Re: Aureus+Fungus infection regressing after many years by codexaureus ..... Zapper Support Forum
Date: 7/7/2011 7:13:16 AM ( 13 y ago)
Hits: 18,350
URL: https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1832491
0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message. Hide votes What is this?
Thank you for your comments. After asking the doctor directly he said he thought it was S. aureus.
Regarding the electrodes: "Bacteria have a negative electrical surface charge. An electrical field forces bacteria to migrate toward a positive electrode and away from a negative."1
To prevent the bacteria from migrating deeper into the skin it would indeed be best to use the positive electrode at the site of infection.
Positively and negatively charged particles within the body flow to their electrode counterpart simultaneously:
"Electric charges found within [all living organisms] are a combination of movable positive and negative particles. During an electric current, both varieties of particles are flowing past each other in opposite directions."2
Lampe3 in 1998 enumerates the cellular effects of the anode and cathode in electrotherapy and both are listed as bactericidal. However, in 1974, Barranco, Spadaro, Berger et al.4, determined the effect of weak direct current, using four different types of metal, on Staphylococcus aureus:
"Sixty mm petri dishes were fashioned so that two identical wire electrodes, either silver (99.9%), gold (99.9%), platinum (99.9%) and stainless steel (surgical #316-L) could be fastened to each bottom plate" [...] "The plates were incubated at 37 C with the implanted electrodes attached to positive and negative poles, respectively, of constant current generators set to deliver predetermined currents of 0.4, 4.0, 40 or 400 microamperes."
[...]
"Results of this study show that bacterial growth can be inhibited in vitro in the vicinity of metal electrodes by the application of direct current at levels of 0.4-400 microamperes (2-2,000 microamperes/cm2 at the electrode surface). Either the positive or negative wire electrode of stainless steel, gold, platinum or silver can inhibit bacterial growth at 400 microamperes of current, but at this level toxic effects also occur. At lower levels of 0.4-4.0 microamperes, the positive silver electrode has excellent inhibitory capacity and negligible toxic effects. In vivo experiments should be devised utilizing electrochemical reactions at the positive silver electrode at 0.4-4.0 microamperes (2-20 microamperes/cm2) to inhibit localized bacterial infections."
In a follow-up study Spadaro, Berger, Baranco et al. note that the cause of the "excellent inhibitory capacity"4 of the positive silver electrode is due to "electrochemically injected silver"5:
"Silver, platinum, gold, stainless-steel, and copper electrodes were used with low currents (0.02 to 20'gA/mm2) to explore their electrochemical effects on the growth of four bacterial species. In the higher current ranges, all electrodes inhibited growth at both poles, usually in conjunction with electrolytic break- down of the medium and severe corrosion of the metal. Silver, however, was extremely bacteriostatic, even at the lowest current, when used as the anode. Quantitative studies showed that most of this inhibition takes place in a few hours and is not accompanied by changes in pH. Electrochemically injected silver from the anode is probably the instrumental agent, being effective in concentrations of about 5 microgram/ml. This is the equivalent concentration of silver sulfadiazine that has been shown to give complete inhibition of bacteria, but without the sulfonamide moiety."
"The antimicrobial properties of silver stem from the chemical properties of its ionized form, Ag+. This ion forms strong molecular bonds with other substances used by bacteria to respire, such as molecules containing sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen.[25] When the Ag+ ion forms a complex with these molecules, they are rendered unusable by the bacteria, depriving them of necessary compounds and eventually leading to their death."6
Other alternative S. aureus treatments include:
1. Accelr8 Technology Corp. The BACcel™ System. URL: http://www.accelr8.com/pgen.php?pg=products_baccel_system (July 16th, 2011).
2. William B. Which way does the "electricity" really flow? URL: http://amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html (July 16th, 2011).
3. Lampe KE. 'Electrotherapy in Tissue Repair', Journal of Hand Therapy 1998; 11:132. URL: http://prizm-medical.com/researchmedia/pdfs/Electro_tissue.pdf (July 16th, 2011).
4. S.D. Barranco, M.D., J.A. Spadaro, Ph.D., T.J. Berger, Ph.D, R.O. Becker, M.D. In Vitro Effect of Weak Direct Current on Staphylococcus Aureus. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 100:250-255, May 1974.
5. J.A. Spadaro, T.J. Berger, S.D. Barranco, S.E. Chapin, R.O. Becker. Antibacterial Effects of Silver Electrodes with Weak Direct Current. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Nov. 1974; 6(5): 637.
6. Wikipedia. Silver. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver (July 16th, 2011).
7. Enwemeka CS, Williams D, et al. Blue 470-nm light kills methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in vitro. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 2009 Apr; 27 (2):221-6.
8. Huberman L, Gollop N, et al. Antibacterial properties of whole body extracts and haemolymph of Lucilia sericata maggots. J Wound Care. 2007 Mar; 16(3):123-7.
The infection looks like this:
S.aureus indeed looks more golden:
This one resembles the infection but bigger:
This is also S. aureus small and mostly white more closely resembling the infection:
<< Return to the standard message view
fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1832491