going over = Show studies.

@83377 – I am trying to track down what Bentham mentions is an “unpublished study by Strang and Feetam”, of their double-blind trial, citing Whitford’s paper in which Whitford notes how Strang and Feetam used: “L-tryptophan 1 g tds, with ascorbic acid and nicotinamide (Optimax)” in this trial which produced some remarkable results. In Whitford’s paper, as you can also see, he actually cites and has a reference to this trial by Strang and Feetam:
Strang, G.E.: Feetam. C.: Clinical trial of L-tryptophan versus placebo in patients suffering from dementia (Rubery Hill Hospital. Birmingham, pers. commun. 1985)

The same reference is mentioned in the first-included paper:
Strand G E, Feetam C. Clinical trial of L-tryptophan versus placebo in patients suffering from dementia. Birmingham: Rubery Hill Hospital, 1985


Unfortunately, I cannot find this actual Strang and Feetam publication (yet).

I looked up this Optimax, however, and it appears to be just tablets of l-tryptophan pharmaceutical-grade (with some starch & other excipients) that Merck made and put out originally in 1982 (to be used as treatment for depression): https://www.mentalmeds.org/prescription_meds/Optimax.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com … so no ascorbic acid or nicotinamide.

I found some other papers in which tryptophan (in first paper linked below, noted as Optimax) is used, in addition to nicotinamide, as depression treatment:
https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1980.tb00516.x?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.1989.tb04875.x
https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1979.tb04482.x

^ In the third one listed right there, we see the psychiatrists applied a mass ratio of tryptophan to nicotinamide of 4 to 1. Without ascorbic acid in the picture whilst using nicotinamide instead of nicotinic acid, this mass ratio is wacky of course.

For what it’s worth, in the Whitford paper, as highlighted in the below screenshot, the word ‘Optimax’ goes in parentheses only after all three nutrients are mentioned as if Optimax was composed of all three of these nutrients (l-tryptophan, ascorbic acid, and nicotinamide). Perhaps Whitford simply made an error writing this?

Furthermore, it is interesting how Strand and Feetam’s trial, in which Merck’s Optimax either suddenly became the combination of these three nutrients or to it, ascorbic acid and nicotinamide were added, is not published into any “official” journal in record yet there was awareness as well as report w/ review of findings of it by in-house Merck medical personnel colleagues. Like – why was this not published, why can’t I even find these authors in record? And where did the inclusion of ascorbic acid come from by Strang and Feetam? Does that explain why these encouraging findings were not officially published, especially given what could be gained for the public health and simultaneously Merck + associates, and why Optimax (whether just l-tryptophan or in combo with ascorbic acid and [although niacinamide, still] an NAD+ precursor) is a thing of the past, meanwhile explaining this fabrication during 1989–90 of the eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) episode linked to contaminated bulk L-tryptophan which Merck’s pharma-grade had nothing to do with: https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/cot/tryptophanamend200401.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

After demonstrating clear improvements in full-blown Alzheimer’s patients to mitigate a pending crisis, anything to do with the medication (or its integral components) that was showing success, thereafter to this day, just became a thing of the past?

Move Photo to...

No albums found. Please create and select album.

Albums

Album Title

Privacy

Public All Members My Connections Only Me

Cancel Create

+3 More Photos