|
Quantum
Medicine Update July 2005 - © 4-25-05
Paul Yanick, Jr. Ph.D
Soil
Based Organisms™: The Ideal Biological Therapy for Immunological
Unresponsiveness and Stubborn Fungal Infections that Underlie
Dysbiosis
Paul Yanick, Jr., Ph.D –President, American
Academy of Quantum Medicine
Drug-resistant
infections continue to emerge, infecting an increasing number
of individuals. Using the amazing
powers of the immune system as a therapeutic agent yields the
greatest health benefits. Resistant to all natural medicines
and drugs, insidious infections can burn out the immune system
by forcing it to expend all its energy in endless warfare, making
us vulnerable to many serious and life-threatening infections.
Humans
and bacteria have commensal relationships, where neither partner
is harmed, or symbiotic relationships, where
unique metabolic traits or other benefits are
provided. Our gastrointestinal (GI) tract is colonized by a vast community
of symbionts and commensals that have important effects
on immune function, nutrient
processing by extending the processing of undigested food to the benefit of
the host, and host defense by limiting colonization of
the GI tract by pathogens.
The GI tract consortium is, however, unique among organs
because it contains more cells than the rest of the human
body and possesses over 500 different
microbial species (most of which have yet to be cultured in vitro). The use
of antibiotics,
at any time in one’s life, destabilizes the GI tract consortium by eliminating
beneficial microbes, opening new niches for colonization by resistant pathogens.
The intestinal ecosystem is characterized by dynamic and reciprocal interactions
among its microflora, epithelium, and immune system. The continuum between
symbiosis, commensalism, and pathogenicity affect the potential outcomes of
alternative
medical treatment. The ultimate therapeutic reduction of the symbiont-host
or commensal-host relationship requires the identification of microbial products,
produced in host niches that improve the function of our innate immune system
and its degree of responsiveness and power against infectious microbes.
Microbes make enzymes that are used in making hundreds of products (soy sauce,
soda, beer, wine, cheese, infant formula, chewing gum, leather goods, paper,
laundry detergent, the stone-washed look on blue jeans, etc.). Some even produce
powerful antibiotics that the body uses to fight off pathogenic microbes that
cause a wide spectrum of many high profile diseases.
The greatest threat to the immune system involves a growing number of antibiotic-resistant
superbugs and mycotic (yeast or fungal) infections that are resistant to homeopathic
and phytomedicinal treatment. Mycotic infections are silent and persistent
opportunistic infections that stress and over stimulate the immune system to
the point of exhaustion,
forcing the immune system to expend energy in a battle it can’t win.
Since mycotic infections mutate and use their genetic diversity as an advantage
to
go deeper into the body, they can obstruct vital immunological repair routines.
Mutagenicity appears to be related to toxic insults from pesticides or compounds
that contain heavy metals, leading to an evolved natural resistance to all
sorts of anti-fungal compounds and drugs.1-2 When there is mycotic resistance
in the
gut, it spreads outward fast into the lymph system choking off the immune system
even more. Immunological unresponsiveness invites other pathogens, including
new mutant strains of food-borne infections that induce inflammation and promote
carcinogenesis. If gut dysbiosis remains untreated, the resistant mycotic progeny
will get stronger and replace the susceptible ones at the interface of the
genotypes.
Long-Term Clinical Probiotic Research
Many practitioners assume that common probiotics
with lactobacillus or bifodobacterium strains
can eradicate resistant mycotic infections and re-establish gut symbiosis.
A diverse group of microbes has been evaluated for such probiotic
activity, including many species of the genera Lactobacillus and
Bifidobacteria (most abundant in probiotic-containing food products),
species of Enterococcus,
Saccharomyces, Escherichia, and the and Bacillus species.
Our research on thousands of patients over the past decade indicates that gut
dysbiotic conditions could not be overturned with many of these popular probiotics.
Moreover, treatment with many of these strains did not stop recurrent and persistent
mycotic stressors in the gut.
Could it be that our central dogma of gut ecology is flawed? Or, that we are
using the wrong microbes to treat dysbiosis? Clearly, the dramatic rise in
inflammatory disorders now plaguing mankind is rooted in the gut. Years of
clinical trials helped us to realize that super strains of mycotic stressors
are the root cause of chronic maldigestion and malnutriton in patients with
treatment-resistant disoders.
Our use of Soil Based Organisms™ (SBOs),
specifically bacillus
lichenformis, proved to be the turning point in fully being
able to re-establish gut
symbiosis against common, overlooked and resistant Sporidiobolus strains.3-5 Treatment
with bacillus lichenformis in a unique metalloprotein matrix improved
the microbial milieu of the gastrointestinal tract dramatically.
Thereafter, we observed
progressive improvements in the metabolic activities and integrity
of the
villi cells lining the gut wall which have the dual role of excluding
toxic substances
and admitting nutrients into the bloodstream. Nutrient deficiencies
that previously did not respond to our long-term management efforts
seem to
respond quickly
as intestinal microbes synthesized vitamins, absorbed nutrients,
detoxified poisons like mercury, and provided gut-associated immune
defenses against
pathogenic fungal, bacterial strains, and parasites.
The
Missing Link in Re-establishing Gut Symbiosis: Bacillus Lichenformis
Clinically,
the use of a bacillus lichenformis proved to be the only effective
way to fully re-establish gut symbiosis against common, overlooked and resistant
Sporidiobolus strains.3-5 Bacillus
Lichenformis organisms are loaded with
biologically
active molecules that provide tremendous assistance to the immune system
in cleansing the body of unwanted infection and toxins. Since
Sporobolomyces causes
infections (lymphadenitis) in patients with AIDS, respiratory diseases, dermatitis,
cerebral infection, and serious fungal infections, the chemical arsenal of
this microbe had to be stabilized and enriched in a synergistic matrix that
for its effective performance in the gastrointestinal tract. 6-10
The amazing response of Bacillus Lichenformis is related to the breadth of
action against the selected resistance mechanisms of opportunistic infections
by the production of an enzyme-catalyzing substance that kills the fungi.
Sporobolomyces has a strong cross-resistance (distinguished from multiple
resistance), in
which it develops several mechanisms each giving resistance to one or more
anti-fungal compounds.11 In our experience, its 20 species seem to have an
array of mechanisms to meet any challenges. Even treatment with 600:1 extracts
of potent anti-fungal compounds like allicin, oregano oil, and neem oil failed
to eradicate this powerful gut pathogen. In addition, no other probiotic
or pharmaceutical weapon aimed at it could stop it from weakening the gut
mucosa
and triggering constant and prolonged inflammation.
Biological treatment of Sporobolomyces in the gut
requires a range of different approaches, including strengthening of the
body’s natural defense mechanisms
and the application of antagonistic microorganisms and natural antimicrobial
substances to restore symbiosis in the gastrointestinal tract. The potential
of antagonistic SBO microorganisms holds great promise in eradicating stubborn
and deep infections of opportunistic organisms in the gut. Ideally, identifying
antagonists with a broad spectrum of activity with added secondary metabolites
could well lead to effective control of mycotic infections caused by the
overuse and misuse of antibiotics.
SBOs were chosen based on their ability to succeed via their colonization
ability and adaptive nature.12 For example, studies have revealed the presence
of a
SBO bacterial population living and reproducing inside healthy fruit that
are effective against plant diseases in pears and tomatoes.13-14
The antagonist activity of SBOs can be expressed
in a number of ways: the most common are production of metabolites,15 competition
with the pathogen for food,16 direct parasitism,
and induced resistance associated with reduction of pathogen enzyme activity.17 Moreover, the use of SBOs proven to produce antibodies
prevented the appearance of resistance in pathogen strains (antibodies, the
sentinels of the immune system are critical to prevent re-infection).18
One SBO, bacillus subtilis produces iturin,
a natural antifungal compound created when it undergoes microbial fermentation.15 A gram-positive, nonpathogenic,
spore-forming organism bacillus subtilis is normally found in the soil, and
the robustness of spores enables passage across the gastric barrier, where
a proportion of spores germinate in the intestines and populate.
How SBOs Work and Communicate to Establish Gut Symbiosis
SBOs
communicate with one another by quorum
sensing (the emitting and reacting
to chemical signals). Quorum sensing enable cells to control gene expression
via different signaling themes, variations in the design of extracellular
signals, and the biochemical mechanisms of signal relay. Quorum sensing
is used by Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria to control
a variety of
physiological functions: virulence, bio-film formation, production of antibiotics,
sporulation, and genetic competence for transformation. Studies with mass
spectroscopy have identified four compounds used in bacterial signal transduction.22 Studies have shown that some SBOs use pheromones as regulators and help
to counteract the toxicity of sporobolomyces which store huge amounts
of toxic
metals.23,24 Moreover, these SBOs aid the body in the microbial control
of heavy metal pollution to prevent neurodegenerative disorders
associated with
heavy metal toxicity.25-28
SBOs
involve the timely manipulation of antagonist populations to
suppress pathogens in various inoculums’ sources29for a total or partial destruction of pathogen populations by other organisms.30 In agriculture, biological
antagonisms are expected to become an important part of the control measures
against disease.
Bacillus subtilus are capable of significant reductions in decay caused by
fungi in apples and its endospores are particularly resistant to dehydration
and are far more resistant to destruction by toxins than most bacteria.31 Plus, Bacillus
subtilis has been demonstrated capable of preventing infection
by
the yeast Monilinia fructicola for a period of nine days for peach, nectarine,
apricots and plums. Similarly, spraying apple leaves with Bacillus subtilis reduced infection by the fungi Nectria
galligena.30-32
Highlights of Scientific Research with SBOs
The advantages of using the SBOs (B. subtilis and B. lichenformis)—compounded
with metalloprotein37 synergists—over
other probiotic species are:
• Immunomodulation: SBOs provide a deliberate induction of defense reactions
in advance of infection that inaugurates biological defenses in symbiosis
with the immune system to cleanse the body of unwanted decay (intestinal
biofilms
or impacted wastes). They have been documented to aggressively consume
a high percentage of all pathogens (yeast, fungal, viral, parasitic, bacteria).41-43 SBO-proteinase enzymes are antagonist to serious infections like Listeria
monocytogenes.19-21
• Super Resilience Strains: SBOs in metalloprotein matrixes have fast growth,
relatively simple nutritional requirements, and secrete of large amounts
of proteins such as the anti-viral protein, alpha-interferon, un-coded
antibodies, and other immunological-type weapons or metabolites.35,37
• Antibody Production: Italian researchers have demonstrated that in vitro
and in vivo, SBOs are powerful stimulants of secretory immunoglobulin A,
38-39 and various antibodies of the peptide-lipopeptides of the aminoglycoside
group.57-60
• GALT Enhancement: SBOs survive in the gut environment long enough
to promote gut-associated lymphoid tissues (GALT) development which mediates
a variety
of host immune functions, such as mucosal immunity and oral tolerance.33-36
• Improved Nourishment: SBOs assist in the digestive process to boost digestive
capacity and assimilation of nutrients needed to repair the body from damage
induced by stress and prolonged inflammation. They are proven effective
in oral bacterial therapy and in bacterio-prophylaxis of gastrointestinal
disorders
for diarrhea (mostly as a direct result of antibiotic treatment).43-46 The ingestion of significant quantities of B. subtilis restores normal
microbial
flora following extensive antibiotic use or illness.40-44
• Improved Urinary Tract Function: Long-term treatment with SBOs decreases
the incidence of urinary tract infections in the elderly.42
• Improved Cell-Mediated Immunity: Improved cell-mediated immune response,49-50 were noted with a decrease in recurrent respiratory infections,50 increased
interferon production by stimulated peritoneal and spleen cells.51
• Anti-tumor Effects: Studies have shown that SBOs produce antibiotics
like amicoumacin A (an isocoumarin compound) that exerts both anti-inflammatory
and anti-tumoral activities.61-62
• Improved Digestion via Gastro-duodenal
Function: SBOs have anti-H
pylori activity to inhibit a common clinical cause of gastritis and duodenitis
and produce potent antimicrobial substances (bacteriocins), 52-53 and
other biologically
active compounds.54-56
Summary
Asthma, allergies, gut permeability and digestive disorders, arthritis and
immune disorders are reaching epidemic proportions. Millions rely on painkillers
in order to mute the agony of slipped discs, deteriorating joints and prolonged
inflammation. The awesome potential of microbe-based therapies with SBOs
provides one of the most promising and safe alternatives to drugs or other
alternative methods to rid the body of new mutant strains of microbes that
induce and promote inflammation and pain.63
The healthy immune system has the ability to unleash its magnificent
and diverse arsenal of antimicrobial agents when SBOs are plentiful in
the
gut. Only one
treatment with an antibiotic can cause a sporobolomyces infection to silently
persist as it both suppresses and depletes cells involved in the immune
response. What could be better than allowing the body’s own immune
system to battle the threats of new mutant strains of infections?
SBOs strengthen innate immunity by boosting nourishment to the cells that
mediate the immune response and by cleansing the body of sporobolomyces
strains that
burrow behind putrefactive and impacted intestinal wastes. New insights
gleaned from SBOs are nothing short of breathtaking. Immunomodulation and
re-modulation
with SBOs that are host defense potentiators and immune potentiators augment
the body’s army of immune cells to identify, tag, poison, blast,
and consume pathogenic microbes. Clearly, symbiosis is a prerequisite immune
patrolling, enforcing, and attacking of invading microbes with greater
efficiency.
New SBO-based technologies provide novel strategies to outwit deadly forms
of new emerging viruses and mutant superbugs that pose serious and even lethal
threats to the human body. Re-establishing gut symbiosis reduces the stress
load on the immune system so it can provide a stronger and more powerful defense
against viral infections.
It is evident that future research endeavors on human gut ecology must employ
a multi-disciplinary approach with an integration of microbiology, biochemistry,
molecular ecology, environmental science, chemical and environmental engineering,
physical chemistry and analytical chemistry. However, as our research revealed,
SBOs must be free of immunosuppressive mycotoxins commonly found many cultured
probiotics. Mycotoxicosis disrupts liver detoxification functions and can depress
cell-mediated immune functions seventy percent.64 In addition, top product
toxicity and irradiation, an extensive biochemical, physiological, and phylogenetic
analysis of probiotic products reveals that some products are even mislabeled.47-48 Our long-term research has shown that out of 77 bacillus strains only two SBOs
were clinically effective. SBOs have been proven safe and are commonly used
in the production of antibiotics, amino acids, enzymes, and fermented beans.63
SBOs help to boost nutrient uptake and detoxify the body and address the
number one cause of maldigestion at gastro-duodenal juncture.65-67 SBOs
protect the
GI mucosa and hold great promise in restoring GI function and GALT-mucosal
immune system disorders to create a natural barrier against invading microbes.
The result: the mucosal immune system’s repertoire of lymphocytes
can do their job at defending the body efficiently with little wasted effort.
NOTE:
The metalloprotein matrix of Soil
Based Organisms™ (Nature’s
Biotics) used in this study was purchased from Life Science Products,
Inc by the author. This research was funded by the American Academy
of Quantum Medicine, a non-profit organization. The author is
neither a paid consultant nor an employee of Life Science Products,
Inc.
References:
1. Ames, B. N. (1983) Dietary carcinogens and anticarcinogens.
Science 221, 1256-1264.
2. Ames, B. N., Magaw, R. and Gold, L. S. (1987) Ranking possible
carcinogenic hazards. Science 236, 271-280.
3. Larone, D. H. 1995. Medically Important Fungi - A Guide to
Identification, 3rd ed. ASM Press, Washington, D.C.
4. Sutton, DA et al:(ed.). 1998. Guide to Clinically Significant
Fungi, 1st ed. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.
5. de Hoog, G S et al: 2000. Atlas of Clinical Fungi, 2nd ed,
vol. 1. Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Utrecht, The Netherlands
6. Morris, JT et al: 1991. Sporobolomyces infection in an AIDS
patient. J Infect Dis. 164:623-624.
7. Plzas, J et al: 1994. Sporobolomyces salmonicolor lympadenitis
in an AIDS patient. Pathogen or passenger? AIDS. 8:387-388.
8. Bergman, AG and CA. Kauffman. 1984. Dermatitis due to Sporobolomyces
infection. Arch Derm. 120:1059-1060
9. Misra, VC and HS Randhawa. 1976. Sporobolomyces salmonicolor
var. fischerii, a new yeast. Arch Microbiol. 108:141-143.
10. Rantala, A et al: 1995. Yeasts in blood cultures: Impact
of early therapy. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 21:557-561.
11. Metcalf, RL 1971. The chemistry and biology of pesticides.
In: White-Stevens, R. (Ed.) Pesticides in the Environment, Part
II, Vol. 1, Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 1-144.
12. Wilson, CL and Wisniewski ME 1989. Biological control of
postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables an emerging technology.
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 27:425-441.
13. Mari, M et al: 1996. Postharvest biological control of grey
mould (Botrytis cinerea Pers.: Fr.) on fresh-market tomatoes
with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. Crop Prot. 15:699-705.
14. Mari, M et al: 1996. Biological control of grey mold in pears
by antagonistic bacteria. Biol. Control 7:30-37.
15. Gueldner, RC et al: 1988 Isolation and identification of
iturins as antifungal peptides in biological control of peach
brown rot with Bacillus subtilis. J. Agric.Food Chem. 36:366-370.
16. Wilson, CL et al: 1987. Biological control of Rhizopus rot
of peach with Enterobacter cloacae. Phytopathology 77:303.
17. Wisniewski, ME and Wilson, CL 1992. Biological control of
postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables: Recent advances.
HortScience 27:94-98.
18. Zimand, G et l: 1996. Effect of Trichoderma harzianum on
Botrytis cinerea pathogenicity. Phytopathology 86:1255-1260.
19. Uraz, G et al: 2000. The Comparison of Proteinase Enzyme
Activities of Bacillus Species on Skim Milk Agar and YCB-BSA
(Yeast Carbon Base Bovine Serum Albumine) Agar. Biotechnology
2000. The World Congress on Biotechnology, 3-8, Berlin, Vol:
2, p: 353-355.
20. Uraz, G et al: 2000. Comparison of the Antagonistic Effects
of Bacillus on The Listeria monocytogenes (680 x L. Monocytogenes
2167 type 1) Invarious Salt and Glucose Concentration on The
BHI Medium. Biotechnology 2000. The World Congress on Biotechnolog
2000, Berlin, Vol:2, p: 350-352.
21. Uraz, G et al: 2000. The Inhibitory Effect of Pediococcus
and Leuconostoc Strains Isolated from Raw Milk Against Listeria
monocytogenes. Biotechnology 2000. The World Congress on Biotechnology
2000, Berlin, Vol: 2, p: 339-341.
22. Ceponl, Y et al: Ljubljana University, Biotechnical faculty,
Vecna pot 111, Ljubljana, Slovenia1.Public Health Reserach Institute,
225 Warren Street, Newark, New Jersey 07103, USA2.
23. Mowill, JL and Gadd, GM 1983. Zinc uptake and toxicity in
the yeasts Sporobolomyces roseus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
J. Gen.Microbiol. 129 3421-3425.
24. Norris, PR and Kelly DP 1979. Accumulation of metals by bacteria
and yeasts. Dev. Ind. Microbiol. 20 299-308.
25. Brierley CL 1990. Metal immobilization using bacteria. In:
Ehrlich HL and Brierley CL (eds.) Microbial Mineral Recovery.
McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York. 303-323.
26. Brierley, JA 1990 Production and application of a Bacillus-based
product for use in metals biosorption. In: Volesky B (ed.) Biosorption
of Heavy Metals. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 305-311.
27. Gadd, GM 1992. Microbial control of heavy metal pollution.
In: Fry JC, Gadd GM, Herbert RA, Jones CW and Watson-Craik IA
(eds.) Microbial Control of Pollution. Cambridge University Press.
28. Gadd GN and White C 1993. Microbial treatment of metal pollution
- A working biotechnology. TIBTech.11 353-359.
29. Sutton and Peng, G. (1993) Manipulation and vectoring of
biocontrol organisms to manage foliage and fruit diseases in
cropping systems. Annual Review of Phytopathology 31: 472-493.
30. Agrios, G. N. (1997) Plant Pathology (4TH Ed.) Academic Press.
San Diego, U.S.A.
31. Scholberg, P.L. Marchi, A. and Bechard, J. (1995) Biocontrol
of postharvest diseases of apple using Bacillus spp. Isolated
from stored apples. Can. J. Microbiol. 41: 247-252.
32. Swadling, I.R & Jefferies, P (1998) Antagonistic properties
of two bacterial biocontrol agents of grey mould diseases. Biocontrol
Science and Technology 8: 439-448.
33. Ki-Jong Rhee et al: 2004.Role of Commensal Bacteria in Development
of Gut-Associated Lymphoid Tissues and Preimmune Antibody Repertoire
The Journal of Immunology, 172: 1118-1124.
34. Williams, J. 2003. Portal to the interior: Viral pathogenesis
and natural compounds that restore mucosal immunity and modulate
inflammation. Alternative Medicine Review. 8(4):395-409.
35. Wayne, L et al. 2000. Resistance of Bacillus Endospores to
extreme Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial Environments. Micribiol
Mol Biol Rev. 64(3): 548-72.
36. Zamenoff, F et al: 1965.Genetic factors in radiation resistance
of bacillus subtilis. J of Bacteriology. 1965, 90:180-15.
37. Setlow, P. 1992. I will survive: protecting and repairing
spore DNA. J. Bacteriol. 174:2737-2741
38. Bonomo, R et al: 1980. Ruolo delle IgA secretorie nelle funzioni
dell'immunita locale dell'apparato digerente. Impiego di spore
di B. subtilis in alcune forme morbose con deficit di IgA e ipogammaglobulinemia.
Chemioter. Antimicrob. 3:237-240.
39. Fiorini, G et al: 1985. II B. subtilis come stimolatore selettivo
delle IgA linfocitarie di membrana. Farmaci 9:331-334.
40. Green DH et al: 199.Characterization of Two Bacillus Probiotics.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, September 1999, p. 4288-4291,
Vol. 65, No. 9.
41. Fiorini, G et al. 1985. II B. subtilis come stimolatore selettivo
delle IgA linfocitarie di membrana. Farmaci 9:331-334.
42. Meroni, P et al:1983. Effect of long-term treatment with
B. subtilis on the frequency of urinary tract infections in older
patients. Chemioterapia 2:142-144.
43. Novelli, A et al: 1984. Bacillus subtilis spores as a natural
pro-host oral agent: Preliminary data in children. Chemioterapia
3:152-155.
44. Vacca, A et al: 1983. Chemoimmunotherapy for multiple myeloma
using an intermittent combination drug schedule (melphalan +
prednisone) and alternating course of B. subtilis spores. Chemioterapia
2:300-305.
45. Mazza P: 1994. The use of Bacillus subtilis as an anti-diarrhea
microorganism. Boll. Chim. Farm. 133:3-18.
46. Rowland I. Probiotics and benefits to human health— the
evidence in favour. Environ Microbiol 1999;1:375–382.
47. Ngo Thi Hoa: 2000. Characterization of Bacillus Species Used
for Oral Bacteriotherapy and Bacterioprophylaxis of Gastrointestinal
Disorders Appl Environ Microbiol. Dec; 66(12): 5241–5247.
48. Casula G, Cutting SM. 2002. Bacillus probiotics: spore germination
in the gastrointestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:2344-52.
49. Ciprandi G et al: GW. 1986. In vitro effects of B. subtilis
on the immune response. Chemioterapia V(6):404-7.
50. Vacca A et al. 1983 Chemoimmunotherapy for multiple myeloma
using an intermittent combination drug schedule (Melphalan +
Prednisone) and alternating courses of Bacillus subtilis spores.
Chemioterapia II(5):300-6.
51. Muscetola M et al: 1992 Effects of B. subtilis spores on
interferon production. Pharmacological Res 26 (2): 176-7.
52. Hyronimus, B et al: 1998. Coagulin, a bacteriocin-like inhibitory
substance produced by Bacillus coagulans. J. Appl. Microbiol.
85:42-50.
53. Naclerio G et al: 1993. Antimicrobial activity of a newly
identified bacteriocin of Bacillus cereus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
59:4313-4316
54. Logan, N A and P De Vos. 1998. Bacillus et industrie. Bull.
Soc. Fr. Microbiol. 13:130-136.
55. Naclerio GE et al: 1993. Antimicrobial activity of a newly
identified bacteriocin of Bacillus cereus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
59:4313-4316
56. Perez C et al: 1992. Production of antimicrobial by Bacillus
subtilis MIR 15. J. Biotechnol. 26:331-336.
57. Kajimura Y et al: 1996. Fusarcidin A, new depsipeptide antibiotic
2produced by Bacillus polymyxa KT-8. Taxonomy, fermentation,
isolation, structure elucidation and biological activity. J.
Antibiot. 49:129-135.
58. Naclerio G et al: 1993. Antimicrobial activity of a newly
identified bacteriocin of Bacillus cereus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
59:4313-4316.
59. Sato, T et al: 1992. A new isocoumarin antibiotic, Y-05460M-A.
J. Antibiot. 45:1949-1952
60. Sorokulova IB et al: 1997. Probiotics against Campylobacter
pathogens. J. Travel Med. 4:167-170.
61. Canedi, L M et al: 1997. PM-94128, a new isocoumarin antitumor
agent produced by a marine bacterium. J. Antibiot. 50:175-176.
62. Itoh, JT et al: 1982. Isolation, physicochemical properties
and biological activities of amicoumacins produced by Bacillus
pumilus. Agric. Biol. Chem. 46:1255-1259.
63. Osipova, IG et al: 1998. Safety of bacteria of the genus
Bacillus, forming the base of some probiotics. Zh. Mikrobiol.
Epidemiol. Immunobiol. 6:68-70.
64. Yanick, P 2002. Mycotoxicosis: A new emerging co-factor in
Alzheimer’s, environmental illness and treatment-resistant
syndromes, Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, 154-6.
65. Yanick P 2002. Oral Chelation of the Biliary Tract and Circulatory
System in CV Disease. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients,
52-55.
66. Yanick P 1994. Disorders of the gall bladder and duodenum
in overweight patients. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients.
568-70.
67. Walker, M 1997.Soil-based organisms support immune system
functions from the ground up. Townsend Letter for Doctors and
Patients.
68. Yanick P 2003. The Quantum Repatterning Technique American
Chiropractic, 50.
|
