vvViolet on this thread wrote up a report claiming that he felt a distinct difference from adding ubiquinol and PQQ to his amphetamine. That was what got my attention. I am not much interested in taking supplements just to reduce neurotoxicity, because the neurotoxicity itself is not well documented in humans, so you are piling speculation upon speculation by trying to defeat it. It's not worth the cost of the supplements.
I see; I did not know about the report of perceptible effects. I rather doubt that is the norm, though.
That said, while I agree that taking supplements exclusively to offset theoretical neurotoxicity is unwise, there are other reasons to take a supplement like ubiquinol, including heart health and likely protection from Parkinson's disease.
I am sure that's true. But, by and large, JAMA doesn't publish studies on dietary supplements unless they are of high quality. "It is wise to trust more respected journals more than less respected journals" -- that's all I'm trying to say.
Well, I don't think we disagree too much here, but in the particular case of ginkgo, there is an enormous amount of conflicting evidence, and there are some very high-quality studies that have found positive results. With herbs, it's always a bit tricky, as there can be a lot of dependence on which extract is used. I was mostly just trying to drive home the point that, despite the article in JAMA, the issue may be a bit more complex.
I think we pretty much agree. I don't put much stock in epidemiological-type studies, regardless of where they are published.
Indeed, I think we do.
The bias is often in the interpretation. The numbers don't lie, but results of weak studies get blown out of proportion and used to support wished-for conclusions. The same kinds of errors are made over and over, so that it starts to become predictable.
This is true.
Again, it's not so much where the study is published, but the fact that its a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment that has been subjected to peer review.
Couldn't agree more.