![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 401 to 425 of 435. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 12:23:00
In reply to Re: Vitamin D » Larry Hoover, posted by JLx on October 30, 2004, at 11:46:00
> Hi Lar,
>
> I read the links but didn't grasp much. You did mean 4000 and not 400 I presume which is way more than we've been recommended. I've always heard 4-800 IU per day.Absolutely. I meant 4,000 IU/day. What got people looking back at vitamin D was the link between sun exposure and multiple sclerosis. The link turned out to be vitamin D. There was also a concurrent examination of the link between vitamin D and osteoporosis, and voila! they figured out that the RDA was deficient altogether. Rickets, also known as vitamin D deficiency, is on the rise in the United States. Seriously.
>
> Is there a preferred type? Right now I'm taking a A and D combo, from fish liver oil, of 10,000 and 400 respectively but I don't want to just take more of that, do I? And increase the Vit A by that much?No, you don't want to increase the A any more. Just add in some more D. Any type will do.
> I'm concerned about osteoporosis as I don't drink milk any more. I also take magnesium, boron, Vit. K and only a little calcium (because it makes me crazy!) with osteoporosis in mind. My mother has it, she's in her 70's.
>
> JLMaybe with extra vitamin D your response to calcium will diminish.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 12:25:28
In reply to Re: licorice, DLPA » Larry Hoover, posted by JLx on October 30, 2004, at 11:55:02
> Will the DLPA have the same effect there as tyrosine? Or perhaps I don't need to worry about it now.
>
> JLAbout 30 to 40% of a dose of DLPA will go on to tyrosine. Taking both DLPA and tyrosine will put them into competition for various uptake pumps. You could take them the same day, just don't take them together.
Lar
Posted by TeeJay on October 30, 2004, at 21:03:35
In reply to Re: Excuse me for elbowing my way in here.......... » TeeJay, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 9:45:12
cheers for that Lar,
As it turns out, I think it was just the "random walk" nature of the waxing and waning of my symptoms, ie I was just going through a prolonged and particularly nasty bad patch.
I slowly dropped each thing (with the exception of selenium which i want to continue taking as I discovered this year I have cancer risk in my family and also to try and combat all the years I smoked too) and it really didnt seem to make a whole lot of difference.
Curiously, Ginkgo used to be one of the few supplements I tried that actually gave me a definite boost...although with poop out and my often opposite reactions to things (I feel worse if I take a B100 supplement for example) who knows what does what anymore.
Seems to me the more I experiment, the more confused I get!!!
Thanks anyway LAr........and nice to see your brain is back in top gear again :-)
Posted by tealady on October 30, 2004, at 21:28:22
In reply to Re: Cholesterol metabolism ? Lar » tealady, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 8:40:40
>
>Cholesterol does a lot of things in the body. It's much more than a substrate for tranformations. It dissolves into neuronal membranes, and modulates receptor sensitivity, for example. I'd also be concerned about the ratio of cholesterol to DHEA/DHEA-S. I think more in patterns than in absolute measurements.>Your liver cranks out cholesterol by the bucket, even if you eat none.
>Frankly, I think the whole hoohah about dietary cholesterol intake is bogus. Far more important is to control the intake of de novo (new) cholesterol synthesis modulators. Some fatty acids increase synthesis, and some decrease it.
***********************************************************************************Thanks Lar for your input to many posts<g>,
What I'm aiming at with these thoughts is..cholesterol is a recognised problem with many, probably more so with age.
I was under the impression that cholesterol is an essential part of ALL cell membranes not just neuronal ones..it stiffens them? , I'm not sure though as I haven't really tried to investigate cholesterol..I do know its important to not be too low as well as too high though..and I agree empathically with your opinion about the hoohah about cholesterol levels.back to what I'm aiming at...
I think inhibiting cholesterol production if one is too high is the wrong approach! like the statins, ACe inhibitors etc..).
On thing is CoQ10 production is inhibited,, but that's sure to be only one thing of many..
I'm at present being pushed by a couple of docs , and I agree my cholesterol is too high,
BUT all the things cholesterol is supposed to convert to in the steroid hormone pathway are too low.
This is probably the difference between 20yr old and 40 yr old..
I don't agreed that one should take statins though!!
What I think we should be looking for is what is stopping the cholesterol from breaking down like it did at 20 into the steroid hormones..and the other path ..with bile..and maybe another path with CoQ10?
Like why not approach the condition of high cholesterol from the opposite tack?Now one thing that does help (and this happens with just about everyone who was low thyroid) is thyroid hormones. One "symptom" of low thyroid hormone utilisation is slightly raised cholesterol. Many hypos get their cholesterol down just with thyroid hormone supps. I'm "typical" here in that my cholesterol has reduced..just not enough for my liking..and more importantly..I want to help my body make more oestrogen/DHEA/testosterone/cortisol etc
So I was looking at the pathways trying to find what supps one can take to encourage cholesterol to follow the pathways it should take and break down. like it should do.
I was trying to find what I might be lacking that was slowing down the breakdown..obviously I get some.
I thought this would be important for many here..well in the over 40's anyway. It should in theory help maintain godd testosterine levels etc. I would think as well as lower the cholesterol figure?
***************************************************************************-------------------
>I get confused with the variety of lab tests, and reporting protocols. Often, when talking about cholesterol, very different concepts are being described.>What is your HDL:LDL ratio?
--------------------------
My test results follow..same units as rest of world minus the US...hmm I can't work out how to put any formatting on this site ..so its here
http://www.geocities.com/jan_narelle_tea/Cholesterol.htm> Still looking for something to aid in the breakdown of cholesterol(or even some research!)besides thyroid hormones....as opposed to a synthesis inhibitor. I need more of everything cholesterol is supposed to break down into<g>.
Actually I'm 100% sure that thyroid hormones do lower cholesterol..happens to all I think...but how I'm not sure of..whether by inhibiting synthess slightly or promoting its metabolism..which seems more likely but not certainSo then I looked at the pathways and posted this
I have read too that potassium helps in the breakdown from cholesterol as well as angiotensionII---------------------------------
<snipped from a post of mine>
"Angiotensin II stimulation leads to increased transfer of cholesterol to the inner mitochondrial membrane and increased conversion of cholesterol to pregnenolone and corticosterone to aldosterone. (12, 13).""High dietary potassium intake increases plasma aldosterone and enhances the aldosterone response to a subsequent potassium or angiotensin II infusion (11). The primary action of potassium for stimulating aldosterone secretion is to depolarize the plasma membrane, which activates voltage-dependent calcium channels, that permit influx or exflux of extracellular calcium (11). The increased cytosolic calcium stimulates the same two steps in aldosterone biosynthesis that angiotensin II does "
http://www.endotext.org/adrenal/adrenal24/adrenal24.htmIn my last blood test my increased my estrogen intake ..and my blood levels of both potassium and calcium were up (calcium up very slightly 2.40 to 2.42 normal..potassium right mid normal!) I read somewhere that estrogen increases the vitD3 receptors in the intestine lining allowing you to absorb more calcium into the blood from the intestines...not sure if really applies here.
I've been trying to reduce licorice too so that would definitely have something to do with the potassium increase..as well as a higher food potassium intake (I doubled the amt of potasium rich foods I'm eating!..now just to stop gaining weight!LOL)
<snip>--------------------------------
So then I started looking at the pathways as below
> > OK I looked up what is needed maybe in the pathways
> > http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00140.html
> > "AND CLICKING on 1.14.15.6
> > Oxidoreductases
> > Acting on paired donors with incorporation of molecular oxygen
> > With a reduced iron-sulfur protein as one donor, and incorporation
> > of one atom of oxygen"
> >
> > so as well oxygen maybe I need iron-sulfur...there's that sulfur again!!!! (and iron)
>
> Oxygen is the second most reactive element of them all....more so than is chlorine (from electronegativity standpoint). Fire is an uncontrolled oxygenation chain reaction. Currently, the atmosphere contains about 17% oxygen. If it got up to 22%, it would be impossible to put out fires with water (itself burned hydrogen), as the exothermic reactions would not be cooled enough by the heat absorption capacity of water (specific heat), and the latent heat of vapourization.
>
> The point is, our bodies work only because Mother Nature has learned how to slow fire down, to control it somewhat. Sulphur loves oxygen. Oxidative stress depletes sulphur compounds in the body.
>
> > OK so for sulfur I need TMG, NAC, NAG ??
>
> TMG remethylates one particular sulphur compound, homocysteine, but it is not a source of sulphur.
>
> Common sulphur sources are methionine, SAMe, cysteine, taurine, creatine (a tripeptide with methionine). NAC is N-acetyl-cysteine, so it is a source. MSM too.
>
> > I guess something like magnesium sulfate is different?? I have epsom salt baths but they always make me very tired after..actually usually drift in and out of sleep in the bath. Note sure if that's the sulfates or just the relaxation.
>
> More likely the magnesium. It is taken in transcutaneously, though only slightly. Sulphates are not a good metabolic source of sulphur, as they're already fully oxidized (SO4--).
>
> >
> > Lar mentioned sulfur stuff to me last year too re thyroid hormones.
> >
> > Another cholesterol path
> > http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00120.html
> > needs that NADPH again and oxygen
> > "With NADH or NADPH as one donor, and incorporation of one atom of
> > oxygen"
> >
> >
> > I thought that CoQ10 (ubiquinone) should be somewhere around cholesterol too? as the drugs that inhibit cholesterol synthesis also stop CoQ10 synthesis? But I can't find the link there.
> >
> > Jan
>
> The statin drugs do block CoQ10. That may be the mechanism of some of the side effects. You're likely going to see recommendations to supplement CoQ10 with statin drugs.
>
> Lar
Posted by Simus on October 31, 2004, at 1:13:41
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » Simus, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 10:26:09
http://www.ohsuhealth.com/pituitary/patients/hormone.asp
>
> LarLarry,
First of all, it is wonderful to hear from you again!
That site you posted started me down another path of research, and I have found much to my amazement that I fit the Cushing's Disease profile to a tee. Now I am trying to figure out if what I thought was adrenal fatigue from some unknown cause could actually be a pituitary tumor releasing too much ACTH, thereby causing adrenal problems. Does that make any sense??? Now I have a question of lesser concern, but it could be related. I have had nasal blockage to some degree my whole life. At times I can easily breath through one nostril but the other air flow through the other nostril is almost completely blocked. But then it can switch to partial restriction of air through both nostrils. Could this possibly be from a pituitary tumor pressing on the sinuses/airways?
Also, if a person has Cushing's Disease, would taking the new cortisol-restricting supplement be beneficial or harmful?
Any help would be appreciated.
Simus
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 31, 2004, at 8:21:07
In reply to Cushings??? Help! » Larry Hoover, posted by Simus on October 31, 2004, at 1:13:41
> http://www.ohsuhealth.com/pituitary/patients/hormone.asp
> >
> > Lar
>
> Larry,
>
> First of all, it is wonderful to hear from you again!Thank you. Back with a blast, eh?
> That site you posted started me down another path of research, and I have found much to my amazement that I fit the Cushing's Disease profile to a tee. Now I am trying to figure out if what I thought was adrenal fatigue from some unknown cause could actually be a pituitary tumor releasing too much ACTH, thereby causing adrenal problems. Does that make any sense???
It makes sense all right. Pituitary problems are often first diagnosed by the patient.
If Cushing's is associated with literal adrenal fatigue (one option in your intuitive response), then it has caused your adrenals to fail from overwork. However, bizarre as it may sound, both overactive and underactive adrenals cause fatigue.
What to do about it? Work your way around that site, as it is very well put together. Pay some attention to this link:
http://www.ohsuhealth.com/pituitary/patients/find_out.asp
The first investigation needs to be cortisol monitoring, both total urinary and sequential serum levels, to check diurnal output.
> Now I have a question of lesser concern, but it could be related. I have had nasal blockage to some degree my whole life. At times I can easily breath through one nostril but the other air flow through the other nostril is almost completely blocked. But then it can switch to partial restriction of air through both nostrils. Could this possibly be from a pituitary tumor pressing on the sinuses/airways?
Very unlikely. Pituitary tumours can have effects on vision, as the pituitary is close by the optical chiasm (an X-shaped (Greek for X is chi) structure where the optic nerve crosses over to the opposite side of the brain). You probably have sinuses with poor drainage. If you get head colds from hell, you should probably see an ENT doctor.
> Also, if a person has Cushing's Disease, would taking the new cortisol-restricting supplement be beneficial or harmful?
Probably would make you feel worse, if you're thinking about using licorice, for example. The adrenals would still be pumping out hormones, and the licorice would extend their half-life, making it seem like the adrenals were releasing even more hormones than they are.
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> SimusFirst bit, is to consider a well thought out plan of action. Bursting into a doctor's office with the declaration that you have Cushing's may not be met with the enthusiasm you wish to see.
I propose, to the best of your ability, to consider each of the symptoms of adrenal/pituitary dysfunction separately, and write down when the symptom started, how it affects you, how it responds to increased stress in your life, and so on. You want to paint a picture that even a dismissive doctor will have to take into account.
Also, at the outset, you must consider that you want to soon find a doctor with extensive experience in treating this disorder, if it is verified. Pituitary tumours are almost always benign (non-spreading), and tiny (seldom as big as a pea), but they are very hard to reach (just in front of a line between your ears, directly in line with the tip of your nose). And there may be non-surgical options, too.
The treatment for Cushing's can be debilitating, as the body winds down from being under ACTH stress. ACTH does more than signal the adrenals to produce hormones. It is a systemic hormone.
I'm both relieved and saddened if you have found your answer. Solving your problem is itself a problem.
If you want to bounce some ideas around, I have babblemail on. I'll give you my email address there, rather than posting it.
Good luck,
Lar
Posted by JLx on October 31, 2004, at 10:14:46
In reply to Re: licorice, DLPA » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 12:25:28
Posted by JLx on October 31, 2004, at 10:38:21
In reply to Re: Vitamin D » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 12:23:00
> > Hi Lar,
> >
> > I read the links but didn't grasp much. You did mean 4000 and not 400 I presume which is way more than we've been recommended. I've always heard 4-800 IU per day.
>
> Absolutely. I meant 4,000 IU/day. What got people looking back at vitamin D was the link between sun exposure and multiple sclerosis. The link turned out to be vitamin D. There was also a concurrent examination of the link between vitamin D and osteoporosis, and voila! they figured out that the RDA was deficient altogether. Rickets, also known as vitamin D deficiency, is on the rise in the United States. Seriously.I'd heard that! And it's outrageous, isn't it? Makes you wonder just how much some parents are paying attention.
> > Is there a preferred type? Right now I'm taking a A and D combo, from fish liver oil, of 10,000 and 400 respectively but I don't want to just take more of that, do I? And increase the Vit A by that much?
>
> No, you don't want to increase the A any more. Just add in some more D. Any type will do.
> > I'm concerned about osteoporosis as I don't drink milk any more. I also take magnesium, boron, Vit. K and only a little calcium (because it makes me crazy!) with osteoporosis in mind. My mother has it, she's in her 70's.
> >
> > JL
>
> Maybe with extra vitamin D your response to calcium will diminish.
>
> LarHmm...really? That's interesting. It's not as pronounced as it was when I first quit taking/eating so much calcium and started supplementing with magnesium, but it's still bothersome at least by supplement. Eating calcium rich foods doesn't seem to bother me.
I'm going to start adding Vit D and I'll find out. Thanks, Larry.
JL
Posted by raybakes on October 31, 2004, at 10:52:10
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » raybakes, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 12:10:34
>
> All enzymes work equally well in both directions. The limiting factors are the relative concentrations of the raw materials and the products. Your body makes most enzymes work in one direction only by near instantaneously removing the products.
>
thanks Lar, that's exactly what Jan said! I thought there had to be specific enzymes to go one way or the other..Ray
Posted by raybakes on October 31, 2004, at 13:13:19
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » raybakes, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 11:51:21
> > I'm finding there's not enough vitamin D in fish oil for me. I use halibut oil (not sure if it's liver or not) for vitamin A, but don't know if it's any better than cod? It's the mercury and PCB content that really concerns me more than the fish.
>
> No mercury in fish oils. Mercury binds to protein, and all protein is removed from fish oils of all types. PCBs and pesticides etc. may or may not be an issue. Those are fat soluble, and different brands have different amounts.
>
> http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/26diox.pdf
>
> http://www.fsai.ie/surveillance/food/surveillance_food_summarydioxins.asp
>
>
> Oh, off topic, but dietary measures to reduce inflammatory response:
> http://www.itmonline.org/arts/lox.htm
>
Thanks Lar, it was a fish oil supplier that told me that most brands have high levels of mercury! Thanks for the article on eicosanoids too, I found it yesterday too while looking up asthma links for a friend!! The theory about aspirin intolerance and asthma increasing leukotriene synthesis was interesting - do you think that's true - I wondered whether it was due to poor sulphation?
Ray
Posted by karaS on October 31, 2004, at 13:24:47
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » karaS, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 10:28:48
> > I'm still confused about my neighbor's condition. She doesn't have adrenal fatigue symptoms at all. She's thinking possibly hyperpituitary is her real problem. Maybe she's right.
> >
> > Kara
>
> Hyperpituitary syndromes are really relatively common, usually due to benign tumours.
>
> Lar
>
>I passed that information on to her. Thanks.
K
Posted by karaS on October 31, 2004, at 13:26:58
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » karaS, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 10:43:49
Posted by raybakes on November 1, 2004, at 6:52:57
In reply to Re: Do conversions along pathways go both ways? » raybakes, posted by tealady on October 29, 2004, at 20:50:57
> >I'm a bit confused as to the link between glutamine and glucosamine? I had a quick look and couldn't see it.
>
> OK I found it I think..top line of this
> http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00251.html
>
> so that kinda has something to do with G6PD(or something close) I think?
>
Hi Jan, not sure if it's directly anything to do with G6PD but i'm more interested in it as part of of the extracellular matrix, to help with my gut wall. Also came across this when looking up something to send you...Recombinant human TSH is glycosylated with mannose, N-acetylglucosamine, fucose, galactose, and NANA.84 Higher levels of NANA confer longer circulatory life.84 Carbohydrate removal impairs TSH bioactivity.84 Patients with hypothyroidism have TSH with more NANA relative to sulfation.37 Patients with idiopathic central hypothyroidism have glycosylation changes in their serum TSH.85
http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=H286Bve glycosylation changes in their serum TSH.85It seems that TSH needs four saccharides attached for it to function efficiently - I wonder if TSH can rise to counter a saccharide deficiency?
What did you think about the ideas to do with nitrates, and sulphites and vasodilation? (acetylcholine/vaspressin thread)
Ray
Posted by JLx on November 1, 2004, at 17:32:49
In reply to Re: Vitamin D » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 12:23:00
> > Hi Lar,
> >
> > I read the links but didn't grasp much. You did mean 4000 and not 400 I presume which is way more than we've been recommended. I've always heard 4-800 IU per day.
>
> Absolutely. I meant 4,000 IU/day. What got people looking back at vitamin D was the link between sun exposure and multiple sclerosis. The link turned out to be vitamin D. There was also a concurrent examination of the link between vitamin D and osteoporosis, and voila! they figured out that the RDA was deficient altogether. Rickets, also known as vitamin D deficiency, is on the rise in the United States. Seriously.
>
> >
> > Is there a preferred type? Right now I'm taking a A and D combo, from fish liver oil, of 10,000 and 400 respectively but I don't want to just take more of that, do I? And increase the Vit A by that much?
>
> No, you don't want to increase the A any more. Just add in some more D. Any type will do.
>
> > I'm concerned about osteoporosis as I don't drink milk any more. I also take magnesium, boron, Vit. K and only a little calcium (because it makes me crazy!) with osteoporosis in mind. My mother has it, she's in her 70's.
> >
> > JL
>
> Maybe with extra vitamin D your response to calcium will diminish.
>
> LarI was so intrigued by your 4000 IU recommendation that I did a lot of looking around and started a board on Vit D and depression. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041022/msgs/410247.html I hope you will check it out. Maybe you can answer my question on there as to why sunlight Vit D isn't toxic, but supplemental is -- assuming it is -- when it's the same kind, or is it?
JL
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 2, 2004, at 8:56:07
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » Larry Hoover, posted by raybakes on October 31, 2004, at 13:13:19
> Thanks Lar, it was a fish oil supplier that told me that most brands have high levels of mercury!
I could show you test results, where a dozen brands were tested independently, and no detectable mercury was found (at ppb detection).
> Thanks for the article on eicosanoids too, I found it yesterday too while looking up asthma links for a friend!! The theory about aspirin intolerance and asthma increasing leukotriene synthesis was interesting - do you think that's true - I wondered whether it was due to poor sulphation?
>
> RayRefresh my brain, Ray? Which article was that? I've got too many threads in my brain to keep track of it all.
BTW, google has a new program, in beta release. It's called desktop google. It searches on your own computer, using the google search engine. You'll never "lose" something again. It will remember every site you've visited, and what you looked at, as well as what you saved, or sent by email, etc. Just google "desktop google".
OK, at least that's the press blurb. I just installed it, and it takes a while to index everything before it's "set up" to search. Sounds excellento, though.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 2, 2004, at 9:03:40
In reply to Re: Vitamin D » Larry Hoover, posted by JLx on November 1, 2004, at 17:32:49
> I was so intrigued by your 4000 IU recommendation that I did a lot of looking around and started a board on Vit D and depression. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041022/msgs/410247.html I hope you will check it out. Maybe you can answer my question on there as to why sunlight Vit D isn't toxic, but supplemental is -- assuming it is -- when it's the same kind, or is it?
>
> JLYou're good. Scary good. I'll just make a summary statement here, but the 4000 IU recommendation is based on solid research, and it's quite a new finding. It takes a while for the facts to filter through into what we know.
I think the oral toxicity of vitamin D is related to the bolus effect. What that is is the huge serum concentration spike that comes from uptake across the gut wall. Vitamin D synthesized in skin trickles out into the blood, via diffusion. The total amount made from acute sun exposure is not just suddenly dumped into the blood. It's the essence of a timed-release vitamin D repository.
Did you catch note of the positive effects arising from a single oral dose of 100,000 IU? I recall seeing that last night, as I was skimming. It gives one pause, with respect to oral toxicity.
Lar
Posted by JLx on November 2, 2004, at 9:33:24
In reply to Re: Vitamin D » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on November 2, 2004, at 9:03:40
> > I was so intrigued by your 4000 IU recommendation that I did a lot of looking around and started a board on Vit D and depression. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041022/msgs/410247.html I hope you will check it out. Maybe you can answer my question on there as to why sunlight Vit D isn't toxic, but supplemental is -- assuming it is -- when it's the same kind, or is it?
> >
> > JL
>
> You're good. Scary good.Thanks, Larry. That means a lot coming from you! :) I'm going to answer you on the other board, hope you don't mind.
JL
Posted by karaS on November 2, 2004, at 18:10:42
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » raybakes, posted by Larry Hoover on November 2, 2004, at 8:56:07
> > Thanks Lar, it was a fish oil supplier that told me that most brands have high levels of mercury!
>
> I could show you test results, where a dozen brands were tested independently, and no detectable mercury was found (at ppb detection).
>
> > Thanks for the article on eicosanoids too, I found it yesterday too while looking up asthma links for a friend!! The theory about aspirin intolerance and asthma increasing leukotriene synthesis was interesting - do you think that's true - I wondered whether it was due to poor sulphation?
> >
> > Ray
>
> Refresh my brain, Ray? Which article was that? I've got too many threads in my brain to keep track of it all.
>
> BTW, google has a new program, in beta release. It's called desktop google. It searches on your own computer, using the google search engine. You'll never "lose" something again. It will remember every site you've visited, and what you looked at, as well as what you saved, or sent by email, etc. Just google "desktop google".
>
> OK, at least that's the press blurb. I just installed it, and it takes a while to index everything before it's "set up" to search. Sounds excellento, though.
>
> Lar
>The best search engine is Copernic. I believe it is from the UK. You can download it for free (although there are fancier versions if you want to pay for them). It keeps your searches, it validates them to see if the links are still good along with some other bells and whistles. It culls from many other search engines (it shows you which ones) and provides you with the best reponses. You get about 40 links rather than 40,000 of them. Of course some of these links are phony sales pitches - but they have to pay for it somehow! All in all, it's definitely worth it. There are some instances where Google is better but most of the time this one is. You can download it at Copernic.com.
Posted by Simus on November 3, 2004, at 2:14:53
In reply to Re: Excuse me for elbowing my way in here.......... » Larry Hoover, posted by TeeJay on October 30, 2004, at 21:03:35
> I feel worse if I take a B100 supplement for example
Me too.
> Seems to me the more I experiment, the more confused I get!!!
Me too.
> Thanks anyway LAr........and nice to see your brain is back in top gear again :-)Me too.
Simus
Posted by raybakes on November 3, 2004, at 13:10:09
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » raybakes, posted by Simus on October 29, 2004, at 16:08:42
> Thanks, Ray. By the way, you say "a supplement is given". How is it given? I assume that you don't ingest it, or you could only do one test a day. So do you put it under your tongue, hold it against your skin...?
>
Hi Simus,The supplements are initially held against the body, or near to it - frequently biochemical markers (homeopathic) are used to diagnose a biochemical block. If homocysteine gave a positive muscle response (arm goes strong) then what would then make the arm go weak would help clear homocysteine - so folate, B12, betaine, niacinamide, B2, B6 or methionine, individually or in combination would be a good bet!
The person would then take the supplements once the testing had been completed.
Hope that's not too confusing!
Ray
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 9:39:35
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » Larry Hoover, posted by karaS on November 2, 2004, at 18:10:42
> > BTW, google has a new program, in beta release. It's called desktop google. It searches on your own computer, using the google search engine. You'll never "lose" something again. It will remember every site you've visited, and what you looked at, as well as what you saved, or sent by email, etc. Just google "desktop google".
> >
> > OK, at least that's the press blurb. I just installed it, and it takes a while to index everything before it's "set up" to search. Sounds excellento, though.
> >
> > LarUpdate on desktop google.....It caused Adobe to be unable to load inside IE, and that cause IE to crash. I'm in discussion with their tech support. At least they seem serious about trying to fix this bug.
Otherwise, it is a superb tool, so far.
>
> The best search engine is Copernic. I believe it is from the UK. You can download it for free (although there are fancier versions if you want to pay for them). It keeps your searches, it validates them to see if the links are still good along with some other bells and whistles. It culls from many other search engines (it shows you which ones) and provides you with the best reponses. You get about 40 links rather than 40,000 of them. Of course some of these links are phony sales pitches - but they have to pay for it somehow! All in all, it's definitely worth it. There are some instances where Google is better but most of the time this one is. You can download it at Copernic.com.Now you done it. And you were keeping this a secret? I already was a research addict. Now, how am I going to find time for food? Eh?
Lar
Posted by KaraS on November 4, 2004, at 14:01:58
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » karaS, posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 9:39:35
> > > BTW, google has a new program, in beta release. It's called desktop google. It searches on your own computer, using the google search engine. You'll never "lose" something again. It will remember every site you've visited, and what you looked at, as well as what you saved, or sent by email, etc. Just google "desktop google".
> > >
> > > OK, at least that's the press blurb. I just installed it, and it takes a while to index everything before it's "set up" to search. Sounds excellento, though.
> > >
> > > Lar
>
> Update on desktop google.....It caused Adobe to be unable to load inside IE, and that cause IE to crash. I'm in discussion with their tech support. At least they seem serious about trying to fix this bug.
>
> Otherwise, it is a superb tool, so far.
>
> >
> > The best search engine is Copernic. I believe it is from the UK. You can download it for free (although there are fancier versions if you want to pay for them). It keeps your searches, it validates them to see if the links are still good along with some other bells and whistles. It culls from many other search engines (it shows you which ones) and provides you with the best reponses. You get about 40 links rather than 40,000 of them. Of course some of these links are phony sales pitches - but they have to pay for it somehow! All in all, it's definitely worth it. There are some instances where Google is better but most of the time this one is. You can download it at Copernic.com.
>
> Now you done it. And you were keeping this a secret? I already was a research addict. Now, how am I going to find time for food? Eh?
>
> Lar
Well, maybe it will speed up your search time so you have more time for food. But don't waste too much time on food - you have to cure us all, you know!Let me know what you think of Copernic.
K
Posted by Jonathan on November 4, 2004, at 23:40:40
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » Larry Hoover, posted by KaraS on November 4, 2004, at 14:01:58
Scirus - http://www.scirus.com - is owned by the publisher Elsevier, so of course all Elsevier journals are exhaustively indexed, but it also covers at least abstracts (from Medline) of other publishers' journals, together with university and other relevant web-sites, including Psycho-Babble.
You can compare it against Google at
http://www.extranet.elsevier.com/listman/BMN/none.htm
Searching for "lithium orotate" (in the hope of avoiding a thread-killing redirect), Google found 3310 hits whilst Scirus found 118, of which 51 are journal references and the other 67 are web-sites. A feature I particularly like is that Scirus suggests a list of keywords for further refining the search: for "lithium orotate" it lists 16 including alcoholism, bipolar, carbonate, kava kava, magnesium, male (but not female!), mood swings, potassium orotate and stress relief.
Thanks, Kara, for posting about Copernic. It looks interesting but I haven't yet used it long enough to offer any useful feedback. The tracker looks useful; a few years ago I made frequent use of a similar service called Netmind, which is no longer available. Unfortunately the free version of Copernic Tracker is only a 30-day trial.
Jonathan.
Posted by KaraS on November 6, 2004, at 19:09:34
In reply to Good engine for scientific searches » Larry Hoover » KaraS, posted by Jonathan on November 4, 2004, at 23:40:40
> Scirus - http://www.scirus.com - is owned by the publisher Elsevier, so of course all Elsevier journals are exhaustively indexed, but it also covers at least abstracts (from Medline) of other publishers' journals, together with university and other relevant web-sites, including Psycho-Babble.
>
> You can compare it against Google at
>
> http://www.extranet.elsevier.com/listman/BMN/none.htm
>
> Searching for "lithium orotate" (in the hope of avoiding a thread-killing redirect), Google found 3310 hits whilst Scirus found 118, of which 51 are journal references and the other 67 are web-sites. A feature I particularly like is that Scirus suggests a list of keywords for further refining the search: for "lithium orotate" it lists 16 including alcoholism, bipolar, carbonate, kava kava, magnesium, male (but not female!), mood swings, potassium orotate and stress relief.
>
> Thanks, Kara, for posting about Copernic. It looks interesting but I haven't yet used it long enough to offer any useful feedback. The tracker looks useful; a few years ago I made frequent use of a similar service called Netmind, which is no longer available. Unfortunately the free version of Copernic Tracker is only a 30-day trial.
>
> Jonathan.
>Wow! That looks great, Jonathan! I've bookmarked it and I'll definitely be checking it out.
Thanks,
Kara
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 7, 2004, at 11:11:50
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » Larry Hoover, posted by KaraS on November 4, 2004, at 14:01:58
> Well, maybe it will speed up your search time so you have more time for food. But don't waste too much time on food - you have to cure us all, you know!
>
> Let me know what you think of Copernic.
>
> KCure? I get more interaction if I keep you sick.
One flaw with Copernic is that it doesn't cache links. If they don't work, at least with google you have the cache version.
Still want to play some more before I make up my mind.
Lar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.