1569 replies to this topic

[resveratrol_guy]

I will add the caveat that Jan's speech intelligibility fluctuates quite a bit, as do other symptoms, even throughout the day.

 

If this is accurate, it's a potential intervention lever. In particular, if you obsessively measure her dietary inputs (and perhaps even blood chemistry), then you might be able to find a way to maximize her time in the "yellow" zone as opposed to the "red" zone.

 

In defense of dihexa, monotherapy for neurodegenerative disease simply does not work (even though that's the only practical way to isolate cause-and-effect, which is the goal of this thread), as I'm sure you realize. If there is an answer to Jan's illness, it likely resides in attacking multiple targets simultaneously, along the lines of the now-famous Alzheimer's reversal study.

 

With that in mind, what might be useful at this point is to start taking speech samples (headset with same mic position every time etc.), then after a few days begin intervention with a supplement likely to complement dihexa, e.g. c60oo, nicotinamide riboside, lipidated curcumin, etc. (At this point, I doubt there's much more dihexa effect to be had, barring a dosage hike of uncertain safety ramifications.) If risk aversion were thrown out the window, then I think that an injection of CD34+ stem cells into the striatum could very well synergize with dihexa to produce obvious benefits; this hypothesis is offered more to those who play with rats, than as advice to Jan personally.

Edited by resveratrol_guy, 30 November 2014 - 02:37 PM.

[jabowery]

In defense of dihexa, monotherapy for neurodegenerative disease simply does not work

 

(even though that's the only practical way to isolate cause-and-effect, which is the goal of this thread), as I'm sure you realize. If there is an answer to Jan's illness, it likely resides in attacking multiple targets simultaneously, along the lines of the now-famous Alzheimer's reversal study.

 

The cause of Huntington's Disease is known and it is a specific mutant gene producing a specific mutant protein.  Silence the gene and you stop the progression of the disease and even get reversal.  The cause of Alzheimer's is so controversial that the study you cite disagrees with a relatively broad scientific consensus about the role of amyloid proteins in Alzheimer's etiology.

 

Moreover, the empirical evidence is that Dihexa monotherapy does work in animal models of a variety of neurological deficits.  Empirical evidence should not be ignored even if we haven't conducted human trials.

 

As for your unfounded assertion that I'm subjecting Jan to undue risk by continuing Dihexa treatment, with myself as "royal taster", I can only say, join be sure to bring some cannon fodder willing to die to enforce your opinion.

[serp777]

Does anyone know what part of the brain this increases bdnf?

 

Animals chronically exposed to drugs of abuse show increased levels of BDNF in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) of the brain, and when BDNF is injected directly into the VTA of rats, the animals act as if they are dependent on opiates

 

it's possible that this could be addictive if it stimulates BDNF in the wrong area of the brain./

[resveratrol_guy]

 

The cause of Huntington's Disease is known and it is a specific mutant gene producing a specific mutant protein.  Silence the gene and you stop the progression of the disease and even get reversal.  The cause of Alzheimer's is so controversial that the study you cite disagrees with a relatively broad scientific consensus about the role of amyloid proteins in Alzheimer's etiology.

 

Moreover, the empirical evidence is that Dihexa monotherapy does work in animal models of a variety of neurological deficits.  Empirical evidence should not be ignored even if we haven't conducted human trials.

 

As for your unfounded assertion that I'm subjecting Jan to undue risk by continuing Dihexa treatment, with myself as "royal taster", I can only say, join be sure to bring some cannon fodder willing to die to enforce your opinion.

 

 

Assuming you're right about Huntington's having a single mutant gene as its cause does not mean that monotherapy will work, particularly if we don't yet have any means of repairing that gene. (Adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) and/or zinc finger nucleases might be able to do this in many years, but I would be surprised if these are even being tested on Huntington's lab animals, at this point.) So we're stuck with the Alzheimer's "machine gun" approach of trying to correct secondary effects of the primary cause, but applied to Huntington's.

 

Yes, dihexa did significantly help in the scopolamine-poisoned rodents, but it didn't bring them back in line with the control group. So monotherapy helped, but other treatments would be required in order to achieve a cure, if that's even possible. This is what I meant by my vague comment that "monotherapy doesn't work".

 

I don't understand your last sentence, but in any event, my only point about risk was that hiking the dose would of course hike the risk. But I'm the last person to tell you that an informed adult should be prevented from taking risks which they perceive as acceptable.

 

Anyway if you continue your trial with Jan I look forward to reading the results.

Edited by resveratrol_guy, 02 December 2014 - 03:43 AM.

[resveratrol_guy]

"It was amazing. The axons kept growing and growing."

 

It seems to me that growing both dendrites (via dihexa) and axons (via ISP) might be better than the former in isolation. Perhaps one of you nutcases brave souls would care to tinker with this.

 

[jabowery]

 

 

The cause of Huntington's Disease is known and it is a specific mutant gene producing a specific mutant protein.  Silence the gene and you stop the progression of the disease and even get reversal.  The cause of Alzheimer's is so controversial that the study you cite disagrees with a relatively broad scientific consensus about the role of amyloid proteins in Alzheimer's etiology.

 

Moreover, the empirical evidence is that Dihexa monotherapy does work in animal models of a variety of neurological deficits.  Empirical evidence should not be ignored even if we haven't conducted human trials.

 

As for your unfounded assertion that I'm subjecting Jan to undue risk by continuing Dihexa treatment, with myself as "royal taster", I can only say, join be sure to bring some cannon fodder willing to die to enforce your opinion.

 

 

Assuming you're right about Huntington's having a single mutant gene as its cause does not mean that monotherapy will work, particularly if we don't yet have any means of repairing that gene. (Adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) and/or zinc finger nucleases might be able to do this in many years, but I would be surprised if these are even being tested on Huntington's lab animals, at this point.) So we're stuck with the Alzheimer's "machine gun" approach of trying to correct secondary effects of the primary cause, but applied to Huntington's.

 

Yes, dihexa did significantly help in the scopolamine-poisoned rodents, but it didn't bring them back in line with the control group. So monotherapy helped, but other treatments would be required in order to achieve a cure, if that's even possible. This is what I meant by my vague comment that "monotherapy doesn't work".

 

I don't understand your last sentence, but in any event, my only point about risk was that hiking the dose would of course hike the risk. But I'm the last person to tell you that an informed adult should be prevented from taking risks which they perceive as acceptable.

 

Anyway if you continue your trial with Jan I look forward to reading the results.

 

Well your ignorance of the state of the art in gene silencing therapies for Huntington's Disease is matched only by your distortion of the scientific research into Dihexa.

 

Rather than continually try to correct your apparently indefatigably arrogant assertion of your ignorance of these matters I'll simply advise people to ignore everything you say.

[resveratrol_guy]

Well your ignorance of the state of the art in gene silencing therapies for Huntington's Disease is matched only by your distortion of the scientific research into Dihexa.

 

Rather than continually try to correct your apparently indefatigably arrogant assertion of your ignorance of these matters I'll simply advise people to ignore everything you say.

 

 

I honestly have no idea why you're so angry. If you can construct a useful scientific argument as to why I've "distorted" dihexa merely by summarizing one aspect of the rodent results, then it would be useful for us to hear it. Maybe you're right, but why not explain yourself instead of pontificating? I don't want dihexa to fail either, but we need to see the data, especially in humans, which is what this thread is all about.

 

I have little doubt that someone in your situation is more familiar with Huntington's than I am, or most of us, for that matter. But I don't know why linking to various gene silencing technologies still being researched in 2014 is "indefatigably arrogant", but if you have better knowledge, then why not start your own thread and share what you know? That would be a lot more useful to many people here than "ignore him!" which is rather pompous and definitely not in the spirit of scientific discourse. You seem to think I'm trying to fight with you for some reason. I'm not. Get over it.

[Nemo888]

The animal testing was really not that impressive in the last study. To the point there may not be another. Science is based on healthy skepticism. In real science skepticism is respected.

Edited by Nemo888, 07 December 2014 - 01:46 AM.

[StevesPetRat]

The animal testing was really not that impressive in the last study. To the point there may not be another. Science is based on healthy skepticism. In real science skepticism is respected.

For the slothful amongst us, do you happen to have a link?

Thanks.

 

[megatron]

 

The animal testing was really not that impressive in the last study. To the point there may not be another. Science is based on healthy skepticism. In real science skepticism is respected.

For the slothful amongst us, do you happen to have a link?

Thanks.

 

 

http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=685857

[sparkk51]

Looking at the study now, didn't HGF perform better than Dihexa?

[xks201]

resveratrol_guy,

 

Doubt it's fair to be passing judgement on someone who is trying to helps someone who the medical community has thrown their hands in the air over and given up on. I haven't read the whole thread but it's easy to say things of that nature when this isn't your partner. Perhaps your concern with scientific excellency might differ too if you had something like that happen to you.

Edited by xks201, 07 December 2014 - 07:03 PM.

[megatron]

Looking at the study now, didn't HGF perform better than Dihexa?

 

Apparently the healthy rats who were fed dihexa did worse than placebo and the scopolamine/dihexa group 

[serp777]

resveratrol_guy,

 

Doubt it's fair to be passing judgement on someone who is trying to helps someone who the medical community has thrown their hands in the air over and given up on. I haven't read the whole thread but it's easy to say things of that nature when this isn't your partner. Perhaps your concern with scientific excellency might differ too if you had something like that happen to you.

I don't see how that's relevant. This guy can take any substance he wants but resevertrol guy was just trying to make a point regarding the scientific question ability of this substance. People on this forum tend to have a very very strong selection bias. A study that supports a substance will be almost immediately accepted, but when a negative study is presented, the community feels the need to nit pick every small detail and reject it on that basis so the substance in question seems more promising. Science would normally consider a substance to be guilty until proven innocent, but this forum tends to think a substance is innocent until proven guilty. 

[FW900]

 

Looking at the study now, didn't HGF perform better than Dihexa?

 

Apparently the healthy rats who were fed dihexa did worse than placebo and the scopolamine/dihexa group 

 

 

Oh shit.
 

[jabowery]

 

resveratrol_guy,

 

Doubt it's fair to be passing judgement on someone who is trying to helps someone who the medical community has thrown their hands in the air over and given up on. I haven't read the whole thread but it's easy to say things of that nature when this isn't your partner. Perhaps your concern with scientific excellency might differ too if you had something like that happen to you.

I don't see how that's relevant. This guy can take any substance he wants but resevertrol guy was just trying to make a point regarding the scientific question ability of this substance. People on this forum tend to have a very very strong selection bias. A study that supports a substance will be almost immediately accepted, but when a negative study is presented, the community feels the need to nit pick every small detail and reject it on that basis so the substance in question seems more promising. Science would normally consider a substance to be guilty until proven innocent, but this forum tends to think a substance is innocent until proven guilty. 

 

 

More of the same distortion.

 

Look, if you're going to impugn my judgment with terms like "very very strong selection bias", then at least have the decency to show me one empirical result where rats did not show reduced cognitive deficit after Dihexa monotherapy.  Otherwise, distance yourselves from commenting on my particular situation.

 

Quoting the most recent study

 

"Dihexa has recently been shown to augment the cognitive abilities of aged and scopolamine treated rats as assessed using the Morris water maze task (McCoy et al., 2013)."

 

http://m.jpet.aspetj...218735.full.pdf

 

There was nothing reported in that study that contradicted the prior study in this regard.

 

Put up or shut up.

[serp777]

 

 

resveratrol_guy,

 

Doubt it's fair to be passing judgement on someone who is trying to helps someone who the medical community has thrown their hands in the air over and given up on. I haven't read the whole thread but it's easy to say things of that nature when this isn't your partner. Perhaps your concern with scientific excellency might differ too if you had something like that happen to you.

I don't see how that's relevant. This guy can take any substance he wants but resevertrol guy was just trying to make a point regarding the scientific question ability of this substance. People on this forum tend to have a very very strong selection bias. A study that supports a substance will be almost immediately accepted, but when a negative study is presented, the community feels the need to nit pick every small detail and reject it on that basis so the substance in question seems more promising. Science would normally consider a substance to be guilty until proven innocent, but this forum tends to think a substance is innocent until proven guilty. 

 

 

More of the same distortion.

 

Look, if you're going to impugn my judgment with terms like "very very strong selection bias", then at least have the decency to show me one empirical result where rats did not show reduced cognitive deficit after Dihexa monotherapy.  Otherwise, distance yourselves from commenting on my particular situation.

 

Quoting the most recent study

 

"Dihexa has recently been shown to augment the cognitive abilities of aged and scopolamine treated rats as assessed using the Morris water maze task (McCoy et al., 2013)."

 

http://m.jpet.aspetj...218735.full.pdf

 

There was nothing reported in that study that contradicted the prior study in this regard.

 

Put up or shut up.

 

 

These are just a couple of entry studies involving a few dozen rats; it doesn't sufficiently reflect safety or efficacy in humans at all. Is it promising and worth future research? Yes. Is it shown to be safe for human consumption now? Absolutely not.

 

For example, I noticed Dihexa supposedly increases expression of HGF, but other studies have shown that "Overexpression of HGF and c-Met, at both protein and mRNA levels, was correlated with depth of invasion, lymph node metastases and overall AJCC stage."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22495710

 

And from the study you linked

 

"Results indicate that it is this ability to activate HGF that is responsible for both the

marked synaptogenic and pro-cognitive activities of these compounds."

 

It could possibly accelerate latent cancer or maybe even lead to it, but we won't know until human trials and proper blood analyses and statistics. I certainly wouldn't take a risk on some random substance based on a couple of rat studies, especially since it messes with growth. Or it might cause cancer a few months or years down the road. But rats don't necessarily live long enough for those kinds of effects to become visible

 

I mean it seems like you're desperate to take this substance though and that anyone who questions this substance is attacking you or something. No need to get so defensive over a molecule. It's not distortion, it's caution.

Edited by serp777, 08 December 2014 - 10:08 AM.

[resveratrol_guy]

I'm not here to play FDA nanny and prevent people from taking any particular substance, as long as they're not planning to endanger the lives of others as a result of doing so. Were I in Jan's situation, I would be taking dihexa too. I don't know how I gave the impression of "passing judgment" on anyone in this respect, but I have certainly been using my judgment to evaluate the data.

It's clear from the rat study that under some circumstances, dihexa is capable of generating dendritic spines. That's hugely significant and deserves more research. But there are some red flags here as others have indicated above. Finding out what it does in humans is the important question of this thread, because realistically there won't be a comparable "official" human trial for decades.

So anyone on this thread with unembellished human data to report is enouraged to do so, as objectively as possible in light of the broad-spectrum action of this drug. Obviously, even if we are completely impartial in our reports, they will still be biased, if for no other reason than that cancer risk ramifications will take years to manifest. But we need to learn whatever we can as soon as possible for obvious reasons. We're not going to achieve "scientific excellence" here because the effects are so difficult to isolate, but if we can identify some common effects that would be useful. So I would like to move beyond this issue and allow the reports to flow.
 

...and in the spirit of "getting on with it", I've created a separate thread dedicated to ISP for axonal growth, which might in theory complement dihexa. [Unfortunately the very name of this drug triggers an autolink on Longecity for "internet service provider", so the thread link is the correct one.]

 

Edited by resveratrol_guy, 08 December 2014 - 05:23 PM.

[Flex]

 

 

It could possibly accelerate latent cancer or maybe even lead to it, but we won't know until human trials and proper blood analyses and statistics. I certainly wouldn't take a risk on some random substance based on a couple of rat studies, especially since it messes with growth. Or it might cause cancer a few months or years down the road. But rats don't necessarily live long enough for those kinds of effects to become visible

 

I mean it seems like you're desperate to take this substance though and that anyone who questions this substance is attacking you or something. No need to get so defensive over a molecule. It's not distortion, it's caution.

 

 

This is what I´ve posted nearly a Year ago: by typing c-met or HGF in ncbi, You´ll get a lot of cancer results. So "probably" not inducing cancer per se, but probably a very good enhancer.

And cancer cells do develop on a daily basis:

Immune system kills spontaneous blood cancer cells every day

http://www.medicalne...cles/272092.php

 

Furthermore, I also asked a few months ago: what if Dihexa brings perresistently chaos in the synaptic structure.

But just nemo and 1 or 2 other responded to it.
 

As said, I´m trying not to be a scaremonger, but actually no one of us is a scientits or a doctor. So nobody of us can estimate this in detail.

Edited by Flex, 08 December 2014 - 06:34 PM.

[mindpatch]

I'm not here to play FDA nanny and prevent people from taking any particular substance, as long as they're not planning to endanger the lives of others as a result of doing so. Were I in Jan's situation, I would be taking dihexa too. I don't know how I gave the impression of "passing judgment" on anyone in this respect, but I have certainly been using my judgment to evaluate the data.

It's clear from the rat study that under some circumstances, dihexa is capable of generating dendritic spines. That's hugely significant and deserves more research. But there are some red flags here as others have indicated above. Finding out what it does in humans is the important question of this thread, because realistically there won't be a comparable "official" human trial for decades.

So anyone on this thread with unembellished human data to report is enouraged to do so, as objectively as possible in light of the broad-spectrum action of this drug. Obviously, even if we are completely impartial in our reports, they will still be biased, if for no other reason than that cancer risk ramifications will take years to manifest. But we need to learn whatever we can as soon as possible for obvious reasons. We're not going to achieve "scientific excellence" here because the effects are so difficult to isolate, but if we can identify some common effects that would be useful. So I would like to move beyond this issue and allow the reports to flow.
 

...and in the spirit of "getting on with it", I've created a separate thread dedicated to ISP for axonal growth, which might in theory complement dihexa. [Unfortunately the very name of this drug triggers an autolink on Longecity for "internet service provider", so the thread link is the correct one.]

You haven't passed judgment, and your comments have been very measured and reasonable and circumspect.  As they should.  I think when it comes to loved ones for whom a substance might provide hope, it's understandable that there are raw emotions.  I think what you've been contributing so far is valuable.  

[HappyShoe]

Is there an update on the status of the group buy? It's been almost 7 weeks since you said you were waiting for Thursday to get your scales, 6 weeks since that Thursday. I see you've logged in and posted yesterday, but still haven't answered my last two PMs.  I'm not impatient, and I don't want to badger you, I'd just like an update, as I'm quite sure it would be greatly appreciated by myself and others involved as well. =/

[jabowery]

 

 

 

resveratrol_guy,

 

Doubt it's fair to be passing judgement on someone who is trying to helps someone who the medical community has thrown their hands in the air over and given up on. I haven't read the whole thread but it's easy to say things of that nature when this isn't your partner. Perhaps your concern with scientific excellency might differ too if you had something like that happen to you.

I don't see how that's relevant. This guy can take any substance he wants but resevertrol guy was just trying to make a point regarding the scientific question ability of this substance. People on this forum tend to have a very very strong selection bias. A study that supports a substance will be almost immediately accepted, but when a negative study is presented, the community feels the need to nit pick every small detail and reject it on that basis so the substance in question seems more promising. Science would normally consider a substance to be guilty until proven innocent, but this forum tends to think a substance is innocent until proven guilty. 

 

 

More of the same distortion.

 

Look, if you're going to impugn my judgment with terms like "very very strong selection bias", then at least have the decency to show me one empirical result where rats did not show reduced cognitive deficit after Dihexa monotherapy.  Otherwise, distance yourselves from commenting on my particular situation.

 

Quoting the most recent study

 

"Dihexa has recently been shown to augment the cognitive abilities of aged and scopolamine treated rats as assessed using the Morris water maze task (McCoy et al., 2013)."

 

http://m.jpet.aspetj...218735.full.pdf

 

There was nothing reported in that study that contradicted the prior study in this regard.

 

Put up or shut up.

 

 

These are just a couple of entry studies involving a few dozen rats; it doesn't sufficiently reflect safety or efficacy in humans at all. Is it promising and worth future research? Yes. Is it shown to be safe for human consumption now? Absolutely not.

 

For example, I noticed Dihexa supposedly increases expression of HGF, but other studies have shown that "Overexpression of HGF and c-Met, at both protein and mRNA levels, was correlated with depth of invasion, lymph node metastases and overall AJCC stage."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22495710

 

And from the study you linked

 

"Results indicate that it is this ability to activate HGF that is responsible for both the

marked synaptogenic and pro-cognitive activities of these compounds."

 

It could possibly accelerate latent cancer or maybe even lead to it, but we won't know until human trials and proper blood analyses and statistics. I certainly wouldn't take a risk on some random substance based on a couple of rat studies, especially since it messes with growth. Or it might cause cancer a few months or years down the road. But rats don't necessarily live long enough for those kinds of effects to become visible

 

I mean it seems like you're desperate to take this substance though and that anyone who questions this substance is attacking you or something. No need to get so defensive over a molecule. It's not distortion, it's caution.

 

 

I see.  So since you can't put up and you can't shut up you change the subject.

 

Genius.

[jabowery]

 

I'm not here to play FDA nanny and prevent people from taking any particular substance, as long as they're not planning to endanger the lives of others as a result of doing so. Were I in Jan's situation, I would be taking dihexa too. I don't know how I gave the impression of "passing judgment" on anyone in this respect, but I have certainly been using my judgment to evaluate the data.

It's clear from the rat study that under some circumstances, dihexa is capable of generating dendritic spines. That's hugely significant and deserves more research. But there are some red flags here as others have indicated above. Finding out what it does in humans is the important question of this thread, because realistically there won't be a comparable "official" human trial for decades.

So anyone on this thread with unembellished human data to report is enouraged to do so, as objectively as possible in light of the broad-spectrum action of this drug. Obviously, even if we are completely impartial in our reports, they will still be biased, if for no other reason than that cancer risk ramifications will take years to manifest. But we need to learn whatever we can as soon as possible for obvious reasons. We're not going to achieve "scientific excellence" here because the effects are so difficult to isolate, but if we can identify some common effects that would be useful. So I would like to move beyond this issue and allow the reports to flow.
 

...and in the spirit of "getting on with it", I've created a separate thread dedicated to ISP for axonal growth, which might in theory complement dihexa. [Unfortunately the very name of this drug triggers an autolink on Longecity for "internet service provider", so the thread link is the correct one.]

You haven't passed judgment, and your comments have been very measured and reasonable and circumspect.  As they should.  I think when it comes to loved ones for whom a substance might provide hope, it's understandable that there are raw emotions.  I think what you've been contributing so far is valuable.  

 

 

No what I'm reacting to are technically reckless comments (which I will describe as such shortly) that could be used to motivate busy-bodies programmed by LifeTime Television role models to interfere in my marriage and possibly place me in legal and my wife's life in jeopardy using the "social services" system.  This is the real world I'm talking about, not some Internet discussion group where people can palaver to stroke their egos.

 

If you think this is "paranoid" of me, let me give you an example of just how "paranoid" I am:

 

Huntington's Disease is characterized by a stage during which the victim becomes genuinely psychotic, including paranoid (persecution) delusions.  Tragically, this stage occurs prior to the government's recognized standards for disability kicking in and also time during which the victim still has driving privileges.  This makes them a threat to life and limb in the community both to themselves and others.  Last year, for example, an HD victim in Chicago drove down the freeway shooting people.  During this stage my wife was suffering from the suspicion that I was in a conspiracy with my physician brother to kill her.  In the process of attempting to qualify for medical disability I sought out the help of a social worker whose job it is to assist in such matters.  My wife, as is routine, met with this social worker in my absence.  I don't know what my wife told her but this social worker decided that it was appropriate to "diagnose" me as "psychotic" and do so in a meeting including my wife.  Even if being a social worker qualified one to issue a DSM diagnosis, it is utterly inappropriate to speak of it in front of a spouse in that setting -- even if the spouse is psychologically normal.  In this situation the social worker undermined my ability to dissuade Jan from driving, reinforced Jan's psychosis and thereby placed both Jan and the community in danger of life and limb, not to mention putting our marriage in jeopardy.  Fortunately, the social worker didn't follow her Lifetime TV Special role models so far as to attempt to have me incarcerated for abusing my wife for physically restraining her during her psychotic episodes -- episodes during which she drew blood from me.  Subsequent to this, after I had been admonishing Jan to stop driving, she actually grazed a pedestrian who, fortunately, recognized her and reported the incident to me which helped me dissuade her from driving -- with the help of local law enforcement.

 

These monstrous busybodies are very real features of the world in which we live and they don't need help from internet busybodies who can't tell the difference between scopolamine deficits and aged deficits in rat models or, alternatively, respond to challenges to substantiate their false accusations of confirmation bias by instead responding with lectures on the risks of bypassing FDA safety trials to people confronting serious tradeoffs in the "safety" of tolerating progression of a deadly disease.

[VERITAS INCORRUPTUS]

It is a scant few who have any clue what it is like to be in a warzone of any sort, such as this.  

For those who have not been, indeed best keep certain opinions and judgments to one's self.

Thank whatever forces you choose to or otherwise 'dumb luck' to not have to be within such.

Peace!

[Plasticperson]

u should try shooting it up.. i bet that'll work 

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

resveratrol_guy,

 

Doubt it's fair to be passing judgement on someone who is trying to helps someone who the medical community has thrown their hands in the air over and given up on. I haven't read the whole thread but it's easy to say things of that nature when this isn't your partner. Perhaps your concern with scientific excellency might differ too if you had something like that happen to you.

I don't see how that's relevant. This guy can take any substance he wants but resevertrol guy was just trying to make a point regarding the scientific question ability of this substance. People on this forum tend to have a very very strong selection bias. A study that supports a substance will be almost immediately accepted, but when a negative study is presented, the community feels the need to nit pick every small detail and reject it on that basis so the substance in question seems more promising. Science would normally consider a substance to be guilty until proven innocent, but this forum tends to think a substance is innocent until proven guilty. 

 

 

More of the same distortion.

 

Look, if you're going to impugn my judgment with terms like "very very strong selection bias", then at least have the decency to show me one empirical result where rats did not show reduced cognitive deficit after Dihexa monotherapy.  Otherwise, distance yourselves from commenting on my particular situation.

 

Quoting the most recent study

 

"Dihexa has recently been shown to augment the cognitive abilities of aged and scopolamine treated rats as assessed using the Morris water maze task (McCoy et al., 2013)."

 

http://m.jpet.aspetj...218735.full.pdf

 

There was nothing reported in that study that contradicted the prior study in this regard.

 

Put up or shut up.

 

 

These are just a couple of entry studies involving a few dozen rats; it doesn't sufficiently reflect safety or efficacy in humans at all. Is it promising and worth future research? Yes. Is it shown to be safe for human consumption now? Absolutely not.

 

For example, I noticed Dihexa supposedly increases expression of HGF, but other studies have shown that "Overexpression of HGF and c-Met, at both protein and mRNA levels, was correlated with depth of invasion, lymph node metastases and overall AJCC stage."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22495710

 

And from the study you linked

 

"Results indicate that it is this ability to activate HGF that is responsible for both the

marked synaptogenic and pro-cognitive activities of these compounds."

 

It could possibly accelerate latent cancer or maybe even lead to it, but we won't know until human trials and proper blood analyses and statistics. I certainly wouldn't take a risk on some random substance based on a couple of rat studies, especially since it messes with growth. Or it might cause cancer a few months or years down the road. But rats don't necessarily live long enough for those kinds of effects to become visible

 

I mean it seems like you're desperate to take this substance though and that anyone who questions this substance is attacking you or something. No need to get so defensive over a molecule. It's not distortion, it's caution.

 

 

I see.  So since you can't put up and you can't shut up you change the subject.

 

Genius.

 

So you're open to speculative studies involving only a couple dozen rodents, and yet you're ignoring the study which says that hgf is linked to cancerous metastases by making some ridiculous red herring about putting up when i just linked you a study indicating possible issues with activating hgf.

 

Again you're welcome to take whatever drug you'd like but this drug is certainly not safe and ready for consumption.

 

Sarcasm also doesn't help your argument at all. There's no need to get so defensive about an atomic configuration.

[StevesPetRat]

So you're open to speculative studies involving only a couple dozen rodents, and yet you're ignoring the study which says that hgf is linked to cancerous metastases by making some ridiculous red herring about putting up when i just linked you a study indicating possible issues with activating hgf.

Everybody around here worries so much about cancer. Just load up on C60oo and forget about it.

Personally, I'm stoked for the anti-inflammatory benefits of HGF activation!

It could be a boon for kidney disease

 

Maybe it will melt away cellulite!

 

NF-kB suppression

 

Cardioprotective effects

 

Mine's in the mail. Suck it, haters!

 

Edit: This is the internet, so I guess I should clarify that this is just supposed to be a slightly informative bit of good-natured ribbing.

Edited by StevesPetRat, 09 December 2014 - 08:23 AM.

[serp777]

 

So you're open to speculative studies involving only a couple dozen rodents, and yet you're ignoring the study which says that hgf is linked to cancerous metastases by making some ridiculous red herring about putting up when i just linked you a study indicating possible issues with activating hgf.

Everybody around here worries so much about cancer. Just load up on C60oo and forget about it.

Personally, I'm stoked for the anti-inflammatory benefits of HGF activation!

It could be a boon for kidney disease

 

Maybe it will melt away cellulite!

 

NF-kB suppression

 

Cardioprotective effects

 

Mine's in the mail. Suck it, haters!

 

Edit: This is the internet, so I guess I should clarify that this is just supposed to be a slightly informative bit of good-natured ribbing.

 

Like I said it looks promising but there's hardly enough research. It's great that the longecity community is so fearless; they make for great voluntary guinea pigs. 

[wired]

Well, with all due respect, this is a dihexa thread after all, some discussion on dihexa would be nice, not someone talking about his wife. 

[Major Legend]

even if it did have human trials who knows if it causes cancer in the long term or not, and even if it did you will never know because of the 1000 other cancer causing things you are probably breathing or ingesting...

 

If the situation is deteriorating - I think it's worth a shot, its better than nothing. My personal opinion only. I like moon shots, but you are talking about halting a neurodegenerative disease with a experimental drug, its a battle on many fronts.

 

Do remember you have to take full responsibility for it if anything bad happens. Dihexa doesn't look like a common drug at all...you must only do it with her full understanding of what she is getting into.

Edited by Major Legend, 10 December 2014 - 04:48 PM.