Establishing Validity

The proper approach for expressing disagreement with a formal scientific paper is writing a formal peer-reviewed rebuttal, in this case to the National Institute of Health standards. There has been no formal scientific challenge to our papers. Those with interests in protecting nutrient-depleting drugs at all cost, independent of the facts, have posted smoke and mirror internet opinions that are not formal scientific writings. We are aware of the embellishment of second-hand facts not related to the science discussed on this webpage that has brought people reading them to anger. Everyone, take a deep breath.

These are important nutritional observations which need attention. Our 22 papers meet the National Institute of Health (NIH) NCBI standards for classification as peer-reviewed scientific medical papers. No one person wrote the last six Parkinson’s disease papers that we published. Publishing these papers required:

  • Seven medical doctor authors
  • Eighteen medical doctor peer-reviewers
  • Two editors-in-chief

All total twenty-seven highly skilled and highly trained people had to approve of each paper’s contents before publication. 

View Our Stance On The "Findings" From Quackwatch 

Perspective, Our Position

As memorialized in the carbidopa B6 death paper: “It is illogical to assert that an increased carbidopa-induced death rate will not occur under these circumstances. In an attempt to control a benign condition (nausea – caused by the improperly balanced administration of a nutrient, L-dopa), the patient has been exposed to the devastating consequences of these drugs. While a formidable number of studies may still be needed to define all of the PLP (B6) depletion ramifications, they become unnecessary in the effective management of Parkinson’s disease when the nutrient protocol is implemented, since carbidopa and benserazide are no longer indicated.”

 - Alvin Stein, MD