Reversing Atherosclerosis? Linda K. Curtiss, Ph.D.

[scottbushey]

In New England Journal:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18793871/Reve ... osclerosis

[Johnwen]

This is kind of interesting article in the fact that it sounds somewhat like the unified theory. The thing I tend to disagree with is it presents the intima as a dormant area of the artery were all this can happen. In fact the intima is a very dynamic area which has it’s blood supplied externally thought the Vasa vasorum and any break in the lumen would reduce the occlusive pressure at that point and cross hemorrhaging would occur inciting the bodies response to bandage the area (I.e. Slap some plaque on it.) and trigger the immune system to check for intruders. Now all this stuff she’s talking about will start to happen. We know the initial break is caused by a problem with the collagen of the lumen and as Dr. Pauling called it, ”Chronic Scurvy.” Not Genetic and Lifestyle insults! This paper sounds like a lead in that’s used to spike interest to receive grant money to further a study.

[J.Lilinoe]

This paper sounds like a lead in that’s used to spike interest to receive grant money to further a study.

So out of curiosity, who would give a grant like that to further a non-drug study?
Bill and Melinda Gates?

[godsilove]

This paper sounds like a lead in that’s used to spike interest to receive grant money to further a study.

So out of curiosity, who would give a grant like that to further a non-drug study?
Bill and Melinda Gates?

Well, basic science research is routinely funded by the NIH and other government agencies. It's at the clinical trial stage where funding is harder to secure.

Nonetheless, since resveratrol is one of the compounds discussed in the review, I decided to do a search on clinicaltrials.gov to see who is paying for the clinical trials.

A search for resveratrol as an intervention returned 13 results:
- Eleven are sponsored by universities or organizations (e.g. Alzheimer's Association)
- Three are funded by the National Cancer Institute
- Three are funded by Industry sponsors (2 by GlaxoSmithKline, and 1 by DSM Nutritional Products)
- One is funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs

FYI, GlaxoSmithKline has a formulation of resveratrol known as SRT501 which it seems to have licensed from a smaller company. I don't know if it is chemically identical to what is currently available in supplements, but it'll be interesting to see how this pans out if GSK is able to get this FDA approved for any specific indication. Could there be another situation like the Vitamin B6 / pyridoxamine case?

[Ralph Lotz]

WAKE UP!

Don't count on NIH, government funded universities or anyone else from the power elite to reverse atherosesclerosis or any other disease. The Business with Disease is one of the biggest industries in the world. A cure is not welcome.
Current health authorities make sure that a cure is never found while a "new (more expensive) treatment" is right around the corner. Gates Foundation is walking in Rockefeller's footsteps and funding the same old crap that doesn't work. If they do find anything, they will get the benefit and you will get OBAMACARE.
Prolonging life is bad for the planet. The world economy is bankrupt. If you are old, do your duty and die say the Neo-Malthusianists in the current White House.

IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DONE, DO IT YOURSELF. This forum has most of the answers.

The best way to reverse atheroscleros is to to never get it. Use these supplements daily:
Heart Technology/Ascorsine 9, Lifeforce Multiple, Ultra-Mag, high DHA fish oil, K2 as MK-7, D3, Iodoral, green tea extract, grape seed extract, LONGEVINEX, methylselenocysteine. IP-6 cleanse in spring.

If you already have atherosclerosis, take the above, but double the dosages.

P.S. This program will probably prevent and treat just about everything unless you live exclusively on junk food.

[godsilove]

WAKE UP!

Don't count on NIH, government funded universities or anyone else from the power elite to reverse atherosesclerosis or any other disease.

Then who can we count on?

Despite all government's flaws, public funding has led to several scientific breakthroughs over the past century or so.

The Business with Disease is one of the biggest industries in the world.

Agreed, but for most governments it is also one of the biggest burdens on the national deficit.

A cure is not welcome. Current health authorities make sure that a cure is never found while a "new (more expensive) treatment" is right around the corner.

With statements like this, one has to wonder how antibiotics and vaccines ever made it on the market.

IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DONE, DO IT YOURSELF. This forum has most of the answers.

What "answers"? A lot of what is posted in this forum is speculation and anecdote. Some of it may be true, but there's no systematic way of knowing without scientific studies. You may not be an advocate of the scientific method, but I do think that it's a reliable tool to help drive progress - both in healthcare and other aspects of our daily lives. I'm not saying that patients should not be proactive when it comes to their health, but I think your cynicism borders on paranoia. I agree that government does not always have the public's interest in mind, but that's an evil of government that persists across all its various roles and functions. I don't want to get into a much broader, more tedious debate about the role of government, but suffice it to say that I don't share you glass-empty view on government.

The best way to reverse atheroscleros is to to never get it.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Use these supplements daily:
Heart Technology/Ascorsine 9, Lifeforce Multiple, Ultra-Mag, high DHA fish oil, K2 as MK-7, D3, Iodoral, green tea extract, grape seed extract, LONGEVINEX, methylselenocysteine. IP-6 cleanse in spring.

If you already have atherosclerosis, take the above, but double the dosages.

P.S. This program will probably prevent and treat just about everything unless you live exclusively on junk food.

Evidence? Or is that only the prerogative of the "power elite"?

[scottbushey]

Ralph,
In regards to green Tea extract; Wouldn't it be wiser to just take L Theamine instead of the GT?

[Ralph Lotz]

In regards to green Tea extract; Wouldn't it be wiser to just take L Theanine instead of the GT?

The most studied GT polyphenol is EGCG. It has antioxidant activity and appears to strengthen collagen. Dr. Rath has published numerous stidies available on Pubmed. Theanine is more suited for relaxation.

Then who can we count on?

Despite all government's flaws, public funding has led to several scientific breakthroughs over the past century or so.

Generally, the public pays and the patents and profits go to the researchers and pharmaceutical compnies. Exhibit A is warfarin.

Agreed, but for most governments it is also one of the biggest burdens on the national deficit.

This makes the business with disease a great way to break the bank and bankrupt the nation.

With statements like this, one has to wonder how antibiotics and vaccines ever made it on the market.

A Cure Is Not Welcome is actually the title of a book. Specifically I was referring our efforts to enlighten the world to the Pauling/Rath Cure for the last 20 years.

What "answers"? A lot of what is posted in this forum is speculation and anecdote. Some of it may be true, but there's no systematic way of knowing without scientific studies. You may not be an advocate of the scientific method, but I do think that it's a reliable tool to help drive progress - both in healthcare and other aspects of our daily lives. I'm not saying that patients should not be proactive when it comes to their health, but I think your cynicism borders on paranoia. I agree that government does not always have the public's interest in mind, but that's an evil of government that persists across all its various roles and functions. I don't want to get into a much broader, more tedious debate about the role of government, but suffice it to say that I don't share you glass-empty view on government.

A lot of the information on this site is more than mere speculation. And observational medicine has been around for millenia before the so called scientific method. We can sit around waiting for the studies while millions die or see what we have learned in the last 13 years through our experience with the Pauling Therapy. After 40 years in the nutritional investigation business and 2 years working with Dr. Rath I probably am both cynical and paranoid.

Don't lecture me about government. I am a 13th generation American and my ancestors invented this great republic.
I worked as a lobbyist in both IL and DC for DSHEA, without which their would be no (as in zero) supplements in the USA above RDI levels. I am not ignorant of the machinations of government.

Evidence? Or is that only the prerogative of the "power elite"?

If you are seriously interested in a dialogue, please withhold the sarcasim. If you think that there isn't a power elite you are either naive or a "progressive."

The information that I give is based on 46 years of research. It is generally based on the nutrients that are usually absent from a typical diet coupled with those nutrients that have shown promise for preventing and reversing pathologies.
The information is general, but the supplements that I recommend are ones that I have seen good results with and are inexpensive at vitacost.com or iherb.com.

[J.Lilinoe]

Thanks Ralph. Always good to hear and learn from you.

[ofonorow]

Despite all government's flaws, public funding has led to several scientific breakthroughs over the past century or so.

???

Breakthroughs? Do you have any examples? I know we U.S. taxpayers used to pay around $27 billion per year to fund the NIH, and that number just went up dramatically. So what are we getting for $30-$40 billion per year? (Off the top of my head, I can not think of anything novel or important, much less a breakthrough that has originated out of the NIH.)

I do know that for a pittance the NIH could have studied Linus Pauling's claims and chose not to, in favor of supporting medicine and pharmaceutical companies over the public interest.

I also have read (Julian Whitaker) that the NIH tried to steal Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's Antineoplaston Therapy See: http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/ (for brain tumors) and filed patents on his ideas.

[J.Lilinoe]

I also have read (Julian Whitaker) that the NIH tried to steal Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's Antineoplaston Therapy See: http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/ (for brain tumors) and filed patents on his ideas.

Maybe that's the kind of "scientific break through" that godislove means--stealing other people's research.

[Dolev]

A truly excellent book, whose title is self-explanatory is "The Truth About Drug Companies" by Marcia Angell, M.D. As the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, she really knows and shows how it works.

[godsilove]

Despite all government's flaws, public funding has led to several scientific breakthroughs over the past century or so.

???

Breakthroughs? Do you have any examples? I know we U.S. taxpayers used to pay around $27 billion per year to fund the NIH, and that number just went up dramatically. So what are we getting for $30-$40 billion per year? (Off the top of my head, I can not think of anything novel or important, much less a breakthrough that has originated out of the NIH.)

I'm referring to public funding in general, not specifically the NIH and not just from the US government. And there are several important scientific and technological breakthroughs that have at least been seeded by government spending. Why, the very fact that I can converse with you through a computer from Canada is partly due to public funding. The private sector obviously has a role to play in driving progress, but it's pretty clear to me that public funding has not been entirely futile.

If we want to focus on healthcare, I can point to the Human Genome Project, as well as hundreds of publicly funded studies that have shaped our understanding of genetics. I can point to all the research that has gone towards HIV/AIDS, which has essentially transformed HIV from a death sentence to a chronic disease in the space of a couple of decades. I can point to the development of various vaccines and all the basic research needed before-hand. Public funding has played a role in all of these developments, and more.

I do know that for a pittance the NIH could have studied Linus Pauling's claims and chose not to, in favor of supporting medicine and pharmaceutical companies over the public interest.

Okay, but how exactly does this negate the fruits of all the research that the NIH has funded? And it's not like the NIH has an unlimited budget - getting funding for both basic science and clinical research is not a simple task for anyone. In any case, if any funding were available to put Pauling's claims (I'm assuming you're referring mainly to Pauling Therapy for heart disease rather than the common cold and cancer) to the test, I wouldn't be against it.

I also have read (Julian Whitaker) that the NIH tried to steal Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's Antineoplaston Therapy See: http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/ (for brain tumors) and filed patents on his ideas.

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with my comments.

[godsilove]

Generally, the public pays and the patents and profits go to the researchers and pharmaceutical compnies. Exhibit A is warfarin.

It does seem unfair, doesn't it? The taxpayer's money goes towards the early development of a new drug, and (s)he ultimately ends up having to pay hundreds of dollars for it.

But can you suggest an alternate system that would guarantee the same progress?

Agreed, but for most governments it is also one of the biggest burdens on the national deficit.

This makes the business with disease a great way to break the bank and bankrupt the nation.

Which is precisely why governments (including those in the EU and Canada) have a strong incentive to find interventions that could lower healthcare costs.

A Cure Is Not Welcome is actually the title of a book. Specifically I was referring our efforts to enlighten the world to the Pauling/Rath Cure for the last 20 years.

What percent of people taking the Pauling/Rath therapy are actually cured?

A lot of the information on this site is more than mere speculation. And observational medicine has been around for millenia before the so called scientific method. We can sit around waiting for the studies while millions die or see what we have learned in the last 13 years through our experience with the Pauling Therapy. After 40 years in the nutritional investigation business and 2 years working with Dr. Rath I probably am both cynical and paranoid.

Well, for millenia the average life expectancy was much lower than it is today. Modern medicine would not be possible without the scientific method; furthermore, would you say that Pauling's theories on Vitamin C are NOT based on the scientific method?

The way I see it, without a proper scientific study assessing the clinical benefit of Pauling's "cure" for heart disease, there's little certainty that it works. Thus, implying that millions of people would not otherwise die if they were aware of this therapy is precisely the kind of speculation I was referring to.

Don't lecture me about government. I am a 13th generation American and my ancestors invented this great republic.
I worked as a lobbyist in both IL and DC for DSHEA, without which their would be no (as in zero) supplements in the USA above RDI levels. I am not ignorant of the machinations of government.


If you are seriously interested in a dialogue, please withhold the sarcasim. If you think that there isn't a power elite you are either naive or a "progressive."

The information that I give is based on 46 years of research. It is generally based on the nutrients that are usually absent from a typical diet coupled with those nutrients that have shown promise for preventing and reversing pathologies.
The information is general, but the supplements that I recommend are ones that I have seen good results with and are inexpensive at vitacost.com or iherb.com.

This isn't a lecture coming from me, but simply me voicing my own opinions. You obviously have your views about government, but I may not be inclined to agree with all of them.

Now when you talk about "46 years of research", what kind of research are you referring to? Would some of it happen to involve laboratory studies conducted with the help of government grants?

[ofonorow]

does this negate the fruits of all the research that the NIH has funded?

What fruits? For what cost? The numbers may be off, but when Angel wrote that the top 10 drug companies profits exceed the other 490 in the Forbes 500, that was around $32 billion per year. Ergo, the TOTAL profits of the Fortune 500 in that year was around $60 billion, or roughly twice what we spend in the NIH every year.

Imagine the breakthroughs if this staggering amount of money that is spent on the NIH went to small private companies to encourage and promote medical research! For example, for the money we waste on the NIH, the Government could offer a reward - say $1 billion dollars - for the company that cures heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. Or make the reward $30 billion. In a year or two, all chronic conditions would be cured! (We know how to do it now. )

What percent of people taking the Pauling/Rath therapy are actually cured?

Trick question! Zero. (The Pauling therapy does not CURE the condition in the usual sense of the word cure, as the patient must continue to take a maintenance dosage to continue receiving the benefits.)

But the answer to how many "miraculously" respond to 5000-6000 mg of vitamin C and lysine in as little as 10 days, as if cured, is very close to 100%. (As we document here, over and over, some people cannot tolerate that much of the vitamin orally, there are dependencies, such as increased body weight, eating fiber with the vitamin C/lysine, there are interactions with drugs and other toxins, and a problem with diabetics being able to absorb vitamin C from the blood stream into cells, etc. So over time, in some people, there does seem to be a regression. And some people require much more vitamin C, in one case 60,000 mg and another case 30,000. For me, 10,000 mg of vitamin C is a magic number that provides protection for the vast majority.)