IV Charcoal Cures Infections

mouse

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
65
The historical cases of IV charcoal are incomplete because they do not discuss the long term effects of the charcoal, they merely report on the outcome of infection. Where did the charcoal end up? Hence I do not see anything which contradicts the idea that IV charcoal would behave dissimilarly to the cases of lymphatic accumulation of a similar material. I think a more interesting question is whether this isolated incident of lymphatic accumulation of carbon black is more common than believed, or whether there is a normal excretion pathway that works for the majority of people. We know from the paper that there is a limited ability to tolerate IV charcoal, which may indicate a significant bottleneck in excretion or metabolism. Given all that, I don't see heavy metals as being particularly relevant.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
The historical cases of IV charcoal are incomplete because they do not discuss the long term effects of the charcoal, they merely report on the outcome of infection. Where did the charcoal end up? Hence I do not see anything which contradicts the idea that IV charcoal would behave dissimilarly to the cases of lymphatic accumulation of a similar material. I think a more interesting question is whether this isolated incident of lymphatic accumulation of carbon black is more common than believed, or whether there is a normal excretion pathway that works for the majority of people. We know from the paper that there is a limited ability to tolerate IV charcoal, which may indicate a significant bottleneck in excretion or metabolism. Given all that, I don't see heavy metals as being particularly relevant.

Well, I think it is relevant. Your orignal tattoo comparison used a different route of administration and different materials than IV charcoal. So, why should that be used as any sort of comparison? Kinda like comparing a Ferrari to the breakfast menu at Dennys. I don't doubt it's possible, but all we have is wild speculation based on something not at all similar.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
It seems like the injected charcoal will end up getting stuck in the lymphatic system, even if tiny.
I don't think Tattoo Ink is similar to Activated Charcoal. Ink will frequently contain all sorts of heavy metals. I would also think there would be major differences between IV administration and Tattoo Ink into the skin.
I don't. but you have no evidence that it would act similarly. Tattoo Ink would likely leach into lymph nodes over years and decades. IV charcoal would undergo passes through the liver and kidneys in a matter of hours. Even the most negative cases listed above resolved within 12 hours.
I agree with tankasnowgod about the inks often containing other substances that may be toxic in themselves, and may cause particular problems.

I agree with mouse about the likelihood of particles of AC, not just tattoo ink, potentially getting stuck in lymph nodes (and probably other places).

I'd see that as a feature of AC being insoluble particles, not because they are biochemically active. The body has filters and fine capilliaries that are not designed to function at their best with gravel in the stream. This is the risk Peat talks about from the particulate excipients in supplements and medicines (and starch eating, though I'm not convinced it applies to well-cooked starches). The body has defences to try to prevent it. There's a mechanism for downsides, even if we have some capacity to deal with it and some people (but not all, according to the evidence Haidut found) fared well after it.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I imagine the charcoal has to be fine. I didn't read the link, but did it say how fine it was and how much the quantity is?

It sounds risky, but is it really?

Maybe the charcoal we have now has higher effective surface area, and would be even more effective in adsorbing bacteria and endotoxins. By adsorbing bacteria, it keeps it from being killed and from producing endotoxins. It keeps from requiring phagocytosis and the oxidative burst, which produces plenty of ROS that has to be quelled by endogenous anti-oxidants such as glutathione and uric acid. By adsorbing endotoxins, it keeps from getting inflammatory responses. All these require energy that would have been better used for building and for developing.

Another thought: How is the AC excreted? Does it go out through the fecal route? It has to as there seems no other way. So the liver should be able to take care of that.

If it's not charcoal, what else can we think of that safely transports bacteria out of our system, without having to expend a lot of energy? I recently began trying d-mannose, a sugar that doesn't metabolize and which attracts bacteria. It's used for reducing bacteria in UTI (urinary tract infection), but I don't know if it can be used to remove bacteria from the general circulation. I did a search on it and I came up with this: Mannose inhibits the human neutrophil oxidative burst. - PubMed - NCBI :

Abstract
Stimulated human neutrophils (PMNs) increase their oxygen consumption and secrete reactive oxygen species that are involved in bactericidal activity and inflammation. While studying lectin-mediated bacterial adherence, we observed that D-mannose appeared to inhibit PMN metabolism. Further studies showed that 100 mM mannose inhibited oxygen consumption by 82%, superoxide secretion by 84%, luminol-enhanced chemiluminescence (CL) by 98%, and hexose-monophosphate shunt activity by 100% when PMN were stimulated with 1 microM phorbol myristate acetate (PMA). Inhibition was also seen with 0.1 microM formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine (fMLP), and 0.1 microM A23187, reagents thought to stimulate the respiratory burst by different transductional mechanisms. Inhibition was dose-responsive and specific since 100 mM D-galactose, alpha-D-glucose, or alpha-L-fucose only minimally affected PMN oxidative metabolism. Inhibition of PMA-induced superoxide production was seen almost immediately upon the addition of 50 mM mannose and was reversed by washing. Neutrophils remained viable as measured by trypan blue exclusion. These data suggest that mannose inhibits the neutrophil oxidative burst at the level of the hexose monophosphate shunt. Further investigation should elucidate the specific mechanism(s) of this burst inhibition as well as define uses for it as a tool to study oxidative as well as nonoxidative killing by PMN.
I can't make sense of what it's saying though. So what if d-mannose is inhibiting neutrophil oxidative burst? Does it imply it's keeping the neutrophils from bactericidal activity and from producing endotoxins? Is this good or bad? So if it's keeping neutrophils from killing bacteria, won't the bacteria be free to do more damage? Or is the d-mannose attracting the bacteria and making it possible for the bacteria to be excreted out of our system?

I read the study, and it doesn't answer any of these questions I have. It seems to be going over my head. The authors do not even state the significance of the study, nor why they made the study. They're in their own world and they seem to think everyone knows why they're doing the study.

 
Last edited:
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom