Nofool's "Problems"

Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by consuegra, Jul 18, 2008.

  1. consuegra

    consuegra New Member

    Hi Nofool,

    I am interested in your posts and really enjoy the skepticisms employed, even though sometimes they seem Cassandra-like. I have a few questions. A number of years ago, as Dr. Goldstein was ending his practice, I read with interest various patient accounts of his “methods”. They seemed to me to be a “private” or personal kind of science. Certainly his ideas/concepts never reached a scientific plateau that allowed them to be practiced by others. Did any of his patients get cancer?

    I am interested in your suggestion that interfering or trying to regulate the methylation cycle might have a connection to cancer. Could you provide an explanation in the simplest of terms that makes you be afraid of this theory espoused by Rich van Konynenburg. I understand that you might object to the methylation block concept because you think that it does not seem to work or lacks validity, but it is quite another thing to suggest an association with cancer.

    I imagine that you have seen a number of things come and go over the years. However you do seem to have a high opinion of Dr. Goldstein and his practices, which were highly unorthodox.

    I myself worry about the association of CFS/ME with a variety of cancers - and other not so nice diseases. I think it is fair to say that this CFS/ME disease seems not to be a risk-free, and like, in all difficult situations, maybe one has to “take a chance”. If you have specific information that you can articulate, I would be very interested in being guided to a better understanding for making a “risk assessment” of this Methylation protocol.



  2. jenbooks13

    jenbooks13 New Member

    {edited to remove inappropriate comment}

    Methylation is a double edged sword. You may activate silent genes. Some of those you may want to activate. But oncogenes (cancer causing genes) are genes as well. Do you want to activate those? You're switching things on and off with methylation. Studies of folic acid (the methylation protocol uses more sophisticated forms of folic acid, that are more bioactive) have shown that before cancer occurs, it can help prevent cancer; after cancer has occured, it can stimulate the growth.

    The question is could you have an occult cancer that would get stimulated by the protocol?

    I think it's more of a worry with someone at high risk of cancer or who has already had a cancer. CFS with its immunosuppression is probably a risk, too.

    I can't tell yet how people are doing since there is a placebo effect with any protocol, and from the reports on here,it looks like a few people feel helped. OTOH, I'm tremendously helped by vitamin/mineral and glutathione IV's....lots of supplements help. I have some of the methylation supplements in my fridge and freezer.

  3. simonedb

    simonedb Member

    thanks for info
    I hate that when there are such polar opinions in science
    hard for layperson to figure out......
  4. redhummingbird

    redhummingbird New Member

    This is frightening information. I hope others will chime in so we can continue this discussion.

    I have a strong family history of cancer (mom died at 59, dad has leukemia, prostate cancer and now maybe bladder cancer) so this information is very relevant for me.

    simonedb-I agree with you. Makes it hard to figure out what's the right thing to do.

    It's frustrating.
  5. stumped

    stumped New Member

    All though my family has a little history of Cancer. My daughter is going to see her doc this monday to begin or prepare for this procedure or protocol.I do have a concern but she is open minded to treatments. She will be joining in on this site next week. I know she will share her info with all. Please keep her in your prayers. Thank you Stumped Pop Rick
    [This Message was Edited on 07/19/2008]
  6. gapsych

    gapsych New Member

    Isn't the Methylation protocal for CFS and not FM.

    In the meantime, I am not touching this protocal until there is more scientific evidence.

    Who knows, maybe it will be proven to work.

    But upon hearing about so many people having to stop because they are getting sick and now the cancer link, I would be very hesitant to try this.

    If this protocal is for FM, let me know.

    Consuela, I do not think this is your intent, but you might want to change the post's title, as it sounds like you are talking about Nofool and not the methylation protocal.

    You might more responses that way.

    Just my two cents worth.

    [This Message was Edited on 07/19/2008]
  7. mbofov

    mbofov Active Member

    Interesting article, but it's difficult to know how to interpret it. You highlighted the section which says that hypermethylation can be linked to cancer by deactivating tumor suppressing genes. However, immediately preceding that sentence the article states that hypomethylation is linked to cancer: "Aberrant methylation of DNA (global hypomethylation accompanied by region-specific hypermethylation) is frequently found in tumor cells." Which is the bigger risk - global hypomethylation or region-specific hypermethylation? It's impossible to say from this statement.

    Further down, you highlighted this section:

    "However, looking at individual nutrients may be too simplistic. Dietary methyl (folate, choline, and methionine) deficiency in combination causes decreased tissue S-adeno-sylmethionine, global DNA hypomethylation, hepatic steatosis, cirrhosis, and ultimately hepatic tumorigenesis in rodents in the absence of carcinogen treatment. Other dietary components such as vitamin B12, alcohol, and selenium may modify the response to inadequate dietary folate."

    This section clearly states that deficiency in folate, choline and methionine lead to global DNA hypomethylation and the prodution of tumors. I believe the goal of the methylation protocol outlined by Rich Van K is to correct this deficiency. The article is unclear in what is meant by the statement that B12, alcohol and selenium modify the repsonse to inadequte dietary folate. Modify in a good way or bad way? It would be helpful to know which.

    Re "alt med 'detox' or 'herxing'": This is purely anecdotal, of course, so probably may not mean much to you, but here goes anyways. Many years ago before I got sick with CFIDS I had a severe infection. I was treated with one very large dose of antibiotics (in an injection), together with pills to take over several days. Within a day or two I was quite weak, felt worse than before. I called the doctor, who said it was because of the die-off of bacteria. It was such a large dose of antibiotics, my body was having trouble with the toxins released from the bacteria which were killed. This was my first experience with a herxheimer reaction. It was real, and a real M.D. told me about it, not an "alternative" practitioner.

    About 5 years ago my digestion was quite screwed up, appetite was off a lot of the time, one glass of wine would make me sick for an entire day and 2 glasses would make me sick for 3 days, I was just tired and felt sick and fluish a lot. With the help of my chiropractor, I did a liver detox over a period of 4 weeks. I felt quite crappy during that time, very tired, etc. When it was all over, my digestion was much improved. I can now drink wine with no ill effect. My appetite is fine, etc. so, yeah, you might call this alternative medicine. I don't care what you call it - it worked, again, after the regular docs could do nothing for me.

    Have you ever considered the reason why so many of us are trying these "alternative" treatements is because traditional medicine has left us in the lurch? And that many of us have been helped a great deal by "alternative" methods? It's just a word. At one time the AMA tried to get the practice of chiropractic banned. It was alternative. Well, luckily they failed. Acupuncture was scoffed at for years and years, but it's also finally gained respect. If you study the history of medicine, you'll see that the doctor who proposed the necessity of hand-washing to prevent death in child birth was roundly criticized and ridiculed. Doctors would go from treating a severely ill patient to delivering babies without washing their hands in between, and many mothers died needlessly from infection.

    So just because traditional medicine has or has not endorsed a particular protocol means very little to me, without further information.

  8. richvank

    richvank New Member

    Hi, all.

    I think that nofool and jenbooks have both raised some topics that should be carefuly considered, and I appreciate them bringing these things up.

    Considering first the effect of folate on cancer, it's true that an adequate intake of folate has been shown to be a preventive factor in several types of cancer. The particular mechanism (or mechanisms) is not known for sure, but the candidate mechanisms are the following: increasing the methylation capacity, increasing the ability to synthesize thymidine and purines for making new DNA and RNA, and decreasing the level of homocysteine, which may be a promoter of DNA mutation.

    It's also true that once a cancer has become established, increasing folate intake can assist the progression of the cancer. The most likely reason is that cancers have a high requirement for thymidine to make new DNA, because they generate new cells rapidly. Some of the earliest chemotherapy drugs for treating cancer were methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). The former blocks the enzyme dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), and the latter blocks thymidine synthase (TS). One of the advantages of using 5-FU is that it can be taken together with folinic acid (leucovorin), which will supply the body's cells with a precursor to make other forms of folate, in order to allow it to carry on a normal methylation cycle. Only the formation of thymidine is blocked. I had this combination myself when I had rectal cancer ten years ago. It's interesting that even in the treatment of existing cancer using this agent, the folate status is maintained using one of the active forms of folate that is in the Yasko and the simplified treatment approaches for CFS, because of the importance of maintaining the methylation cycle in normal operation.

    As far as I can tell, the evidence is consistent with the proposition that having normal methylation cycle function is beneficial in preventing cancer, and I think this would make the most sense, also. Whether one chooses to start from an argument based on random evolution or on intelligent design, one reaches the same conclusion about the body's tendency to do things that promote its survival.

    Now, concerning methylation of DNA in cancer cells, it's true that overall, the DNA in cancer cells shows a net hypomethylation. That is, it is less methylated than in normal, healthy cells. It's also true that a relatively small proportion of the DNA in cancer cells is hypermethylated, i.e. overmethylated with respect to normal cells. As far as I can tell, cancer researchers do not yet understand how this dichotomy, which is advantageous to the cancer, develops. My suspicion (unproven) is that a net undermethylation is needed to allow the cancer to progress, and the cancer cell has a way of transferring the resulting relatively scarce methyl groups onto DNA that will silence the tumor suppressor genes. It will be interesting to watch the results of research in this area. That's how I'm betting it will come out.

    In view of the fact that folate acts as is preventive of several cancer types, that it promotes methylation, and that cancer cells show a net undermethylation of their DNA, I suspect (but cannot say it is proven) that having a lower than normal methylation capacity would encourage the development of cancer.

    Coming now to CFS, the data I have so far indicate that many and probably most PWCs have a partial block in their methylation cycle, as indicated by a lower than normal level of SAMe, and/or a lower than normal ratio of SAMe to SAH. If my suspicion (described in the previous paragraph) is true, if all else were equal, then PWCs would be at greater risk for developing cancer. However, as far as I know, there is no statistically significant evidence published so far that indicates that the cancer rates are higher in people with CFS than in people in the general population. There was a study by Lenny Jason et al. using the database of deaths in PWCs from the National CFS Foundation, and it showed that the main recorded causes of death in CFS are heart disease, cancer and suicide, but it was not a properly controlled epidemiological study, which Prof. Jason freely acknowledged. So the issue of whether PWCs are at greater risk for developing cancer is still up in the air, as far as I know. But it would make sense to me that a normally functioning methylation cycle would promote health, given its many important roles in the overall metabolism.

    In the past some people have asked how good the data are from the Vitamin Diagnostics methylation panel, on which I am basing my statement about the prevalence of partial methylation cycle block in CFS. The reference ranges (i.e. the ranges considered "normal") in this panel are each based on blood samples from no fewer than 120 volunteer male and female medical students ages between 20 and 40, nonsmoking, and without any known chronic illnesses. The lab meets state and federal standards for laboratory certification, and in fact are about to undergo its annual state and federal inspection next month. The director of the lab studied biochemistry under Hans Krebs at Oxford University, and later worked with Alton Meister at Cornell, who was the leading authority on glutathione until his death a few years ago. The lab director is currently a part-time professor at the NYU medical school, teaching courses in biochemistry. I believe that the methylation panel results are valid.

    So far, I have seen approximately 80 reports on the methylation panel from people who have CFS. The great majority show both glutathione depletion and low methyation capacity, though not all do. So far, I have seen only one that appeared to have higher than normal methylation capacity, and I have alerted her physician about this.

    Additional supporting evidence for a partial methylation cycle block in CFS comes from urine organic acids tests, such as the Genova Diagnostics Metabolic Analysis Profile. This panel has both methylmalonate and formiminoglutamate (figlu) on it. When both these are elevated, this evidence is very strong for a partial block at methionine synthase, which produces a lowered methylation capacity. I haven't counted how many reports with this combination I've seen, but it's a large number, and it's something I commonly see from people with CFS.

    Having had cancer myself, I certainly do not wish it upon anyone else. (And by the way, I take supplemental folic acid, among other things!) The goal of treating the methylation cycle block in CFS is to raise the methylation cycle to normal operation, not to try to elevate it above a normal rate. I encourage people who are considering this treatment to have the methylation panel run to see where they stand on methylation capacity and glutathione. If one has CFS, most likely one will have a partial methylation cycle block and low glutathione, but this is not true in every case.

    I have seen a small number of methylation panel results from people who have been on the treatment for a few months, and they are still showing a lower than normal methylation capacity. So far, it looks to me as though it is very challenging and time-consuming to restore the methylation capacity to normal, and so far I don't see people developing a higher than normal methylation capacity from this treatment. I'm about to receive 30 more of these second test results, and it will be interesting to see how much (or how little) they have changed from the first tests.

    As I said initially, I think these are important concerns. I am taking them seriously, and I am keeping an eye on the data. I will certainly post the information if there is any suggestion of higher than normal methylation capacity developing from this treatment.

    Thanks again to nofool and jenbooks13 for raising these issues.

    [This Message was Edited on 07/19/2008]
  9. frango2

    frango2 New Member

    It is neither "Alt" medicine or an out-there topic.

    DNA is expressed as ATGC which stands for Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine.

  10. Mikie

    Mikie Moderator

    I really appreciate your responding to our questions.

    Love, Mikie
  11. richvank

    richvank New Member


    My responses are at the asterisks below:


    You wrote:

    Considering first the effect of folate on cancer, it's true that an adequate intake of folate has been shown to be a preventive factor in several types of cancer. The particular mechanism (or mechanisms) is not known for sure, but the candidate mechanisms are the following: increasing the methylation capacity, increasing the ability to synthesize thymine and purines for making new DNA and RNA, and decreasing the level of homocysteine, which may be a promoter of DNA mutation.

    I think you know that there's not a single person on this forum, including me, who has enough knowledge to discern how much of what you write is based on science and how much is based on alt med.

    ***I realize that some of this is pretty technical, but I need to mention these things in order to address the issues you raised in an honest and complete way.

    Example: I've never heard of
    thymine. It sounds like an amino acid that must be synthesized -- yet since you have used so many alt med terms in your writings -- I'd have to go look it up to make sure what it is. Maybe it's a substance that conventional medicine doesn't accept. I, nor anyone else here has the time to research every term that you use that is unfamiliar to us. (If someone here understands everything , please accept my apologies).

    ***Thymine is one of the four basic building blocks of DNA, called a base or nucleobase. A discussion of it can be found in any modern biochemistry textbook. Both conventional medicine and alternative medicine recognize the same basic biochemistry.

    It would be best if you could support your contentions with documentation from scientific sources. That way we could at least judge the sources that you are using.(Dr. Yasko and her ilk are not credible scientists. I've written why this is so on this forum several times).

    ***I use a range of sources, including textbooks of biochemistry, physiology, immunology, endocrinology, internal medicine and others, and for more recent information on research results, I use the PubMed database and a university medical library. It would take considerable time to document all the sources I use. If there's a particular issue you would like documentation on, please let me know.

    Coming now to CFS, the data I have so far indicate that many and probably most PWCs have a partial block in their methylation cycle, as indicated by a lower than normal level of SAMe, and/or a lower than normal ratio of SAMe to SAH. If my suspicion (described in the previous paragraph) is true, if all else were equal, then PWCs would be at greater risk for developing cancer.

    I've never heard/seen any of the above from any source that is reliable. All of the above is nothing more than speculation. I suspect that the lab results you quote above were not done at mainstream labs. Are the tests even done at mainstream labs -- or are the tests themselves dubious.

    ***It's not surprising that you haven't seen this anywhere else. It's new, and hasn't been published yet. I discussed the lab tests and their validity later in the post you have quoted. As I've discussed before, mainstream labs are in business to provide lab tests for which there is an established market, tests that are paid for by Medicare and the insurance companies. When something is new, there is no established market for it at the beginning. If it proves to be cost-effective to Medicare and the insurance companies so that it is approved by them for payment, then the market becomes established, and the mainstream labs begin to offer it. Anyone who wants to wait for that process to be completed is free to do so. The problem is that it will likely take a long time.

    So far, I have seen approximately 80 reports on the methylation panel from people who have CFS. The great majority show both glutathione depletion and low methylation capacity, though not all do. So far, I have seen only one that appeared to have higher than normal methylation capacity, and I have alerted her physician about this.

    What 80 "reports"?

    ***Some have been shared with me by individuals, some of whom have posted them on the internet. Others have been shared with me by physicians.

    How can people on this forum get copies of the reports?

    ***You can see some results from people who have voluntarily posted them in the files section of the cfs-yasko group. I cannot share individual test results because of patient privacy rights.

    Also, why are you alerting physicians about report results? They should be alerting you! Something is wrong with this picture.

    ***I consult with physicians on a regular basis, at their request, or at the request of their patients. In the particular case to which you are referring, the physician asked me for an opinion.

    I don't have the time to respond to the rest of your reply.

    ***I know what you mean. I'm pretty busy, too.

    Too much of it is based on alt medicine (I do know enough to recognize that in what followed the above).

    ***The fundamental basis for my work is actually biochemisty that is accepted and taught to conventional medical students. The hypothesis and treament are built on that foundation.

    If I'm wrong, can you quote a non alt med source that supports the protocol?

    ***Not yet. Hopefully this will eventually be possible. This work is new and has not yet been through controlled clinical trials. A pilot study is currently underway. I think it needs to be acknowledged that new developments in health care do not become accepted in a short time. There is a long process involved. Again, anyone who chooses to wait for a treatment to become mainstream is certainly free to do that. However, this often takes a very long time. This is particularly true of a treatment that does not involve patentable drugs, because there is no financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies who do not have a monopoly on a treatment because of a patent to fund the testing required to get FDA certification. As you are probably aware, most funding of the testing of medical treatments, as well as a significant amount of the FDA budget, comes from the pharmaceutical companies.

    I think this may be the third time now that we've debated like this, and it has always ended the same: I request scientific research, and you supply data from non-standard labs and research from alt med sources, just like you did above.

    ***I'm sorry that what I am able to offer at this stage does not meet your requirements, nofool. I think I've explained why this treatment is not yet available from mainline medical sources. And as I've written before, anyone is free to reject this treatment for lack of mainstream citations of it at this stage.

    BTW, I take some extra folic acid, and get monthly B 12 injections --both of which are supported by science based literature.

    ***I hope these things are helpful to your health, nofool.

    ***Best regards,


    [This Message was Edited on 07/20/2008]
  12. bigmama2

    bigmama2 New Member

    while i do appreciate healthy skepticism in anyone (i am very skeptical) there is a difference between that (healthy spepticism) and a complete unwillingness to consider possible benefits of new and unscientifically proven treatments. all currently accepted and scientificaly proven treatments and medications started out as----- surprise!---- NEW and UNPROVEN treatments. DUH. If everyone on earth had nofools attitude about new treatments, and would never consider trying them, then we would have NO medically accepted and scientifically proven treatments. no treatments or medications for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc etc.

    but the wierdest thing about "nofools problems" is that when he was a patient of dr Goldstein, I assume that he tried many of goldsteins NEW and unscientificaly proven treatments/medications for CFS. so what is up with that?????

  13. Catseye

    Catseye Member

    Well, you either take the word of the people who are getting better or the word of the people who have been sick for decades. I think their credibility and opinions speak for themselves, both sides.

    Some people do not understand that modern medicine's treatment of chronic diseases is based on clinical trials. And these clinical trials have to be restricted to profitable substances. As soon as a supplement is clinically tested with the end result in mind of FDA approval for the supplement's use as treatment for a particular disease, it becomes unprofitable immediately. No company or organization can or will spend money on unprofitable treatments for use in FDA clinical trials. This is why alternative medicine does not have the "science" of clinical trials behind it.

    But, who needs clinical trials for nutritional deficiencies? We already know what the substance does, and we can tell by symptoms (and the fact that we have cfs/fibro) what we are deficient in. So that's why we take the supplements.

    Drugs have to have clinical trials (which they apparently sometimes like to start on children in African countries) because nobody knows what the drug is going to do in the human body. But supplements (not including herbs) are already normally used by the body and with a specific purpose.

    The medical profession does not treat people with supplements (vitamins, minerals, metabolites) which we need because they have set themselves up that way. There is much more profit in not giving us what we need and instead, finding a drug than can affect the symptoms of the deficiency or multiple deficiencies.

    People do not understand that the medical profession is a business and doctors should be thought of as used car salesman but peddling drugs instead. They are out for their own profit and if you think otherwise, well . . . if you think otherwise for a very long time, you end up not trying alternative (a pseudonym for "health care") medicine and therefore avoiding the very things you need to get better.

    So, all in all, it boils down to whose advice do you want to listen to in order to get well - the "still sickies" or the "recovering sickies"? The "recovering sickies" are using supplements and diet changes to get well.

    That's why I haven't been here, I've been getting my life back. I've been on this new diet 3 1/2 months now and probably have several months to go. This is just some of what it takes. It's quite do-able, don't wait around for your regular doctor to learn it and let the rest of your life pass you by. Fire him/her and get an alternative medicine doctor.
  14. frango2

    frango2 New Member

    Can you please share info about your diet?

    I have been sick for 3 years and by treating Lyme and doing Methylation I am getting better. I am not going to be sick for decades, mark my words.

    I would love to hear what you are eating. I need to find a healthy plan that I can stick with, although I know it might be hard work at first.

    Good health to you...
  15. Catseye

    Catseye Member

    It's basically a no grain or dairy diet, with my carbs coming mostly from veggies and raw nuts and seeds. It's easier to list what I eat than what I don't so:

    veggies (but no root veggies like carrots, potatoes, yucca, etc)
    raw nuts and seeds

    That's it! I eat lots of dehydrated veggies with a sort of batter made from nuts and spices. They are just incredible! I go through a whole big bag every day, I can't stop eating them - they're worse than Planter's Cheese Balls and Lay's potatos chips in that regard. But since they're veggies, the doc said I could eat as many as I wanted! And I have crackers that I either buy or make myself from sunflower seeds and veggies and spices. They're great with soup or with butter on them or even just by themselves.

    I'm also taking lots of specialty supps. My symptoms are all drying up, one by one. At my worst, I was completely bedridden and needed to depend on others for food and to get me to the bathroom.

    You can see my thread "toxic guts, toxic body why do a comprehensive stool analysis" for more info about what I'm doing and who is helping me. I am getting tests done that are showing exactly what is happening (and not happening) in my body and the supplements are selected according to the test results. I just found out I also have lyme and we're treating that, too. I wasted time and money by guessing my own treatment for a long time. I was improving, but it's much more improvement than that now.

    It's so much better with testing. Our guts and immune system are way too complex and so they're all in different modes of "screwed up" in all of us. What's right for one may not be right for another - whether it's diet or supplements (though I don't think anyone can go wrong with a no-grain, no-dairy low carb diet). That's why I'm suggesting the stool analysis for everybody.

    The guts have a flora imbalance and you have to starve out the bad bacteria and yeast with a low carb diet while you kill them off with certain supplements. It's really working and it didn't take a million years to see it happen, either. But regular doctors can't deal with this. In fact, they probably won't even acknowledge the existence of a gut flora imbalance. It's not their fault, they didn't learn it in med school. It's whoever is in charge of med school that's to blame. And I have a pretty good idea who that is.
  16. consuegra

    consuegra New Member


    Thank you for your answer to my post.

    I like your clarity: “The Methylation Protocol is without a doubt the most potentially dangerous CFS treatment ever.”

    While I wasn’t impressed with the “scientific” example you gave, it gave me impetus to look a little further into this – and to continue to do so.

    The last sentence of your post to me was gratuitious. You seem not to be able to avoid doing this. I cannot imagine that you did not get the drift of my message.

    I have trouble reconciling your objection to a few methylation supplements with your allegiance to Dr. Goldstein’s protocol.

    You let Dr. Goldstein put all sorts of items into your mouth on a non-scientific basis, supposedly adjusting “known pathways” in the brain. While I have no personal objection to anyone doing this process, the fact that you did work with Dr. Goldstein casts your objections to the methylation block theory in a disingenuous light. Certainly you must have been aware that the consequences of these treatments were unknown (and remain so) – so much so that no one has extended Dr. Goldstein’s treatment protocol (perhaps to the detriment of the rest of us).

    I tell you what further bothers me. It appears to me that there is animus in your remarks regarding Mr. van Konynenburg.

    Thanks again for your response.


  17. Waynesrhythm

    Waynesrhythm Member

    RE Nofool's comment: ""Dr. Yasko and her ilk are not credible scientists.""

    Pretty sorry state of affairs when one begins to categorize those with whom they disagree with in such condescending and disparaging terms.

    It's even sorrier when you consider this was directed toward a man who, from what I can tell, has a positive professional relationship with Dr. Yasko.
    [This Message was Edited on 07/20/2008]
  18. gapsych

    gapsych New Member

    "Pretty sorry state of affairs when one begins to categorize those with whom they disagree with in such condescending and disparaging terms"

    Are you talking about the several posts before yours? It certainly fits, doesn't it?

    I think Rich and nofool have shown us a good example how to agree to disagree.

    My opinion.

    Take care.

    You know the slacker who just complains, whines and is choosing not to get well. Life is really so simple, isn't it?
    [This Message was Edited on 07/20/2008]
  19. marti_zavala

    marti_zavala Member

    I am amazed that you are even on this board since it is based on supplements/herbs/non-traditional medicine.

    It is your quest in life to protect us from ourselves?

    Thank you, but no thanks. I am able to evaluate a protocol based on it's risks and rewards.

    There is very little that traditional medicine has to offer me and I am very skeptical at any of their proposed solutions.

    I personally prefer NOT to wait, therefore I research and attempt any protocol that I deem worthy. Will I make mistakes - definitely! But I choose to do that. If I had waited for tradtional medicine or had followed their suggestions, I would be dead by now, either by their hand or my own.

    I do think that your criticisms are heavy handed and not-so-veiled insults. Which is sad, because any good points you may have are lost since I mostly just skip your posts.

    You are a very gracious, patient man. I respect you for the way that you conduct yourself.

  20. gapsych

    gapsych New Member

    This board is about FM/CFS/ME which includes a myriad of approaches.

    Hope this helps.