Moderator: ofonorow
scottbushey wrote:It is my goal to get a VAP test done soon; in light of recent posts I have made and my lab values, I am wondering why it would be bad going on a statin. If Statins raise LPA and High dose VC lowers it, and if Statins cause a CoQ10 deficiency and I am replacing those losses, why would it be bad going on a statin? Is not what I am doing offsetting that which the statins destroy?
Frustrated.......
Scott
ofonorow wrote:At a high level, the statin is artificially lowering an important substance in your blood stream, i.e., treating a symptom. A substance, cholesterol, that is not only required for good health, but may also be elevated because of dental or other toxicity. So artificially lowering your body's own natural defense mechanism seems to be tempting fate.
Thanks to Pauling/Rath we know that ordinary cholesterol doesn't generally adhere to arterial walls like Lp(a) will, and really poses little threat (and a lot of theoretical benefit as described in Dr. Levy's STOP AMERICA'S #1 KILLER - livonbooks.com). A high Lp(a) number, with small molecular weights, would be a sign of significant CVD risk. (Larger Lp(a) molecules are not as atherogenic.)
Apparently, taking CoQ10 can mitigate many of the risks (e.g. the stories of vegetarian women who were put on statins for "prevention" and lost major internal organs. If a cell doesn't have CoQ10 it dies. A meat diet provides at least 5 to 10 mg of CoQ10.) And the destruction of muscle fiber, explains why many statin users experience muscle pain, and lets not forget the threat of heart failure seems to be connected to CoQ10 depletion.
The effect statins have on lowering CoQ10 was recognized almost immediately, because the CoQ10 researchers were from Merck. (Remember the Merck patent to add CoQ10 to HMG-COA reductase inhibitors). What else may these foreign agents to the body interfere with? The drug companies have been reduced to saying that statins are necessary because of other effects, such as reducing inflammation. However, vitamin C is an excellent way to reduce inflammation, and Thomas Levy introduces a theory in his book is that inflammation is the way we have evolved to "move" ascorbate to the site of injury, as white blood cells are the first to saturate with vitamin C.
As we have discussed previously, because of the magic 95% confidence interval, 1 in 20 studies might produce an erroneous results.
In my humble opinion, this is why Pfizer has run more than 400 studies on Lipitor. The odds are that something like 20 studies would erroneously produce a positive result. (Unfortunately, I don't believe they really even have a single one )
At best, statins might not harm you, but there is surprisingly little evidence given all the studies that they will help you in any way. At worst, these drugs will make matters much worse.
ofonorow wrote:The "400" number is from Pfizer's Lipitor advertising on TV. You say they are lying? Good help me prove it, as I am preparing a letter to Big Brother about the false and misleading advertising promulgated by big pharma.
If statin drugs are so beneficial, I would expect that to be clear from at least 380 of these studies. I submit that the reason so many studies have been run is because the results were otherwise disappointing.
Under the vitamin C theory, humans are missing a substance that strengthens arteries. The therapy is to replace the missing substance.
What is the theory on which medicine gives a poison to heart patients? You can quote all the studies and statistics you want, but without a basic theory, it is mostly noise with an underlying imperative to sell a mutli-billion dollar drug to people who don't really need it.
And I know that LDL can accumulate, but I doubt the effect is important. You ignore the Biesegal work that showed the it was Lp(a) and only Lp(a) (post mortem) in the plaque in aortas. Lp(a) is "sticky", LDL is generally not. (But see Levy's STOP AMERICA'S #1 KILLER about how the arterial wall can compensate for weakness.)
If it were true about the Swedish study and amalgams, then I have lost all respect for Swedish researchers who are obviously bought and paid for.
Under the vitamin C theory, dental toxicity might explain the MAJORITY of heart disease because of its effect depleting vitamin C.
Under the vitamin C theory, humans are missing a substance that strengthens arteries. The therapy is to replace the missing substance.
Where's the evidence that it is missing? You suggest taking megadoses of vitamin C - how much of it actually goes towards supposedly replacing missing ascorbate in arteries, as opposed to being excreted in the urine??
Where's the evidence that it is missing? You suggest taking megadoses of vitamin C - how much of it actually goes towards supposedly replacing missing ascorbate in arteries, as opposed to being excreted in the urine??
There is no evidence that heart risk increases with the number of dental amalgams - in fact, a Swedish study found that there was an inverse association between heart risk and the number of dental amalgams, but this association disappeared once they controlled for factors like socioeconomic status.If it were true about the Swedish study and amalgams, then I have lost all respect for Swedish researchers who are obviously bought and paid for.
"Obviously"? Just because a study does not confirm your preconceptions does not mean that there is foul play going on. Do you ever consider that your heroes like Pauling, Rath and Levy could be wrong about certain things?
ofonorow wrote:
This has nagged me because it is quite obvious that this study is meaningless, if not bogus, on its face without having to read it. These days, dental work is practically ubiquitous in the modern world. Almost everybody has some kind of dental work, primarily because of the poor, sugary western diet. So how can you infer anything without looking at people who don't have ANY dental work? (Such peoples have been found to be consistently WITHOUT heart disease.)
A symptom of the western diet is rotting teeth, so while no epidemiological study can claim that amalgams cause (or do not cause) cardiovascular disease, we know that poor, highly refined western diets do play a role in cardiovascular disease, and people's teeth suffer because of it. (In the primitive or non-western societies that Weston Price studied, they did not have to brush their teeth to have cavity-free teeth.)
Ergo, if everyone has some dental work, either amalgams or root canals, how can serious researchers find an inverse relationship between "the number of amalgams" and cardiovascular disease? I don't think it is possible or material. Again,, the interesting question is the rate of CVD in people with and without dental work. (Even so, it might be the diet, and not the mercury/toxicity causing the disease.)
Therefore I guess that this study was funded by a Dental Association.
Return to “Heart Disease: Linus Pauling's Vitamin C/Lysine Therapy”
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 28 guests