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.
WARNINGS --- LODOSYN (Carbidopa) has no antiparkinsonian effect
Our approach does not use carbidopa or benserazide which improves Parkinson’s disease management in the following ways:
1.) This approach does not deplete vitamin B6
2.) This approach does not deplete B6. Vitamin B6 depletion increases the death rate when all causes are considered.
3.) This approach 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.) This approach 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. This approach 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.) This approach removes concerns that carbidopa depletion of vitamin B6 may interfere with the function of over 300 enzymes and proteins.
7.) This approach 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.) This approach 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 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.