3 ms·
maybe, but the BS detector of a lot of people in the field are ticked off when someone tries to propose one cause for a broad variety of biologically different
by caycep 11y ago
maybe, but the BS detector of a lot of people in the field are ticked off when someone tries to propose one cause for a broad variety of biologically different disease. It's also hard to prove that it isn't a general effect, vs the cause, of badness. mitochondrially-powered eukaryotic cells are awfully more susceptible to many things and my cynicism suspects you can measure worn/beaten up mitochondria in pretty much anyone as they age. The last CoQ10 trial that was based on the mitochondrial stuff for Parkinson's failed miserably.
If someone can design an experiment to prove a causative role of mitochondria in all of this, more power to them, but a lot of the proposed mechanisms never really appealed to me as all that compelling, other than to note correlation, i.e. "All of our Disease X patients exhibits abnormal test Y, which could potentially, possibly, but not definitely, be related to mitochondrial dysfunction, and this is why the NIH should give our group more grant money next year!"
- DiabloD3 11y agoI don't understand the point of supplementing CoQ10 alone. CoQ10 is one of about twenty or thirty things that should be supplemented if, indeed, this is the correct route to improving life.
- caycep 11y agoIMHO, it was the easy way out. You do a trial with one substance at a time, and do a simple randomized controlled trial; which is how most of medical research works. More than one agent and you have to hire more statisticians to do your experimental design, and it is harder to get somewhat simpleminded grant committees to understand your proposal.