[badboy99]

CoQ10: An Important Supplement For Parkinson's Patients

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=8_p7CVJ2gfc


Parkinson's Disease is a condition that affects about a half a million Americans. I see these patients everyday and I ask them "What are you taking to treat your Parkinson's?" They then list the various medications. At this point I tell them that those medications don't treat Parkinson's, they only treat symptoms. What we need to do is look for ways to treat the underlying disease and can pave the way for slowing down the disease preogression. In this study, CoQ10 proved to slow the rate of decline for Parkinson's patients by 48% over a 1 year period.

[soccertese]

there seems little doubt that even higher doses do not slow down progression. perlmutter strangely ignores these later studies which imho places doubt on many of his claims. just my opinion.
High-Dose Coenzyme Q10 Does Not Slow Parkinson’s Progression

- Apr 22 2014
http://www.pdf.org/en/science_news/r.../pr_1398181054
http://www.alzforum.org/news/researc...e-3-parkinsons
i doublecheck EVERYTHING perlmutter claims.

[badboy99]

Fortunately,
He is a leading (Top Shelf), pioneering neurologist in his field with thousands of PD patients. I take his word on any information he has to share as do many neurologists around the world. Do you really think you know better than
him.

[soccertese]

Originally Posted by badboy99

Fortunately,
He is a leading (Top Shelf), pioneering neurologist in his field with thousands of PD patients. I take his word on any information he has to share as do many neurologists around the world. Do you really think you know better than
him.

He may have a following but that doesn't make him right. Believe what you want but if I disagree with something you post based on research then I'm going to post it. IMHO it's unbelieveable he doesn't mention that newer research in that video or even has it on youtube since it is so clear cut even 2400mg COQ10 doesn't slow progression. A lot of people wanted it to work so this is no conspiracy to prove someone wrong.

ARE YOU ENCOURAGING PD'ers to take 1200+ mgs of COQ10 daily or just posting this as a starting point for one to do their own research? 1200MG ain't cheap so encouraging pd'ers to take that much is not trivial. it's not like recommending vitamin D or B-12.

PERLMUTTER has been promoting IV GLUTATHIONE for years even though the only double blinded, per reviewed clinical trial done at the UNIVERSITY OF S. FLORIDA by HAUSER found it was no better than placebo.


Here's an article about perlmutter making false claims.
http://www.protandimscams.com/david-...out-protandim/

[badboy99]

Free your mind brother.

Dr Perlmutter reviews: http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-rating...NAPLES-FL.html

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/inter...vid-perlmutter

[soccertese]

Another article disagreeing with some of PERLMUTTER's claims and questioning his supporting evidence.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...gluten/282550/

an excerpt:

I find the whole thing a little bit sad, to be honest with you,” Katz told me. “In several ways. Beginning with the fact that I actually like Dr. Perlmutter. He does some really interesting and innovative work in the area of neurodegenerative diseases. He’s cutting edge and is doing stuff that’s a little bit out there. But he generally does this carefully and has actually provided some useful guidance we’ve applied in my own clinic; and I have a longstanding relationship with him—or at least his clinic—and we’ve corresponded and I generally think very highly of him. So I find it sad to be in a position to say that I think so much of his book is a whole bunch of nonsense.”

Katz paused.

“Now, he’s absolutely right that we eat too much sugar and white bread. The rest of the story, though, is one just completely made up to support a hypothesis. And that’s not a good way to do science.”

This launches the discussion of what science is—the critical point that confronts every mainstream media health and science writer. Most recently and famously we have heard about it in criticism of the works of Malcolm Gladwell and Jonah Lehrer (outside of the latter’s self-plagiarism debacle). The law of good science is that you can’t say “I’ve got an idea and I’m going to fall in love with it and selectively cite evidence to support it.”
“I also find it sad that because his book is filled with a whole bunch of nonsense, that’s why it’s a bestseller; that’s why we’re talking."

“You’re only being a good scientist,” Katz said, “if you say, ‘I’m going to try to read the literature in as unbiased a manner as I possibly can, see where it leads me, and then offer the advice that I have based on that view from an altitude.’ I don’t see that going on here, and again, I think it’s kind of sad because I think the public is being misled.”

“I also find it sad that because his book is filled with a whole bunch of nonsense, that’s why it’s a bestseller; that’s why we’re talking. Because that’s how you get on the bestseller list. You promise the moon and stars, you say everything you heard before was wrong, and you blame everything on one thing. You get a scapegoat; it’s classic. Atkins made a fortune with that formula. We’ve got Rob Lustig saying it’s all fructose; we’ve got T. Colin Campbell [author of The China Study, a formerly bestselling book] saying it’s all animal food; we now have Perlmutter saying it’s all grain. There’s either a scapegoat or a silver bullet in almost every bestselling diet book.”

The recurring formula is apparent: Tell readers it’s not their fault. Blame an agency; typically the pharmaceutical industry or U.S. government, but also possibly the medical establishment. Alluding to the conspiracy vaguely will suffice. Offer a simple solution. Cite science and mainstream research when applicable; demonize it when it is not.

“It makes me sad that somebody like you is going to reach out to me, so you can get what I’d like to think are sensible comments about a silly book. If you write a sensible book, which I did—it’s called Disease Proof , and it’s about what it really takes to be healthy, brain and body—nobody wants to talk about that. It has much less sex appeal. The whole thing is sad.”
The Worst That Could Happen

Perlmutter is not new to practicing medicine. He talks again and again about experiences seeing patients in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, or fielding questions from children of patients about what they can do to protect themselves. Years of saying, “I fix this” and conceding there’s little that can be done—that prospect was the reason many of my classmates did not go into neurology. At the end of our interview, Perlmutter mentioned that his elderly father has Alzheimer’s disease.

“5.4 million of us [in the U.S.] have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. That turns out to be a lot of influence on the rest of us. Our parents, our loved ones are getting this more and more frequently, and people are so concerned that they’re going to end up like mom or dad. You know, I’m dealing with this every single day. Virtually every day, children of a patient will say “I don’t want to end up like that. What can I do? Now the book provides those answers.”

Perlmutter in fact dedicates the book to his father, who is in an assisted-living facility across the street from his son’s clinic.

To my father, who at age 96, begins each day by getting dressed to see his patients—despite having retired more than a quarter century ago.

Perlmutter writes about how his father often does not recognize him.

The common defense of writers like Lehrer and Gladwell, and celebrity physicians like Mehmet Oz, is that they make people care to learn about subjects they otherwise would know nothing about. The message may be meretricious, but the end result is a net positive. People might fail to consider their diet entirely if they aren’t told it is destroying their brain. Is this book a problem? What is the worst that can come of avoiding gluten and limiting carbs?

That depends entirely on what you replace those calories with. I read the book with an eye for the most dangerous claim. What stuck out to me was Perlmutter’s case for cholesterol. He basically says that we can’t have too much.

“Nothing could be further from the truth than the myth that if we lower our cholesterol levels, we might have a chance of living longer and healthier lives,” Perlmutter writes. He recommends disowning the notion that LDL is bad cholesterol and HDL is good cholesterol; rather, both are generally good. LDL is only bad when it is oxidized, and it only becomes so in the presence of the sort of oxidative stress brought about by carbs and gluten. Avoid those, and cholesterol is innocuous.

Beyond that, Perlmutter says that cholesterol-lowering statin medicines like Lipitor, which are prescribed for a quarter of Americans over 40, should actually be vehemently avoided. Cholesterol is necessary for the brain in high levels, he says, and lowering it is contributing to dementia.

[badboy99]

"Dr. Perlmutter outlines an innovative approach to our most fragile organ, the brain. He is an absolute leader in the use of alternative and conventional approaches in the treatment of neurologic disorders. I have referred him patients with wonderful results. He is on the cutting edge and can help change the way we practice medicine." --Mehmet Oz, MD http://www.amazon.com/Grain-Brain-Su...ds=Grain+brain

[made it up]

I thought the fact that Co Q 10 doesn't work in reducing the UPDRS was old news.
I've followed it with interest as I took it in the early days of PD diagnosis too.
It was found some time back in peer reviewed studies and published in very credible medical journals that there was no evidence to show it had any benefit in PWP.

[soccertese]

seems like he cherry picks the research that supports his claims. or maybe he stopped updating the website. Either way, it's Inexcusable imho. Wonder what OZ would think about that?

http://www.drperlmutter.com/study/ef...inson-disease/

anyway, after every pd'er started taking 1200mg of COQ10 when the earlier study came out, we'd know for sure if it slowed progression just anecdotally. i remember after that study came out COQ10 was the #1 topic on the older version of this board. costs, which form of COQ10 to use, brands were discussed off and on for months. there's no way with all the pd'ers trying COQ10, spending over $200/month back then, that if there was any chance it slowed progression we wouldn't know about it.

[badboy99]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24775711

April 2nd, 2014

Nanomicellar formulation of coenzyme Q10 (Ubisol-Q10) effectively blocks ongoing neurodegeneration in the mouse 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine model: potential use as an adjuvant treatment in Parkinson's disease.

Abstract
Although the support for the use of antioxidants, such as coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), to treat Parkinson's disease (PD) comes from the extensive scientific evidence, the results of conducted thus far clinical trials are inconclusive. It is assumed that the efficacy of CoQ10 is hindered by insolubility, poor bioavailability, and lack of brain penetration. We have developed a nanomicellar formulation of CoQ10 (Ubisol-Q10) with improved properties, including the brain penetration, and tested its effectiveness in mouse MPTP (1-methyl-4-phenyl-1, 2, 3, 6-tetrahydropyridine) model with the objectives to assess its potential use as an adjuvant therapy for PD. We used a subchronic MPTP model (5-daily MPTP injections), characterized by 50% loss of dopamine neurons over a period of 28 days. Ubisol-Q10 was delivered in drinking water. Prophylactic application of Ubisol-Q10, started 2 weeks before the MPTP exposure, significantly offset the neurotoxicity (approximately 50% neurons died in MPTP group vs. 17% in MPTP+ Ubisol-Q10 group by day 28). Therapeutic application of Ubisol-Q10, given after the last MPTP injection, was equally effective. At the time of intervention on day 5 nearly 25% of dopamine neurons were already lost, but the treatment saved the remaining 25% of cells, which otherwise would have died by day 28. This was confirmed by cell counts, analyses of striatal dopamine levels, and improved animals' motor skill on a beam walk test. Similar levels of neuroprotection were obtained with 3 different Ubisol-Q10 concentrations tested, that is, 30 mg, 6 mg, or 3 mg CoQ10/kg body weight/day, showing clearly that high doses of CoQ10 were not required to deliver these effects. Furthermore, the Ubisol-Q10 treatments brought about a robust astrocytic activation in the brain parenchyma, indicating that astroglia played an active role in this neuroprotection. Thus, we have shown for the first time that Ubisol-Q10 was capable of halting the neurodegeneration already in progress; however, to maintain it a continuous supplementation of Ubisol-Q10 was required. The pathologic processes initiated by MPTP resumed if supplementation was withdrawn. We suggest that in addition to brain delivery of powerful antioxidants, Ubisol-Q10 might have also supported subcellular oxidoreductase systems allowing them to maintain a favorable cellular redox status, especially in astroglia, facilitating their role in neuroprotection. Based on this data further clinical testing of this formulation in PD patients might be justifiable.