Jump to content


Photo

Natural Treatment That Works (For Me)


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 AMxreborn

AMxreborn

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York
  • Interests:NeuroEndocrine Sciences, Nutraceuticals, Herbology, Computers, Politics, Spirituality.

Posted 27 August 2014 - 02:12 PM

Hank, it's very obvious you know absolutely nothing and are trying to compensate by antagonizing Jay. I'm guessing you have little man syndrome and an inferiority complex. Too bad for you but you'll be alright when the sirens knock on your door right?



#22 Ferret

Ferret

    Member

  • Members
  • 873 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 27 August 2014 - 09:51 PM

Hank, it's very obvious you know absolutely nothing and are trying to compensate by antagonizing Jay. I'm guessing you have little man syndrome and an inferiority complex. Too bad for you but you'll be alright when the sirens knock on your door right?

 

Are you hallucinating? Hank has not made a single post in this thread so to whom are you directing your antagonist comments?



#23 Midoriliem

Midoriliem

    Member

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 07:30 AM

I have a question that perhaps Chemist can answer (sorry, Chemist, if this seems like a busman's holiday)...I think you outlined why Gingko has a weak effect.  I had read/heard mixed reviews about it, as well as about Asian ginseng, melatonin, valerian, lemon balm, and chamomile. I tried rhodiola rosea but all it did was make me dissociate (I have PTSD and am prone to dissociation). The more I read, the more the "evidence" seems to contradict itself.  I was wondering if you had any clarity on the efficiacy of these supplements, or why rhodiola rosea could cause dissociation.  Thanks!



#24 Potato

Potato

    Member

  • Members
  • 327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, US
  • Interests:Chemistry, Medicine, Science, Computers, Traveling, Not Being Tired

Posted 01 September 2014 - 12:43 PM

I have a question that perhaps Chemist can answer (sorry, Chemist, if this seems like a busman's holiday)...I think you outlined why Gingko has a weak effect.  I had read/heard mixed reviews about it, as well as about Asian ginseng, melatonin, valerian, lemon balm, and chamomile. I tried rhodiola rosea but all it did was make me dissociate (I have PTSD and am prone to dissociation). The more I read, the more the "evidence" seems to contradict itself.  I was wondering if you had any clarity on the efficiacy of these supplements, or why rhodiola rosea could cause dissociation.  Thanks!

 

Melatonin can probably be excluded from that group as we know a great deal about its properties, effects, and efficacy due to the large numbers of studies involving it. There's still more to be learned but there's no question that endogenous melatonin is involved in regulation of the circadian rhythm and immune system, and that exogenous melatonin is able to activate the same pathways as endogenous melatonin.

 

Herbal supplements are problematic in terms of research. They may contain hundreds of potentially active compounds and samples may vary widely in the proportion of compounds. It's not a simple task to determine which of the compounds are active and which do nothing at all. Once an active compound is identified, you then have to figure out how it works in the body. Before starting down that road, it's therefore important to determine if the herbal supplement actually has any significant effects at all. You'll see a large number of these studies done and it's not uncommon for conflicting results to be present.

 

As far as postulating on why a particular supplement is or isn't efficacious, that would require having at least a general idea of the mechanism of action, should one exist. Often that kind of information simply is not known. That's the case for rhodiola rosea, where a handful of potentially active compounds have been identified but it's uncertain how these might exert effects in the body.

 

If you would like me to take a complete stab in the dark, then assuming PTSD involves dysregulation of the HPA axis and assuming spikes in norepinephrine/epinephrine can serve as triggers for your dissociative symptoms, then perhaps rhodiola rosea directly or indirectly alters levels of catecholamines. It's not an unreasonable guess, but completely unsubstantiated and therefore worthless except as a possible research topic.



#25 NetiNeti

NetiNeti

    Member

  • Members
  • 127 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:48 PM

I have a question that perhaps Chemist can answer (sorry, Chemist, if this seems like a busman's holiday)...I think you outlined why Gingko has a weak effect.  I had read/heard mixed reviews about it, as well as about Asian ginseng, melatonin, valerian, lemon balm, and chamomile. I tried rhodiola rosea but all it did was make me dissociate (I have PTSD and am prone to dissociation). The more I read, the more the "evidence" seems to contradict itself.  I was wondering if you had any clarity on the efficiacy of these supplements, or why rhodiola rosea could cause dissociation.  Thanks!

Rhodiola rosea works for me. It helps with my chronic fatigue and helps me sleep better. I think it also acts as a mild SSRI, which would explain that. 



#26 Midoriliem

Midoriliem

    Member

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 05:09 PM

I'm not sure if it worked for me or not. I do know that it seemed to reverse the effects of the catapres and zoloft I take for the PTSD, which is usually well managed. Trying to stay grounded and focused effectively wore me out. It was disappointing because I've heard good things about RR.

#27 IdiopathicHypersomniac

IdiopathicHypersomniac

    Member

  • Members
  • 329 posts

Posted 03 September 2014 - 10:48 PM

Melatonin can probably be excluded from that group as we know a great deal about its properties, effects, and efficacy due to the large numbers of studies involving it. There's still more to be learned but there's no question that endogenous melatonin is involved in regulation of the circadian rhythm and immune system, and that exogenous melatonin is able to activate the same pathways as endogenous melatonin.

 

Herbal supplements are problematic in terms of research. They may contain hundreds of potentially active compounds and samples may vary widely in the proportion of compounds. It's not a simple task to determine which of the compounds are active and which do nothing at all. Once an active compound is identified, you then have to figure out how it works in the body. Before starting down that road, it's therefore important to determine if the herbal supplement actually has any significant effects at all. You'll see a large number of these studies done and it's not uncommon for conflicting results to be present.

 

As far as postulating on why a particular supplement is or isn't efficacious, that would require having at least a general idea of  the mechanism of action, should one exist. Often that kind of information simply is not known. That's the case for rhodiola rosea, where a handful of potentially active compounds have been identified but it's uncertain how these might exert effects in the body.

 

If you would like me to take a complete stab in the dark, then assuming PTSD involves dysregulation of the HPA axis and assuming spikes in norepinephrine/epinephrine can serve as triggers for your dissociative symptoms, then perhaps rhodiola rosea directly or indirectly alters levels of catecholamines. It's not an unreasonable guess, but completely unsubstantiated and therefore worthless except as a possible research topic.

 

It is amazing that someone with your intelligence and in-depth knowledge of pharmacology (and the detailed effects of every psychoactive substance on neurochemistry) is always saying what won't work vs. what might.  As a scientist, surely you must have some theories and ideas of your own?

 

Just remember that none of the medications currently approved for narcolepsy were actually developed to treat narcolepsy (except maybe modafinil).  It is very likely that a combination of other medications that are already on the market for other conditions could be very helpful in the treatment of narcolepsy.

 

It all starts with an idea, and I am very disappointed that a resource in our community who is as gifted as you doesn't have any ideas other than "Adderall".



#28 Area-1255

Area-1255

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, USA
  • Interests:NeuroEndocrinology, Debating, Technology/CounterSurveillance.

Posted 03 September 2014 - 11:29 PM

It is amazing that someone with your intelligence and in-depth knowledge of pharmacology (and the detailed effects of every psychoactive substance on neurochemistry) is always saying what won't work vs. what might.  As a scientist, surely you must have some theories and ideas of your own?

 

Just remember that none of the medications currently approved for narcolepsy were actually developed to treat narcolepsy (except maybe modafinil).  It is very likely that a combination of other medications that are already on the market for other conditions could be very helpful in the treatment of narcolepsy.

 

It all starts with an idea, and I am very disappointed that a resource in our community who is as gifted as you doesn't have any ideas other than "Adderall".

 

 

With all due respect, just because someone is an "official" and has worked in a particular field, doesn't mean they are open-minded and diverse. Quite the contrary, I find that many officials and general M.D's I run into, have a serious lack of capacity to stay on course without following an incentive or suggestive agenda.

 

Now, I didn't come onto this board to over run all of the mainstream theories; indeed without these theories and current treatment suggestions we wouldn't even have a second base to work off of. I did however come here as a liberator of thoughts, and to encourage people to think outside the box. This is the most important, tunnel vision will not promote answers without being dangerously obstructed by the manifestations of lack of clarity.

 

People like Hank, and like Chemist, they have displayed an immense lack of vision, and their compensation was short-lived. I've come here, I've made my mark, point has been made - and justified.

 

Now I am back and will continue more, the spirits of this board need liberation, not confusion.

 

Most of you can stay as white sheep if you prefer, but if you can begin to see the beauty and magnificence of both worlds - than surely you can have it.
Let the dreams and desires of your subconscious dwell within you, and you will all find a better solution than what has been proposed on here alone.

 

In regard to the main topic, I think you will find a great deal of research done on herbal supplements is actually more established than mainstream remedies. In fact, it is only an illusion that drugs appear to be represented with studies of sound data. You can find a flaw in ANY study if you look hard enough. It still doesn't change ones individuality, nor take into consideration that a great deal of subjects may be prone to the "placebo" effect.

 

 

I find that there is potential in many studies, but this potential is often outweighed because the improper parameters were set, or that the groups might have been disqualified had it not been for covering up loose data. To be clear, I am talking about the lack of definition and analysis to a given patient, test subject or test animal.

Half of the studies barely take into consideration the anatomical differences between species. Then there's the incomplete portrait; and by this I am referring to a basic and overlooked ((paradoxical)) yes it does because here does that argument. Without taking into consideration that the effects of a given receptor, target enzyme or protein may be entirely indirect. 

 

So therefore most studies stand invalid because there is no valid comparison to show the size/effectiveness of a given treatment is not limited nor confined by INDIRECT EFFECTS. The concept of "downstream signaling" can be taken into consideration, and should be, heavily, especially considering the sensitivity of the CNS and the many mysteries of it, have ultimately lead to more questions than answers. A vast majority of which were then changed later.

 

Take for instance the study back in the early 90's, studies initially showed increased sugar intake in children was linked to hyperactivity, but the issue with the following (maybe in defense of profits) with that study is that they neglected to inform people that the control group of children had already been intaking about 100G of sugar a day, whereas the test group had over 300...so much that the differences were slight in comparison, enough to speak of plausible denial of the original findings.

 

http://latitudes.org...-hyperactivity/

http://www.health.ha...tivity-disorder

http://www.yalescien...children-hyper/

 

 

Now back to Narcolepsy -

~if you want to find a valid study, but have no course to operate from, how can we be assured of anything?~

 

I understand (and not with difficulty) that the science is solid but not always tangible. I've seen differentiations and distortions - so I know how to identify them. 

 

But I can say that experience is the most wonderful thing, and I can say with certainty that experimentation is the groundbreaking rule. I can understand that some of you make be skeptical of my testimonial, even cynical, but I also know that some of you have taken a great interest in alternative methods, and have seen the light, so to speak. I was and am the beginning of this new idea, that I hope will transform the entire board into a collective, collaborative thought, sought in unity and by curiosity - for genuine resolutions that may save someone a lifetime of despair. I will not cease, nor will I force information down anyone's throat, but I will speak firmly so that the foothold allows you to see the ground of a firm believer is one to be tested before the glory is seen. But that in seeing that glory, the honesty and legitimacy will prevail for a better tomorrow. 



#29 Ferret

Ferret

    Member

  • Members
  • 873 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 04 September 2014 - 07:52 AM

Remember that the OP stated "Natural Treatment that works (for me)". I think that those last two words are very important.
As you have stated, there are always flaws in some of the parameters of any study. Even well studied medicines do not perform perfectly nor as advertised on every individual.
If something works and the patient is happy and doesn't want to try something else then that is their prerogative. It doesn't make them wrong or close minded or negative. It is simply their comfort zone and they have a right to stay within that zone.
For others, and I will include myself among them, it has been a search for alternatives and constant experimentation for some semblance of normality that has been elusive. When you find something that works, then you REALLY don't want to rock your own boat...and it doesn't mean that we don't have both oars in the water.

#30 IdiopathicHypersomniac

IdiopathicHypersomniac

    Member

  • Members
  • 329 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 07:11 PM

The problem with the original post Ferret is that it doesn't say anything about how much to take of what, or when.  Taking too much of any natural plant based substance/supplement can kill.  Look at ephedra -- if somebody were looking for a natural way to combat narcolepsy, that would be it.  Xyrem at one time was sold in health food stores as a supplement like melatonin.  As for "studies", most of these researchers are just after their 15 minutes of fame, to get their name in the papers.

 

The general message is to play around with the various neurotransmitters that affect, or are affected by orexin.

 

If you look at major ones ... serotonin, dopamine, acetylcholine, noradenaline, histamine, GABA ... they all connect with orexin A and/or B.  Some of the connections are two-way streets and form a feedback loop, whereas others are one-way, and this is based on the limited information that we know now.

 

For example, Orexin B affects histamine levels, but not Orexin A.  But, Orexin B isn't the center of the universe.  It gets its marching orders from the hypothalamus' nucleus, which in turn runs off the brain's SCN ... our internal biological clock.  If you break any part of that "circuit", that's it.  It's like those old Christmas lights from the 60s where the whole line went dark when a single bulb burned out.  So, what does the brain do?  It tries to forge an alternate route just as you would in your car upon reaching an intersection closed because of an accident, but that alternate route may involve an unpaved road with a lot of bumps, or a lot of side streets with low speed limits.

 

With dopamine, it's the opposite ... A, not B.  With serotonin, A and B are both involved.  Acetylcholine ... A.

 

It's enough to make you want to pull your hair out and run into moving traffic.



#31 Midoriliem

Midoriliem

    Member

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 09:54 PM

Nobody was forcing anything down my throat- I was soliciting Chemist's advice and knowledge, as I know enough to be aware of how little I understand.  That being said, "playing around" with your brain's neurotransmitters is a really bad idea.  That's why I pay someone with a MD to tell me how to do it. 

 

The general message is to play around with the various neurotransmitters that affect, or are affected by orexin.

 

If you look at major ones ... serotonin, dopamine, acetylcholine, noradenaline, histamine, GABA ... they all connect with orexin A and/or B.  Some of the connections are two-way streets and form a feedback loop, whereas others are one-way, and this is based on the limited information that we know now.



#32 Ferret

Ferret

    Member

  • Members
  • 873 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 04 September 2014 - 10:30 PM

Nobody was forcing anything down my throat- I was soliciting Chemist's advice and knowledge, as I know enough to be aware of how little I understand.  That being said, "playing around" with your brain's neurotransmitters is a really bad idea.  That's why I pay someone with a MD to tell me how to do it. 

 

I hesitate to point out the obvious, but if you tried Rhodiola rosea then you have already been playing around with your brain's neurotransmitters as I'm pretty sure you didn't run that by your paid MD.

On the other hand, I totally understand your wanting to try it to see if it would help.

One of the things that really makes me worry, is some people's slap dap approach to doing something new or changing something. It takes time for changes to occur so that you see improvement. You should also only change one thing at a time or how will you ever know what it is that you changed that did or didn't work.

When you discontinue or wean yourself off one kind of medication, how long before your body is really over it?

How many times have people described an awful time with Xyrem UNTIL time has elapsed and they've worked their way up to the correct dose for them.

 

IH said

"It's enough to make you want to pull your hair out and run into moving traffic"

 

 

No kidding! My reality is that my hair's turned completely white and I now move so slowly that the traffic can avoid me. ;)

 

Edited to add...

http://www.herbwisdo...b-rhodiola.html

The comments (all) are very interesting...different dosages, different products, WHEN you take it and HOW...all these things are variables that will affect how it works (or doesn't).



#33 IdiopathicHypersomniac

IdiopathicHypersomniac

    Member

  • Members
  • 329 posts

Posted 04 September 2014 - 11:20 PM

Nobody was forcing anything down my throat- I was soliciting Chemist's advice and knowledge, as I know enough to be aware of how little I understand.  That being said, "playing around" with your brain's neurotransmitters is a really bad idea.  That's why I pay someone with a MD to tell me how to do it. 

 

Let me see ... you think MDs are Gods who know it all?  Chemist is a chemist, not a doctor.  Every time you drink a cup of coffee you're playing around with your neurochemisty.  Caffeine is an adenosine receptor antagonist, which sets off a chain reaction with a whole bunch of other stuff I can't even remember right now.

 

Doctors are people, just like us, who have to know a lot more than just narcolepsy.  They can't be experts in just narcolepsy, because it is so rare.  If even Stanford is getting it wrong, well, what does that tell you?  

 

What Ferret said is true, it can take 6 months for sleep to improve, and you can only change one thing at a time, but who can wait that long?  My doctor says this at almost every appointment.  Last week, he threw melatonin into my mix.  He would have preferred to use Rozerem (melatonin receptor agonist), but I'm in Canada and I can't get it here.



#34 Midoriliem

Midoriliem

    Member

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 05 September 2014 - 05:24 AM

Fwiw, I did ask my doctor about any potential supplements, including rhodiola rosea and I did know that caffeine affects adenosine, as well as increasing serotonin and dopamine. That being said, I have no idea what's going on that makes you so...reactive. But I don't want to figure that out when I'm not at work, and it's not worth my time. I'm out of this thread. Have fun.

#35 Ferret

Ferret

    Member

  • Members
  • 873 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 05 September 2014 - 05:15 PM

Fwiw, I did ask my doctor about any potential supplements, including rhodiola rosea and I did know that caffeine affects adenosine, as well as increasing serotonin and dopamine. That being said, I have no idea what's going on that makes you so...reactive. But I don't want to figure that out when I'm not at work, and it's not worth my time. I'm out of this thread. Have fun.

 

Sorry to hear that.

If you had let us know what brand you took, how much and when, it would possibly have been helpful to a lot of other people. Your time would have been worth it to them.



#36 IdiopathicHypersomniac

IdiopathicHypersomniac

    Member

  • Members
  • 329 posts

Posted 05 September 2014 - 08:50 PM

I just bought some today ... 150mg capsules - Webber Naturals.  I'll try them out, and let you know.  They're mild stimulants.  Maximum dose is 450mg, or 3 capsules.  I'll start with one in the AM, and see how that goes.  I've attached a picture of the label.

 

Attached File  20140905_214115.jpg   90.96KB   0 downloads



#37 Ferret

Ferret

    Member

  • Members
  • 873 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 05 September 2014 - 09:03 PM

OK! I hope it helps you. Maybe we can get feedback from some others who have tried it and like it. I believe Neti is a fan of it.
Nice shot of the label and awesome that the warnings are so clear.

#38 IdiopathicHypersomniac

IdiopathicHypersomniac

    Member

  • Members
  • 329 posts

Posted 06 September 2014 - 04:01 PM

I tried 150mg ... feels like very weak Provigil.  Similar to betahistine too, only weaker, so I'd say it's a histamine booster.  No harm in trying it.  I'll try 300mg tomorrow.



#39 NetiNeti

NetiNeti

    Member

  • Members
  • 127 posts

Posted 06 September 2014 - 04:49 PM

I take one this one, one a day: 

http://www.amazon.co...9CJX8NQGBS1QCGN



#40 IdiopathicHypersomniac

IdiopathicHypersomniac

    Member

  • Members
  • 329 posts

Posted 06 September 2014 - 06:13 PM

I was going to buy that one, but I thought the dose (500mg) might be too high to start.  I didn't notice much of an effect from it at 150mg though, but there was a stimulating effect.