HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » B vitamins could delay de...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue May 21, 2013, 02:54 PM

B vitamins could delay dementia

Source: Phys org

Despite spending billions of dollars on research and development, drug companies have been unable to come up with effective treatments for dementia and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Now, A. David Smith at the University of Oxford and his colleagues have discovered that, in some patients experiencing mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a cocktail of high-dose B vitamins could prevent gray matter loss associated with progression to AD. The study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The World Health Organization predicts that between 2010 and 2050 the number of dementia cases will increase from 26 million to 115 million worldwide. Although there is an urgent demand for treatment, pharmaceutical companies have been unable to develop drugs that will delay or cure dementia. So far, approved drugs merely ease symptoms. Smith and his team wanted to see if B vitamins reduced the risk of AD by lowering total homocysteine (tHcy) levels. There is a positive correlation between high tHcy levels and risk of cognitive impairment and AD. The researchers studied 156 subjects over 70 in Oxford, England who suffered from MCI. The subjects received either a placebo or a high-dose B vitamin cocktail consisting of 20 milligrams of vitamin B6, 0.5 milligrams of vitamin B12 and 0.8 milligrams of folic acid.



Read more: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-05-vitamins-dementia.html



Yet another vindication of natural therapies!

103 replies, 8153 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 103 replies Author Time Post
Reply B vitamins could delay dementia (Original post)
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 OP
trotsky May 2013 #1
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #2
trotsky May 2013 #4
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #12
trotsky May 2013 #18
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #23
trotsky May 2013 #25
Deep13 May 2013 #29
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #31
progressoid May 2013 #35
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #37
progressoid May 2013 #46
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #55
progressoid May 2013 #61
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #96
Deep13 May 2013 #54
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #57
Deep13 May 2013 #77
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #97
timdog44 May 2013 #48
Deep13 May 2013 #58
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #60
Deep13 May 2013 #79
timdog44 May 2013 #65
ChiciB1 May 2013 #72
timdog44 May 2013 #102
Deep13 May 2013 #80
ChiciB1 May 2013 #36
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #38
ChiciB1 May 2013 #71
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #98
timdog44 May 2013 #66
ChiciB1 May 2013 #70
timdog44 May 2013 #81
bettyellen May 2013 #5
trotsky May 2013 #8
gateley May 2013 #7
trotsky May 2013 #10
longship May 2013 #19
trotsky May 2013 #24
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #27
longship May 2013 #39
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #43
longship May 2013 #50
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #59
longship May 2013 #63
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #99
longship May 2013 #101
Zoeisright May 2013 #83
gateley May 2013 #87
DeSwiss May 2013 #17
trotsky May 2013 #21
DeSwiss May 2013 #68
timdog44 May 2013 #42
trotsky May 2013 #44
timdog44 May 2013 #45
trotsky May 2013 #53
timdog44 May 2013 #56
trotsky May 2013 #88
timdog44 May 2013 #90
trotsky May 2013 #91
timdog44 May 2013 #92
Zoeisright May 2013 #84
timdog44 May 2013 #89
Kablooie May 2013 #93
trotsky May 2013 #94
gateley May 2013 #3
trotsky May 2013 #6
gateley May 2013 #9
trotsky May 2013 #11
gateley May 2013 #13
trotsky May 2013 #28
progressoid May 2013 #47
trotsky May 2013 #51
gateley May 2013 #76
Zoeisright May 2013 #85
timdog44 May 2013 #95
bettyellen May 2013 #15
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #16
scrubthedata May 2013 #14
Deep13 May 2013 #26
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #30
Deep13 May 2013 #49
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #62
Deep13 May 2013 #78
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #100
The Stranger May 2013 #20
ChiciB1 May 2013 #73
Zoeisright May 2013 #86
Deep13 May 2013 #22
socialsecurityisAAA May 2013 #32
Deep13 May 2013 #52
JDPriestly May 2013 #33
No Vested Interest May 2013 #64
Lydia Leftcoast May 2013 #74
No Vested Interest May 2013 #82
joc46224 May 2013 #34
Phlem May 2013 #40
olddad56 May 2013 #41
snagglepuss May 2013 #67
olddad56 May 2013 #75
Hekate May 2013 #69
timdog44 May 2013 #103

Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 02:56 PM

1. LOL

You do realize that vitamins are made by drug companies too, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #1)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:00 PM

2. Drug companies also make Linbrel, an extract of Scutelleria Baicalensis(chinese skullcap).

Anything natural that the drug companies sell can be bought cheaper OTC in a supplement shop or online.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #2)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:02 PM

4. From another for-profit company making medicine.

I don't think you're grasping the point here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #4)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:08 PM

12. No I don't. Skullcap can be grown in the backyard and made into a 5-1 extract in your kitchen.

It will provide the same benefits, or even greater benefits considering you are getting the whole herb, as you would get from linbrel.
B vitamins are found in a variety of foods, and you can make some fermented foods at home that have a full days worth of B vitamins. Beans are a wonderful source or B vitamins. Tempeh, Natto and other fermented bean products can be produced abundantly and cheaply.

If you are saying that Capitalism sucks and we need a sustainable system that supplies everything we need, and most of what we want, then your arguing with the wrong guy. I'm there with ya.

For profit? Hmmm I would say the huge price difference of supplements compared to their prescription counterparts is indicative of less focus on super profits and more focus on selling an affordable product that helps people.
Most of the research and development costs for pharmaceutical drugs are paid for by the government or educational institutions. Why exactly do these drugs cost SO MUCH MONEY???? Drug companies also receive huge subsidies and tax cuts. Jeesh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #12)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:25 PM

18. The study you posted didn't test ANY of those things.

They tested a corporate-made vitamin cocktail. If you're going to be consistent, you should distrust any for-profit company that makes something you put in your body. And despite the complaints about the FDA, they have a LOT more oversight over pharmaceutical makers than vitamin shops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #18)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:34 PM

23. Look at the doses in the study. Foods can be included in the diet that are equivalent.

I am being consistent, as are you in your completely belligerent attack on anything natural. Despite the complaints about the FDA!?!?!?! Oh yes lets completely throw millions of complaints out with the garbage, THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE ARBITRARY AND INCONSEQUENTIAL??? The Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA, Michael R Taylor, was a Monsanto lawyer. Nothing fishy about that:/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #23)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:36 PM

25. Thanks for letting me know I'm wasting any further time.

I've made my point to those whose minds aren't closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #12)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:41 PM

29. Agree drugs are overpriced, but they do work.

Natural remedies work if clinical testing demonstrates that they work, which sometimes happens. Without testing, the purported effect cannot be distinguished from placebo affect, confirmation bias, or a bodily immune response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #29)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:43 PM

31. Natural treatments worked long before clinical testing was thought of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #31)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:49 PM

35. And some also didn't work.

Clinical testing was devised to determine what works and what doesn't and in what doses and under what situations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #35)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:55 PM

37. Yes not all plants are therapeutic, but not all studies done in the U.S. are unbiased.

Thousands of natural products are prescribed worldwide, all have gone through their respective countries version of the FDA, all that are prescribed have proven to have benefits. When some of these same compounds are tested in the U.S. by pharma or educational institutes with ties to pharma, the studies reveal come to different conclusions.

St. Johns wort being one that comes to mind is a first line treatment in E.U. nations like Germany and France. In America the media reports that studies show it has no effect over placebo. Similar discrepancies have occurred with Fish oil, Gingko and others. Obviously protecting the interests of corporations is a priority to the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to progressoid (Reply #46)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:37 PM

55. Nothing you posted mentions any of the natural compounds that are PRESCRIBED worldwide.

All of those links are the equivalent of bottling something in a garage, attaching a claim to it and pushing it on people. NONE OF YOUR LINKS NEGATE THE BENEFITS OR PROOF OF NATURAL PRODUCTS THAT ARE PRESCRIBED WORLDWIDE WHICH HAVE GONE THROUGH REGULATORY DRUG AGENCIES, and that isn't to say that natural compounds that haven't gone through regulatory agencies don't work. Curcumin is widely used, study after study has shown it to outperform old as well as new pharmaceuticals, yet it hasn't gone through regulatory agencies.


Even the link about Chinese herbals sold online doesn't pertain to anything I have mentioned? It wasn't tested, THE CONTAMINANT IN THAT PRODUCT ISN'T PRESCRIBED BY ANY NATUROPATHS!
Why are you attempting to manipulate peoples perception about this topic???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #55)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:57 PM

61. I'm confused by your posts.

In one post you praise natural remedies because they worked without clinical testing. And now you seem to be endorsing clinical testing (at least testing done outside the US).

In another post you say I can grow and make my own medicine. And then say I should avoid "bottling something in a garage".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #61)

Thu May 23, 2013, 02:57 AM

96. Well naturally if you jumple them up, mix them around, they will make no contextual sense.

I never praised natural remedies on the basis they lacked clinical testing, I simply said they worked LONG before clinical testing was an idea(thousands of years ago). As for endorsing clinical testing, that's a leap, I mentioned that many herbs are prescriptions in countries where clinical testing is required on these products....nothing more nothing less
"bottling something in a garage" That was in response to the post link about Chinese remedies contaminated with a non medicinal component. Quite frankly a lot from China is manufactured without standards whatsoever, I think you will find most supplements in the United States and abroad are compounded in a carefully controlled environment free of toxins. This is most likely WHY THEY HAVE KILLED LESS PEOPLE SINCE 1994 THAN ASPIRIN KILLS IN ONE YEAR ALONE.
Anything else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #31)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:34 PM

54. No they didn't.

To know which purported remedies work and which do not, one needs clinical testing. There may have been a few that by luck of the draw worked--quinine, for example. But for the most part, it was never clear if the herbal remedy did anything at all. People expected them too, and when the patient recovered for whatever reason, he or she was likely to credit human agency or God out of confirmation bias rather than any real proof. So, that reinforced the cultural norm of accepting such remedies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #54)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:43 PM

57. Your understanding is limited. Berberine, Gingerols, Bacosides a-b, Curcumin have all

proven to have powerful therapeutic activity within the body, and have been used since before CLINICAL TESTING occurred to anyone as a thought. The list of natural compounds that were used effectively is far larger than the AMOUNT OF SYNTHETIC PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOUNDS THAT HAVE NO RESULTED IN ONE DEATH. Actually the latter list is non existent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #57)

Wed May 22, 2013, 12:47 AM

77. Would love to see what evidence you are relying on. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #77)

Thu May 23, 2013, 02:59 AM

97. Try PUBMED. Its full of studies focusing on these compounds alone, as well as thousands of other

naturally derived compounds.
If you have trouble understanding the studies, email me on DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #29)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:27 PM

48. And the drugs you talk of don't

always work. They kill more often than do naturals and do not work without serious side effect. And if you are talking about the tried and true double blind studies, you deceive yourself. Most double blind studies are set up to make things work that they want to work and make things fail they want to fail. It is not the gold standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #48)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:45 PM

58. Then they are not double-blind studies.

All drugs, including natural ones, have side effects. Sometimes they are serious. People use them because the disorder they treat is even worse than drug side effects. Chemotherapy, for instance. It caused digestive distress, fatigue, hair loss, and a bunch of other stuff. It treats cancer which will usually kill you if untreated, and often even if it is treated.

Drugs do not always work. Yes, that's a fact. I'm not promising magic. That is true of synthetic and natural drugs. I dispute that synthetic drugs are more dangerous than natural ones. Penicillin is natural. You might be allergic to it and it might, therefore, kill you. (You'd be saved by an "Epi-pen.") Ampicillin, an artificial substitute, will save you from blood poisoning, but will not cause an allergic reaction. Mercury, a natural cure, will kill you or make you mad. Sulfa, the first known antibiotic, will cure the infection and maybe cause slight nausea. The difference between staggering disease casualties in WWI and hardly any in WWII was sulfa.

The bottom line is the disease butcher's bill since antiquity proves that for the most part traditional remedies suck ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #58)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:56 PM

60. Thats how pharma works. Use influence to alter studies, studies which are often funded by taxes

Traditional remedies everyday are shown to be more effective than conventional drugs in studies as well as cause less side effects. Often Traditional remedies are combined with other herbs/compounds that will balance the product cancelling out side effects altogether(the who system of Chinese Medicine works like this).

Remember every time on tv they talk about how great dark chocolate is for diabetes, how great green tea is for diabetes, heart health, cancer prevention, Alzheimers disease, cholesterol etc they are VINDICATING AGE OLD TRADITIONAL REMEDIES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #60)

Wed May 22, 2013, 12:54 AM

79. And your evidence is...? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #58)

Tue May 21, 2013, 05:11 PM

65. Chemotherapy, in most instances

may stave off cancer. And they tout the five year success rate. But not the six year because at that point the success is not so great. Other cancer remedies that do work do not get the credit due in the US because they are not profitable.

And granted, some meds are and have proven successful. But any new ones in the past fifty years are no better than the ones that have already been used. And the new ones are used, especially antibiotics, with such impunity as to make them noneffective.

I don't know what mercury is used for, other than in vaccines and dental fillings. And neither has proven to be safe.

Traditional remedies also include the right foods, that are not poisoned by big ag and their untested methods. The problem with traditional remedies is that people do not want to work hard enough to be cured. "Give me a pill" and I can overindulge to my hearts content.

There are useful methodologies in modern American medicine. There are also other methodologies that if combined with ours that could prove to be very useful. The ones that don't get tested by the "gold standard" double blind studies are the ones that will end up not be very profitable. Double blind studies are notoriously done incorrectly regardless of what the testers say. They only include data that supports the original proposition and exclude the ones that don't. Anecdotal testimonies seem to be thrown out as if people lie about what the results of the treatment are.

But here is an example. Marijuana has shown some very promising results in cancer treatment and MS treatment. But until Big pharma can isolate something from it so they can charge an arm and a leg, nothing will be done about it. The non results are bought and paid for by the big pharmaceutical companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #65)

Tue May 21, 2013, 09:40 PM

72. I Must Say I Do Agree With Your Comments.

Especially when it comes to marijuana. I'm all for legalization because I've actually seen it help cancer patients. However, there comes a time when intake of food actually feeds the cancer. To me this prolongs life, and I have questioned this. Soon cancer patients are generally just taking morphine which will then essentially kill internal organs. You're time is up.

My up close experience was with my mother who died of pancreatic cancer, which is almost a death sentence anyway. She was 67 when she died. Then my father-in-law who was diagnosed with prostate cancer that ended up as bone cancer, which again is a death sentence.

Both experienced pain that was pretty much intolerable. With MS I can see much better outcomes.

And yes, when "big pharma" finds a way to market it, people won't like it one bit. And I do think it would come to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiciB1 (Reply #72)

Thu May 23, 2013, 08:42 AM

102. I have to say

you certainly had bad luck with your parents and the diseases they ended up with. Pancreatic cancer is almost a death sentence is a correct statement. One of the surgeons I worked with said that about 90% of cases dies within 6 months. That is because there are no symptoms that present early and when they do come the cancer is so far advanced that there is relatively little that can be done. It is difficult to not want to do anything. I am sorry you lost her so early. Even with surgery the prognosis is poor at best.

And for you father-in-law to end up with bone cancer from his prostate cancer is against the odds also. Prostate CA being one of the most treatable and non aggressive cancers out there. Most men die with it and not of it. Again, sorry fro the loss of your father-in-law with this.

I think this is a reason for marijuana laws to change, as are you. It definitely lessens the pain and increases the appetite. And then there is the possibility of the curative power of MJ to take place which has, at least, been anecdotally been shown to happen in some cancers.

And the newest studies, as you say, show that there is promise for help with MS which is a most debilitating disease.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #65)

Wed May 22, 2013, 12:58 AM

80. Yes, it's overpriced. No argument there. Capitalism sucks.

When it's maybe live another 5 years versus die in a month, then chemo a pretty good option. Remember, no one lives forever so the most that any doctor can do is fight a delaying action.

I've heard that Mary Jane has a marginal effect on some cancers, but its real benefit is controlling nausea. None of that earthy-crunchy shit will put cancer into remission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #12)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:49 PM

36. Quick Question...

After one of my blood tests my doctor said my B levels were rather low & gave me prescription for vitamin B shots. My daughter also tested the same way & also gets the shots. She graduated last year with a Masters Degree as an ARNP & now sees patients & can prescribe drugs to patients she sees. Can't prescribe controlled substances, but does agree that vitamin B is essential.

Are we being duped? The cyanocobalam injections aren't expensive through my insurance. I used to be able to get 10 doses for $10.00, but in the last 6 months pharmacies keep telling me they can't get it. Even my daughter had to order from Canada for the serum.

Getting to my point... is this the same vitamin B you are discussing? Or just OTC B complex tablets. I'm told that OTC B-complex doesn't do that much because cells don't absorb completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiciB1 (Reply #36)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:59 PM

38. There are much more absorbable forms such as methycobalamin and adenosylcobalamin, both active forms

of b12. You won't loose any potential converting regular b12 to the active forms with these since they are already bio identical. They are available cheaply from supplement stores. But remember they are only b12, so you will still need to supplement with the other b vitamins. It is never good to take b vitamins without getting a good balance, otherwise you could upset your metabolism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #38)

Tue May 21, 2013, 09:21 PM

71. So You Suggest Taking A

Vitamin B Complex to go along with the injections? What you're saying is OTC in vitamin form are as absorbable as injections. I was told otherwise, although I do agree that injections are b12. I used to take a complex form but stopped BECAUSE I used the liquid injections.

I do see that b6, b12 etc. aren't included so I will research this more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiciB1 (Reply #71)

Thu May 23, 2013, 03:01 AM

98. Those two compounds are sublingual

They are as active as an injection. You may not absorb the full dose on the label, but because they are in a bio-identical and useable form they will be as active.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiciB1 (Reply #36)

Tue May 21, 2013, 06:05 PM

66. I assume you are talking

about B-12 shots. They are effective and B-12 is especially needed in older people who don't absorb this from the gut as well. It can lead to symptoms resembling Alzheimers Disease. My wife and I both do B-12, but use a spray that goes under you tongue. It is readily absorbed directly to the blood stream from there, much like nitroglycerin and a few other meds. It saves the having to get an injection, but if that is not a problem for you, go for it.

Edited to agree with the response above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #66)

Tue May 21, 2013, 09:09 PM

70. No, Injections Don't Bother Me...

But never heard of the spray. You said it leads to Alzheimers? That worries me. I'm an avid reader and prefer playing games of substance, scrabble and others that make me think. My husband & I cared for his mother for almost 10 years and saw first hand what this disease can do. When it was close to the end she could no longer communicate, understand simple requests, unable to walk or feed herself and we didn't feel she even knew who we were. Her social worker finally told us we couldn't care for her any longer. We were fortunate that Hospice took over for about 6 months, but then had to release her and she went to a nursing facility. We knew that was the end and within 2 months she passed away. However she was 97.

Still I don't EVER want to have that happen to anyone. She was good for the most part, but it's a very devastating disease. Where once vibrant she was almost a vegetable when she died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChiciB1 (Reply #70)

Wed May 22, 2013, 01:11 AM

81. I hope I did not

mislead you. B-12 levels that are low will mimic symptoms of Alzheimers. This is the reason the doctors test for it. You are getting the correct thing done if you have low levels. The sublingual is just an easier way to to take the B-12.

My wife and both lost our Mothers to AD. And you are right, it is devastating. In some ways it harder on the caretaker. Of course not knowing exactly what the patient is thinking can make you wonder. The worst part was to see the frustration of them when they knew something was wrong and not be able to do anything about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #1)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:02 PM

5. Alzheimers is no joke, trots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #5)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:04 PM

8. Not making a joke about Alzheimers, bett.

I think it's silly to bash "drug companies" while lauding a vitamins made by another for-profit medicine company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #1)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:03 PM

7. There are plenty of vitamin manufacturers that aren't owned by Merck or Pfizer or

other Big Pharma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #7)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:05 PM

10. Oh, so some drug companies are OK?

May I ask what the criteria are for determining if one is bad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #10)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:28 PM

19. You know the answer already.

If they sell prescription drugs: Bad!
If they sell supplements: Good!

Of course, the so-called Big Pharma companies are selling the supplements, too. Big time! And why wouldn't they? It's expensive to develop, test, and bring to market a drug in a regulated market. But, since supplements are not regulated, the costs are low. The only thing they cannot do is make disease claims, a minor issue when the gullible public believe the "supports the immune system" claims, or some other such marketing rubbish.

My favorite is the toxins gambit which has convinced a bunch of people that coffee enemas are somehow good for you. I wonder when Starbucks will jump on the enema/toxins market.

Always enjoy your posts, my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #19)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:35 PM

24. Yes, I wish these discussions could get past the black-and-white...

"big pharma is bad, but big supplement is good" viewpoint that tends to prevent actual discussion.

I don't think big pharma always has the consumer's best interest in mind. But I do know that they are actually under pressure to show their products work and are relatively safe.

And don't get me started on "toxins"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #19)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:37 PM

27. Supplements must go through rigorous clinical trials in much of the rest of the world.

They are the same supplements sold in the United States.

Kira St Johns wort is a prescription in Germany

Stabilium is a prescription in France

Baicalin is a prescription in China

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #27)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:02 PM

39. In the USA, supplements are regulated as food.

There is no requirement of efficacy or even in some cases (herbs) dosage of ingredients.

You mention St. John's Wort. I hope that people depressed by being HIV positive are not self-medicating with St. John's Wort since it tends to nullify the anti-retro viral drugs that enables HIV positive people to have close to normal lives. The anti-viral is highly regulated as to purity, dosage, and efficacy; the herbal supplement is not any of those things.

It's no wonder that Big Pharma is getting into supplements big time: Lots of profits from gullible people who believe the "structure/function" marketing claims and no need to even demonstrate efficacy.

Vitamin C doesn't prevent or cure the common cold but can promote kidney stones. St. John's Wort has no effect on moderate or above depression and can suppress HIV drugs.

Face it. Herbal supplements are just dirty, unregulated drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #39)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:16 PM

43. Kira is a regulated formulation that went through clinical trials and is monitored by E.U. Fda

equivalent regulatory agencies. Yes it is used in the E.U., prescribed by doctors for moderate to severe depression.

Herbal supplements may very well be why humanity is alive to this day. Without natural treatments it is highly likely that we could have gone extinct. It's odd the way you talk about natural remedies, you fail to remember that you have daily vitamin requirements without which you would DIE. These are required chemical compounds supplied by food that are necessary for life. To broadly sweep NATURAL REMEDIES as dirty drugs is a completely unfounded assumption.

Oh were you talking about this HIV DRUG?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200735/-Gilead-s-New-FDA-Approved-HIV-Drug-Improves-Nothing-So-Naturally-It-Costs-A-Lot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #43)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:29 PM

50. But it's natural!

The natural gambit is another marketing term people fall for. What makes natural any better than a quantified, purified, drug with assured efficacy and known side effects.

I love some of the stories of people self-medicating who put their well being in danger because they're using unregulated stuff. It's funny that they never seem to think that they were doing anything wrong to themselves.

Suzanne Sommers taking a fad natural supplement that was equivalent to a steroid gets an opportunistic fungus infection because she was suppressing her immune system (as steroids do). She had to be hospitalized and could have died if she had continued taking the supplement.

Yes, supplements are dirty, unregulated drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #50)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:48 PM

59. It natural and was proven more effective than other synthetics, thats why it's 1# prescribed

"I love some of the stories of people self-medicating who put their well being in danger because they're using unregulated stuff. It's funny that they never seem to think that they were doing anything wrong to themselves. " Yes it is terribly unfortunate when people take a normal dose of acetaminophen and die of liver failure. Oh you said unregulated???? Doesn't count then, cause acetaminophen is regulated. What I don't understand is why you FIND IT FUNNY WHEN PEOPLE SUFFER??? That isn't the least bit amusing to me!

If you compare the amount of deaths from Natural supplements to that of synthetics, well Natural supplements haven't killed as many people since reporting began than Aspirin kills annually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #59)

Tue May 21, 2013, 05:04 PM

63. Do you chew willow bark?

That's where aspirin comes from. I take an occasional aspirin or two when I have a headache. (I get migraine.) but I take no supplements because the human body has millions of years of evolution behind its systems which work pretty damned well to get rid of toxins, and break down food to gain necessary nutrients.

Get this straight. "Natural" is a marketing term which is otherwise meaningless in this context. Arsenic is natural. So is uranium. The health care quacks of the early 20th century prescribed radium (natural, too). It killed a lot of people before science caught up and learned what radioactivity can do to the body.

That's what science does. It informs. And no where is this more important than in medicine. When one excludes science from medicine you have nothing left but quackery.

When I get sick, I go to a doctor, an MD who practices the science of medicine.

I will stand by my posts here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #63)

Thu May 23, 2013, 03:07 AM

99. No that's not where aspirin comes from. Aspirin is synthetic.

Those health care quacks of the early 20th century were doctors who told people to quit using herbs and instead use toxic metals and and enema's to the point of illness.
Herbal medicine is Science. Obviously the compounds in herbs are chemicals that interact within the body to produce a desired response. Sounds like Biochemistry to me
When people in China get sick they go to a doctor as well, and they most likely leave with a TCM formula which is HERBAL MEDICINE that has been proven to work, and the method by which it works has been elucidated by clinical trials and careful SCIENTIFIC STUDY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #99)

Thu May 23, 2013, 07:55 AM

101. Yes, willow bark.

From Wikipedia:
History of Aspirin

Plant extracts, including willow bark and spiraea, of which salicylic acid was the active ingredient, had been known to help alleviate headaches, pains, and fevers since antiquity. The father of modern medicine, Hippocrates, who lived sometime between 460 BC and 377 BC, left historical records describing the use of powder made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree to help these symptoms.


Like most modern medicines, aspirin came from natural sources. The German company Bayer isolated the important ingredient acetylsalicylic acid (C9H8O4) which is easy enough to synthesize that I did it in freshman chemistry.

That's what pharmaceutical companies do. They isolate and synthesize the important ingredients of herbs so they can be tested for pharmacological effects.

When you take a prescription drug, its effects, dosage, efficacy, etc. have all been measured. When you buy a herbal supplement you are getting the raw herb which undoubtedly will have many ingredients. It has likely not been tested for efficacy, and if it has, the results are usually irrelevant. For instance, even though Vitamin C has long been known to have no effect on severity or length of the common cold, people waste their money taking it for that. All they get is expensive urine.

Supplements are big business, much of which is based on slick promotion and dodgy claims. For instance, what the hell does "supports the immune system" mean?

Thanks for your reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #7)

Wed May 22, 2013, 02:11 AM

83. Yeah.

And none of them have to prove the safety OR efficacy of their products. In fact, their products don't have to contain one iota of the ingredients they claim are in them. Anyone who thinks that vitamin manufacturers aren't in it just for the buck is a fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #83)

Wed May 22, 2013, 02:20 AM

87. Anybody who believes in Big Pharma's "proof" of efficacy or safety is a fool.

Here's a few that weren't all that effective or all that safe:

http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/DrugRecalls/default.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #1)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:18 PM

17. ''Let food be thy medicine, and let thy medicine be food.'' Hippocrates n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #17)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:33 PM

21. Hippocrates also believed in thoroughly-discredited Humorism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #21)

Tue May 21, 2013, 07:39 PM

68. True.....

...but at least the humorism idea got them away from blaming illness on ''evil spirits'' and previous treatments which included: ''human sacrifice.''

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #1)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:15 PM

42. All I can say is

You can take your high price pharmaceuticals and I'll take my vitamins. I'll bet mine are not made by GlaxoSmithKline or Novartis or Sonofi or AstraZeneca. My guess is I'll come out ahead dollar wise and health wise. Oh, LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #42)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:16 PM

44. Hopefully your for-profit companies can be trusted over the other for-profit companies!

With even less oversight and fewer regulations. Good luck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #44)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:19 PM

45. If you think big pharma has any kind of oversight

you are deluding yourself. They are regulated by the FDA who are owned by big pharma ex-employees and soon to be big pharma employees again. If I were if to pick stocks to own, it would be big pharma and not vitaminn companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #45)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:33 PM

53. Sorry, I don't see things in black-and-white extremes like you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #53)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:40 PM

56. Funny, that is what I thought you were doing.

Seeing things in black and white. Vitamins and alternatives - black ___ big pharma's drugs - white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #56)

Wed May 22, 2013, 06:54 AM

88. Wrong. I view both with reasonable suspicion.

You said:

"If you think big pharma has any kind of oversight you are deluding yourself." (emphasis mine)

Not worth my time trying to discuss with an extremist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #88)

Wed May 22, 2013, 08:28 AM

90. Again

you call people what you in fact are yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #90)

Wed May 22, 2013, 08:43 AM

91. LOL

Yup, I'm an extremist because I think all for-profit corporations should be given scrutiny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #91)

Wed May 22, 2013, 08:57 AM

92. You are just all over the place.

If that is what your argument is, I agree. All for profit corporations should be scrutinized. And regulated. And some even need to be nationalized. Now, am I extreme enough for you. My impression was that the discussion was about vitamins vs drugs and different views of medicine methods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #45)

Wed May 22, 2013, 02:13 AM

84. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

And I'll bet money you have NEVER had a serious disease: I mean like cancer. A friend of mine is a natural woo-woo believer. Until her husband collapsed; then he was rushed to the hospital and put on life support. He recovered, thanks to BIG MEDICINE, and now they're right back to the woo-woo.

People who rave about "natural supplements" are complete hypocrites when they really need actual medical care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #84)

Wed May 22, 2013, 08:26 AM

89. You don't have the slightest idea of my background.

I have a 60 degree scoliosis. I have diplomyelia. I have syringomyelia. I have a tethered cord. I have spina bifida. I have a stocking effect on my left leg. I have a club foot on the left. And being such a smart ass, you may not have to look those up. I had a 4 level decompression laminectomy 30 years ago. I had an anterior/posteior reconstuction of my spine in 2003 with fusions from T10 to L4. Then inn 2009 the fusion was continued to S1 with fusions and bolts across to my pelvis. My wife had atrial fibrillation for which needed a cardiac ablation. And being such a smart ass, you can look that up to. It was a 6 hour procedure done under general anesthesia. My wife and I are both retired RNs with a combined 75 years of nursing. We have had bigger medicine than you can tell me about. My father had cardiac bypass and eventually died of IPF, and you can look that up also. Both our mothers died of Alzheimers. So we have seen and experienced big medicine inside and out.

You are the hypocrite to talk about things of which you know not a thing. I never said I did not believe in "BIG MEDICINE". My whole point is that there are many other methods of treating people (woo woos) that are ignored because of the arrogance of people like you and big medicine. If you would actually look at alternatives you might discover things you never had the slightest idea about.

Most alternative medicine therapies are directed at prevention. BIG MEDICINE is directed mostly at the things people inflict on them selves. Overindulgence is the main category I would put a vast majority of the people that I took care of. In food, in spirits, in laziness, in smoking (which affects not just them), and in work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #1)

Wed May 22, 2013, 12:39 PM

93. But selling a bottle of vitamins for a few dollars isn't so unreasonable.

It's when a single pill costs several dollars that creates problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #93)

Wed May 22, 2013, 12:47 PM

94. Gotta look at the profit margin.

Doesn't cost much to make vitamins or supplements - and given the much looser regulations and oversight, there could be precious little if any active ingredient in what they produce. A penny's worth of inactive fillers, a "few dollars" of pure profit. That adds up quickly.

I'm not saying that big pharmaceutical companies are always good, nor do I believe that they are always bad. Ask any of the millions who are alive and healthy today who benefited from "big pharma poison" as I have heard some call it.

I just think that we need to be consistent in applying suspicion to claims that are made and the companies making them - whether they are big pharma or big supplement. (And don't kid yourself, supplements are a HUGE market.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:01 PM

3. Thanks -- Hope they really pursue this.

Careful, though, some people here don't like "natural" options. I've had threads locked.

The problem with this is, the pharmaceuticals always go out of their way to discredit this "woo woo" because, as you know, they can't make a profit off it. Like Stevia, once the corporations realized people were using it as a sweetener despite the FDA "warnings", they jumped on the bandwagon and put out their versions of Stevia. As always, they tweak it to be able to manufacturer it cheaper and reap higher profits, so the end product bears little resemblance to the actual original, "real" stuff.

I fear they would do the same with any natural substance in order to maintain their stranglehold on us. *sigh*



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #3)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:02 PM

6. You don't think someone makes a profit off selling vitamins?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #6)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:05 PM

9. I'm not against the profit, I'm against having the FDA in your pocket and suppressing

negative effects of whatever you're going to bring to market. I'm against them lying to us in order to put a smile on their shareholders' faces and more $$$ in their bonus check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #9)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:06 PM

11. Vitamin companies have shareholders, too.

And they're raking in the dough.

But that's OK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #11)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:09 PM

13. There's a BIG difference between Big Pharma and

smaller companies who don't intentionally release products they know are harmful merely to rake in the big bucks.

Surely you can understand the difference, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #13)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:40 PM

28. Is there really?

All I see are shades of gray. I don't think any one entity or organization or industry is purely evil, nor do I think one of those is purely good. (Well, OK, I think quacks like Hulda Clark or Joseph Mercola who take money from desperate people and give them false hope are pretty much pure evil.)

But I do know this for a fact: we know a lot about "big pharma" malfeasance because of tight regulation and oversight. We don't have the same monitoring going on for supplement makers. You're trying to argue known against unknown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #28)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:26 PM

47. Hey, if Kevin Trudeau says it works, that's good enough for me.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #47)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:29 PM

51. *SNORT*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #28)

Tue May 21, 2013, 11:27 PM

76. Okay, you win -- I've seen the light!

Thank you, Jesus!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #13)

Wed May 22, 2013, 02:14 AM

85. Oh bullshit.

Smaller vitamin companies, just like the big guys, are in it for the money. You really are that gullible? You really think ANY company is trying to help people and not make money?

Surely you can understand the difference, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #85)

Wed May 22, 2013, 02:17 PM

95. First of all,

it is OK for companies to make money. It is not right for big pharma to make the amount of profits they make. They sell their drugs overseas at much smaller prices than they do here. And then make an extraordinary amount profit margin here in the USA. They also spend more on marketing than they do on R & D. That is bullshit.

You really are not a nice person. I would suggest you take some of the medications that you seem to be so proud of. It might make your mental condition better.

Also, you smug so and so, you did not answer my reply to you higher up in the thread. You insulted me and slighted me and you need to answer for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #6)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:09 PM

15. I don't get it- do you think no research or info should be shared because of the profit angle?

Because I imagine if you have watched dear ones suffer, you'd welcome that AD research is heating up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #3)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:14 PM

16. The truth will out. Eventaully people will realize they have been swindled and bamboozled.

If everyone understood the significance of the pharmaceutical/insurance industry investing in fast food, people would be much more receptive to natural therapies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:09 PM

14. Our bodies just want is to live like nature intended. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scrubthedata (Reply #14)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:36 PM

26. Nature intended for us to die when we're are 35 years old.

It intended for half of all children to die. It intended for our teeth to kill us with abscesses. It intended for respiratory diseases like pneumonia to cut through the population like a scythe every winter. Also, talking about what nature intends overlooks the fact that evolution is a non-deliberative process and, therefore, does not intend anything.

Those who idealize nature have never had to live with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #26)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:41 PM

30. Nature provides treatments for everything you mentioned.

There are thousands of Natural Anti-biotics, Anti-virals, Anti-parasitics, Anti-fungals all supported by scientific studies. They have been used for thousands of years by herbalist to treat disease, wayyyyyyyyyyyy before the invention of acetaminophen.
Btw did you know that acetaminophen works in a similar manner to Cannabinoids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #30)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:29 PM

49. Then why did young people die in droves back then?

Antibiotics can be derived from natural sources, but it is a mistake to suggest they are natural remedy. They were not available for practical use until scientists and doctors discovered them through scientific testing. Ergo, they are not natural remedies. Some traditional medicines work, but more likely they don't. Think of all the discarded premodern therapies that have been discarded with good reason for doing so. There was mercury, arsenic, and purgatives. There were dangerous, painful, and usually unnecessary surgical procedures like trephination and blood letting. Add to that prayers and various other rituals with had only a placebo effect.

So, whats the natural treatment for cancer (any of them) or pneumonia (either bacterial or viral)? Remember, things that require scientific, industrial medicine just to discover them don't count. Only known treatments from premodern times do.

Since vaccines contain only natural ingredients--the detritus of actual germs--you must be completely in favor of those, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #49)

Tue May 21, 2013, 05:01 PM

62. People died because of SUPERSTITION, FEARS OF WITCHCRAFT ETC

And those who didn't harbor such fears took the herbs, ate right and likely beat the ailment.
"There was mercury, arsenic, and purgatives." You do realize that it was the parents of Pharmaceutical companies and university training that pushed this stuff?? These same people also started telling people that herbal products were ineffective. Caused a lot of deaths!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #62)

Wed May 22, 2013, 12:53 AM

78. Sorry, but you're dead wrong in your subject line.

People have been looking for genuine therapies for thousands of years. "Superstition" has nothing to do with it, except that certain ritualized actions have traditionally been used by would-be healers. No one cared about witchcraft until the early modern era and then disregarded it again during the Enlightenment. Medieval Europeans were not especially concerned about it, at least not until the 13th century. In classical times "witchcraft" was just another word for poisoning.

Mercury is naturally occurring, ergo, a natural remedy. It worked, but not without problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #78)

Thu May 23, 2013, 03:12 AM

100. Your understanding of history is quite flawed

Witchcraft never lost its allure and ability to provoke fear as you say it did. Herbalists(women of the woods) were considered to be witches, yet people were terrified of them because at the time it was considered arcane to understand the nature of illness. Illness was long thought to be something we suffered because of the Devil, so those who could treat it naturally were thought to be associated with the devil.
Medieval Europeans were absolutely fascinated and terrified of Witchcraft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:30 PM

20. The cure to Alzheimer's is cheap, generic, and over the counter.

Ibuprofen.

Google the studies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Stranger (Reply #20)

Tue May 21, 2013, 09:50 PM

73. Could Be True...

but doesn't ibuprofen thin your blood? Then should you have a serious accident blood clotting is difficult and you might bleed out before help gets there. Decisions, decisions.

I will say I'm interested in researching many suggestions here. Then my brain will go into overdrive and my OCD will really be interesting. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Stranger (Reply #20)

Wed May 22, 2013, 02:15 AM

86. That's just cruel.

I'll bet money you have NO ONE in your family with Alzheimer's. Your attitude stinks. There is no CURE for Alzheimer's. Fuck off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:33 PM

22. Large doses of a specific vitamin is not a natural remedy.

In any case, it was scientific testing, not tradition, that discovered the efficacy. Besides, it is not a contest. Scientific medicine includes both naturally occurring chemicals like vitamins and mold extracts (penicillin, for instance) and also completely synthesized chemicals like ibuprofen and novacaine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #22)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:45 PM

32. The doses studied can be obtained from the diet:)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Reply #32)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:30 PM

52. So why do my grandparents have dementia?

They certainly have enough nutrients, but one has dementia and the other has Alzheimer's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:46 PM

33. Our doctor in Europe prescribed vitamin B for my husband, and I started taking it too, way

back when. If I get a backache or sciatica, I take a very high dose for a day or so, and it helps.

My friends who are musicians don't seem to get Alzheimers. That is especially true of the pianists. Is this just a fluke, a coincidence among my friends? Does anyone know a pianist with Alzheimers? Just curious.

I have a wild theory (meaning it's based on nothing in particular) that our brains are wired to our bodies and that keeping your muscles and all parts of your body functioning as well as you can will help keep your brain functions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #33)

Tue May 21, 2013, 05:09 PM

64. My mother was an accomplished pianist and

she suffered from dementia (not Alzheimer's disease) beginning in her late 70's, progressing until her death at age 90.

addendum: Mother did not take any vitamins that I'm aware of.

I'm a believer in B vitamins myself, especially B-12, folic acid & B-6. Also CQ10.
So far, I just forget names and some words, but always answer all the questions correctly during dementia "tests". (LOL)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #33)

Tue May 21, 2013, 10:05 PM

74. My stepfather was a professional organist and accomplished pianist

and he got Alzheimer's. However, his musical ability was one of the last things to go. He used to play the piano for the other patients in the memory ward, but he kept obsessing about needing to phone his mother, who had died some 40 years before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #74)

Wed May 22, 2013, 01:34 AM

82. My mother could also play the piano

late into her dementia.
As i understand it, the memories go in reverse order to when they were laid down in the brain.
Since most musicians began their studies in early childhood, it stands to reason that they would not lose that facility until much later in the course of their disease.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 03:47 PM

34. People with skin cancer less like to develop Alzheimer's

Sometime last year there was a discovery that a certain skin cancer drug reversed Alzheimer's in mice. I keep checking google from time to time to see if any clinical trials involving humans have been conducted yet. It will probably be at least a couple of years before any definitive information is out there since clinical trials take a long time. But today in my googling I found an interesting article that was posted 6 days ago. Apparently scientists at Albert Einstein College of Medicine have found that people who have non-melanoma skin cancer are 80% less likely to develop Alzheimers. 80% is a huge difference. I scoured the article to see any mention of a skin cancer drug being used as treatment in those with non-melanoma but nothing was mentioned. All that was mentioned was the hypothesis that those with non-melanoma skin cancer may be more active (out in the sun more) and that's why the reduction in risk. Very interesting though....

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/cancerresearchnews/2013/SkinCancerAlzheimersRisk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:04 PM

40. Awesome!

A few members on this board should think about taking it since contradictory history seems to conveniently be missing in their totally perfect analysis.

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:15 PM

41. I've bee taking B vitamins for over 20 years.

Too early to tell with regards to Alzheimer's, but I'll be 65 in a couple of months and I have just a little gray hair around my temples. I don't take them to prevent gray hair, because I don't care if my hair turns gray or not, but I have been told that a lack of B vitamins can cause people's hair to turn gray prematurely. Take it with a grain of salt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 06:29 PM

67. Yet studies show that high levels of folate/folic acid which is a B vitamin

in people other than pregnant women is dangerous. Increased consumption of folate has been shown to be related to increase colon cancer so much so that countries like Chile and the EU have decided not to add folate of to foodstuff like bread. The downside of folate is that it increases the speed of cell reproduction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snagglepuss (Reply #67)

Tue May 21, 2013, 11:06 PM

75. I have a great memory, it is just short.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 08:43 PM

69. My B-complex caps have no folic acid & only 5 mg of B6

On the other hand, my Folic Acid with DHA caps have 600 mcg of folic and 50 mcg of B12.

B6 is sold separately, and I used to take it years ago. Seems like it's time to start taking it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialsecurityisAAA (Original post)

Thu May 23, 2013, 08:50 AM

103. Vitamin B in all forms

are very inexpensive and with the building preponderance of evidence coming out that shows supplementing with them is good, it is a good idea to research the multi vitaming B complexes so as to get the best dosage. There are many places to look for them just by Googling Vitamin B. There are those who say that all you need comes from the food you eat. But that is hogwash. The problem being that the food we eat is grown in ground that has been abused for so many years as to produce a product that looks like a carrot or a beet or a bean, but does not have the nutritional value it was evolved to contain. So my wife and I have been taking multi-complex vitamin B for years. Some of it on faith and some on good research. Either way, they are not expensive and to overdose on them would be an act of intention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread