How is this protocol approach different?
Standard medical treatment recognizes only one thing as most being the most effective Parkinson’s disease treatment available, L-dopa. All other approaches are not as effective.
When appropriate our doctors prescribe care that is based on two recently published double-blind studies posted by the National Institute of Health (NIH) on its website. The NIH position is that this alternative approach to Parkinson’s disease without carbidopa or benserazide is “similar to” or “as effective and safe as” L-dopa with carbidopa or L-dopa with benserazide.
In utilizing this NIH recognized approach, our approach is unique. It goes beyond the standard approach of administering one amino acid. This practice that can deplete other systems causing induction of multiple nutritional deficiencies. The approach used by our doctors addresses the 29 causes of nutritional deficiency associated with Parkinson’s disease, L-dopa, and carbidopa.
While the foundation of our patient care utilizes an approach recognized by the National Institute of Health as “similar to” or “as effective and safe as” L-dopa with carbidopa or L-dopa with benserazide, our overall approach is unique. It addresses the 29 causes of nutritional deficiency that can be associated with Parkinson’s disease, L-dopa, and carbidopa.
Our approach does not use carbidopa or benserazide which improves Parkinson’s disease management in the following ways:
1.) Carbidopa can deplete vitamin B6
2.) Vitamin B6 depletion increases the death rate when all causes are considered.
3.) Removes concerns that Parkinson’s disease, L-dopa, and carbidopa can induce nutritional deficiencies whose symptoms are identical to Parkinson’s disease symptoms getting worse.
4.) Removes concerns that carbidopa may accelerate fat soluble neurotoxin-induced brain damage secondary to glutathione collapse from carbidopa-induced vitamin B6 depletion.
5.) As noted in our peer-reviewed writings posted by the National Institute of Health on its website, nutrients when administered properly have no side effects. Removes concerns that L-dopa and carbidopa may induce nutritional depletion side effects which in turn is evidence of converting the nutrients to a drug.
6.) Removes concerns that carbidopa depletion of vitamin B6 may interfere with the function of over 300 enzymes and proteins.
7.) Removes concerns that symptoms previously thought to be L-dopa induced permanent and irreversible dyskinesias and choreiform movement disorder are not and are now manageable during treatment.
8.) Removes concerns relating to a potential link between carbidopa, vitamin B6 depletion and the increasing Parkinson’s disease death rate (See the “Our Unique Approach” page on this website).
The approach we have developed is not a self-treatment approach on any level. Even medical doctors who have Parkinson’s disease, who are actively caring for Parkinson’s disease patients are unable to achieve optimal results with self-treatment. Improper administration of these nutrients can induce other deterioration and nutritional deficiencies.
The Non-Scientific Approach
Three medical doctors worked several hours a day, every day for three months to write the carbidopa B6 death paper. The death data from the Center for Disease control took many hours to analyze. We are aware of an individual with no medical license and a loud website who contacted the Centers for Disease Control after reading our carbidopa B6 death paper. He found out we were correct with the death data. He then claimed the CDC communicated him the increase in death rate could be from more people diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. This one is like comparing apples and oranges. The data we reported was the prevalence of patients with Parkinson’s disease per 100,000. This data is not affected by diagnosing more patients. For example, if six patients in 1,000 people have a disease, then 60 patients in 10,000 will have the disease. Diagnosing more patients has nothing to do with what we have reported. Loud websites throwing around facts like this only serves to confuse people looking for valid information. The non-medical owner of the website’s observations is only smoke and mirrors as covered in the next paragraph.
The proper approach for expressing disagreement with a formal scientific paper is writing a formal peer-reviewed rebuttal, in this case to the National Institute of Health standards. There has been no formal scientific challenge to this paper. Those with interests in protecting these drugs at all cost, independent of the facts, have posted smoke and mirror internet opinions that are not formal scientific writings. We are aware of the embellishment of second-hand facts not related to the science discussed on this webpage that has brought people reading them to anger. Everyone, take a deep breath. These are important observations which need attention. Our papers meet the National Institute of Health (NIH) standard for classification as peer-reviewed scientific medical papers. No one person wrote the six Parkinson’s disease papers. For these papers to be published required, seven medical doctor authors, eighteen medical doctor peer-reviewers and two editors-in-chief, twenty-seven highly skilled and highly trained people had to approve of the contents before publication.