Thank you for your response and for citing some articles for myself and others to read.
<br>
<br>Please don't get me wrong, I don't consume much soda, I was simply using that as an example at how fast simple carbohydrates are metabolized, which is why I questioned the sugar and silver theory. Sure the dormant, nutrient starved cells woke up and started mutating when exposed to glucose in vivo, but as the aminoglycoside study illustrates, simple sugars like glucose are not ideal for waking up dormant bacteria in vitro, because they are metabolized before they can do the job. Complex carbohydrates, might get you there, though (it doesn't take a high concentration of sugar to wake these dormant cells up). I need to read up on pH and bacterial proliferation. Given that the pH range in humans is so narrow (7.35-7.45), I will be interested to find how fluctuations within that range translate into large physiologic effects. Especially in the absence of sustained acidosis secondary to uncontrolled hyperglycemia and bacteria's ability to adapt to very extreme environments.
<br>
<br>Also, my reference to cholesterol was a throwback to the day when there was that "no cholesterol" craze. Scientists said 'hyperlidemia causes arterial stenosis," so every company started touting no cholesterol or low cholesterol on their products. The same thing happened with vitamin C and cold duration and, more recently, curcumin. I wonder how much of the green, vegan, glycemic index, or paleo diets are some science infused with a whole lot of marketing. Which then triggered my reference to the knee-jerk reaction of avoiding pools because of bacteria, when your shower or mobile phone provides plenty of it. Put it together and you get "scientists have discovered X, and we have a buttload of product X to sell to you." with *results not typical in extremely small print. Yet, people run en masse to the store to get the latest fad.
<br>
<br>I also agree with most of your stance on nutrition. At one time I was like you, eating as much calories as I pleased and not caring from whence they came. CF clinics are starting to educate patients on the importance of healthy balanced diets, while maintaining BMI.
<br>
<br>I do wish there were more studies on alternative treatments, as I think there is some benefit. However, big pharma won't fund something they can't patent. I personally don't down every pill I can get my hands on. I keep my treatments to an absolute minimum and it seems to have served me well. I don't do prophylactic antibiotics, pulmozyme, HTS, albuterol nebs etc. I only take pancreatic enzymes, (the dose of which dropped by 2/3 after I changed my diet) Protonix and Flonase. My point is that perhaps one needs to modify their diet, but not as much as you have. Yup, we know diets high in cholesterol and carbohydrates are bad for you, especially with the right combination of genetics. But do we all need to radically change our diets, or just moderate them?
<br>
<br>So, as I mentioned before, I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say, even though I do question some of it. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond and give citations.<br><br>I should add, if the aminoglycoside study is correct, wouldn't it be a bit ironic in light of your stance on sugar, if a sugar combined with the antibiotics was the answer to her persistent staph?<br>