- Messages
- 20
I have just started supplementing with d-ribose along with coq10 ( ubiquinol), l-carnitine and niacinamide.
I have in the past tried supplementing with b12/d3/k2/magnesium/kelp/coq10 (ubiquinone) and multivitamins/b-complex.
The reasoning behind these new supplements I am trying make sense in terms of mitochondria support. However it seems to me there is a failure within medicine to investigate these drugs properly. D-ribose is a drug that *seems* to help a lot of people. There are many comments across the web where people with chronic fatigue say it has proven to be really important in helping them. My question is why is there so little scientific research into ribose as a supplement for chronic fatigue sufferers? It seems we are still relying on only a couple of not very reliable research papers from many years ago. (Unless there are others I have missed). One of the research papers involved just one individual. The other was paid for by a manufacturer of d-ribose and had no control placebo element.
Is it unfair to say there is a big problem with the scientific community and government bodies in terms of lack of research? Is it any wonder that (often desperate) people turn to dubious sources for help in finding relief? Is there not a duty for government scientific bodies to research the claims made by supplement manufacturers when the anecdotal evidence seems to strongly support the claims?
Or is it the case that a supplement like d-ribose is just one of hundreds or thousands of chemicals with questionable claims attached and thus it takes no precedence over any other claims in terms of allocating research spending?
Considering the long term impact on society long term illnesses like cfs shouldn't the more plausible claims be researched (I.e the ones where patients are clearly saying the supplements are working)?
Of course there is the issue with pharmaceutical companies not necessarily wanting to find cures so I can see why research wouldn't come from their. But government and university research bodies should be looking into these things surely?
Maybe I am reading to much into all those positive comments. Who knows if they are genuine? Difficult to tell.
I have in the past tried supplementing with b12/d3/k2/magnesium/kelp/coq10 (ubiquinone) and multivitamins/b-complex.
The reasoning behind these new supplements I am trying make sense in terms of mitochondria support. However it seems to me there is a failure within medicine to investigate these drugs properly. D-ribose is a drug that *seems* to help a lot of people. There are many comments across the web where people with chronic fatigue say it has proven to be really important in helping them. My question is why is there so little scientific research into ribose as a supplement for chronic fatigue sufferers? It seems we are still relying on only a couple of not very reliable research papers from many years ago. (Unless there are others I have missed). One of the research papers involved just one individual. The other was paid for by a manufacturer of d-ribose and had no control placebo element.
Is it unfair to say there is a big problem with the scientific community and government bodies in terms of lack of research? Is it any wonder that (often desperate) people turn to dubious sources for help in finding relief? Is there not a duty for government scientific bodies to research the claims made by supplement manufacturers when the anecdotal evidence seems to strongly support the claims?
Or is it the case that a supplement like d-ribose is just one of hundreds or thousands of chemicals with questionable claims attached and thus it takes no precedence over any other claims in terms of allocating research spending?
Considering the long term impact on society long term illnesses like cfs shouldn't the more plausible claims be researched (I.e the ones where patients are clearly saying the supplements are working)?
Of course there is the issue with pharmaceutical companies not necessarily wanting to find cures so I can see why research wouldn't come from their. But government and university research bodies should be looking into these things surely?
Maybe I am reading to much into all those positive comments. Who knows if they are genuine? Difficult to tell.