Sep 13, 2013
me+ME: What is ME + mB12 + autobio + philosophical problems
1. What is M.E.?
2. My mB12 protocol
3. My autobiography
4. On the problems of philosophy
About ME/CFS


This file is not about the crisis but is about me - or rather: it is about M.E., my mB12 protocol, my autobiography and a first version of files about philosophical problems.

There probably will be no later file on the crisis today, but there will be one tomorrow.

1. What is M.E.?

It is september 2013 and I am ill for the 35th successive year, and medical people seem to have made hardly any serious advances all those years.

Meanwhile, I am 63 and have been ill, and without help, since I was 28 - and the really bad thing is not so much the having of an unknown disease, or the not getting any help, at least not for me, since I can do without (though sometimes barely), but is the fact that for the last 25 years I myself, and everybody else with the disease, which are over 17 million people, that is, more people than there are Dutchmen, have been systematically discriminated, have been denied that we are ill, and have been diagnosed by the medical sadists who marketthemselves as "psychiatrists" as if we are mad, rather than they, who are nearly all pseudo-scientific liars (see also:
DSM-5: 100 Nederlogs  about and around the APA and the DSM-5) - and I am saying this after having read three years of evidence, speaking as a philosopher of science and as a psychologist. (Check the last reference but one - a hundred files - and the last but two reference in case you doubt this. You may not agree, but I do know my science and my psychology, and psychiatrists do not, except very rarely, and I am judging them - but not describing them - by scientific standards, that they do not meet, not even closely.)

Also, the same medical sadists have for 25 years laid claim to most of the - very little - research money, and have not produced one piece of rational evidence for any of their claims (that indeed also tend to be total nonsense, of the sort "there may have been found evidence that may give support to the thesis that possibly" etc., which in fact does not say anything).

As it happens, I have really excellent degrees in philosophy and psychology, but I have not been able to use these profitably in any way, firstly because I am really ill, and secondly because I have outspoken non-standard opinions. (Taken together, this means that in Holland you are better of dead, at least if you want to be named or make a name for yourself: If you are ill, you are out, and if in addition, in the fundamentally collaborative and levelling society that is Holland, you have have original - well founded - ideas and values, you are totally out of any consideration - and no, this applies to anyone, not just me.)

There has been a little advance, namely in describing the disease, and most of the work was done in Canada, and is linked here, in two versions, both pdfs:
Both versions are useful and helpful, but have not gotten very popular, again because they were opposed by hordes of pseudoscientific psychiatric frauds. (And I am genuinely sorry if you do not like my language, but this is really how one has to look upon postmodern psychiatry since 1980, when the fraudulent DSM III was published, and the thirty years of psychopharmacological fraudulence were started, that produced billions for psychiatrists and big pharma, and nothing for patients, except very many problems due to ill- and misprescribed pills. I do not like my language, but I also do not like to lie, and I do have the degrees in philosophy and psychology that allow me to speak up, and to disqualify those who disqualified themselves, but are not found out because few have the knowledge to do so. I have both the knowledge and the motive to speak up.)

However, these are mostly attempts to frame a definition of a disease that to this very day has no valid medical explanation - which again is not very bad (one does not die of it, after all, so keep smiling ;), and also there are many ill, partial or unexplained diseases - except for the fact that psychiatric frauds have been lying about it for 25 years now, which caused many to loose what little income they had, and quite often to commit suicide.

Well... I have it for 35 years; I have recently heard that dr. Lipkin also has not found anything (but he still insists it is a real disease: he is not a psychiatrist, thank God, but a real scientist); I have never had any help of any value; and I have excellent degrees in psychology and philosophy, so here is my take on it:

It seems to me - in the form my ex and I have it, which started with Epstein Barr, in the first year of our university studies - that it most probably is an auto-immune disease, that is caused by an infection, and that seems caused by not healing properly, but instead short-ciruiting somewhere in the process that leads from being ill to being better, and that leads to the diminution of the activity or of the effect of the creatine phosphate shuttle.

The previous paragraph comprises quite a few guesses, and in fact dates back to 1989, when I submitted it, in writing, to my GP. This is still my best guess, and indeed the results I had with the mB12 protocol support it.

2. My mB12 protocol

I have changed my mB12 protocol again, quite a while ago, namely to the following.

I first give the protocol I use, and then my reasons for changing it:
metafolin               1 * 800 mcg per day
vitamin C               3 * 1000 mg per day
vitamin D               2 * 10 mcg per day
vitamin B6              2 * 100 mg per day
kalium                   2 * 200 mg per day
mB12                    1 * 2500 mcg once or twice per week
The main reason to change this quite drastically to the present form is that nearly every supplement I took other than these has 400 mcg of folic acid - which is (1) not natural - it is a synthetic vitamin, that requires 2 or 3 conversion steps to be usable in the body (2) probably folic acid is not digested well by me and (3) the dose is twice the daily recommended dosage, per one pill.

This means that for many years I have consumed six or eight (or more) times the daily recommended dosage of folic acid, that seems to be mostly included to prevent women from giving birth to babies with spina biffida, which is something that will not happen to me, since I am a male.

Now as to what I do take:

metafolin: This is the directly usable form of folate, and part of the protocol.
vitamin C: I think - statistics support me - 2 to 3 grams per day make sense.
vitamin D: This turned out, when tested, to have kept me on the safe side.
vitamin B6: I found 25 years ago this helped me.
kalium: This is part of the protocol.
vitamin B12: I am quite high on B12 when tested, at least after having supplemented B12, and this seems a safe dose.

As it happens, the dominant complaint I have since May/June 2012 was keratoconjunctivitis sicca, that in my case was quite serious and quite painful.

I take it this is part of Sjoegren's syndrome (I also have two other autoimmune diseases, meanwhile, of which one - Dupuytren's Contracture - is medically recognized (!?!), as is my
keratoconjunctivitis), which again is more common in people with M.E.

Meanwhile, that has abated some, it seems even to the extent that I am now sleeping again more or less normally, since three weeks or so, which was quite impossible the previous 1 1/3 years, since I woke up from painful eyes, and then could not fall asleep again because of painful arms and legs, next to painful eyes.

Incidentally, this was also the event that convinced me mB12 + metafolin really help me, because the previous 30+ years such a long period with too little sleep (4 to 6 1/2 hours a night, for more than a year) would have totally destroyed what remained of my health, but this time it did not, and these - mB12 and metafolin - were the only differences with the previous 30+ years.

So... for the moment I am doing relatively OK on these supplements. I am far from healthy, which manifests itself as lack of energy and pains in arms and legs, but these I have had for 35 years now, and these also have been considerably worse for many years. I still have keratoconjuctivitis, but it also is still growing less, albeit slowly. And I sleep decently, or even a bit more, the last three weeks, which is very pleasant, and also have my house in decent order, which has not been so for most of the past - very difficult - ten or eleven years.

3. My autobiography

This seems to interest few people, but I have written an autobiography, so far of the first twenty years of my life, from 1950-1970, and I have also copied this to its own directory, and made a few changes.

It now starts here, all in Dutch, to be sure:
There still have to be made some changes, and I also want to add the other 40+ years, and although very little happened to me the last 20 years (other than being ill in bed or writing for my site), my life between 20 and 40 also was interesting, for one thing because I lived, consecutively, with five women (of which I do not regret the first four).

Since I mentioned it: Why do I write for my sites - for there are two, which are copies? In part, I need to use my mind and I write very easily, and these days also because I am read: I have over 500 daily visitors and thousands of hits - yesterday: 47,760 in Denmark,  but that is a rare event - daily on the Danish site, that is least well visited, and probably more than twice as much on the Dutch site.

So I write for at least a 1000 persons daily, which is something, especially considering the facts that I do not try to be popular, and mostly treat difficult subjects.

4. On the problems of philosophy

I really am a philosopher (much rather than a psychologist), and one who read more and more widely than nearly every other philosopher: I read much, for more than 45 years, and even if others might be more intelligent (and I certainly am less intelligent than I would have been if I had remained healthy), they had less time and also nearly always had fewer and less variegated interests than I have: See my real science.

Also, unlike most academic philosophers, I am not a fraud; I wrote a lot, namely over 25 books (that I can't even try to publish as long as my income is the Amsterdam dole); and also I have nothing spectacular to say about philosophy:

I am a natural and scientific realist - and while there still are a lot of philosophical problems, most of the work that remains to be done is technical, and concerned with fields - logic, mathematics - that few philosophers are really informed about.

But I do have my own philosophy, known to me as "natural philosophy" (see also: natural realism and natural logic) since my twenties, and most of my philosophical opinions have the twin marks of being fairly commonsensical and quite uncommon.

These twin marks arise from scientific realism: Natural realism is the natural philosophy most men choose (usually without much awareness), and scientific realism is a development of this, that is, in some form - of which there are several - the preferred outlook of physicists, mathematicians and chemists, and also what these scientists learn methodologically.

The reasons my philosophical attitudes are quite uncommon are, firstly, that most people are taken in by the far more spectacular but false claims made by academic philosophers, like Heidegger or Foucault ot Wittgenstein, and also, secondly, that scientific realism does require, for its adequate statement and real understanding, some knowledge of methodology and of logic, both of which have meanwhile grown quite scarce, it seems because they are too difficult for most (and the universities have simplified and levelled rather a lot all through the West, the last 40 years).

In any case... I have now taken up a project that got started in 2003 but then was left alone for lack of health:
This is in its own directory, and currently is a bit more than 1 MB, while it consists - at present - from items taken from my Philosophical Dictionary.

If I find the health, it will be somewhat rewritten and extended, but as is, it is well over a sizable Penguin Classic of concepts and ideas that are mostly philosophical, that also are free from jargon, obscurities, pretensions, waffle and bullshit, which is saying a lot, for philosophy. (Some of it contains logic or maths, but most is plain and clear English.)

And while it will not set you free or enlighten your mind to a higher stage, it will help you to keep an even course and think rationally and soundly.


About ME/CFS (that I prefer to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which is a disease I have since 1.1.1979:
1. Anthony Komaroff

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS(pdf)

3. Hillary Johnson

The Why  (currently not available)

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2003)
5. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2011)
6. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

7. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)

       home - index - summaries - mail