This study/abstract by Marty Hinz is written in language we can understand and quite compelling.

[MBAnderson]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...

[bassofspades]

Brilliant

[Kewlfox]

Extremely well-presented and easily understood. Thank you for offering this paper....

[Kia17]

Amazing. Very informative. Thank you MBAbderson.

[MBAnderson]

Now the down side of Marty Hinz

quackwatch.org/11Ind/hinz.html

I have sent Dr. Steven Barrette, the author of this critique, and email opening a discussion of the issues he takes with Dr. Hinz, few replicating studies, making the point, essentially, that it often takes many years for emerging discoveries to have corroborating, peer-reviewed data, because that's the nature of "emerging" and by itself doesn't discredit's findings. If he says anything interesting, I'll pass it along.

[AmyLindy in reply to MBAnderson]

Reasonable!

[AmyLindy in reply to AmyLindy]

Healthy Skepticism . Thank you!

[Hikoi]

I commend you for being open to critique and in following up this quackwatch blog article MBA. Must say it plus the article you linked to on another thread provide pretty damning evidence of Hinz motives to me.

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-...

When reading the study above this is the context. All of Hinz's articles were published by Dove Medical Press, which offers "open access" that requires payment of a processing fee as a condition of publication. Dove's fees for U.S. authors have ranged from $1,495 in 2009 to $2,300 in 2016, with a 10% discount to "favored authors." Assuming that Hinz enrolled in the favored author program, it is estimated that the total he and/or his coauthors paid for their Dove publications was about $34,000.

A bibliography posted on the NeuroResearch Web site (owned by Hinz) in 2017 lists 31 publications—21 of them with Hinz as an author or co-author—that supposedly back his methodology. However, only three of the 21 described what happened to patients who were managed with a Hinz protocol.

One was a retrospective review of the charts of 85 patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder who were treated with amino acid precursors for 8-10 weeks.

Another reported that depressed patients suffering from bipolar disorder improved when given amino acid precursors.

The other reported that patients with obesity or depression improved when given amino acid precursors.

However, two of the reports did not specify who managed the patients, none of the reports indicated how the patients were selected for the study or whether the selection included randomization; the lab tests used to measure the neurotransmitters were not independently validated as clinically useful; the rating systems used to judge the severity of the patient's condition were either not disclosed or were not clearly described, and none of the studies had a control group.

All of these shortcomings mean that the reported findings are not evidence of effectiveness. In addition, taken together, the three clinical studies involved only four of the many conditions for which Hinz and his network have recommended products.

Where is the research on Parkinsons patients?

[MBAnderson in reply to Hikoi]

quackwatch.org/11Ind/hinz.html

quackwatch.org/00AboutQuack...

I had a one hour conversation with Dr. Barrett. He’s quite an interesting guy. In addition to being a practicing physician, he writes peer-review reports for 3 of the major medical journals.

Hikoi has covered the salient points about Hinz. In summary, Hinz is on par with John Gray. This critique was published a couple months ago and before it was published he sent it to Hinz for comments at which time Hinz acknowledged that he hasn’t seen a patient since 2002.

He picked apart Hinz’s abstract in a way that made me realize I’m not competent to find flaws in these the studies. Because I read them carefully, I came to believe I could rely on my understanding to inform my decisions, which I now realize I should not do. Arrogance, perhaps. He suggested gently that a person has to be educated, trained, and experienced in research at this level to figure out which of these studies are flawed and which are not. (I told my wife about this conversation and she, bless her little heart, who is a recently retired professor in the Department of Nursing at the University of Minnesota, with 2 masters degrees and a PhD, and who taught nurses in graduate programs how to design research studies replied, “… there’s no possibility I understand what I’m reading.” “So why would you let me spend hours a day reading this stuff?” “It gives you hope and keeps you out of my hair.’’ (My wife, bless her little heart, knew I had Parkinson’s before I did, got me diagnosed at the U of MN, and then married me after diagnosis. Is that LUV or what?))

I sent in my protocol and he said there’s a 1 in 10 chance that most of its doing you any good. I said, what about vitamin D? It’s well established the PWP have vitamin D deficiencies. He agreed with that, said he takes vitamin D himself but wouldn’t directly refute the value of the other supplements because he hasn’t studied them. He points out there can be a big difference between what you believe and what you know and I should be guided by what I know, not what I hope.

My position was that there is not a lot of evidence about supplements because the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t have a financial incentive to study plants since they can’t patent them. He said that was a myth perpetrated by the supplement industry. He said pharmaceutical companies study plants all the time so they can figure out what the active ingredient is, i.e., what the molecule is that’s having an effect so as to design drugs around that. He said most drugs originated as plants, although that’s changing.

If the original design of the study is not flawed and if that study cannot be replicated by unrelated, disinterested team, it’s not science based data.

Quackwatch.com. It’s actually a good website.

I’m not going to throw out all my supplements, but I am going to be a lot more careful about what I spend my money on.

Hikio has been right all along. PROVE IT.

[park_bear]

Kudos, MBA, for being open to changing your mind.

Even before reading the subsequent comments I found it suspicious rather than compelling - most journal articles cover a narrow subject making it feasible to check up on their reasoning. This one really did require an expert in the field to assess without making a career of it.

For more on the Hinz matter take a look here: healthunlocked.com/parkinso...

[AmyLindy]

Run , the other way!