I can't think of anyone better than Rich. He understood this and many other health related matters beyond methylation better than almost everyone here.
You'll have to excuse me if I doubt the accuracy of your "trials". In one of them you claim 100% of the participants experienced adverse effects to glutathione/whey/NAC and that 100% recovered using 8mg dose of Metafolin and 10mg each of adb12 and mb12. There's no way that's possible. I'd be surprised if even 30% had the exact same experience. I know that the methylation dosages vary a lot for each individual so even if I'm to believe that everyone had an adverse reaction to glutathione (which I don't) it is impossible for everyone to everyone to have a complete reversal of symptoms using the exact same dosages of B12 and folate. Many people here would be very sick taking even a fraction of 8000 mcg methylfolate and 10,000 mcg methylcobalamin. In another "trial" you recommend 150,000 mcg methylcobalamin (3 50 mg doses) and multiple 15,000 mcg doses of methylfolate. This is very misleading and dangerous to people just learning about methylation and someone could get very sick if they were to believe this would help their "healing".
Hi Lotus,
You'll have to excuse me if I doubt the accuracy of your "trials". In one of them you claim 100% of the participants experienced adverse effects to glutathione/whey/NAC and that 100% recovered using 8mg dose of Metafolin and 10mg each of adb12 and mb12. There's no way that's possible. I'd be surprised if even 30% had the exact same experience.
You can doubbt what you want becasue it doesn't go with your beliefs. Having 100% results is unusual. However, this was a very selected trial. Everybody was from a very specific group. They all had tuned healing on in a big way. They had all gotten methylation going, got out of methylblock and out of ATP block and were 6 months to 4 years into healing with the active b12s, small l-methylfolate doses (hard to get as vitamins at that time, I had bought as many of the only Source Natural batch as I could and was taking 400mcg a day waiting for the Solgar Metafolin to become avaialble), and were experimenting with carnitines and were healing but, there were clearly still missing items. The N=1000 questionaire results are probably more what you would expect. Of 1000 random people willing to answer a whole lot of questions about symptoms they had or didn't have, about 50% of the whole population had a 1-2 hour response to 1000mcg of mecbl held for more than an hour. Of those with CSF/FMS/ME type symptoms, 75% had the response. Other runs were done with a variety of doses of MeCbl (no difference in response), AdoCbl (75%), MeCbl and AdoCbl slightly more about 80% or so responded. Eventually by adding a b-complex, l-carnitine and L-methylfolate before the combined b12s the response rate came up to 95%. Then other factors, like Vit D especially, p5p, b1, b2, b3, Sam-e, magnesium, zinc and so on each added a small increment of responsive percentage.
This questionaire has been the development target for 10 years. This questionaire lets me pick out a matched group. It links specific symptoms to specific responses of specfic nutrients. The group selected for the glutathione (precursor) trial was picked for their known responses to the nutrients. The variability was in the forms of the glutathione and precursors and the doses. This affected the results. From looking at from the outside, I selected a bunch of people I would expect to be able to notice an effect and to interpret responses and who all had similar symptoms profile. Now I would say that all of the them were originally in a group that had partial methylation block, methyltrap and partial ATP block. In other wards they all had proven susceptabilty to these things, and every one of them, like me, was sure that there were still missing items. So this was a very selected group based on my hypothesis of who still had things that could respond to factor x, whatever factor x was. You see, we all kind of expected that this was going to be the facter that would heal us the rest of the way. From the original intent of the trial we had 0% positive response in finding a beneficial item. From that viewpoint the trial was a complete failure. From the original point of view of being able to pick a matched group, the trial was a 100% success. That glutatione (precursors) made us all sick with return of symptoms (specifically mentioned in glutathione detox literature). Becasue we had all come out of partial methylation block and methyltrap and partial ATP block, we all recognized the symtpoms. We were not a symptom naive grouping. Then it took us 6 more months of floundering around and relapapsed, back into the pits of hell. We were all taking our usual doses of things. Solgar Metafolin came on the market. Somebody said to me, "I just took twice my usual dose of metafolin and b12s for a few days and I'm out of glutathione detox now." I tried it and it worked. All the others tried it and it worked. The spectrum response of the "detox" reactions was affected by dose and form. Whey was the mildest and slowest, glutathione IV was fastest and generally the severity of detox appeared related to the prior severity of illness; the sicker they had been the sicker they got again.
If you examined Rich's study you would find that they selected very specifically for people with specific symptoms and not others. Every study has selction criteria, but are not always effective. For instance a study on MeCbl being use to treat neuropathy selected by symptoms. They did the usual serum and urine testing but selected entry by symptoms. 62% of the responders would have been excluded from the study based on test criteria. SO the average cbl level was over 700pg/ml before b12. The highest cbl serum levels of responders was over 1500pg/ml at the start. So obviously symptoms are better selection criteria than test results for b12 trials. Also it was a dual dose study, 120mcg and 1500mcg daily. The ones receiving 1500mcg healed faster and more thoroughly during the course of the study showing a very definite dose proportinality. Without any other cofactors the response rate tops out between 60% and 80% in b12 studies. So how well one selects and how well the cofactors are covered all influence the response rate.
I'd be surprised if even 30% had the exact same experience.
Nobody had the EXACT same experience. They had the same general experiences. The range of experiences followed a more or less normal distribution curve. In any case anything showng only a 30% repsonse would likely be called "placebo" unless there was a placebo group at the same time to compare it to. However, it was a group selected for a likely response, hopefully beneficial.
Many people here would be very sick taking even a fraction of 8000 mcg methylfolate and 10,000 mcg methylcobalamin. In another "trial" you recommend 150,000 mcg methylcobalamin (3 50 mg doses) and multiple 15,000 mcg doses of methylfolate. This is very misleading and dangerous to people just learning about methylation and someone could get very sick if they were to believe this would help their "healing"
As these were all people who had titrated up to their doses over up to several years, and basically doubled the dose they had continued taking withiut effect during the entire trial and after, doubling it seemed very reasonable. Bringing up some new person in this context is a straw man and is very misleading and dangerous to people
In another "trial" you recommend 150,000 mcg methylcobalamin (3 50 mg doses)
You couldn't be more wrong You are 100% wrong in every particular on this reckless, dangerous and misleading statement. I did a trial of injections of 3x60mg and reported the results as worse than 3x10, which may have been becasue it was only a 3 start MeCbl. I was attempting to see if there was a dose proportinality in the CNS as in the body, a way to simuilate the intrathecal injections without it's hazards. I absolutely did not reccommend this for anybody based on this trial. It was expensive, a real pain and quite useless. What it did give me was a high dose calibration of urine color and was the only thing comparable to the urine following glutathione. So that was a success only in that regard. Another person also tried his high dose form. He is qualified to give IVs and did a 500mg IV infusion over some hours, also trying for some spectacular spinal cord healing with 5 star MeCbl.. His only results were "incredibly lurid urine". I am ALWAYS doing trials. Data is data and is useful even with no results or negative results.
In fact I suggest that better results will usually be achieved with 5 star sublinguals compared to injections. There are more things that can go wrong with injections.
The studies done for high dose safety have resulted in the treatment for cyanide poisoning of 35,000,000 mcg IV infusions (AdoCbl, MeCbl or HyCbl), one after another until all the cyanide is detoxed and removed from the body as cyanocobalamin. This followed giving high doses to uremic persons who can’t flush it out in urine and then watching and testing for the effects. I know it may come as a shock to you but 35 grams, 35,000,000 mcg, has no more effect than an injection of 7.5mg. On the body (not CNS) 7.5mg injection has no more effect than a 3mg injection.
The trials of DEPLIN were for 7.5mg. 15mg and 30mg doses per day. What side effects were there? What was said is very close to this: Deplin is generally well tolerated with no side effects different from placebo. This was a trial with depressed people. Cerefolin with NAC was a whole different story. They had some horrendous (“detox”) side effects that nobody of course recognized as methyltrap onset.