Dr. Paul Cheney's current theory?

this post/thread has a reference to an 2005 detailed interview with Dr. Paul Cheney and his theory of what biochemical processes are being affected by ME/CFS.

The post:

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...rdiac-output-cheney-peckerman-research.15386/

The interview:

http://www.dfwcfids.org/medical/cheney/hrt04lng.htm

In the post, Rich Van K has a helpful and enlightening reply, as usual.

Anyway, for me, this seems to be an very good description of what is happening inside my body. I won't go into the details, but there was a mental checklist constantly activated in my mind as I read through this interview.

this is a 2005 interview, and knowing Dr. Paul Cheney active mind, he must've or quite possibly has modified some of this information? Anybody know of any more recent interview of this type with Dr. Paul Cheney or can supply such information about his modifications to the content of that 2005 article?

Rich vanK, you know?

I'm really not as interested in the new treatments for protocols he has come up with, rather I am interested in why, In reference to 2005 article, he has chosen the new treatments.......

Hopefully I'm being clear?

In 2005 Cheney believed the heart's low cardiac output was the cause of the syndrome. He's since proven himself wrong, and now regards it as the symptom of a systemic energy problem. His Fairfax lecture of 2009 describes all this and, I think, still stands up today. Here's a summary of the talk.

http://www.prohealth.com/fibromyalgia/blog/boardDetail.cfm?id=1346629

Hi, voner.

I think Dr. Cheney's views on the pathophysiology of ME/CFS now are pretty much the same as he expressed them in the Fairfax lecture of 2009.

Concerning treatment, I think he has moved away from the stem cell treatment since then, because he didn't find it to give lasting results in most of the patients.

Since then he has been trying MAF 314, and I think he is still using that.

As you can read in the Q&A section of Chris's notes on the 2009 talk, he and I have differing views about the partial methylation cycle block.

The reason is that he has become convinced that the short-term measurements (seconds to minutes) of IVRT that he does with his echocardiograph are reliable for determining whether a particular supplement is helpful or "toxic." I disagree, because a lot of biochemical changes take longer than a few seconds or minutes to occur, and what happens initially may not reflect longer term biochemical changes. He has found that methylB12 and methylfolate together cause an initial increase in the IVRT, which represents a worsening of diastolic dysfunction due to increased oxidative stress in the mitochondria of the heart muscle cells. Therefore, he has concluded that treating the partial block in the methylation cycle is not a good thing to do. (Incidentally, he finds that hydroxoB12 shortens the IVRT, and that happens to be the form of B12 that is actually in the simplified methylation protocol, but I have not been able to get this message into Dr. Cheney's thinking.

It's true that methylation treatment causes an initial increase in oxidative stress, because it initially lowers glutathione further, until the methylation cycle fills, and then glutathione starts coming up. Our clinical trial showed increases in glutathione at our first test point, which was at three months, but the biochemistry predicts, and the early symptoms reported by patients are consistent with, an initial decrease in glutathione. Dr. Cheney has not come to grips with the fact that we do see improvement from this treatment over periods of months.

He and I continue to interact and exchange our thinking. I think we have moved somewhat closer together in at least some of our views over time, but I think he continues to see the methylation partial block as a compensation for something else, which is the root cause, and which he has not yet identified.

Some of his thinking on glutathione unfortunately stems, in my opinion, from a misinterpretation that he received from a laboratory of some glutathione data several years ago. I have given him evidence to the contrary, but to no avail.

This is all very ironic, because Dr. Cheney is the person who first drew my attention to glutatione in ME/CFS about 14 years ago.

I've learned a lot from Dr. Cheney, and continue to do so. I've appreciated his willingness to interact respectfully, even though we disagree on some aspects of the mechanism and the treatment of ME/CFS. He, Marty Pall, Sarah Myhill, and I have been the ones who have recognized the importance of mitochondrial dysfunction in ME/CFS for many years, while others in the ME/CFS research community for some reason were unable to make the connection between a low energy status and mito dysfunction. It has been heartening to see Tony Komaroff come around on this issue, as he discussed in one of his recent talks.

Sometimes the people you agree with most are the ones you have the most animated interactions with. I guess it's because you have a lot in common and are speaking about the same things. It's difficult to even start a conversation with someone who is on the other side of the ballpark from yourself, because you don't share views on the basic things that are important.

Best regards,

Rich

Graeme! Thank you for the link. I have not read it, but I certainly will and spend some time with it. Then I may have some comments and questions.

Rich, thank you for your reply also, and I certainly agree that respectful discussions and disagreements for the only way to further knowledge. In some ways, that's the scientific method.

I have a reasonable background in all the sciences, except for human biological sciences. It's never ceases to amaze me how complex the human body is. Anyway I have a question........

In the original 2005 Cheney article, he mentions the involvement of mercury.

Here's my arcane background: About 30 years ago I worked for about a decade in the world prospecting for models. Gold, copper, et cetera. I spent about a year and a half and the only active Mercury mining area in the United States. I spent my time prospecting around old mines and breathing a lot of dust coming out of drill holes we were drilling through areas with vast amounts of mercury. Mercury happens to be a extremely good indicator of certain types of gold deposits.

When I first got sick, about 20 years ago, I went out and went through the heavy-metal chelation process (EDTA IV) and also even got my fillings removed.

But I know nothing about if Mercury absorbed that many years ago would still hang around. I know there's a big difference between inorganic Mercury sulfides and oxides that I was around and the organic version of mercury and don't know if there's a conversion process that happens or not.

So I highly appreciate it if you would talk about this subject, and also, where in the heck is all that Mercury in the heart muscles (That Cheney speak of) coming from?

Hi Voner,

Cheney says he believes the mercury to be brought there by some bug. It doesn't accidentally end up in the heart at 2000 times the level in a healthy human heart, or whatever huge number he cites.

It's great you got your fillings out, but you've to know EDTA doesn't pull mercury from the brain. I'm not even sure it works to chelate it from the blood. If you really want to look into the mercury thing I'd suggest researching Andy Cutler's work. And if you decide to implement his protocol you want to make sure you understand it well before starting. Cheney warns about chelating incorrectly. Mobilizing large amounts of mercury can really mess you up.