the National Institutes of Health is equally sceptical. "There are always people who are trying to keep this alive. It's like it is on life support." .... After studying nanoparticles found in saliva, Cisar's team published a paper in 2000 claiming that the DNA detected by the Finnish team was a contaminant from a normal bacterium. "It wasn't until we couldn't get any unique nucleic acids that we suddenly realised we were being tricked," he says. The paper also said that what looked liked self-replication was just an unusual process of crystal growth. ....

But scepticism about the claims by the Finnish researchers is heightened by the fact that they have financial interests. The group has set up a company called Nanobac Life Sciences in Tampa, Florida, which sells diagnostic kits for spotting nanobacteria. It is even developing treatments for conditions supposedly caused by them, despite the lack of evidence.

The fact that the Finnish scientists who "discovered" nanobacteria are heavily financially invested in the idea makes the whole thing a poisoned chalice IMO. More:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995009

[dshoskes]

Thanks for positing this interesting article, which discusses both sides of the issue, including the fact that the Mayo Clinic researchers who published the most recent paper have no financial ties to Nanobac Labs and the diagram showing that nanobacteria (or whatever the hell they are) are the same size or larger than other disease causing organisms.

Again, the debate is completely moot if it turns out that the therapy helps men with CPPS, whether or not nanobacteria exist or are the cuasative agent.

[webslave]

But if one of the mainstays of "nanobacteria" therapy is tetracycline (as you state in this thread), aren't we then back to the old arguments about the effects of antibiotics, with tetracycline being more actively anti-inflammatory than most?

https://ucpps.men/antibiotics-are-anti-inflammatory-agents

I have a sense of déjà vu .....

[dshoskes]

But if one of the mainstays of "nanobacteria" therapy is tetracycline (as you state in this thread), aren't we then back to the old arguments about the effects of antibiotics, with tetracycline being more actively anti-inflammatory than most?

https://ucpps.men/antibiotics-are-anti-inflammatory-agents

I have a sense of déjà vu .....

Which is why

1) All men I have treated in the cohort I am following have failed multiple previous courses of antibiotics, including the classes which most potently inhibit IL-8 and IL-6

2) If the preliminary "open label" results are promising, the next step would be a prospective randomized placebo controlled trial to include as one of it's key arms a "tetracyline only" group (with a capsule placebo and a suppository placebo)

Or is the established cure rate and scientific validity of the Stanford/Wise-Anderson Protocol so overwhelming that all other areas of chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome research should be halted immediately?

[webslave]

I'm all for more research in every area except the old conventional bacterial one, which has been beaten to death. I'm on record many times calling for studies into the Stanford/Wise-Anderson Protocol and similar treatments (Weiss, Kotarinos etc). I guess an argument could be made that nanobacteria is a new field, but until more clarity emerges on just exactly what these "things" are (self-assembling molecules? Virus-like life forms? Calcium-loving minibacteria?), and whether they are doing anything more sinister than accumulating calcified deposits in tissues, I'll remain très sceptical.

[webslave]

Let me clarify that I'm very pleased to see this research go ahead. We need more research into every unexplored area. This is an unexplored area. It may take several years to find an answer, as it did with bacteria. Thankfully, studies into nanobacteria will proceed on many fronts, not merely in the prostate.

Forgive me for being skeptical about the majority of CP/CPPS pts. I acknowledge that a minority of pts may have any number of diverse things going on.

In the meantime, let's all hope there is adequate research into other fields too, like myoneuropathy.

[james-d]

I am very glad to see new research being done.

I know that many here are very against this line of thought that an organisim may have a role in CP - and they may be right - but there is SO LITTLE RESEARCH IN THIS FIELD - I am glad to see some - and that it is coming from a doctor that this site has previously credited greatly for his work in this field.

So - kuddos Dr. Shoskes - I look forward to the results of the study (whatever they may be!)!