I work from 45 degree fundus fotos in full colour and (ideally) 1Mb. min. but often 750Kb is acceptable
I am digesting this too... From Dr. Bush.
Thank you very much indeed for taking the trouble to send me these images
which are particularly interesting and I hope they are not yours.
Both images are of excellent quality and are fairly easy to work with.
They would have been better still for quicker and easier evaluation had the fixation been the same for both.
But I am pleased to have been able to do what you asked without annotating the critical points of interest in the images which require closer attention.
1. This patient is particularly vulnerable to glaucoma. I am not saying he/she has it.
2. The atherosclerosis in the image of 2009 is Grade 2.5+. That is not good at all. It is worse than average
3.) The image of two years later shows progression of atherogenesis which is now grade 3.0
I do not often see images at this stage. Ordinarily I would ask for a signed 'consent to treat' and waiver of liability. Medicine has little to offer except statins and their record is not good.
A recent review stated that they had proved better in secondary prevention than in primary prevention. The public appears to fail to understand that what is being said here is that one has to experience a first heart attack to perhaps receive a benefit in reduced risk of a second.
4.) The images could be from a male or female. They suggest that regression of the atherosclerosis might be accomplished before kidney or other serious damage occurs, but a thrombosis is inevitable if the condition continues to deteriorate and - in any case - I have seen thrombosis occur before this stage of arterial disease has been reached. I would not be surprised if this person has already had a coronary thrombosis.
In the USA I would write to the doctor (there is no cooperation at all in the UK) and advise continuous and vigorous Pauling therapy, suggested with some vessels almost completely blocked
I do not want to say more.
Feel free to publish this but I do not wish it to become expected of me.
If you wish to edit it, please allow me to see your text before publication.
So we have a measure. (We don't know how bad things would have been if J. hadn't adopted vitamin C) but I would say based on this that it should be possible to determine improvement in the future. I know Dr. Bush has reported seeing positive improvement in less than a month on his nutritional program on the "soft" atheromas - which features sodium ascorbate, vitamin E, etc. If there are calcifications, and there undoubtedly are, then it can take considerably more time, but why not try to get this images at least monthly and I'll try to get a thumbs up (things are improving) or thumbs down (things are worsening) opinion from Dr. Bush.
jknosplr wrote:As of 03/01/211
20000-25000 mg VC/day 14 lbs per year...............you do the math
6000 mg lysine/day
6000 mg l-proline/day
1000 mg Niacin/day
1000 iu VE/day
1000 IU D3/day
1000 mg omega 3/day
200 mg Q10/day
100 mg Magnesium Citrate/day
B complex complete/day
100 mg grape seed extract/day
added to protocol
100mcg vit K/day
10000 iu Vit A/day
2gr IP6 and Inositol/day
Anybody have a theory on this??
jknosplr wrote:If the drug is increasing the VC absorption, is more VC being transported to the needed areas or less? BT indicates VC pass through or non usage, saturation......correct?
To your knowledge has this ever been experienced before while using VC and a statin??
(Isopropyl alcohol) also combines with our vitamin C.
So perhaps, and this of course should get some good biochemical attention from regular biochemistry, perhaps isopropyl alcohol depletes your system of ascorbic acid, vitamin C.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests