Is anyone using Ambrotose?

lyndacarol · Family Elder Joined: Dec 23, 2005 Posts: 471

How timely to find this posting only MINUTES after watching a segment about Ambrotose on ABC's 20/20!!!

About a girl named Angie who has a brain tumor; she is foregoing the doctors' recommendation of chemo and using only Ambrotose--$200 per month!!! After much time, another MRI shows the tumor is still there--same size.

Film from inside the associates' meeting talked of "targeting" such illnesses as cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, cystic fibrosis, even Down's syndrome! The leader's question to the associates was "Do you want to be rich?"

I'm as desperate as anyone; I tried this once--no help; I will NOT be trying this again, especially after seeing this TV program!

robbie · Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:47 am Post subject:

misspincushion

I googled Ambrotose because it has been recommended to me by a couple of (caring and close) friends. In doing so, I came across this website and this forum discussion.
I wanted to say thank you for all the input and reading matter. Thanks especially go to Napay/'notasperfectasyou' for your thorough research and helpful comments. You've made me think twice about all of the posts and info I have read that report that Ambrotose is great for people with MS. I'll be doing some more research and talking to my doctors before I let Ambrotose free on my macrophages!

notasperfectasyou · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: What a sticky Name

First of all........WELCOME to TIMS!!!

I hope you come back here and get to know us. While I appreciate your compliment, you'll find if you spend some time here that TIMS is a very unique collective of very smart folks. There is a lot of research, thought and debate here. You won't find this much knowledge on most other sites.

Regarding Glyconutrients. I just don't know. You should also read up on N-Acetyl Glucosamine. Sometimes called NAG but often called GlcNAc. Right now Kim is off glyconutrients. Perhaps we will try them again, but right now, we don't want to do anything that might disrupt her current treatment. The last time we tried a Glyconutrient, GIcNAc, we got an unpleasent surprise.

Now I will say I'm not totally down on the stuff. It's possible that Kim had a negative response to something else or the reletively small dosage she was taking. My advice is to have a solid understanding of why you are taking things before you take them. Please don't take things because others think you should. You need to take the thinking one step further to have your own logical understanding and TIMS just happens to be a great place to work through that need.

Good Luck, Ken
_________________
My Starting Point
Understanding MS 101: Doctor Talk and People Talk

happygirl77 · Newbie Joined: Mar 16, 2008 Posts: 1

I noticed this forum on MS and wanted to comment on the use of Ambrotose in MS. There are 2 types of Ambrotose. The original Ambrotose, Classic, is an immune modulator, which means it balances the immune system. This is the Ambrotose that is recommended for auto-immune diseases of which MS is one. The other Ambrotose is Advanced. This is an immune stimulator and is not recommended in the use of MS as the immune system does not need further stimulation. I know of the testimony of one man that was on Ambrotose for 5 years and is now completely healed. He has helped others with learning about it as well and asks for the same commitment from others. Not everyone has to wait that long to see results, thankfully. I would suggest starting out with a scoop (1/4 tsp) morning and night and working up to 1 tsp morning and night. The Classic is also less expensive to use than the Advanced. I personally do not believe I can put a price on health.
I would also check the alternative medicine and MS websites for further info. Vitamins along with antioxidants are making huge headways in healing.
I am an RN who has chosen to go the alternative medicine route although I know there is a place for western medicine. But I have seen so much more healing with the use of alternative medicine and especially with the use of glyconutrients.
Oh, and the piece on ABC was not an accurate interview. The real interview of Angie Rhodes along with Sam Castor's interview at one point was posted on youtube.com. Check it out. Big Pharma is down on this company as their products are making a huge difference. The pharmaceutical companies are spending megabucks to come up with a synthetic version of these sugars without success. What they do have is VERY expensive and not effective. So this was no surprise.
For those that are interested in more of the science, there is alot of info from 3rd party companies with no interest in the business side of things.
Check out the individual sugars on pubmed.org. You can also do an internet search of glycobiology. I will never get through all the postings on the internet about this subject! They are too vast! This is legitimate...I've done the research. Check out youtube.com on the inner life of the cell as produced by Harvard University. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aco3Xwy6dew

It may help to know that each cell has protein and fat hairs that are necessary for communication. These hairs are all coated with these essential sugars. When the sugars are missing, the cells are unable to communicate, hence disease. By restoring the sugars to the cells, they are able to properly communicate. I was fascinated to see a picture of these glycoproteins (protein/sugar hairs) in my daughter's anatomy book!
It has also been written in Harper's Biochemistry Medical Textbook which many of the medical students are currently using.

pegs · Last edited by pegs on Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

my neighbor believes he regained the use of his legs with the help of ambrotose supplement

ElmerPhd · Newbie Joined: Jun 03, 2008 Posts: 8

Hello to all of you on the forum. I've been reading this (and other threads) with interest having stumbled upon the site in the course of my research on the internet. I should make it clear to everyone from the outset that i do NOT have MS, nor do i know of anyone suffering from MS.
I do, however have a scientific background and specialised in the immune system and it's recognition of glycoproteins for my PhD.

I just wanted to say that having done a (admitedly) cursory search of these 'glyconutrients' over the last half hour, I am shocked that some people appear to be insisting that you need to take a pill whose only stated ingredient is sugar, for more than 4 months to experience an effect!
There are so many obvious problems with this stuff, I don't know where to begin...

First of all, these "8 essential sugars". Yes, sugars are very important molecules and are used by the body in a variety of different ways and it is important to make sure that people are getting enough of the right types. The thing is that I cannot imagine a situation where anybody in a developed country would NOT be consuming these in an average diet. You don't even need to get some of these molecules from your diet. For example, if you have glucose in your diet, your body MAKES its own N-acetylglucosamine (NAC or GlcNac) naturally.

I'd like to ask exactly how a previous poster can say that these pills don't have an LD50? And why they aren't subject to approval by the FDA (or other bodies). If you are advocating their use to treat a disease, then there should be SOME evidence that they work. If it is as good as all these advocates are saying why can't i find a single study of it? surely someone can design a robust and controlled trial? Of course the placebo arm might present some difficulties. A placebo is, by definition, a treatment which appears identical in every way to the study treatment, but is known to be inert and to have no physiological effect. Now normally a placebo pill would conatin just sugar or starch, but in this case that is the "active ingredient" in the treatment under investigation. Hmmmm.... Anyone else thinking that this 'magic pill' might just be using a placebo effect? And how on earth would you control for variations in diet etc?

I'd like to re-iterate the advice that NAPAY posted here earlier. By all means have an open mind to therapies to help with your condition (not just in MS, but your total health). But please, please remember that although some people will be very vocal in their opposition against 'Big Pharma' and the cynical way they extort money from people for treatments that don't always work (true), they are NOT the only ones trying to get their hands on your money! All you can do is ask yourself, does this make sense? How reliable is the evidence and is it independently verified?

notasperfectasyou · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: glucose

gwa · Family Elder Joined: Dec 02, 2005 Posts: 794

NHE · Volunteer Moderator Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 698

ElmerPhd · Newbie Joined: Jun 03, 2008 Posts: 8

First of all, thanks for making me welcome and appreciating the good intentions behind my posting.

Second, i realised I'd made a wee spelling mistake in my post. I mistakenly used NAC as an abbreviation for N-acetylglucosamine, when it ought to be NAG of course. Sorry if that's caused any confusion and thanks to NHE for helping sort it out.

NAPAY, concerning your question, I'm going to have to go back to my first year Biochemistry course books to remind myself of what NAC does. I may be some time, I'm afraid (it was more than 10 years ago!).

In the meantime, I thought that any of you interested in making evidence-based judgements on alternative therapies and willing to do a bit of reading, might find the PubMed website a useful source of information.
Basically, PubMed is an online database (run by the NCBI, a US gov. funded body) of a huge amount of scientific information. Most of it is probably indecipherable to most people, but the section i think might be most useful to non-scientists wanting to understand things is the Books part. Essentially, you can search a large number of textbooks for keywords of interest and find out a lot of the background to it. The advantage of this is that all of the information is trustworthy and can be supported by evidence. (Although wiki is a fantastic resource for getting a rough idea about particular things, you should NEVER take what it says as gospel!)
One of the books i just found on the PubMed books site is this one:
Alternative Medicine and Rehabilitation: A Guide for Practitioners
Wainapel, Stanley F.; Fast, Avital, editors
New York: Demos Medical Publishing, Inc. ; c2003

And here's a link that SHOULD allow anyone to browse the book itself

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=altrehab.TOC&depth=2

I haven't had time to look at it in any detail, but I hope it gives some idea of the stregth of evidence for different therapies and helps you make an informed decision on what's right for you.

ElmerPhd · Newbie Joined: Jun 03, 2008 Posts: 8