I deleted a few of my last posts. I thought it would be wise to go through some of this thread before asking anymore questions.
After checking through the thread a bit more, I dont really see how anything can be fully concluded. There is such a long list of supplements that one would be taking, that improvement may not even be the result of supplemental B12. I mean its entirely possible that many people could feel improvement just taking the Essential + Cofactors (quoted below). My point isnt that the entire treatment plan wont help people, but rather that its hard to see just how much the supplemental B12 plays a role in the polls. I mean this in terms of the number of people who found benefit from this plan.
I could be wrong here, but this is just my viewpoint after reading through more of the thread, checking out the poll, etc. Also both the noticed improvements, and any increase in symptoms, both can be viewed as positive progress.
Again I could be wrong, but it's just my opinion so far.
Hi Tal,
There is such a long list of supplements that one would be taking, that improvement may not even be the result of supplemental B12. My point isnt that the entire treatment plan wont help people but rather that its hard to see just how much the supplemental B12 plays a role in the polls. I mean this in terms of the number of people who found benefit from this plan.
Actually it is very easy to see the effects of mb12 and adb12. If a person is taking and has been taking all of the basics and even critical cofactors for years and they don't do diddly and their 200 b12 deficiency symptoms continue to worsen year by year and when suddenly those symptoms do an abrupt about face and start getting better immediately upon taking the adb12/mb12 the answer is incredibly obvious to all but the most obstinant.
We are not talking the interpretation of test results to verify the effects. We are talking about outright naked eye healing after years or decades of symptoms and illness that nothing else affects often starting within minutes of the first sublingual tablet. After 55 years of problems my response to it was so profound as to make very clear that my life was being immediately changed by mb12.
Seeing benefit from cycbl/hycbl is shakier. Outright healing rarely happens with that though it does correct some lab tests.
Last time I looked at the poll 3 people had replied and so long ago nobody had time to actually find out whether things had worked. Also, as many people won't give it a chance and bail as soon as they have startup responses, the people most likely to heal dramatically often bail out quickly so of course they are not going to see results. This is a noisy environment data wise.
If you "ask your question" with more precision you will get a better answer.
I dont really see how anything can be fully concluded.
Further you are looking in the wrong place to even begin to have the data needed for evaluation. You might go read
http://forums.wrongdiagnosis.com/showthread.php?p=234498&posted=1#post234498 to read up on the results people have been on the active b12 protocol long enough for many to have esssentially recovered, returned to work and many who no longer drop in to say anything. Also, many there not having belief in "detox", dangerous levels of mercury from fillings and other such things they are more likely to stick with the active b12s through the startup period and have actual results. The beliefs people have very much influence their behavior and choices and therefore affect their outcomes in something like this. A person who believes that the startup responses are signs of danger and immediately drop the active b12s are not going to have results and will report a completely different experience than somebody else with the exact same startup responses who believes that those are signposts on the way to healing and so continues.
What would it take for something to be "
fully concluded"? What are your criteria. I could easily, through a selection process assemble a group in which everybody would have results. At this point that would be easy. The problem is that it would elliminate most of the people who MIGHT have results from finding out IF they do.
I know a woman who was diagnosed with CFS for 4 years instead of the correct diagnosis of lymphoma becasue of her mannerisms and the way she came across to the docs, "Just another one of those hypochondriacs with yuppie flu". Once they settled on the diagnosis nothing could change their minds. I testified in a court case on this one as to the nature of the bias and mutitudinous errors in her medical records and the Independent Medical Examiner's exam that I witnessed. I ended up taking her to a neurologist I knew who was willing to overlook her mannerisms to get down to what was wrong. He was able to refer her to the person who ended up diagnosing accurately her problems. She did happen to be b-12 deficient too. One of the problems with the records is that the only data recorded by the docs were the items that backed up their diagnosis. We could prove that as I went to every medical appointment she had for 3 years keeping separate notes and even tape recordings of the entire appointments.
So would a study that had near 100% results allow you to be "fully concluded". I doubt it because you would just say "but you selected carefully". Of course so does any other research project. They want people that meet certain specified criteria. Of course being able to select that carefully might allow the matter to be "fully concluded" as it indicates knowing what to look for. Mb12/adb12 plus cofactors are not a panacea. They work very strongly and clearly for people with a group of certain very specific "non-specific symptoms" criteria that are very predictive. Serum cobalamin, homocystein and MMA tests are not predictive of who will and WON'T have results. So the many studies using those as admission criteria for use with cycbl and hycbl have predictably low levels of results, partly because those cobalmins work so poorly and partly becasue the tests of of low predictive value.
Everybody of course has their own opinions. My consulting clients have paid me to have opinions for them. I am willing to take performance based compensation for my opinions. Set up properly I can't loose as long as my opinions are correct. In fact depending upon how the crteria are written I might end up with 100% bonus by safely underguranteeing the performance level. For instance if I am sure that I can produce criteria X for 1 in 2 people out of a thousnad selected persons, and I can get them to agree to a guranteed performance of 1 in 10 with an incremental bonus for each percentage over that I can do very well. If however if I am fundamentally wrong and the performance is actually 1:1000 I wouldn't have much of a paycheck after taking out all the penalties.
So if you want to finance a study to test this protocol and pay me for consulting I will gurantee a level of performance, for a selected group, with bonuses for better performance as long as I can specify the subject selection requirements. In my opinion things are fully concluded enough that I would bet my fees on the performance under suitable circumstances. I would also bet my fees on a competitive comparision against any other protocols with a matched pair design selecting those that also meet the requirments for both variations, that don't use mb12/adb12.
Of course in the game of YOU BET YOUR LIFE I have won my individual bet against FMS/CFS etc. For you the question is whether you willl win that bet by being healed or loose it by continuing to be sick. I am literally the healthiest I have ever been in my life now at age 62. I would challange any other 62 or so year old who has had CFS/FMS for 20 or more years to a 5k race as long as we had 3 months to train for it. The first challange is finding ANY other 62 year old with a history of CFS/FMS dating back to 1987 or earlier who is now recovered enough to be up to doing or training for a 5 k race.