My Expectations for Benefits from a Coconut Oil Regimen

Is a regimen of daily ingestion of Coconut Oil (CO) an effective treatment for Parkinson’s Disease (PD)? If effective means effective cure, then the answer is NO. Is there something better? Again the answer is NO!

Reference: michaeljfox.org/glossary.ph...

"Neuroprotective

. Providing protection to or stimulating the regrowth of any part of the body's nervous system. No currently available treatment for Parkinson's disease has been proven to provide a neuroprotective or neuroregenerative effect; all available Parkinson's disease treatments are symptomatic, meaning that they mask the symptoms while the underlying disease continues to progress."

There are treatments that are expensive, advertised, peer-reviewed, clinical trialed, endorsed, and recommended by the establishment. None has shown an ability to extend the life of a Parkinson’s patient by as much as a day. My expectation is that Coconut oil will be found to have some symptomatic benefit for many PWP but that it will not reverse the condition or cure it.

My personal experience is that 4-8 T of CO each day is providing me with an improved quality of life, and that degradations due to my PD are continuing to advance beyond what could be expected form advancing years alone. I have communicated with several people with Parkinson's (PWP) who claim a similar benefit from CO and with a few who have experienced no benefit.

I have posted extensively on this topic: healthunlocked.com/user/fwes

In many cases, there are supporting and challenging replies to my posts that enlighten both sides of this discussion. After all, you cannot "win" or "lose" a conversation.

8 Replies

oldestnewest
  • Looks like this is a verbatim repost of a prior post. You can get equal attention by adding a comment to your prior post.

    Glad you kicked the dopamine agonist.

    Your science page llwas-technology.net/ comes up blank

    Will put in my agenda to try coconut oil.

    "No currently available treatment for Parkinson's disease has been proven to provide a neuroprotective or neuroregenerative effect"

    Not so. journals.plos.org/plosone/a...

    Cost is minimal.

  • This kind of research is encouraging, but I don't accept it as definitive.

    Technical comments on the article. Many animal and model studies have been promising, but to date, none has transferred to effective PD curative treatments. NAC has been touted as a PD treatment for years. Certainly a 3-month trial cannot be conclusive regarding "cure". UPDRS scores symptomatic benefit, not curative benefit.

  • Let's not move the goalposts. I was addressing your statement: "No currently available treatment for Parkinson's disease has been proven to provide a neuroprotective or neuroregenerative effect". Neither I nor the investigators said NAC was a "cure". Stat sig improvement demonstrated by a double blind, controlled, study is precisely scientific proof of a neuroprotective or neuroregenerative effect. You can deny it all you like but that does not change the fact.

  • So sorry. The words you are challenging are in the quote from the MJF site, which I mistakenly paraphrased as "cure". I would be pleased if less, but significant benefits could be demonstrated, such as a meaningful delay in morbidity, or any non-symptomatic measure, which directly relates to the human condition.

    Thank you for pointing out this interesting science. I share your enthusiasm that it is hopeful. However, in my mind, and in the eyes of the authors, it falls short of "precisely scientific proof ". The sample is small (23 total and only 12 got NAC injections). Moreover it was not blind, since the 11 controls were not given placebo injections, so the placebo effect was not controlled (p 11/15).

    The authors concluding paragraph: "Overall, the current study using both cell line data and human data with DaTscan SPECT suggests that NAC might positively impact dopamine function and potentially clinical symptoms. Future, randomized double blind, placebo controlled trials will be necessary to confirm such an effect in PD patients." (p12/15).

  • The site llwas-technology.net suffered a virus attack and I have not had time to fix it.

  • Nice study! Thanks. Which product of NAC do you prefer? Is 500 mg per day enough?

  • I take 1200 mg per day which is the same amount as in the study, in divided doses over the course of the day.

    Supplements have been subject to defamation by Big Pharma $. Consumerlabs.com tests supplements and the vast majority have exactly what they say they have. For detail on the kind of thing that goes on see tinyurl.com/zbawjdw.

    NAC is quite acid. Most people tolerate it OK but that is problematic for me. So I get it in powder form and add 24% by weight calcium hydroxide to get neutral pH, and then put it in capsules.

  • Thanks, very helpful!

You may also like...