It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:24 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Patients too smart to take heart medications 
Author Message
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:27 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Memphis, Tn
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
My brother in law doesn't go to give blood. The doctor or nurse who is treating his condition removes some of the blood and then disposes of it.

You don't need to donate blood, your doc needs to remove it to lower the iron level.

_________________
Linus Pauling, Matthias Rath, Thomas E. Levy, Fred Klenner, Robert Cathcart, Owen Fonorrow, Sydney J. Bush-- These are my doctors and they saved my life and I have never met one of them.


Thu May 19, 2011 10:16 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Will a GP do that or do you have to have a doctor that prescribes to that methodology on board?? My Iron is not excessively high, any way the card doesn't think so , but this board does.Ii am pursuing this course also.

Iron and TIBC
Date Collected: 2/19/2011 7:21:00 AM
Test Description----------------Result-------------Range------------Units
Iron, Serum001339-----------------108------------40-155-----------ug/dL
Iron Bind.Cap.(TIBC)001347---------240-----------250-450----------ug/dL
UIBC001348------------------------132-----------150-375-----------ug/dL
Iron Saturation011362--------------45------------15-55-------------%
Ferritin, Serum004598--------------495------------30-400----------- ng/mL


Thu May 19, 2011 10:49 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
The powers that be won't study vitamin C and lysine in the same way, but my guess is that the results would be a somewhat different.


don't totally agree with this, its on the fringe of conspiracy. I see no benefit to falsifying data on any test as it leaves a Corp wide open to liability. If I was gonna cook the books then, I would definitely make the numbers enticing as to sell more useless drugs. Not produce numbers that are of marginal success, naa. The truth is some of these statins due reduce numbers I am proof they do, other people are also. These pharmaceutical company's have infinite resources to develop products, why spend the money on law suits when one can spend it on R&D. I have read where a drug has adverse reaction and lawsuits are filed, drugs are taken off the shelf yea fine. That is not what our point of contention is about. You asked for a study, I produce one and its no good. It would not matter how may study's were presented you and yours would find them to be quantifiably deficient. I have read several studies on VC where the end results were inconclusive. More testing is required, but does that render the test or procedures inadequate?. Only if one wants to disparage the test to prove the test is "fixed" as the end results is not what they were looking for. My final point is that if VC is the magic bullet then the drug company's would be on it like white on rice. Drug companies lobbied to remove the stain from red yeast rice and were successful in having it remove prior to being sold as a supplement. The same would happen if VC was found to be the magical drug to cure CVD. You would be out of business and or have to be licensed yada,yada to deal it by FDA.
ya know in the end maybe VC and statins have more in common than either of us though. Some people befit from them and some people don't.


Thu May 19, 2011 2:03 pm
Profile
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:37 am
Posts: 615
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
jknosplr wrote:
...Never do I read "VC may not be for every one". This is the FRUSTRATING part your recommendations are always post-Mortem....
Not one doctor I've been to trashes the VC protocol, yet you people have no problem trashing organized medicine. I write to forum last winter concerning the MI I suffered and the first one who writes back patronizes me and I get a lecture on the dos and dont's of shoveling snow??...
Excellent post. Thank you for making such an important point: Any specific protocol may not work for everyone. Human health is more complicated than that.

Suggestion 1: If you have a bit of time I suggest listening to or reading Dr. William Wong's take on heart disease. He recommends systemic enzymes and a few other things. They have over 200 scientific studies, are used widely in Europe and Japan, are shown to be very safe. It would be interesting what would happen after three months of following the Wong protocol in addition to your other protocols.

I'll post a thread on this board sometime about Wong's heart protocol. His clinical experience, or anyone's for that matter, seem to outweigh base theories any day.

Suggestion 2: Check out TCM to see if they have any solutions to your dilemma. Four thousand years of history must stand for something, no? The tricky part might be finding the smartest cookies (doctors) in the TCM cookie jar.

Best of luck. Get better soon. Be well.
-VanCanada

http://www.drwong.us


Thu May 19, 2011 3:15 pm
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 8999
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
In a previous post you mentioned a sailor with "low C"? Are you speaking of C-reactive protein? Confusing.

Anyway, to this previous post.


jknosplr wrote:
Quote:
Brings up a point, what do your regular cardiologists/doctors think of your condition, and are you angry with them?


No I'm not angry with him or you, as a matter of fact he supported the VC protocol I have been on and still does. But as we know its not preventing any new lesions.


Yet in the next sentence you say this??

Quote:
The RCA I posted in his opinion has not gotten any worst than it was three years ago. He also indicated that he though it might have even improved some on the last film. He picked up on it in the lab while I was on the table getting a stent in the Remus artery and pointed it out. The assistant that was working with him agreed, the reason I posted it. To me the latest film appears to have more clarity than the previous.

He also supports the statins as you know, his opinion is that if the VC helps one needs to take a lot of it for results, also its not proven by the medical establishment to reduce plaque and the statins are.


Yes, I would agree with your doctor that one needs to take a lot of vitamin C ! (You are lucky to have such a doctor.) The very first experiments on humans (Willis - 1950s) showed the 1500 mg of vitamin C reduced plaques in 1/3 to 1/2 of the study subjects. There are no such results for statin drugs. Perhaps one finding among the hundreds and hundreds of studies, so yes, in my opinion, if the medical establishment has proved anything from these studies it is that statins cannot and do not reduce or reverse atherosclerotic plaques. Yet you make the claim that the medical establishment has shown that statins reduce plaque. This conclusion makes no logical sense. (And remember that a 95% confidence interval means that 19 our of 20 times, statistics would predict the same results in the same study. I believe they run so many studies hoping for the 1 in 20 "wrong answer", and that is probably what happened in the Asteroid/Jupiter study you cling to.

To clarify, all these statin studies have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that statin drugs lower serum cholesterol levels. No one doubts or is debating that fact. The debate is whether reducing the "firemen fighting the fire" is beneficial or harmful to heart patients. This is debatable because medicine always stops the statin studies just as the mortality seems to be heading south for statin groups. My fear is based on logic. I believe that these drugs are in fact harmful, and thus money-making for cardiologists. Patients on statins have a never ending need for their cardiologist. My logic is based on the fact that these drugs reduce the endogenous production of Coenzyme Q10 - the coenzyme need by muscles to create energy (in the basic ATP energy reaction. CoQ10 is required to break the phosphorus bond). So medicine is giving heart patients a substance that makes their hearts weaker! (And yes, it does sound conspiratorial. Just because I am paranoid doesn't prove they are not really after me.)


Quote:
In my opinion after three years the minimum results should be no new lesions!

Fine, that is your opinion. But what is it based upon? The entire point is that medicine could study vitamin C but chooses not to. (not that they falsify data.)

Quote:
Your point could be argued and debated as your last post clearly states. It appears to me that both sides have their defined positions. You say it can be reversed...............Medical community says it can be managed minimum reversal if any. I have films that prove it has not been reversed(my case) you have posted none that show a reversal. When an entity claims a product will perform a function then fails, a second products succeeds( lower cholesterol through statins) one starts to question validity of the claim.

It is interesting that you are comparing tiny little us versus the entire medical establishment, supported by the highest grossing/highest profit companies in the world - the pharmaceuticals.

Linus Pauling said that he felt based on the science, that yes, it should be possible to reverse atherosclerosis using vitamin C and lysine. We accurately report what Linus Pauling claimed.

Eye doctor Dr. Sydney Bush has now monitored such reversals and found direct evidence that these reversals are connected to nutrient intake, especially vitamin C.

We are reporting what Pauling, Bush, Levy and others have had to say and we have tried for a decade to interest researchers in medicine and the NIH (Office of Alternative Medicine) to at least investigate what Pauling and Rath claimed. To no avail. Twilight zone.

From all the reports over the years, we agree with your DOCTOR - failures seem to be related to dosage. A road to failure is to have your nutrient intake too low, especially of vitamin C. But no, we don't know if there are individuals, such as yourself, who cannot reverse the disease no matter how much or how high their vitamin C intake is. But your report in this message is very encouraging.


Quote:
First it was dental toxicity, remove the amalgams, then it was the order in with the amalgams was removed. Well right there is the out. Some doctor in Texas that charges umpteen thousand dollars for his services, claims VC will never work unless you use his removal protocol. So its back to the patient not following your "directions". Indecently that doc has been to court several times, malpractice (not snake oil sales either). Next I here VAP test standard lipid test is no good. Money is laid out for VAP test, then its add this add that take way this, too much of that, last I hear "Iron Panel" your Iron is too high and you have iron toxicity in your system. You have to get bled.............bled? this is 2011 the US has stealth drones in Afghanistan, medical profession is dissecting DNA and you want to bleed people? Phlebotomy's began in the Roman times maybe before, my own doctor raised his brow on that one.
You guys sit there an indicate what were all doing wrong but we never hear about it until your product fails to perform, its always after the fact, and we are one step closer to the grave (by three years).

Members of this forum has taken the time to analyze your case and we have attempted to help. All of this without seeing you. So now you are criticizing us for that? Are we grasping at straws? Perhaps. But it is interesting that there is nothing "patentable" about our products. They are pure nutrients. Our products offer purity, excellence and convenience. We have no monopoly and you can purchase what we recommend from anywhere.

Quote:
I have yet to see a Matrix of tests to be completed prior to starting the VC protocol, it's always take this and regression will happen, if not, your doing this wrong.......go take that. Never do I read "VC may not be for every one". This is the FRUSTRATING part your recommendations are always post-Mortem.

"Take this and regression will happen"?? Really, where is that link please.

"Never to I read that VC may not be for every one." Well before your case (which you yourself say here is stabilizing) the reports of failure were few and far between and always related to dosage and bowel tolerance. So where should we have gotten this knowledge from?

We are not amazed by your case. Your experience is exactly what medicine predicts and instills in all doctors, that there is no value in vitamin C for CVD.

We are amazed by all the positive, miraculous results we have received. Reports that began with the first three cases Pauling himself reported after he began recommending lysine.


Quote:
Not one doctor I've been to trashes the VC protocol, yet you people have no problem trashing organized medicine.

You live with and interact with a remarkable group of doctors. I have talked with hundreds, if not thousands of CVD patients, many who experience exactly the opposite. Some doctors have even refused to continue as their doctors if the patient continued to take vitamin C without their consent.

Quote:
I write to forum last winter concerning the MI I suffered and the first one who writes back patronizes me and I get a lecture on the dos and dont's of shoveling snow?? Then you jump me for being rude, rude?......and inform me that if the VC was not working I would not be sitting hear typing. Had I listened to the medical profession to begin with staying on the statins I may not of suffered a second MI. This is of course is conjecture and can not be proven either way as we know.
No I'm not angry, I'm frustrated I want a cure for the plague and it seems to be slipping away! I got to go take my statins and my VC!!
[/quote]

I learned a great deal from that doctor's post - and was grateful he took the time to write. He clearly explained why show shoveling, rather than say working out in a gym, would be especially hard on the heart. Your angry reaction was probably why several members of this forum decided to back off and not continue trying to help you. And if you step back, try to rise above it all, you have to admit that there is something incongruous about a patient with severe CVD shoveling snow in the first place! (With that "picture" you could be one of our success stories!)

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Sun May 22, 2011 8:15 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
In a previous post you mentioned a sailor with "low C"? Are you speaking of C-reactive protein? Confusing.


No not low CRP, low Cholesterol, sorry for the confusion.

Quote:
Yet in the next sentence you say this??

Quote:
The RCA I posted in his opinion has not gotten any worst than it was three years ago.


Correct the doctor did indicate that the RCA appeared better in the 02/23/2011 than the 02/01/2011or the three years prior to 02/01/2011 . These were 22 days apart. He eluded to the statins, I questioned anything that showed results in 22 days after being on VC for 3 three years, low fat diet, yada, yada. I sure was not giving the statins the credit, or did I like the idea, That's why I posted all the films. Not that any one was going know what caused a change, but if any one else noted it.
Remember I was not there for a RCA check up I had developed two more lesions in the Rhombus Artery. One ruptured due to inclement weather and the other is 70% blockage by the velocity test the card performed.


Quote:
There are no such results for statin drugs. Perhaps one finding among the hundreds and hundreds of studies, so yes, in my opinion, if the medical establishment has proved anything from these studies it is that statins cannot and do not reduce or reverse atherosclerotic plaques.


I produced a study on statins that's what you asked for you chose not to believe it and began to marginalize it. Contrary you expect all to believe what Pauling, Rath, Willis and the rest publish that are in your camp I think there is some truth in all!

Quote:
The very first experiments on humans (Willis - 1950s) showed the 1500 mg of vitamin C reduced plaques in 1/3 to 1/2 of the study subjects.


Dietary vitamin C reverses athereosclerosis

The Canadian physician Dr. G.C. Willis showed that dietary vitamin C can reverse atherosclerosis. At the beginning of his study, he documented the atherosclerotic deposits in his patients by angiography (injection of a radioactive substance followed by X-ray pictures). After this documentation, half of the study patients received 1.5 grams of vitamin C per day. The other half of the patients received no additional vitamin C. The control analysis, on average, after 10-12 months showed in patients who had received additional vitamin C that the atherosclerotic deposits had decreased in 30% of the cases. In contrast, no decrease in atherosclerotic deposits could be seen in those patients who had not received vitamin C supplementation. The deposits in these patients either had remained the same or had increased further.

http://www.miraclec.ca/en/studies_vc.ht

No values on how much or percentage of a decrease in the test patients..

Quote:
The entire point is that medicine could study vitamin C but chooses not to.


When a pharma comes out with a drug, who runs the study? they do. If your that sure this is a viable "cure" then under a predetermined set of variables run the study your self with all correct protocols in place that your team agrees on. You have doctors on aboard, you have many contributors, you even have two people that will volunteer for it and I will pay for my own protocol. ....I might not be a good candidate, since I been on it for three years and the only base line is empirical data.

Quote:
It is interesting that you are comparing tiny little us versus the entire medical establishment, supported by the highest grossing/highest profit companies in the world - the pharmaceuticals.


Nothing interesting about it, you been comparing yourself to the company's since I been here. i.e they lie , we don't, their products side effect is this , ours is Bt or that, you get the idea. You are in competition with them and that is the crux of it. Human nature is to marginalize your competitor. Or your trying to be the victim here.

Quote:
"Take this and regression will happen"?? Really, where is that link please.


If to dissolve lp(a) plaques is by definition "regression" I read it here, You wrote it!

"The Cure for Heart Disease: Theory, History and Treatment
By Owen R. Fonorow, Copyright 2004"

"Pauling and Rath called the substances that treat chronic scurvy and destroy existing plaques Lp(a) binding inhibitors. Vitamin C, to increase collagen production and to improve the health and strength of arteries, and lysine, to prevent and to dissolve Lp(a) plaques, are the primary binding inhibitors. These substances taken together are clinically effective. "

Here are two more
Quote:
Linus Pauling said that he felt based on the science, that yes, it should be possible to reverse atherosclerosis using vitamin C and lysine. We accurately report what Linus Pauling claimed.

Eye doctor Dr. Sydney Bush has now monitored such reversals and found direct evidence that these reversals are connected to nutrient intake, especially vitamin C.


Are there any films that you would like to post of the reversals that are noted in the preceding text??

Quote:
learned a great deal from that doctor's post - and was grateful he took the time to write. He clearly explained why show shoveling, rather than say working out in a gym, would be especially hard on the heart.


Lets not sanitize it to much, here are the first several Ines of what he wrote, after that he was alienated, as I was with my response.
Quote:
This kind of says it all!!
First a Heart Patient Shoveling snow! Did your Doctors not tell you? “Don’t do any strenuous activities!” Recently I was watching a Chicago News about the big storm they had up there and they were predicting they will see over a 100 heart attack patients at the local Hospitials and the ER’s were gearing up for the sudden increase.
Then you Said “One Ruptured!”


I guess I scared off all the posters and doctors by being crass and blunt! Doctors split chests open swim in viscera, deal with dead patients relatives after they screwed the pooch, and my comment hurt their feelings, what I have no feelings??

Quote:
something incongruous about a patient with severe CVD shoveling snow in the first place!(With that "picture" you could be one of our success stories!)

"one shovels snow has MI but survives because he was taking VC". Sounds like something one would read in the National Enquire. Hows about this "CVD patient after three years on VC shows 100% regression.........shovels snow again!" any more plausible?

I would enjoy being the poster boy for VC but we have to get there from here.

In closing I would like to reciprocate apologies with Jonwen, I continue to read his posts even if he ignores mine (ha), or chooses not to respond. I do hope that we will revisit our relation ship here on the board and continue to positively exchange material.

jk...............time to take the VC!


Sun May 22, 2011 11:05 am
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 8999
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
J, for the upteenth time. Statins have hundreds and hundreds of studies - without showing any reduction in plaque what-so-ever, with one possible exception - and to me, this says everything. Statins do not and cannot reverse plaques. It is crystal clear, a scientific fact, and seeing the graph of that study is very helpful.

While looking for the graph, found this: http://www.spacedoc.net/Crestor_JUPITER


Quote:
There is only one way to interpret the data. Reduction in cholesterol is irrelevant to plaque maintenance. The anti-inflammatory effect of the plain statin is where the cardiovascular benefit lay. This was heresy. Cardiologists and internists were stumbling over each other trying to explain this away. But no further explanation was necessary. After four decades of brainwashing us about the evils of cholesterol, they had done a magnificent job of shooting themselves in the foot with this trial. The last thing they wanted the public to know was that the billions of dollars recently spent on cholesterol reduction was unnecessary. Cholesterol was not the enemy, inflammation was. My grandmother was right all along with her eggs and butter.


The graph I was thinking of is midway down this link

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cardiovascular-disease/1853/

Look at this graph and decide whether that one study (of hundreds that show no benefit) is what you are willing to hang your hat on.

Image

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Mon May 23, 2011 7:56 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
JUPITER is a large, multinational, long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial that included 17 802 healthy men and women assigned to rosuvastatin 20 mg or placebo. The study was designed to assess whether statin therapy should be given to apparently healthy individuals with normal LDL cholesterols but elevated C-reactive protein levels (CRP >2.0 mg/L).

Among patients treated with rosuvastatin, LDL-cholesterol levels were cut in half, decreasing from a median 108 mg/dL at baseline to 55 mg/dL at 12 months. CRP levels were also significantly reduced, declining from 4.2 mg/L at baseline to 2.2 mg/L at 12 months. Triglyceride levels were reduced 17% from baseline among those treated with statin therapy. These effects persisted over the course of the study.


If I read this correctly, and more than likely I missed a lot of it being ignorant in the medical field, approx 18000 healthy people were split into two groups. By healthy as defined in the article, elevated CRP and normal LDL. Then fed 20mg of rosuvastatin and the other group a placebo. In the end 50 more people died in the placebo group. Correct? All this tells me that if your healthy statins are not doing nothing for ya. But what medications does one take if they are healthy?? Oh and the group taking statins appeared to contract a higher rate of diabetes than the placebo group.

Seems to me that you take 18000 people with high Cholesterol, High LDL, High triglycerides, and low HDL, with high CRP and CVD and test that group.

Quote:
Stopped after 1.9 years of study

JUPITER was designed as a four-year study but was stopped by AstraZeneca after just 1.9 years based on recommendations from an independent data monitoring board and the JUPITER steering committee. When the study was stopped on March 29, 2008, as reported by heartwire at that time, the company reported unequivocal evidence of a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among patients treated with rosuvastatin compared with those treated with placebo. Despite the benefits, Dr Sanjay Kaul (Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA) questioned why it was stopped so early, "especially when we have no idea about the long-term safety of very low LDL levels as achieved in this trial."


I agree stopping a study only 1.9 years into does smell fishy...............but no more so than telling one the order in which the amalgam fillings s are removed is instrumental in curing CVD with VC.

http://www.theheart.org/article/917181.do


If the thrust of this study is to promote (Usage of Statins $$$$) under the guise of maintenance of cholesterol by preemptive treatment then "big pharma" is doing the same thing as the "Pauling Therapy" preemptive treatment is doing theoretically that is, just on a much larger scale $$$$$.

As I stated earlier I don't care who's widget works as long as it works!

I have since learned that one might be very careful where one hangs his hat at all.

jk


Tue May 24, 2011 7:32 am
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 8999
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Not sure I follow your comments above, but I didn't see any comment about the graph?

In any event, I am surprised by this study and most statin studies (and perhaps this is why it was terminated early? ) I am surprised that the statins are on par with placebo w/r to mortality. According to "theory" people on statins should die QUICKER than placebo. This "theory" is based on the knowledge that CoQ10 is required to keep the heart functioning and strong, and these drugs deplete the body of CoQ10. (I am free to speculate that if they let these studies run their course, the statin groups would have a much higher mortality rate than placebo. Such a result would not help sales of the number one selling class of pharmaceutical drugs. - $7-15 billion annual sales.)

Not sure how/why you connected amalgams and statin studies?? It is true there is no direct evidence that taking out your amalgams will benefit your CVD. (However, if an health objective includes avoiding Alzheimer's, I firmly believe there is a benefit from getting rid of the mercury near the brain!) The remove amalgam recommendations are based on the clinical knowledge of Dr. Levy, and others, as related in the book UNINFORMED CONSENT. Dr. Levy provides strong anecdotal evidence of the link - his own personal case. Dr. Levy also proposes a theory in the book.

And again, the difference between the statin lowering drugs and vitamin C for CVD is that there is a strong, comprehensive theory supporting Vitamin C. The "theory" behind cholesterol lowering drugs is apparently that lowering cholesterol is useful and beneficial for CVD patients. Yet none of these studies provide any data that proves or even hints that lowering cholesterol is good for CVD (and they have had to resort to the idea that the benefits of taking statins is because they reduce inflammation. Well there is no better substance known for reducing inflammation than vitamin C.)

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Tue May 24, 2011 8:46 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
you seem to only address the questions that behooves you. Until you have more skin in the game (not financial skin) I would not expect an un-biased answer.

The juniper test was designed as prevention not treatment after the fact.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2000324,00.html

I was never talking preemptive treatment, post treatment after all other vehicles seemed to run out of gas. As I said VC is also recommended as preventive CVD vehicle. you sell it as such with no study's to support your claim. again testimonials are not study's.

For the umpteenth time to be so narrow minded as not to visit other available vehicles to fight CVD due to a mindset, is the same as quitting! In another words your willing to die because the technology does not dove tail into your program.
Would you let your only child die from a disease that could only be cured by mainstream medicine because you don't agree with their methodology? I doubt it!!


Wed May 25, 2011 4:21 am
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 8999
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
For the umpteenth time to be so narrow minded as not to visit other available vehicles to fight CVD due to a mindset, is the same as quitting! In another words your willing to die because the technology does not dove tail into your program.
Would you let your only child die from a disease that could only be cured by mainstream medicine because you don't agree with their methodology? I doubt it!!


We are definitely talking "past" each other.

I am thankful for Linus Pauling's theories. I have visited almost every "other available vehicles to fight CVD)" out there. They either have no coherent theory or no success to speak of. If you want to blindly follow medicine, go ahead!

And if your (pharmas) only study that shows a mild plaque reduction was really only for prevention (!?) then you again have proved the point that statins as shown by hundreds and hundreds of studies are useless as far as atherosclerosis is concerned.

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Wed May 25, 2011 8:18 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
Would you let your only child die from a disease that could only be cured by mainstream medicine because you don't agree with their methodology? I doubt it!!


well would ya???


Wed May 25, 2011 9:18 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:27 pm
Posts: 68
Location: Memphis, Tn
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
I'll take testimonials any day over rigged or biased studies that use relative numbers.

_________________
Linus Pauling, Matthias Rath, Thomas E. Levy, Fred Klenner, Robert Cathcart, Owen Fonorrow, Sydney J. Bush-- These are my doctors and they saved my life and I have never met one of them.


Wed May 25, 2011 10:13 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:39 am
Posts: 44
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Jk...I'm sorry to hear you have had another MI, the emotional roller coaster it sends you on is not a pleasant one - wishing you a speedy recovery.

I don't know if you have come across the book "reverse heart disease now"? it's written by two practicing cardiologists, it might give you a balanced view of orthodox practice vs natural and working with a combination of the two. It also gives you testimonials of how they believe alternative therapy have saved the lives of / increased the quality of life for some of their patients.

I don't know if the likes of you and I can realistically expect a cure? If the advice and recommendations helps to live our lives to the full and prolong the inevitable, is this not worth it's weight in gold?


Thu May 26, 2011 2:29 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
I don't know if the likes of you and I can realistically expect a cure? If the advice and recommendations helps to live our lives to the full and prolong the inevitable, is this not worth it's weight in gold?


Thanks I'll take a look see!


Thu May 26, 2011 3:29 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.