CS: Safety and effectiveness of Bacillus Coagulens

I've had a microscopist trained by Dr. Robert Young diagnose me with candida (which I had suspected for a long time).

SoI'm trying to eat alkaline (which has, weirdly enough, made me feel worse and have a worse immune system even though blood samples showed up that after 2 months nearly half of the fungus in my blood was gone and my blood cells were no longer clumped together and malformed), and use natural anti-fungals (Now Foods Candida Clear, Formula SF722 and coconut oil).

I also do take probiotics (Jarrow EPS and Healthy Origins 30 bill), but I've read a lot of glowing testimonials about Bacillus Coagulens. I ordered DuraFlora, but didn't take it when I read that these are Soil Based Organisms, and form spores which may stay in your gut forever, and will never be eradicated. It also said it would incorporate loose genetic material into it's own makeup which sounded very scary... It might kill candida, but make problems down the line...

I read this here:

http://www.listen2yourgut.com/blog/the-lactobacillus-sporogenes-hoax/
http://www.listen2yourgut.com/blog/bacterial-soil-organisms-hsos-sos-sbos-etc/

However, on Wikipedia they linked to a study showing the bacteria (but didn not mention spores, could that be the difference, the spores stay forever?) did not cling to the walls of the intestines, and so would be flushed out again in a few days if not taken constantly. I could swear I read this here, but can't find it at the moment...:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726964/?tool=pmcentrezhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6P-4VPD6T4-2&_user=10&_coverDate=06/30/2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=57c02d337e1ad36f59498922866267a9&searchtype=a

Now I know this was for a special brand of Bacillus Coagulans (GanedenBC30), but I would guess if that strain is safe so is the Bacillus Coagulans used in DuraFlora...? And what could be the truth? Does the spores stay in your gut forever, or will they be flushed out?

CS, what is your take on this?

irtua_ - Bacillus coagulans is safe, wouldn't worry about it.

Bacillus coagulans is called Lactobacillus sporogenes.

Eating an "alkaline diet" isn't for everyone.

See how you do on this test:

http://www.naturalhealthyellowpages.com/metabolic/self_test.html

So the spores won't remain in my gut for a long time causing potentially long-term problems? Is it true they are only transitory bacteria and cannot live in our intestines without constant supplementation?

I got a mixed type on that site, what types don't do well on an alkaline diet? But since my blood is improving, that should mean it's good for me, no? I won't give up meat, but am trying something like a modified Warrior Diet with only salads and vegetarian meals until evening meal where I usually have meat or fish together with vegetables.

So do you think it's a fallacy that all people should have a high alklaline reading to be healthy? Can some people be healthy at lower PH readings as well? Is it not true that candida, bacteria etc. thrive in an low-oxygen and acidic environment?

Happy to hear your views CS, as I value your advice greatly! Your advice has lead me to great discoveries with regards to my health in the past!

virtua_ - The problem with alkaline diets, is the message they imply is that it would be good for the blood (not actually true), but the pH in the digestive track matters less. One way to look at it, is that we benefit from lactic acid bacteria. Also, we benefit from acid foods, such as meat to stimulate gastric acids. Without these, there is not proper digestion of minerals.

More info here:

http://www.immortalhair.org/apps/blog/show/1769897-kidney-stones-alkalinity

Also, the blood pH has nothing to do with diet, if anything less than one-half of one percent. The thyroid governs the blood pH, not the diet.

Instead of thinking in terms of alkalinity, a more correct term would be antioxidants. All degenerative diseases are fueled by poor insulin regulation. Antioxidants can attenuate poor insulin regulation.

Hmm, OK... That was a tad confusing, but isn't also oxygenation required to combat bacteria and candida etc.? I guess adding my intake of greens and mineral salts wouldn't be bad anyhow, especially for a mixed type like me? How about the PrimePH drops? My main focus is to try to avoid sugar and sugary fruits while eating meat/fish and greens. I intuitively know that I've thrived on high-meat in the past, so total vegetarian might not be for me.

Could you please answer this as well: "So the spores won't remain in my gut for a long time causing potentially long-term problems? Is it true they are only transitory bacteria and cannot live in our intestines without constant supplementation?" Sorry to nag you CS, thanks for the great help and answers!

virtua_ - Sugar and refined carbohydrates can certain exacerbate or feed Candida. But eating "acid foods" like meat will not.

Acid based bacteria keep Candida in check.

The real problem perhaps is any use of antibiotics.

Poor oxygen occurs during infection, clogged cell membranes (bad fats), lots of sugar, or low thyroid function.

With any probiotic, they are often "contaminated" unintentionally with bad bacteria. The good outweighs the bad.

What about the spores? These two study will shed some light. I do not believe they cause harm, but instead are protective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC127533/gmed

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/74/16/5254?view=long&pmid=18586965

OK, thak you so much CS!

One more question:

Do you think live blood analysis is a good indicator of health? If the bloodcells are not clumped together, round and bright and there are no pathogens to be found, does this show that a person is really healthy?

What I mean is, since I saw a rapid improvement in my live blood analysis from eating the way I did (alkaline, but still with meat and fish), should I continue this? If this was not right for me, wouldn't the blood deteriorate? Or are there other markers, and the blood can look top notch, and still there might be other problems?

Because according to this microscopist, most everyone who had done alkalizing had rapid improvement of their blood...

Just trying to make sense of it all, as I still feel there is value to alkalizing, as I feel it makes sense that when we take in more acids, the body have to spend more alkaline minerals to buffer those acids, which can lead to things like osteoporosis, joint problems etc.?

Thanks again CS, I truly value your opinion!

virtua_ - To save time, I had similar questions about this on many occasions.

This might cover it:

As far as pH is concerned, the respiratory system alone can govern its balance quite adequately. Secondly, the proper pH of the digestive system works better below 5.5, and any higher than that there are problems. We have lactic acid bacteria that thrive in a more acidic digestive system.

Of course during cancer, there is a problem with producing bicarbonate, and the thyroid has a lot to do with that.

Its relationship to the kidneys are intimately involved, and how the kidneys produce and regulate this process is important. Alkalizing simply doesn't work for all metabolic types. Alkalize or die has already died along with colon hydrotherapy.

If your eating style is mixed type, then alkalizing is appropriate for you.

We produce about less than 0.05% of the acid from the foods we consume. The majority of the acid we make is therefore not from food, it is from our metabolism (production of energy).

When clinicians observed their patient's acid production when they were on diets (avoiding acidic foods). No one had actually found any difference in acid production.

Also, let's look at this study:

http://www.nutritionj.com/content/8/1/41/abstract

Researchers in the above study looked a few factors, such as whether or not a diet high in phosphoric acid affected urine calcium loss, overall calcium balance, and markers indicating excessive bone loss.

In twelve studies examining the effects of various levels of dietary phosphoric acid intake. All 12 followed a total of 269 people. Just three of the studies did, in fact, report an increase in the amount of acid excreted in the urine from elevated phosphoric acid intake.

The increase in acid urine did not result in a loss of calcium. Instead, the exact opposite happened.

All 12 studies showed significant decreases in urine calcium excretion in response to phosphate supplements whether the calcium intake was high or low.

"All of the findings from this meta-analysis were contrary to the acid-ash hypothesis. Higher phosphate intakes were associated with decreased urine calcium and increased calcium retention. This meta-analysis did not find evidence that phosphate intake contributes to demineralization of bone or to bone calcium excretion in the urine."

How our bodies produce energy is 99.5% more significant than the acid-ash theory.


_________________

This got my attention: "How our bodies produce energy is 99.5% more significant than the acid-ash theory."

Please go on if you have the time...?

Also, if you have the time, please, answer whether you think live blood tests are a good way of measuring health? If I see (as I have) improvement in my live blood under a microscope, then would this mean I'm doing the rights things for my body?

Thanks again CS!!

virtua_ - Live blood analysis is much more revealing I think than a dead (sterilized) blood test, because it visually shows to a professional who knows what to look for (interpret) the images.

Certainly a flowing, unclustered blood cells, as opposed to a stagnant (or clumped together) is a very healthy sign.

The old adage goes that disease is where there is a stagnant flow (a block).

Thyroid health and healthy redox reactions, good for energy production.

If the thyroid is poor, or liver or kidneys it will mean that the body maybe compromised on bicarbonate, that is where the acidification can be a factor.

The Chinese have long believed that hair health is tied to kidney health. I think they are correct because they are tied with adrenal and thyroid function.