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.
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.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??...
jknosplr wrote: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.
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.
In my opinion after three years the minimum results should be no new lesions!
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.
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).
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.
Not one doctor I've been to trashes the VC protocol, yet you people have no problem trashing organized medicine.
[/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!!
In a previous post you mentioned a sailor with "low C"? Are you speaking of C-reactive protein? Confusing.
Yet in the next sentence you say this??
The RCA I posted in his opinion has not gotten any worst than it was three years ago.
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.
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.
The entire point is that medicine could study vitamin C but chooses not to.
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.
"Take this and regression will happen"?? Really, where is that link please.
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.
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.
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!”
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!)
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.
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.
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."
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!!
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?
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests