A New Decade of ME Research: The 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference 2016
Mark Berry presents the first in a series of articles on the 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference in London ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Chlorella boosts interferon and NK cell activity

Discussion in 'General Treatment' started by cigana, Jan 17, 2016.

  1. cigana

    cigana Senior Member

    Messages:
    966
    Likes:
    778
    UK
    A double-blinded placebo-controlled trial
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511195/

    Conclusion
    These results may suggest a beneficial immunostimulatory effect of short-term Chlorella supplementation which enhances the NK cell activity and produces interferon-γ and interleukin-12 as well as interleukin-1β, the Th-1 cell-induced cytokines in healthy people.
     
    Richard7, minkeygirl, helen1 and 3 others like this.
  2. Richard7

    Richard7 Senior Member

    Messages:
    536
    Likes:
    956
    Australia
    The results seem a little strange.

    With the cytokines the placebo groups had lower levels after 8 weeks than they did at baseline, for two of them the p value was less than 0.001. Which is to say the that the placebo seemed just as sure to reduce Il 12 and IFN y, as chorella was to boost Il1b.

    The placebo (lactose) seemed to be good at reducing NK cell activity too, reducing it by over 50% on one of the tests.

    I don't know enough about the immune system to know what is normal. The fact that the lactose group went down about as much as the chlorella went up (proportionally: NK cell activity doubled in one group and was halved in the other) makes me wonder if this movement is within the range of the usual ups and downs of the healthy population.

    One of the sponsors was the manufacturer of the chlorella.

    I recently read some research sponsored by another chlorella company (sun) that looked into SIgA. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182968/
    It was a study on males (and I'm male) and the increase looked pretty good about 50%, 40 -60 mcg/ml, until I saw that the placebo had gone from a little under 60 to a little over 40mcg/ml. It was a crossover study, so they were the same people and unless the washout period was too short it looked like it might just be random movement within their usual range of concentrations.

    Then I saw a study in which teenage athletes were fluctuating around 70 and another where pregnant women averaged 119 and non pregnat women averaged 90 which very usefully mentioned that the reference range was 60-300 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1684252/.

    I don't know what the reference range in for NK cell activity and a quick search did not give me an answer, maybe someone else knows.
     
    cigana and helen1 like this.
  3. helen1

    helen1 Senior Member

    Messages:
    972
    Likes:
    1,362
    Canada
    @Richard7
    Quest lab sets NK function range as 7-25.
     
    Richard7 likes this.
  4. Richard7

    Richard7 Senior Member

    Messages:
    536
    Likes:
    956
    Australia
    thanks @helen1

    So the chlorella group went from the bottom of the range a bit over the middle, and that the lactose group went from not much above the bottom of the range down to the bottom of the range, in one test and perhaps below it in the other.

    Wouldn't you assume that a group of people tested for their NK cell cytotoxicity would get results in the middle of the range (16); so a result of 15 for E:T of 1.25:1 or of 16 or 17 for E:T = 5:1 would be pretty much what you would expect.

    The section on participants seems to suggest that they were carefully choosing people who were not ill, but they were chosen from the health centre of a hospital and I do not know if this means that they were patients or staff.

    Perhaps the noteworthy thing is that the chlorella group had a such a low level at about 8 or 9 for E:T = 1.25:1 and about 7 for E:T = 5:1. (The placebo seems to be 8 or 9 for E:T = 1.25 : 1 and 10 or 11 for E:T = 1:5.)

    If you chose a group of healthy people at the bottom of the range wouldn't you expect them to improve whatever you did?

    Anyway, I am not claiming to know the underlying science or statistics, I hope someone who knows the underlying science will come along and explain why I am wrong (I have some chlorella in the cupboard) or right (if this is so).
     
    helen1 likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page