UPDATE re. an E4 trial with Dr. Dale Bredesen

User avatar
Julie G
Mod
Mod
Posts: 8534
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: UPDATE re. an E4 trial with The Buck Institute

Postby Julie G » Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:46 pm

For clarification purposes, 50-100 nmol/L = 20-40 ng/ml.

circular
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 5098
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:43 am

UPDATE re. an E4 trial with The Buck Institute

Postby circular » Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:57 pm

Juliegee I could be wrong but I think the somewhat dire sounding posts were only that someone using Table 1 as a guide going forward, without Dr. Bredesen' guidance, might aim for the wrong target; rather than that Dr. Bredesen had erred in his treatments vis the vitamin D3.
Last edited by circular on Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.

User avatar
Stavia
Mod
Mod
Posts: 5265
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:47 pm
Location: Middle Earth

Re: UPDATE re. an E4 trial with The Buck Institute

Postby Stavia » Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:22 pm

Oh you're misunderstanding my concern. It no way is about his work whatsoever. My concern is about many people around the world rightly so very excited about these results, reading the table and using that target for their own interventions, because only a few in the USA will be able to access his programme, and being as confused as I now am about the different units and who is using what.
I can solve this due to offers of my kind generous forum siblings. Most other people obviously cant.

Welcomeaboard
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: UPDATE re. an E4 trial with The Buck Institute

Postby Welcomeaboard » Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:45 pm

The acceptable range is up to 100ng/l for vitamin d 3. The 50ng/l is in the acceptable range, the question is do you see disease rates lower than a particular number or greater than a particular number that is caused by that number. As far as I know they can't determine if a particular number causes a disease except above 100ng/l and below 20ng/l. The endocrinology society(or whatever their exact name is?) decided to raise to above 30ng/l a year or 2 ago. There are studies that support higher numbers than 30 for various diseases based on cancer survival rates being higher when the number is such, colon cancer I think was 32ng/l and breast cancer was 50ng/l, these are close to the numbers that I remember and may be the exact numbers.

There is not a chart that you can look at and say if I want to avoid this disease than I will pick that number and then read on and see another disease and say ooh, I don't want that disease either, so I pick that number instead. The only thing that you can probably get Doctors to agree on at about 100 percent is below 20ng/l is too low and above 100ng/l is too high. There needs to be more practical work and analysis on vitamin d 3 numbers. Or a combing thru of existing clinical trials to see if a more thorough explanation can be determined from the existing data.

The question to ask is. What is your supporting documents for that level of vitamin d 3 in this situation? If the answer is dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, you may want to take the advice or not.
Last edited by Welcomeaboard on Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Gina99
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:36 am

Re: UPDATE re. an E4 trial with The Buck Institute

Postby Gina99 » Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:48 pm

Stavia, and I was one of them. So very happy that we all have this straightened out. I think some of the confusion for me happened even before the study. I have to remind myself not to make assumptions and look up the meaning since I am not used to the measurements we are discussing. Learning curve on my part. Thanks for the clarification .

Welcomeaboard
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: UPDATE re. an E4 trial with The Buck Institute

Postby Welcomeaboard » Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:52 pm

I agree, Stavia.

The question is would 50ng/l be necessary and if not necessary, would it do harm if administered at that level.

I like mine at 35ng/l, but that is just a personal preference that is subject to change if Doctors can get their s--t together and explain why my number is not as good as the one they chose.

User avatar
Julie G
Mod
Mod
Posts: 8534
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: UPDATE re. an E4 trial with The Buck Institute

Postby Julie G » Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:23 pm


Tincup
Mod
Mod
Posts: 2629
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:57 pm
Location: Front Range, CO

Re: UPDATE re. an E4 trial with The Buck Institute

Postby Tincup » Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:41 pm

Lilly,

I concur with you. I keep my 25OHD at 70 ng/ml. As I previously mentioned, supplementing D3 without sufficient K2 (or, for that matter A) is suboptimal and potentially harmful. I used to be subject to cold sores, but since I've kept my 250HD above 50 ng/ml, this no longer happens. I also do not get colds or flu. I know other (non-E4's) who keep their 25OHD levels around mine and their resistance to illness mirrors mine.

I also note that in the study listed, that the data are non-existent regarding AD at the upper end of the scale. Hence the widely divergent lines in the graph.
Tincup
E3,E4

Welcomeaboard
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: UPDATE re. an E4 trial with The Buck Institute

Postby Welcomeaboard » Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:44 pm

There are Doctors that may recommend 70ng/l or the vitamin d council web site may, etc. I have read where people think and practice 70ng/l. However, 35ng/l may be just as good as I do not get colds or the flu either at that level. It may be dependent on your exposure to people carrying the flu or colds rather than your ng/l status as I have not read or looked for clinical trials that state people above 30 or 50 or 70 or any ng/l number are immune to the flu or colds.

Welcomeaboard
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: UPDATE re. an E4 trial with The Buck Institute

Postby Welcomeaboard » Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:57 pm

You may have done things to boost your IGA levels, such as increased sleep, less stress, laughter, listening to music, exercise, etc. or increased your antioxidants in your diet or supplements as a flu defense and have not taken stock of those efforts in a flu defense or other health issues defense?


Return to “Announcements and Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests