noone knows for sure what is in this particular mucana powder, much less how much l-dopa. one reason they might not put CARBIDOPA in it is that it would require a doctor's prescription and it's a relatively cheap drug. always the skeptic.

this whole discussion is ridiculous to me, a newbie posts on this board asking advice on a treatment almost nobody who posts on this board uses, GARRYW says he uses this treatment but has never tried carbidopa/levodopa so can't make a comparison, and then we have billbobby who doesn't have pd just happens to find this thread and is hyping the treatment and just reposts what's on the mfg's website. it's all taking place in a virtual reality. anyone can say this stuff works great but how do you prove it? honestly, for all the years this stuff has been on the market why is it still such a mystery if it was heads and shoulders better than C/L?

keep in mind that the brain only needs a tiny amount of l-dopa and if you take 100mg of l-dopa orally, less than 5mg actually gets into the brain. that's why you need to take such tiny amounts of agonists compared to l-dopa since almost all of it is available to the brain. 12mg of neupro is good for a day. so to me at least, i don't believe this mucana is 40% l-dopa.

Day 3 update.

The protocol does give relief of symptoms but only for 1-1.5hr max. Then the off effects seem to be worse than when on stalevo.

After alerting his Dr. She recommended him to up the intake of Mucuna d5 to 8 pills per dose. However still the effectiveness has only increased about half an hour to an hr.

On the second day he started developing dyskinesia in his legs which has been very uncomfortable for him. We left a message with his Dr. About this new condition.

So far this protocol has been very difficult for him but is hoping things will turn around when he gets the regimen dialed in.

So you are essentially saying that Im some shill trying to get others to invest in this treatment by hyping it up? The reasoning that Im posting in this thread and reposting what they have shown in peer-reviewed scientific papers is that if they are correct then that means they are able to successfully treat parkinsons disease while managing all the side effects normally associated with taking L-dopa and having no or slowed disease progression. It would be the best possible treatment for managing parkinsons. They have shown that a large portion of disease progression is not associated with direct progression of parkinsons itself but rather improper use of L-dopa/Carbidopa leading to a further relative nutritional deficiency of the following

”L-dopa may induce depletions of serotonin, thiols, l-tyrosine, and l-tryptophan, resulting in RNDs.”

”Carbidopa may induce depletions of peripheral serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine, along with system-wide depletion of niacin and vitamin B6, resulting in multiple system RNDs. Over 300 enzymes and proteins require vitamin B6 for normal function.”

All I am trying to do is post EVIDENCE for why it very possibily could work to try to show the fact that there is substantial evidence in support of the validity of this research/protocol.

I have known about their research for over a year now but only recently started on the protocol myself(for concussions) because I wanted to thoroughly understand how this works before investing in it. After thoroughly doing the research on it, I have came to understand what they have actually discovered and the significance behind it. They are able to treat any neurotransmitter related disease at a essentially 100% success rate(there are a few disease states that are more difficult to manage and take longer to correct). Diseases can be seen here - https://neurosupport.files.wordpress...lticolored.jpg

please, before ridiculing what I am saying on here, look into the science and the evidence for that science that they have published before immediately disregarding it as not correct. I can understand and respect skepticism but only if you have looked at both sides of the fence before presenting disbelief for what I am presenting. So please read their 19 studies on what they are doing before disregarding it.

In regards to a few of your statements.

The reason they dont use Carbidopa is this - ”The mechanism of action of the carbidopa and benserazide causes irreversible binding and inactivation of vitamin B6 throughout the body. The consequences of this action are enormous, interfering with over 300 enzyme and protein functions.”

So why use Carbidopa when they have discovered that 5-htp is able to do the exact same function as Carbidopa, while being far more effective, not causing inactivation of vit. B6, and not causing further deletion of neurotransmitters/thiols/co-factors.

In regards to how it is still a mystery is that it has not been on the market for that long. They have only really narrowed in on how to correctly treat parkinsons disease over the last 5 years. Also, how is it supposed to get known if everyone has the same reaction to it as you do? If everyone says well how does everyone not know about it if it is better and disregard it because of that, then there is no one in the first place to try it to say that it works.

For it to get known, people have to look at the science, understand it, and think beyond what they currently know regarding these diseases. What they have shown may go against what your current knowledge allows for, but the fact of the matter is that it works. And it works far better than anything currently available because it is correcting the problem, not creating more.

Sources - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4238750/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211847/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068871/

The facts on record here- I was curious so looked it up- *new members cannot link*
https://bmp.hlb.state.mn.us/DesktopM...31670&ltype=PY

It looks like he was reinstated 3/2005.

Thanks, That made some interesting reading. Good to know.

I had read a fair amount on the Hinz protocol before employing a NJ integrative neurologist for nearly 8 months (which included 3 urine assays). The overall communication with him was not good. Although available by phone, my chart was not always (if ever) at his disposal. However, I was committed to seeing this through until I saw the words PILL STOP in a text message after 7 months of adhering to his recommendations of B6, Tyrosine, D5 Mucuna, Neuroreplete, CysReplete, etc. My RLS would have made the Pill Stop impossible anyway. He never thoroughly explained the Pill Stop to me and now I get it of course.. And this after he asked me to sign a document that he had “explained” the protocol (1st or 2nd visit). You never really fully understand it unless you go through it, and even then you need your doctor to support you.. not let you drift away in frustration after 7-8 months. In fact I had read that I should start seeing results in 6 months. I was seeing no results and began to believe no results were ever going to happen.

So, did I give up? NO, I employed another practitioner for another 6 months happy to start again from scratch. I still believed in the protocol, but after 4 months I insisted on a consult with him and Dr. Hinz. Although the new practitioner was much better to work with (meeting like clockwork), the pill stops could not be met due to RLS. We did one urine assay and the process began to be experiment after experiment with no clear pathway to achieving competitive inhibition. In fact he was a bit shocked when I mentioned the term and that it was my goal. At least the first Dr. knew and understood this.. The consult with Dr. Hinz never happened because the Dr. said that the first thing he (Dr. Hinz) would ask was how my pill stop went.. I thought that the persistent RLS preventing it was a perfectly good reason for a consult. And so it all ended again.. I manage today on C/L. I am still fascinated and may even still believe in the Amino acid/Hinz protocol. I even called practitioner #3, but decided to wait after my first two experiences that took an overall 14 months of investment and stress. It was all my choice though, and I am a better PD warrior for it.

Dr. Hinz, if you are out there, I seek only for others to learn from my experience. I would also like an answer to the question of what you do if pill stops cannot be attained due to RLS preventing sleep.

Thanks so much for your work.

AB




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

A discussion at HU is throwing up some interesting references ...

A Skeptical Look at Dr. Marty Hinz and His Views of "Neurotranmitter-Related Diseases"

(hat tip to MBAnderson at HU for the link)

Thanks jeffreyn.

I had not realised that Dr Hinz has such an "interesting" track record.

As an aside there are many journals like those published by Dove Medical Press which charge extremely high fees,

Some reputable journals charge page fees but these are very modest in comparison to those charged by Dove Medical Press and can be waived if the investigators can show that their research funding does not include a provision for page fees,

Well theres a few things that come to mind. Established medicine can become entrenched. Marty had the guts to turn up here. Always people pushing boundaries get flak. Where has mainstream medicine got to with this disease?

The Guy here in Australia who outed Thalidomide was given a very hard time. Big Pharmacy is making billions off the status quo for a lot of disease symptom control. Big Pharm does not do much real self funded R & D. Research is controlled. Cheap cures are sidelined for as long as possible. CBD. Mucuna. etc

Marty is not all wrong i.e. 5HTP effects. B6 issue. Precursor depletions.

No I dont know Marty.

Dr William McBride was an obstetrician in the burbs of Sydney who with the observation of many unsung heroes the midwives in the local hospital where they delivered and saw an alarming number of bubs with shocking deformities to women who he had been giving sample packs of the 'new' anti emetic drug thalidomide. I don't recall he was given a hard time.