Vit. C Not working to Reduce Cholesterol

The discussion of the Linus Pauling vitamin C/lysine invention for chronic scurvy

Moderator: ofonorow

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Vit. C Not working to Reduce Cholesterol

Post Number:#1  Post by ofonorow » Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:32 am


Hi...

i've been taking your cardio vit. C for quite a while and my lab results show that my cholesterol is actually getting worse. i've been taking it faithfully...i'm currently using 4 jars per month...2 of plain vit. C & 2 of the cardio. if i take more, i'm afraid i'll be spending too much time on the toilet...i'm pretty much to the point of rumbling and going several times a day. i space it out over 4 times during the day and only mix it
right before i take it.

the more vit. C i take, the worse the cholesterol...what am i doing wrong? diet has no effect. niacin has no effect. i took statins for years and came down w/ breast cancer 12 years ago and statins is the only solution according to my endocrinologist. even w/ statins, my cholesterol never got below about 256.

blood work sept. 09

311 cholesterol
129 triglycerides
59 HDL
226 calculated LDL
252 Non-HDL
3.83 risk ratio LDL/HDL

blood work dec. 09 w/ increased vitamin C

320 cholesterol
168 triglycerides
56 HDL
230 calculated LDL
4.11 risk ratio LDL/HDL

i take 2 tablespoons of ground flax seed daily, 1600 mg. EPA & 800 mg. DHA
(both from anchovy/sardines/soy) daily, 1500 mg. niacin at nite, & numerous other supplements to try to ward off heart disease & cancer & trying to lower cholesterol.

thyroid checks out fine. my glucose/insulin levels are also too high...glucose is 114 & insulin is 5. eliminating grains & sugars & breads/pasta has no effect on that, either.

i'm 56 years old and weight 145 lbs. i'm moderately active (2-3 times per week i dance). my dad died of hardening of the arteries at 39. my endocrinologist says i already have narrowing of my arteries, but no plaque, yet. however, my ophthalmologist says he can't see any narrowing or plaque in my retina arteries. my LDL is 'mid-size'.

i need help, guys. i'm spending a small fortune and not getting any noticeable results. is there any supplement that destroys the effect of the vit. C? i can send you a whole list of what i take. having had cancer at 43, it gives you quite a scare. i've also had the berkeley lab tests and can send you those, too. you can check my account and see how much of the vit. C i've been ordering from you and for how long. even before that, I was taking the recommended amounts by capsule form along w/ the proline & lysine. seems the healthier i eat, the worse my cholesterol gets.

thanks,
jeanie


Well, to me the fact that your opthamologist cannot see "plaque or narrowing" in your retinal arteries is very encouraging. It means that you are most likely in good shape, (your "plumbing") and that is good news!

Yes, your cholesterol is considered high by most measures, but these levels may be normal and natural for you. (If the elevated cholesterol was laying down plaques, the microscopic retinal arteries in your eyes would be the first place it would show up.)

Other than the cancer, you don't report any symptoms, e.g. of prior heart or current heart disease. What are the issues other than the lab reports? (And the word "calculated" bothers me. Were the Berkely results calculated rather than measured? I would be interested in your "measured" cholesterol, especially Lp(a) numbers.)

I look at cholesterol in a totally different light from most doctors, e.g.
http://www.internetwks.com/owen/TruthChol.htm

but if you really feel it necessary for your cholesterol to drop, you may have to add even more vitamin C (and/or eliminate what ever toxicity might be present, such as prescription drugs or amalgams/root canals, etc.)

I don't see a problem with your supplements, but I recommend Pauling's basic regimen as given in his book HOW TO LIVE LONGER AND FEEL BETTER plus 5000 iu vitamin D3 (esp. in winter). My entire Pauling-protocol is available at: http://www.practicingmedicinewithoutali ... /protocol/
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

pamojja
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 1554
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:44 am
Contact:

Re: Vit. C Not working to Reduce Cholesterol

Post Number:#2  Post by pamojja » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:14 am

ofonorow wrote:What are the issues other than the lab reports? (And the word "calculated" bothers me. Were the Berkely results calculated rather than measured? I would be interested in your "measured" cholesterol, especially Lp(a) numbers.)


Well, at least to me it was a revelation to find out that usual blood panels indeed only 'calculated' cholesterol levels, with might be inaccurate a 100 points up or down!

Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar

There's a $22 billion industry based on treating LDL cholesterol, a fictitious number.

LDL cholesterol is calculated from the following equation:

LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5

So when your doctor tells you that your LDL cholesterol is X, 99% of the time it has been calculated. This is based on the empiric calculation developed by Dr. Friedwald in the 1960s. Back then, it was a reasonable solution, just like bacon and eggs was a reasonable breakfast and a '62 Rambler was a reasonable automobile.

One of the problems with Dr. Friedewald's calculation is that the lower HDL cholesterol, the less accurate LDL cholesterol becomes. If it were just a few points, so what? But what if it were commonly 50 to 100 mg/dl inaccurate? In other words, your doctor tells you that your LDL is 120 mg/dl, but the real number is somewhere between 170 and 220 mg/dl. Does this happen?

You bet it does. In my experience, it is an everyday event. In fact, I'm actually surprised when the Friedewald calculated LDL closely approximates true LDL--it's the exception.

Dr. Friedewald would likely have explained that, when applied to a large population of, say, 10,000 people, calculated LDL is a good representation of true LDL. However, just like saying that the average weight for an American woman is 176 lbs (that's true, by the way), does that mean if you weigh 125 lbs that you are "off" by 41 lbs? No, but it shows how you cannot apply the statistical observations made in large populations to a single individual.

The lower HDL goes, the more inaccurate LDL becomes. This would be acceptable if most HDLs still permitted reasonable estimation of LDL--but it does not. LDL begins to become significantly inaccurate with HDL below 60 mg/dl.

How to get around this antiquated formula? In order of most accurate to least accurate:

--LDL particle number (NMR)--the most accurate by far.

--Apoprotein B--available in most laboratories.

--"Direct" LDL

--Non-HDL--i.e., the calculation of total cholesterol minus HDL. But it's still a calculated with built-in flaws.

--LDL by Friedewald calculation.

My personal view: you need to get an NMR if you want to know what your LDL truly is. A month of Lipitor costs around $80-120. A basic NMR costs less than $90. It's a relative bargain.

By Dr. William Davis

VanCanada

Re: Vit. C Not working to Reduce Cholesterol

Post Number:#3  Post by VanCanada » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 am

Blood cholesterol levels between 200 and 240 mg/dl are normal. These levels have always been normal. In older women, serum cholesterol levels greatly above these numbers are also quite normal, and in fact they have been shown to be associated with longevity. Since 1984, however, in the United States and other parts of the western world, these normal numbers have been treated as if they were an indication of a disease in progress or a potential for disease in the future.

As a result of some of this misinformation, which was purposefully planted by the leadership of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) in 1984, many hundreds of thousands of people are treated with expensive medications to prevent the development of a non-existent illness. If the medications were only expensive and not life threatening, their use could no doubt be shrugged off as a harmless snake oil pharmaceutical scam; but, in fact, these are thoroughly dangerous medications for both physical and emotional reasons—for physical reasons because their use can lead to serious untreatable diseases such as liver cancer, and for emotional reasons because their use perpetuates the myth that cholesterol is dangerous and evil.
-Mary Enig, Ph.D.
Quoted from http://westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/fats_phony.html

Cholesterol seems to be a problem only when it is oxidized. Otherwise it's an indicator of a long and healthy life, which Weston Price's research revealed to the world. The Weston Price Foundation recommends we consume butter, cream, whole milk, French cooking, lard, coconut oil, and so on as things we can enjoy. And they keep us healthy too! Perhaps the emperor has no clothes.


Return to “Heart Disease: Linus Pauling's Vitamin C/Lysine Therapy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests

cron