Range of Effectiveness of INPT
Research has verified that phages can naturally go from the normal parasitic relationship with their host bacteria called, lysogenic activity, to suddenly switching to swarming, killing all of their host bacteria through lytic activity. This dramatic change can be triggered by subtle changes in their environment, the body. INPT was developed to strategically induce or stimulate this natural swarming activity of phages.
INPT has been utilized to help the body address dozens of types of microbes in over 300 chronically ill people, with never before seen results. At this time, there is only one type of laboratory test available to document this work, the Phelix Borrelia-Phage test, the most sensitive Borrelia spp. test to date. Of these 300 people, 30 of these people with previously diagnosed, non-responsive Borrelia spirochete infections have undergone three rounds of Phelix Borrelia-Phage testing.
All patients had previous laboratory diagnosis and extensive, yet unsuccessful conventional and natural anti-Borrelia treatments. Prior to treatment with INPT, an initial Phelix Borrelia-Phage test was used to document that they did indeed have the Borrelia still. Each were found to be positive.
INPT was administer for 5 days after which it was discontinued. Seven days later, a time deemed necessary to allow the Borrelia-phages to die-off, having no Borrelia host to continue replicating more Borrelia-phage, a second Phelix test was performed to confirm the Borrelia has been completely eliminated. These second tests showed that 100% of the people were negative for any residual Borrelia after just 5 days of actual INPT treatment.
If all of the Borrelia bacteria are truly eliminated, the phages themselves die due to the fact that there are no more of the host bacteria left to replicate more of the phages. The phages will only live three to four days beyond the death of their host bacteria, the Borrelia. Therefore, a total of seven days after the last day of INPT treatment were allowed in order to ensure the last of the Borrelia-phages were also dead, since the Phelix Borrelia-Phage test, is looking for the Borrelia-phages. If there are Borrelia bacteria still in the body after the INPT treatment, there will be Borrelia-phages still remaining in the body, and these phages will be easily detected via the testing.
Of the people who initially tested positive and were found to be negative on their second test, a third confirmatory Phelix test was performed 45-60 days after the second test. All of the third tests remained negative, confirming long-term elimination.
Clinical improvements were often above expectations, while others who had suffered from years of damage to their tissues as a result of the many failed treatments and the illness itself, experienced slight improvement or remained symptomatic. These symptom improvements are another confirmation and proof of concept.
Of the 280 people, there were none to mild worsening (Jarisch-Herxheimer reactions) of symptoms reported, in spite of the speed of Borrelia elimination, due to the way phages kill the bacteria, which is unlike the mechanism of action of antibiotics. The reason for the rapid elimination and minimal “herx” reactions is explained in this article. INPT appears to able to target Borrelia and eliminate it within two weeks, without toxic and potentially harmful effects, which are common with all antibiotics, as documented by the newest and most sensitive Borrelia testing, the Phelix Borrelia-Phage Test.
Treatment-resistant, chronic and apparent relapsing Lyme disease (borreliosis), with its oft associated co-infections which worsen the illness, though once debated, is now well-documented in the scientific literature. Chronic Lyme disease has reached the true status of a global pandemic, though largely unappreciated by the media and mainstream medicine. The politics of medical policy bias prevails in many if not most mainstream medical schools and associations. Due to the prevalence of medical bias against the recognition of the common occurrence of chronic and persistent nature of Lyme disease, the development of out-of-the-box thinking in the treatment has been limited to trial and error, often resulting in increased improvements, as well as increased suffering caused by varied and long-term antibiotics by more forward thinking physicians. The desperation of those suffering from Lyme Disease leads many to rush to the next newest antibiotic in a Russian-Roulette of risking being one of the many people whose symptoms worsen instead of improve with the latest antibiotic, such as Disulfiram, which helps some people, yet harms others.
As stated by Kenneth Liegner, MD in his journal article on the use of Disulfiram for the treatment of Lyme Disease, reporting on the successful treatment of three patients using Disulfiram, “The persistence of borrelial and piroplasm infections despite treatment poses a dilemma for patients and physicians alike. Failure to treat may subject the patient to personal suffering, deterioration, and loss of function, and can eventuate in death [3,4,5,13,15,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66] (Supplementary File 1, 2a and 2b). Open-ended antimicrobial treatment is costly, requires medical oversight for safety, entails risks—including the risk of death—and theoretically risks the emergence of resistant strains of microbes, with public health implications [67,68].
In another peer-reviewed article, by Alain Trautmann, et. al., titled, Potential Patient-Reported Toxicities With Disulfiram Treatment in Late Disseminated Lyme Disease, it is reported that there are, “…severe and persistent toxic events in a patients suffering from a late disseminated form of Lyme Disease following disulfiram intake.” The article goes on to conclude that, “Thirteen out of 16 patients reported toxic events, and seven out of 16 reported benefits for at least part of their symptoms. Based on the collected observations, it seems too early to promote disulfiram as a promising new treatment until the reasons underlying the reported toxicities have been explored, and the results of a well-conducted double blind clinical trial published.”
The need for a truly effective and non-toxic treatment must be developed, and as you will read, has been developed.
To continue reading, click here.