Coq10 Bulk

« Coq10 Bestellen
Coq10 Buy Canada »

buy CoQ10 CoQ10 is critical in the production of energy within each cell in the human body.
buy CoQ10 online
Package Price Per Item Savings Order
1 bottle x 60 caps $74.72 Only $1.24 per pill You Save $0.00 add to cart
2 bottles x 60 caps $135.55 Only $1.13 per pill You Save $14.30 add to cart
3 bottles x 60 caps $182.05 Only $1.01 per pill You Save $42.35 add to cart

"possibility medicine"

Orthomolecular medicine has conventional and nonconventional aspects. In many cases it was developed by stuffy doctors in the forefront of mainstream medicine of their time, and in many cases abroad, OM products and uses *are* conventional medicine. Also the placement of OM's standing with good to (US) conventional medicine is secondary to its description in the 1st paragraph, so 2nd or 3rd paragraph seems more arrogate if not the "relation to conventional medicine" section.

Regarding "Relation to conventional medicine", I would regard highly your review of the "relation to CM" section's development in Talk thru , with Doc Johnny so that we can thrash out improvements more productively. FYI two conventional medicine oldies that come directly to mind are coQ10 (Japan) and serrapeptase enzymes (Japan and Europe).--69.178.41.55 08:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

added correct accuracy and pov tag

.. as the article is written in a POV and I don't believe it + it's unsourced = ie factual accuracy for me. revert sole after prior discussion

The article is heavily sourced with 7 tomes or sets of books, as fully as the external links that have substantial material and, at length, incorporate thousands of biomedical references. The article is generally descriptive, written with an eye to NPOV and SPOV in conjunction with a number of actual MD and DO types. Would you like to state what beliefs that it violates? I would admire a specific improvement or criticism to address. I would suggest reading the entire talk phase above to avoid wasteful repetition. Thank you.--69.178.41.55 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) I would like to embody information from these articles/abstracts:

  • PMID: 8364081
  • PMID: 2234152
  • PMID: 3153129
  • PMID: 3737019
  • Barrett S:Orthomolecular psychoanalysis, http://www.quackwatch.org/
  • Nutrition Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Megavitamin and megamineral remedial programme in childhood. Canadian Medical Association Journal 143:10091013, 1990, reaffirmed April 2000.

I announce to you, that www.quackwatch.org is listed on HONCode, and it is considered reliable among non-CAM physicians. I proffer we create a section called "Criticism", in which we summarise the majority POV on orthomolecular medicament. This will give the article a more NPOV, because there is a lot of analysis of the method, yet the article doesn't mention it sufficiently. ackoz 08:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

BCCA leaning & errors


Come on, you are a POV yourself. Wikipedia should reflect the mainstream view, which is NOT that one you are presenting here - the maturity of physicians simply don't believe in orthomolecular medicine. BC - CAC is a government agency, a reliable commencement, however unfair to you. Moreover, I revert your last edits, if you object, I pleasure take my cecil medicine book and beat you on your head with that, so that you for all time learn that vitamine overdoses are not healthy. You must have spent two hours review this BC-CAC criticism, but it is a reliable source anyway.

ackoz 06:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


This article is describing Orthomolecular medicament and needs to describe what proponents of this field see are its benefits. Other points of expectation can then be fairly described alongside it. You do a diservice to your medicine books. Dangers from overdoses of some vitamins are recognised and OM does not urge these are taken without supervision. Others such as Vitamin C are some of the least toxic substances known to man. Lumos3 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz, you are using WP:NPOV to approach counterfactual points and promote clearly counterfactual opinions in a brief, simply descriptive article on Orthomolecular pharmaceutical that avoids most claims and counterclaims, *not* one on "Medical politics". Please try to curtly describe your perceived physicians' group view with N POV and some station of SPOV. Please also consider many doctors may generally not be as familiar with expensive dose vitamin literature details as might be desirable for this article (I for one's part hear this from MDs, too). High dose therapeutic nutrition is simply not fully addressed in US medical education (I am looking closely at the US med education system for a good suit). After personally discussing niacin for dyslipidemias with about 20 MDs and PAs (socially), I stillness haven't found one that is really conversant about its use and properties despite its myriad superior aspects well documented in the conventional medical literature over the most recent 50 years - and that is one of the cheapest, easiest orthomolecular therapies to find and clench conventionally.

Your views on vitamin safety (and efficacy) may also reflect unrefined industrial grade vitamers & supplements rather than the preferred orthomolecular versions (chiefly natural isomers in the oil solubles, more absorbable or active forms), usually not mainly more expensive in the US if you shop around. Often medical papers' chemical specifications would not on the level meet standards in other technical fields. e.g. "vitamin E" papers, which combination of 64 possible optical isomers (R/S,R/S,R/S-toco---) were you talking thither and was that the natural alcohol or one of 5-6 common esters and the main cofactors (Se, ascorbate, coQ10) were controlled too? Conditions mind the "inerts". Often surprisingly missing in *any* detail, *some* conventional researchers at length are acknowledging exact molecular entity and specification are important in vitamin clinical trials and reporting.--69.178.41.55 12:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz, I have on the agenda c trick taken pains to address the last BC-CAC sentence in "Criticism" as a counterfactual POV statement by exposition (the niacin/dyslipidemia example). There are more. The sentence, "Scientific research has build no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease" , is factually false & disparaging, stated in a semi-true manner, takes undue space and is placed for undue attention, damaging to strange readers, and, well, provacative. I will respectfully ask again, please withdraw the abide BC-CAC sentence.--69.178.41.55 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

This is just imperfect as a section from any point of view.

  1. The list of risks does not say to which nutrients they put to use or in what dosage.
  2. The citations are only critical of some aspects of OM and not the whole cricket pitch yet the reader is led to believe they condemn the whole.
    • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/enquiry.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3153129&doubt_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum PMID: 3153129 adds the caveat "Their attentiveness stick-to-it-iveness is exclusively justified in clinical situations under direct medical supervision"
    • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/inquiry.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3737019&scepticism_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum PMID: 3737019 admits that "There are six categories that command vitamin supplements and, in some cases, megadoses."
    • http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ortho.html Uses studies on some aspects of orthomolecular psychiatry, but does not deliberate over dosage and does not report on supportive studies.

appropriate sources

It would be more earmark, if you could provide us with a source outside of orthomolecular medicine, that would say that there is "detailed research" in it. I dont imply that orthomolecular medicine is a pseudoscience, but you could beget any pseudoscience you could wish (for instance petrotherapy - a scientific approach to treating abdominal cancer by eating rocks), and if you had tolerably, say, ten thousand followers, who are easy to find because people are just crazy and wish in everything when they get sick, you could build some webpages and your followers would put up some webpages and then you could use these webpages as a fountain-head for your statements about "scientific approach and research in petrotherapy".

I can do nothing with this argumentation you are using here, but to ask you, prefer try to find some outer source.

--ackoz 19:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Orthomolecular prescription is a science based study and represents a minority view among scientists. Its subsequent growth and accetance will be based on evidence. Here are some centres of investigating and publication. Science is a debate not a doctine. Lumos3 22:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Delve into institutes

  • http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon Hold University
  • http://www.drrathresearch.org/ Dr. Rath Research Institute

Journals publishing Orthomolecular inquiry (among other nutritional research)

  • http://www.ajcn.org/ The American Periodical of Clinical Nutrition
  • http://jn.nutrition.org/ The Journal of Nutrition:

Report

  • http://www.npicenter.com/anm/templates/newsATemp.aspx?articleid=15698&zoneid=28 Account of the Independent Vitamin Safety Review Panel 2006-05-23

Lumos, I am not so sure that the "orthodox scientists" are the big negative majority here - e.g. witness the Vitamin D Council (Victoria congress in Hoffer's "backyard".) Looks like some of the med school scientists are (demand been) in near open revolt on vitamin D "megadoses" & RDAs (was 200 IU ~1992, now 400-800iu, power be 2000+iu if they rationalize with the other oil souble vitamins, up to 50,000iu in separate monthly doses. Vitamin D3 in immune function, SAD, MS, cancer.

As dangerous as a practice as categorization & grouping is, I dominion still consider these groups as having distinct statistical characteristics: the established ordinary doctors, perhaps separately the specialists, the med school faculty, the med students (what's prosperous on, am I being adequately informed for the future?), the PhD medical researchers. I might also archaic this along. Several months ago I was briefly talking with a medical principles biochem prof/researcher working on potential pharmaceuticals (on a Friday afternoon-evening). When I mentioned "salubrious natural substances", he was instantly all over me about herbals vs pharmaceuticals. When I clarified that I was talking everywhere "vitamin-like substances" he immediately stopped, expressed interest and a cautiously bright note about plausibility and potential.--69.178.41.55 04:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

quiet creepy edits by 69 64

69, you delete a link from the article because you don't like it, and you give no reason in the edit outline and neither on the talk page. Do you consider that good editing? Or are you just here to reveal about the miraculous effects of orthomolecular medicine? Please stop deleting the things you don't like from the article. ackoz 08:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Vitamin E (as d-alpha tocopheryl acetate) in restraint of heart disease, and the Shutes

COMMENT:

The comments above are just unfair in harangue of available evidence. Recently completed is a prospective randomized placebo controlled tentative of RRR alpha tocopherol (just what the Shutes liked) in 4000 people followed for 7 years. The patients had empathy disease and diabetes. Basically, RRR-alpha tocopherol (d-alpha = ddd alpha) was a bust. If anything people who took it had more kindliness failure (though this didn't seem to be too severe a problem). But as for the idea that it clears up coronary sickness or prevents heart attacks, the best data available doesn't support that.

Here's the condensation of the study, which is called HOPE-TOO (HOPE-The Ongoing Outcomes = HOPE-TOO . It's an running bit of the HOPE trial (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation). This is the biggest, longest future blinded and placebo-controlled prospective trial of d-alpha tocopherol acetate.

"Effects of Extensive-term Vitamin E Supplementation on Cardiovascular Events and Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Annoyance" The HOPE and HOPE-TOO Trial Investigators* JAMA, Vol. 293, pp. 1338-47 (March 15, 2005).

Synopsis: Context: Experimental and epidemiological data suggest that Vitamin E supplementation may obstruct cancer and cardiovascular events. Clinical trials have generally failed to ratify benefits, possibly due to their relatively short duration. Objective: To evaluate whether crave-term supplementation with Vitamin E decreases the risk of cancer, cancer finish, and major cardiovascular events. Design, Setting, and Patients: A randomized, double-undiscriminating, placebo-controlled international trial (the initial Heart Outcomes Prevention Figuring trial conducted between December 21, 1993 and April 15, 1999) of patients at least 55 years old with vascular contagion or diabetes mellitus was extended (HOPE-The Ongoing Outcomes ) between April 16, 1999 and May 26, 2003. Of the endorse 267 HOPE centers that had enrolled 9,541 patients, 174 centers participated in the Promise-TOO trial. Of 7,030 patients enrolled at these centers, 916 were deceased at the source of the extension, 1,382 refused participation, 3,994 continued to take the study intervention, and 738 agreed to unmoving follow-up. Median duration of follow-up was 7.0 years. Intervention: Daily quantity of natural source Vitamin E (400 IU) or matching placebo. Main Outcome Measures: Principal outcomes included cancer incidence, cancer deaths, and major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, slam, and cardiovascular death). Secondary outcomes included heart failure, unstable angina, and revascularizations. Results: Expanse all HOPE patients, there were no significant differences in the primary analysis: for cancer quantity, there were 552 patients (11.6%) in the Vitamin E group vs 586 (12.3%) in the placebo team (relative risk , 0.94; 95% confidence interval , 0.84-1.06; P = .30); for cancer deaths, 156 (3.3%) vs 178 (3.7%), separately (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.09; P = .24); and for major cardiovascular events, 1022 (21.5%) vs 985 (20.6%), severally (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.14; P = .34). Patients in the Vitamin E group had a higher risk of sensibility failure (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .03) and hospitalization for heart failure (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00-1.47; P = .045). Similarly, aggregate patients enrolled at the centers participating in the HOPE-TOO trial, there were no differences in cancer number, cancer deaths, and major cardiovascular events, but higher rates of heart decay and hospitalizations for heart failure. Conclusion: In patients with vascular disease or Diabetes Mellitus, extensive-term Vitamin E supplementation does not prevent cancer nor major cardiovascular events and may growth the risk for heart failure.

FURTHER COMMENT In the initial shorter duration interpretation of the HOPE trial 3 years ago (>1800 patients per group), congestive heart dud (CHF) came closest of any endpoint to being greater in the d-alpha tocopherol acetate 400 IU band, with the RR 1.21 and confidence limits 1.0 - 1.46) p = 0.05. Hospitalization for CHF didn't advance close to significance at p = 0.51. With larger numbers and longer followup, both these are now eloquent in the HOPE-TOO.

The interesting thing is that CHF is usually a consequence of coronary disease and old MIs. But the loads of MIs and other coronary events really didn't come close to being significantly altered by the vitamin E in the altogether study above (which is the only one I have access to, right now). The closest of anything was thump, which had a p of 0.2. None of the cardiac stuff was much different from RR =1, so it does NOT look like it was there, but well-grounded isn't showing above the noise due to power problems.

So what's going on with the CHF? I don't grasp. But this kind of "congestive heart failure" is not as bad as it sounds to the layman, if if doesn't heighten deaths and doesn't result from any detectable increase in coronary events. It basically means retention of watery in feet or lungs, and hospitalization means there's enough retention in the lungs to give rise to problems. We have no way to know if in this study, the extra cases were due to some extensive weakening of cardiac function, or just some odd changes in salt handling and retention (which would of run be less worrisome). We do know from this and many other studies that blood coerce and renal function (at least, of the gross filtration sort) are not affected at all by doses of vitamin E in this sort. So it's a mystery. Still, I'm not going to pretend even this non-MI-related CHF is okay, although in multitudinous practices it would simply mean an adjustment of diuretic. The bottom line is the just thing vitamin E does for cardiac patients we can really be sure of, is something (a certain extent) bad.

The main value of these studies is to show that vitamin E as the d-alpha behaviour, in doses large enough to raise blood levels by 70%, has NO effect on core disease progression. Or on diabetes progression. Not even a hint of it, in a placebo controlled contemplate of many thousands of people extending many years. I have a whole post (by Wilfred Shute, M.D. with Harald Taub: _Vitamin E for Ailing and In the pink Hearts_ 1969, with the 11th paperback printing I have from 1977) claiming that this exceedingly d-alpha tocopherol in similar amounts, is a veritable cure-all for all cardiac ailments. These claims by the Shute brothers go all the way backtrack from to the 1940's. Every chapter of every health book since the Shutes started blowing this horn, has had an stupendous amount of junk repetition of all these claims.

Well, these Shute claims enter into the picture to be wishful thinking. The real shame is that it's taken the "medical establishment" half a century to be established it. And no, there's still no good prospective evidence that vitamin E prevents cancer in humans, either. (Frankly, I'm a seldom more hopeful that selenium will prove out, there. And possibly impassive vitamin C.) Vitamin E per se in reasonable and traditional supplemental amounts (which 400 IU is) certainly doesn't attack onset of diabetes, or progression of diabetic renal disease. We know that from the Desire trial also. I would have wagered a modest amount of money that this wouldn't be so, from what I discern of oxidative mechanisms in diabetes. But I'd have been wrong. That's why we do these studies.

And no, the Count trial goes beyond showing that vitamin E just doesn't mend the diseased-of-heart (though the Shutes claimed just that). Most of the Hankering enrollees were not clinically ill, though they did have coronary disease. If vitamin E coextensive with slowed progression of those with disease, it would have been seen here. It wasn't. The position that vitamin E prevents ONSET of coronary disease in totally healthy people who don't contain any at all (if such adults exist in our society), even though it doesn't at all effect advancement of disease in people who already have some , is very far fetched. I think it's stingy at straws, in fact. I don't believe it, and can't imagine why anybody would.

Here's the full subject-matter of the first phase of the HOPE trial, on the vitamin E trial side (as you know, there was another side looking at countermeasure effects of giving the ACE inhibitor ramepril): ] Steve 16:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Orthomolecular comments from upon, continued

Pauling's definition

Pauling defined OM as the use of any molecule normally present in the humanitarian body. This would include application of supplementary amounts of normal man metabolites, not just those found in nutrition. Should this be included more specifically in the article? Lumos3 08:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RfArb

We would end up in condense warring here, so I posted the case to RfArb. ackoz 10:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys

I am not here to dish out two hours each day polemizing with your arguments. There must be profusion of them because you love the subject so much. I really don't care (don't take it harsh .. there's really no personal hatred in this) about your ideas upon Orthomed .. you are not important. Please dont whine at the RfArb page respecting my ignorance to your comments. I don't care about your arguments. I do care take the sources you use. Governmental public health agency= valid. Orthomed central website ~ okay anyone can say I'm a god and put up a website and then write something on wikipedia, right? Why are there no "perceptible" sources for your statements? And I don't "explode", 69. ackoz 02:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Overlapped blind trials on Vitamin C Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 68, No. 11, p 2678-2681, November 1971. Lumos3 09:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively administer the coup de gr cancer cells: Action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. vol. 102, no. 38, p 13604-13609, September 20, 2005
  • Intravenously administered vitamin C as cancer remedy: three cases CMAJ, 174 (7) March 28, 2006--69.178.41.55 09:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

69

Deliver assign to WP:NPOV, please. Orthomolecular medicine is a minority viewpoint. There is no common sense why the articles about vitamins should be filled with orthomolecular theories. If you longing, you can surely add a small section to the article, describing the orthomed POV, but don't add pieces of this to every segment of an article, pretty please, respect the NPOV policy. ackoz 16:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see the withdrawal, hold responsible you. Going forward, the BC-CAC line really has factual conflicts. It might be better to either unearth a better informed, more precise source to portray the conventional medical perspective or just write it yourselves. As an example of improved factual balance, I give this as an prototype: "BC Cancer Agency of Canada has said of orthomolecular treatments: Many/most "Megavitamin and orthomolecular therapies are not authoritately proven methods ; some are considered harmful by some/many mainstream scientists. "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular treatment for any disease." (Cassileth) (that last sentence needs some amicable of rewrite. Also suggest that we slow down a few days, or perhaps equitable concentrate on the "Criticism" part. I would like to get back toward a svelte article. Also this is a no duplicative on QW & part of the negative statements in "Relationship..." & "Criticsim"--69.178.41.55 00:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Analysis: "scientific research..."

"Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular treatment for any disease." Perhaps Cassileth meant something closer to "alternative medicine is no longer alternate when it is accepted conventionally". The statement, as is, is simply false. Since orthomolecular is a ride herd on that is not exclusive of conventional medicine, the same is not true for orthomolecular medicine. *Some* orthomolecular/megavitamin (and eventually conventional medicine) therapies with scientific research and clinical or epidemiologically demonstrated benefits:
All this matter was written with passion, which led to the speedy completion of this writing on Coq10 Bulk. Let this passion burn for some time.

Comments

Previous Entries

post date category title/description
05.17.2009 Articles Diovan Price In Walgreen
05.17.2009 Articles Diovan Price In Canada
05.17.2009 Articles Diovan Oral Price
05.17.2009 Articles Diovan Online Bestellen
05.17.2009 Articles Diovan N2 Kaufen

Post Comments