![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 409 to 433 of 435. Go back in thread:
Posted by raybakes on October 31, 2004, at 10:52:10
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » raybakes, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 12:10:34
>
> All enzymes work equally well in both directions. The limiting factors are the relative concentrations of the raw materials and the products. Your body makes most enzymes work in one direction only by near instantaneously removing the products.
>
thanks Lar, that's exactly what Jan said! I thought there had to be specific enzymes to go one way or the other..Ray
Posted by raybakes on October 31, 2004, at 13:13:19
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » raybakes, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 11:51:21
> > I'm finding there's not enough vitamin D in fish oil for me. I use halibut oil (not sure if it's liver or not) for vitamin A, but don't know if it's any better than cod? It's the mercury and PCB content that really concerns me more than the fish.
>
> No mercury in fish oils. Mercury binds to protein, and all protein is removed from fish oils of all types. PCBs and pesticides etc. may or may not be an issue. Those are fat soluble, and different brands have different amounts.
>
> http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/26diox.pdf
>
> http://www.fsai.ie/surveillance/food/surveillance_food_summarydioxins.asp
>
>
> Oh, off topic, but dietary measures to reduce inflammatory response:
> http://www.itmonline.org/arts/lox.htm
>
Thanks Lar, it was a fish oil supplier that told me that most brands have high levels of mercury! Thanks for the article on eicosanoids too, I found it yesterday too while looking up asthma links for a friend!! The theory about aspirin intolerance and asthma increasing leukotriene synthesis was interesting - do you think that's true - I wondered whether it was due to poor sulphation?
Ray
Posted by karaS on October 31, 2004, at 13:24:47
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » karaS, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 10:28:48
> > I'm still confused about my neighbor's condition. She doesn't have adrenal fatigue symptoms at all. She's thinking possibly hyperpituitary is her real problem. Maybe she's right.
> >
> > Kara
>
> Hyperpituitary syndromes are really relatively common, usually due to benign tumours.
>
> Lar
>
>I passed that information on to her. Thanks.
K
Posted by karaS on October 31, 2004, at 13:26:58
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » karaS, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 10:43:49
Posted by raybakes on November 1, 2004, at 6:52:57
In reply to Re: Do conversions along pathways go both ways? » raybakes, posted by tealady on October 29, 2004, at 20:50:57
> >I'm a bit confused as to the link between glutamine and glucosamine? I had a quick look and couldn't see it.
>
> OK I found it I think..top line of this
> http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/map/map00251.html
>
> so that kinda has something to do with G6PD(or something close) I think?
>
Hi Jan, not sure if it's directly anything to do with G6PD but i'm more interested in it as part of of the extracellular matrix, to help with my gut wall. Also came across this when looking up something to send you...Recombinant human TSH is glycosylated with mannose, N-acetylglucosamine, fucose, galactose, and NANA.84 Higher levels of NANA confer longer circulatory life.84 Carbohydrate removal impairs TSH bioactivity.84 Patients with hypothyroidism have TSH with more NANA relative to sulfation.37 Patients with idiopathic central hypothyroidism have glycosylation changes in their serum TSH.85
http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/document_viewer.wm?FILENAME=H286Bve glycosylation changes in their serum TSH.85It seems that TSH needs four saccharides attached for it to function efficiently - I wonder if TSH can rise to counter a saccharide deficiency?
What did you think about the ideas to do with nitrates, and sulphites and vasodilation? (acetylcholine/vaspressin thread)
Ray
Posted by JLx on November 1, 2004, at 17:32:49
In reply to Re: Vitamin D » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 12:23:00
> > Hi Lar,
> >
> > I read the links but didn't grasp much. You did mean 4000 and not 400 I presume which is way more than we've been recommended. I've always heard 4-800 IU per day.
>
> Absolutely. I meant 4,000 IU/day. What got people looking back at vitamin D was the link between sun exposure and multiple sclerosis. The link turned out to be vitamin D. There was also a concurrent examination of the link between vitamin D and osteoporosis, and voila! they figured out that the RDA was deficient altogether. Rickets, also known as vitamin D deficiency, is on the rise in the United States. Seriously.
>
> >
> > Is there a preferred type? Right now I'm taking a A and D combo, from fish liver oil, of 10,000 and 400 respectively but I don't want to just take more of that, do I? And increase the Vit A by that much?
>
> No, you don't want to increase the A any more. Just add in some more D. Any type will do.
>
> > I'm concerned about osteoporosis as I don't drink milk any more. I also take magnesium, boron, Vit. K and only a little calcium (because it makes me crazy!) with osteoporosis in mind. My mother has it, she's in her 70's.
> >
> > JL
>
> Maybe with extra vitamin D your response to calcium will diminish.
>
> LarI was so intrigued by your 4000 IU recommendation that I did a lot of looking around and started a board on Vit D and depression. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041022/msgs/410247.html I hope you will check it out. Maybe you can answer my question on there as to why sunlight Vit D isn't toxic, but supplemental is -- assuming it is -- when it's the same kind, or is it?
JL
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 2, 2004, at 8:56:07
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » Larry Hoover, posted by raybakes on October 31, 2004, at 13:13:19
> Thanks Lar, it was a fish oil supplier that told me that most brands have high levels of mercury!
I could show you test results, where a dozen brands were tested independently, and no detectable mercury was found (at ppb detection).
> Thanks for the article on eicosanoids too, I found it yesterday too while looking up asthma links for a friend!! The theory about aspirin intolerance and asthma increasing leukotriene synthesis was interesting - do you think that's true - I wondered whether it was due to poor sulphation?
>
> RayRefresh my brain, Ray? Which article was that? I've got too many threads in my brain to keep track of it all.
BTW, google has a new program, in beta release. It's called desktop google. It searches on your own computer, using the google search engine. You'll never "lose" something again. It will remember every site you've visited, and what you looked at, as well as what you saved, or sent by email, etc. Just google "desktop google".
OK, at least that's the press blurb. I just installed it, and it takes a while to index everything before it's "set up" to search. Sounds excellento, though.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 2, 2004, at 9:03:40
In reply to Re: Vitamin D » Larry Hoover, posted by JLx on November 1, 2004, at 17:32:49
> I was so intrigued by your 4000 IU recommendation that I did a lot of looking around and started a board on Vit D and depression. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041022/msgs/410247.html I hope you will check it out. Maybe you can answer my question on there as to why sunlight Vit D isn't toxic, but supplemental is -- assuming it is -- when it's the same kind, or is it?
>
> JLYou're good. Scary good. I'll just make a summary statement here, but the 4000 IU recommendation is based on solid research, and it's quite a new finding. It takes a while for the facts to filter through into what we know.
I think the oral toxicity of vitamin D is related to the bolus effect. What that is is the huge serum concentration spike that comes from uptake across the gut wall. Vitamin D synthesized in skin trickles out into the blood, via diffusion. The total amount made from acute sun exposure is not just suddenly dumped into the blood. It's the essence of a timed-release vitamin D repository.
Did you catch note of the positive effects arising from a single oral dose of 100,000 IU? I recall seeing that last night, as I was skimming. It gives one pause, with respect to oral toxicity.
Lar
Posted by JLx on November 2, 2004, at 9:33:24
In reply to Re: Vitamin D » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on November 2, 2004, at 9:03:40
> > I was so intrigued by your 4000 IU recommendation that I did a lot of looking around and started a board on Vit D and depression. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041022/msgs/410247.html I hope you will check it out. Maybe you can answer my question on there as to why sunlight Vit D isn't toxic, but supplemental is -- assuming it is -- when it's the same kind, or is it?
> >
> > JL
>
> You're good. Scary good.Thanks, Larry. That means a lot coming from you! :) I'm going to answer you on the other board, hope you don't mind.
JL
Posted by karaS on November 2, 2004, at 18:10:42
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » raybakes, posted by Larry Hoover on November 2, 2004, at 8:56:07
> > Thanks Lar, it was a fish oil supplier that told me that most brands have high levels of mercury!
>
> I could show you test results, where a dozen brands were tested independently, and no detectable mercury was found (at ppb detection).
>
> > Thanks for the article on eicosanoids too, I found it yesterday too while looking up asthma links for a friend!! The theory about aspirin intolerance and asthma increasing leukotriene synthesis was interesting - do you think that's true - I wondered whether it was due to poor sulphation?
> >
> > Ray
>
> Refresh my brain, Ray? Which article was that? I've got too many threads in my brain to keep track of it all.
>
> BTW, google has a new program, in beta release. It's called desktop google. It searches on your own computer, using the google search engine. You'll never "lose" something again. It will remember every site you've visited, and what you looked at, as well as what you saved, or sent by email, etc. Just google "desktop google".
>
> OK, at least that's the press blurb. I just installed it, and it takes a while to index everything before it's "set up" to search. Sounds excellento, though.
>
> Lar
>The best search engine is Copernic. I believe it is from the UK. You can download it for free (although there are fancier versions if you want to pay for them). It keeps your searches, it validates them to see if the links are still good along with some other bells and whistles. It culls from many other search engines (it shows you which ones) and provides you with the best reponses. You get about 40 links rather than 40,000 of them. Of course some of these links are phony sales pitches - but they have to pay for it somehow! All in all, it's definitely worth it. There are some instances where Google is better but most of the time this one is. You can download it at Copernic.com.
Posted by Simus on November 3, 2004, at 2:14:53
In reply to Re: Excuse me for elbowing my way in here.......... » Larry Hoover, posted by TeeJay on October 30, 2004, at 21:03:35
> I feel worse if I take a B100 supplement for example
Me too.
> Seems to me the more I experiment, the more confused I get!!!
Me too.
> Thanks anyway LAr........and nice to see your brain is back in top gear again :-)Me too.
Simus
Posted by raybakes on November 3, 2004, at 13:10:09
In reply to Re: Supplements for brain fog? » raybakes, posted by Simus on October 29, 2004, at 16:08:42
> Thanks, Ray. By the way, you say "a supplement is given". How is it given? I assume that you don't ingest it, or you could only do one test a day. So do you put it under your tongue, hold it against your skin...?
>
Hi Simus,The supplements are initially held against the body, or near to it - frequently biochemical markers (homeopathic) are used to diagnose a biochemical block. If homocysteine gave a positive muscle response (arm goes strong) then what would then make the arm go weak would help clear homocysteine - so folate, B12, betaine, niacinamide, B2, B6 or methionine, individually or in combination would be a good bet!
The person would then take the supplements once the testing had been completed.
Hope that's not too confusing!
Ray
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 9:39:35
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » Larry Hoover, posted by karaS on November 2, 2004, at 18:10:42
> > BTW, google has a new program, in beta release. It's called desktop google. It searches on your own computer, using the google search engine. You'll never "lose" something again. It will remember every site you've visited, and what you looked at, as well as what you saved, or sent by email, etc. Just google "desktop google".
> >
> > OK, at least that's the press blurb. I just installed it, and it takes a while to index everything before it's "set up" to search. Sounds excellento, though.
> >
> > LarUpdate on desktop google.....It caused Adobe to be unable to load inside IE, and that cause IE to crash. I'm in discussion with their tech support. At least they seem serious about trying to fix this bug.
Otherwise, it is a superb tool, so far.
>
> The best search engine is Copernic. I believe it is from the UK. You can download it for free (although there are fancier versions if you want to pay for them). It keeps your searches, it validates them to see if the links are still good along with some other bells and whistles. It culls from many other search engines (it shows you which ones) and provides you with the best reponses. You get about 40 links rather than 40,000 of them. Of course some of these links are phony sales pitches - but they have to pay for it somehow! All in all, it's definitely worth it. There are some instances where Google is better but most of the time this one is. You can download it at Copernic.com.Now you done it. And you were keeping this a secret? I already was a research addict. Now, how am I going to find time for food? Eh?
Lar
Posted by KaraS on November 4, 2004, at 14:01:58
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » karaS, posted by Larry Hoover on November 4, 2004, at 9:39:35
> > > BTW, google has a new program, in beta release. It's called desktop google. It searches on your own computer, using the google search engine. You'll never "lose" something again. It will remember every site you've visited, and what you looked at, as well as what you saved, or sent by email, etc. Just google "desktop google".
> > >
> > > OK, at least that's the press blurb. I just installed it, and it takes a while to index everything before it's "set up" to search. Sounds excellento, though.
> > >
> > > Lar
>
> Update on desktop google.....It caused Adobe to be unable to load inside IE, and that cause IE to crash. I'm in discussion with their tech support. At least they seem serious about trying to fix this bug.
>
> Otherwise, it is a superb tool, so far.
>
> >
> > The best search engine is Copernic. I believe it is from the UK. You can download it for free (although there are fancier versions if you want to pay for them). It keeps your searches, it validates them to see if the links are still good along with some other bells and whistles. It culls from many other search engines (it shows you which ones) and provides you with the best reponses. You get about 40 links rather than 40,000 of them. Of course some of these links are phony sales pitches - but they have to pay for it somehow! All in all, it's definitely worth it. There are some instances where Google is better but most of the time this one is. You can download it at Copernic.com.
>
> Now you done it. And you were keeping this a secret? I already was a research addict. Now, how am I going to find time for food? Eh?
>
> Lar
Well, maybe it will speed up your search time so you have more time for food. But don't waste too much time on food - you have to cure us all, you know!Let me know what you think of Copernic.
K
Posted by Jonathan on November 4, 2004, at 23:40:40
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » Larry Hoover, posted by KaraS on November 4, 2004, at 14:01:58
Scirus - http://www.scirus.com - is owned by the publisher Elsevier, so of course all Elsevier journals are exhaustively indexed, but it also covers at least abstracts (from Medline) of other publishers' journals, together with university and other relevant web-sites, including Psycho-Babble.
You can compare it against Google at
http://www.extranet.elsevier.com/listman/BMN/none.htm
Searching for "lithium orotate" (in the hope of avoiding a thread-killing redirect), Google found 3310 hits whilst Scirus found 118, of which 51 are journal references and the other 67 are web-sites. A feature I particularly like is that Scirus suggests a list of keywords for further refining the search: for "lithium orotate" it lists 16 including alcoholism, bipolar, carbonate, kava kava, magnesium, male (but not female!), mood swings, potassium orotate and stress relief.
Thanks, Kara, for posting about Copernic. It looks interesting but I haven't yet used it long enough to offer any useful feedback. The tracker looks useful; a few years ago I made frequent use of a similar service called Netmind, which is no longer available. Unfortunately the free version of Copernic Tracker is only a 30-day trial.
Jonathan.
Posted by KaraS on November 6, 2004, at 19:09:34
In reply to Good engine for scientific searches » Larry Hoover » KaraS, posted by Jonathan on November 4, 2004, at 23:40:40
> Scirus - http://www.scirus.com - is owned by the publisher Elsevier, so of course all Elsevier journals are exhaustively indexed, but it also covers at least abstracts (from Medline) of other publishers' journals, together with university and other relevant web-sites, including Psycho-Babble.
>
> You can compare it against Google at
>
> http://www.extranet.elsevier.com/listman/BMN/none.htm
>
> Searching for "lithium orotate" (in the hope of avoiding a thread-killing redirect), Google found 3310 hits whilst Scirus found 118, of which 51 are journal references and the other 67 are web-sites. A feature I particularly like is that Scirus suggests a list of keywords for further refining the search: for "lithium orotate" it lists 16 including alcoholism, bipolar, carbonate, kava kava, magnesium, male (but not female!), mood swings, potassium orotate and stress relief.
>
> Thanks, Kara, for posting about Copernic. It looks interesting but I haven't yet used it long enough to offer any useful feedback. The tracker looks useful; a few years ago I made frequent use of a similar service called Netmind, which is no longer available. Unfortunately the free version of Copernic Tracker is only a 30-day trial.
>
> Jonathan.
>Wow! That looks great, Jonathan! I've bookmarked it and I'll definitely be checking it out.
Thanks,
Kara
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 7, 2004, at 11:11:50
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » Larry Hoover, posted by KaraS on November 4, 2004, at 14:01:58
> Well, maybe it will speed up your search time so you have more time for food. But don't waste too much time on food - you have to cure us all, you know!
>
> Let me know what you think of Copernic.
>
> KCure? I get more interaction if I keep you sick.
One flaw with Copernic is that it doesn't cache links. If they don't work, at least with google you have the cache version.
Still want to play some more before I make up my mind.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 7, 2004, at 11:12:56
In reply to Good engine for scientific searches » Larry Hoover » KaraS, posted by Jonathan on November 4, 2004, at 23:40:40
Posted by KaraS on November 7, 2004, at 14:35:57
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » KaraS, posted by Larry Hoover on November 7, 2004, at 11:11:50
> > Well, maybe it will speed up your search time so you have more time for food. But don't waste too much time on food - you have to cure us all, you know!
> >
> > Let me know what you think of Copernic.
> >
> > K
>
> Cure? I get more interaction if I keep you sick.
>> One flaw with Copernic is that it doesn't cache links. If they don't work, at least with google you have the cache version.
>By "cache" links, do you mean "validate" them? - because Copernic does that. You validate the entire search and it gets rid of the ones with links that don't work or are not longer valid.
> Still want to play some more before I make up my mind.
>
> Lar
>
Posted by KaraS on November 7, 2004, at 22:21:05
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » KaraS, posted by Larry Hoover on November 7, 2004, at 11:11:50
> Cure? I get more interaction if I keep you sick.
You are pure evil!
> One flaw with Copernic is that it doesn't cache links. If they don't work, at least with google you have the cache version.Maybe you mean to store the links? If so, I think they do have that. Anyway, I've used this for a few years now and it's been the best up until now. Maybe the new Google version will be better.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 8, 2004, at 7:55:50
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » Larry Hoover, posted by KaraS on November 7, 2004, at 22:21:05
> > Cure? I get more interaction if I keep you sick.
>
> You are pure evil!I have a sick sense of humour.
> > One flaw with Copernic is that it doesn't cache links. If they don't work, at least with google you have the cache version.
>
> Maybe you mean to store the links? If so, I think they do have that. Anyway, I've used this for a few years now and it's been the best up until now. Maybe the new Google version will be better.What I meant is that if Google finds a link, and you try it and it fails, you can select "Cached", at the end of the little quoted blurb, and you'll be taken to Google's stored version of the dead link. The cached version is sometimes better, if it's a lengthy page, as the search terms are highlighted. Embedded links still work, etc.
I've only used Copernic a couple times. I haven't yet done a head-to-head comparison.
Lar
Posted by tealady on November 20, 2004, at 18:52:22
In reply to Re: Help needed with cholinergic drug reactions? » tealady, posted by raybakes on October 29, 2004, at 7:12:25
Hey Ray..found it..this one and previous one . I'd glanced at but hadn't gone into..so it was marked as read..thanks
will look at today
Jan
And YEAH I'm way too good at producing perioxide, NO etc..and sulphites get me...actually probably wiped me out these past 3 days (ate a muesli bar, sigh after stopping supplements )
Thanks, Jan
Ps I've writeen a bit somewhere about my reactions to nitrates, nitrites , dental anesthetic etc somewhere with abstracts etc. if you are interested I'll dig up the links.
I can't even eat too many greens..like eg. spinach ..nitrates get me I thinkJan
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 21, 2004, at 12:00:16
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine! » KaraS, posted by Larry Hoover on November 8, 2004, at 7:55:50
> I've only used Copernic a couple times. I haven't yet done a head-to-head comparison.
>
> LarI can get google to work better than I can get Copernic to work. I haven't really tried tweaking how I use Copernic, though.
Here's a new one, in beta release. Make sure you click on the help button. It's obviously written by a geek. He assumes you get it, eh?
Lar
Posted by KaraS on November 21, 2004, at 14:09:29
In reply to Re: The Best Search Engine!, posted by Larry Hoover on November 21, 2004, at 12:00:16
> > I've only used Copernic a couple times. I haven't yet done a head-to-head comparison.
> >
> > Lar
>
> I can get google to work better than I can get Copernic to work. I haven't really tried tweaking how I use Copernic, though.Are you comparing to Google beta or regular Google version? I have to admit I love the look of Copernic. Again, it's been around for many years now and has been ahead of the rest of the pack. It may now be surpassed however.
>
> Here's a new one, in beta release. Make sure you click on the help button. It's obviously written by a geek. He assumes you get it, eh?
>
> http://www.eigensearch.com/
>
> LarYes, I'll definitely have to check this one out. Looks like you may be able to get very specific in what you're asking for which would be great. Definitely written by a geek. Hope the help section is clear.
Thanks,
K
Posted by Jonathan on November 23, 2004, at 11:00:32
In reply to Re: Good engine...Thanks! (nm) » Jonathan, posted by Larry Hoover on November 7, 2004, at 11:12:56
http://www.scholar.google.com/
Click on "About Google Scholar" for FAQ.
It seems to use a similar ranking algorithm to Google Web Search, with citations treated as links and given a high weight. The limited set of academic sites, journals and books covered should make rankings harder to manipulate: to see how this can be done to http://www.google.com/ , type in "French military victories" or "miserable failure", then click on "I'm Feeling Lucky", which takes you straight to the top ranked page. But see http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20041113/msgs/415552.html .
When I tested it on "lithium orotate" it found only 18 hits, nearly all journal papers and nothing from Psycho-Babble: http://www.scirus.com/ found 118 including 51 journal references. Since Google Scholar is still in beta test (without those annoying ads!), coverage will probably improve with time.
Jonathan.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.