It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:36 am




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

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Patients too smart to take heart medications
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20110510/many-heart-patients-arent-taking-needed-drugs

We can learn one thing from this morning's daily dose of medical/pharmco propaganda

Quote:
Researchers found little difference in use of the drugs before and after the publication of a landmark 2007 study, known as COURAGE, which found that stents and angioplasty offered no survival advantage over preventive drug treatments alone in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Wed May 11, 2011 4:59 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Being a patient with two MI's under my belt, its not a matter of who is right or who is wrong. Its a mater of being alive to asses right and wrong. In the long run it does not amount to a hill of beans, mortality rate does! If one platform is not providing benefits then one should look to other avenues to be successful.


Quote:
“Many clinicians think of PCI as a standalone treatment, which is a big misconception,” he says. “The idea that if you fix the blockage, medical treatments are less important couldn’t be more wrong. Fixing the blockage does not negate the responsibility to be vigilant about the need for optimal medical therapy.”


Fri May 13, 2011 6:16 am
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Over the years, we have commented on this phenomenon, especially those who have analyzed the raw data in all the cholesterol lowering stuides. ( http://www.ourhealthcoop.com/pdf/MikeCiell_unified_theory.pdfPage 7 of 14)

Quote:
Anyway, because cholesterol supports so many essential physiological processes, it
doesn’t make a lot of sense to pharmacologically inhibit cholesterol production to “get our
numbers right.” In fact, in study after study, the group with the lowest cholesterol levels
had the highest mortality (death due to all causes).

I find the mortality rates for those with the lowest cholesterol readings particularly
troubling. I believe it’s far better to help our bodies make necessary repairs and let the
numbers “fix” themselves. Nature ultimately does not waste energy, so when less
cholesterol is needed, less cholesterol will be produced.

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Sat May 14, 2011 7:09 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
COMPARING THE “LIPID THEORY” WITH THE “UNIFIED THEORY”


Theory : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

Since it is "Theory" it is not proven to work 100% ,conversely statins are not a 100% cure for CVD either, statins are proven to lower cholesterol. If cholesterol lowered by artificial means will impede the build up of plaque in the arteries. Then using VC protocol side by side with statins may give the VC protocol time to heal the arteries while reducing the plaque build up. Extending life, is this a bad thing? The VC protocol may take more than three or five years in some people to get the job done. The VC protocol may never heal the arteries in some people for what ever reason.
Knowing this is the case, does one begin to search for alternate methods or does one roll over and perish of "Natural Causes" to satisfied the a segment that believes that the natural death method is the best? Can I deal with side effect of statins? As long as I'm alive, I can be actively engaged in countering CVD, I'll deal with side effects. If I'm dead I can't do anything. Should I sucome to CVD by natural causes (continue VC only), or do I sucome due to cells not receiving "ample amount of Cholesterol" ( statins only) or any of the other side effects that are by product of statins?. One day a patient may just hit pay dirt and find that diversifying treatment is the correct avenue to pursue.

Until one looks the elephant in the eye, one can never know how they will respond.


Sun May 15, 2011 3:52 pm
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
statins are proven to lower cholesterol. If cholesterol lowered by artificial means will impede the build up of plaque in the arteries


I think this is exactly the issue. Does artificially lowering cholesterol impede (or accelerate) the build up of plaque in the arteries? Statins have been studied to death. I submit that there have been over 400 studies (according to statin advertising on television, and that may be just Lipitor alone) and yet only one has come close to showing a reduction in plaque - the Jupiter study (and it wasn't much of a difference and was terminated "early" so they could make this claim.)

What about the other 399+ studies? Why didn't they show any reduction in plaques?

I think the answer is that statin/cholesterol lowering drugs do not reduce and probably increase the build-up of plaques.

And yes, the unified theory is only a theory, but it helps us to analyze the mass of data and try to make sense of it. I have been focused on the Pauling/Rath theory for more that 15 years, and it not only makes a great deal of sense, there is no other theory that comes close, and very little data to the contrary (given that it is hard to get accurate and truthful information from the medical propaganda "filters".)

Would I trust or take statins. Absolutely not, for any reason in any form.

Even if I believed that lowering the body's life giving and anti toxicity substance - cholesterol - was appropriate (i.e., that it made sense to reduce the number of firemen who come to fight the fire) I would instead use vitamin C, a proven cholesterol reducer. (As Pauling noted back in 1986 - the Ginter work "proves" that cholesterol levels are inversely related to vitamin C serum levels.)

In my case, with a strong family history of CVD, I recently had the nuclear test that shows I have no plaque buildup or blood flow reductions. Yes, I take 15 to 20 g of vitamin C daily, also lysine/proline, and have since 1996. But as in the case of proving all swans are white - my not having CVD proves nothing. However, finding a single black swan proves that not all swans are white. If I had CVD, then something is wrong with Pauling's theory.

Does your case disprove the theory? Maybe, but only you know how much vitamin C and lysine you take daily.



_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Mon May 16, 2011 2:42 pm
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
Would I trust or take statins. Absolutely not, for any reason in any form.


For sure? as you stated you don't have CVD so in reality you don't know for sure.... if you would or you wouldn't take statins! When one walks in the shoes you sing a different tune.........for sure.

Quote:
Does your case disprove the theory? Maybe, but only you know how much vitamin C and lysine you take daily.


So if one posts on this board their daily dosage , then follows up after three years that the protocol does not appear to be working, you elude to the fact that the person is not doing what they say there doing? At least you could of said "get another iron panel done"...... first.

Beside my self being a liar, Bushy must be lying also!! I guess one would rather die than go another rout, makes sense to me.


Mon May 16, 2011 3:26 pm
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
For sure? as you stated you don't have CVD so in reality you don't know for sure.... if you would or you wouldn't take statins! When one walks in the shoes you sing a different tune.........for sure.


Yes I know for absolute certainty I would never under any circumstances swallow a statin. Of course there are no prescription drugs that I take (unless confined to a hospital bed with no choice). But if statins were forced down me, knowing how they affect the endogenous production of CoQ10, and what that ultimately means to ones health, especially heart health, I would probably double the recommended CoQ10 dose from 200 mg to at least 400 mg daily!

I am not questioning your veracity, only that only you know how compliant you have been. In my experience, compliance has usually been the primary issue in "failures." (There are other issues, such as high blood sugar/diabetes, and perhaps dental toxicity. Dr. Levy's research also blames high iron as you alluded to.)

But I am of course curious. Do you want to make an assertion about how much and how constant your vitamin C intake has been over the period you mentioned?

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Tue May 17, 2011 7:26 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
O
I have been posting here for over three years, I have posted my starting dosages, when I increased and what has been added and deleted. Not much deleted mostly added a supplement. I can post till the cows return, but I still have the issue that protocol is not producing the results anticipated. I misled you I missed a day or two of the protocol while I was in the hospital recovering from the last MI Jan 2011.

jk


Tue May 17, 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
O
Some time back (02/20/2011??) you recommended getting off the L-Proline, could the proline been inhibiting the VC & Lysine??
at the time I was using 6 gr/day, currently none.
I see several other post where proline is not being used but I believe Rath had added it to the original Pauling protocol??

jk


Tue May 17, 2011 12:57 pm
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
What about the other 399+ studies? Why didn't they show any reduction in plaques?

I think the answer is that statin/cholesterol lowering drugs do not reduce and probably increase the build-up of plaques.


http://heartdisease.about.com/od/othertreatmentsforcad/a/asteroid.htm

Quote:
More importantly, after 2 years of therapy with rosuvastatin, the volume of coronary artery plaques (measured again by IVUS) was significantly reduced.


Here is another Test"
Quote:
There was a 30% relative reduction in the risk of death with simvastatin treatment


30% is better than 0% anytime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Simvastatin_Survival_Study


Wed May 18, 2011 4:52 am
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
One by one. The first link http://heartdisease.about.com/od/othertreatmentsforcad/a/asteroid.htm proves the point. That was in 2006 (wouldn't be surprised if the name was changed to Jupiter, or they used the same study data, because Jupiter used the same statins.)

According to this link, there has been one study - count em one - where a statin reduced plaques. And it is a study of reportedly the most dangerous statin - Crestor - again, the only one that has shown a reduction in arterial "volume." After 2 years!? Note further on down it points out that they never find regression in their hundreds of studies.

If this is Jupiter (after asteroid) then the "significantly reduced" is a matter of opinion. Statistically significant, maybe. Significant reduction. No.


Quote:
More importantly, after 2 years of therapy with rosuvastatin, the volume of coronary artery plaques (measured again by IVUS) was significantly reduced.

For the first time, aggressive therapy with statins was associated with actual regression of coronary artery lesions. However, this was a relatively small study, and importantly, there was no control group.

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Wed May 18, 2011 2:21 pm
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9426
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Quote:
The absolute coronary heart disease-mortality was reduced from 8.5% to 5.0%


When they have to "lie" using statistics (the above is their 30% reduction in mortality) it raises a red flag.

They proved almost nothing, yet consider how this study impacted medicine:


Quote:
The treatment of 100 patients for six years would prevent four deaths of the disease and seven non-fatal myocardial infarcts.

The 4S study turned out to be a milestone in cardiology and evidence-based medicine - it was clearly proven that treatment with statins saved lives of patients with coronary heart disease. A host of other large multicenter clinical trials followed that paved way to widespread use of this class of pharmaceuticals.


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. Ah but my guess is only a guess.

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

_________________
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Wed May 18, 2011 2:30 pm
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
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. 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. 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!!


Thu May 19, 2011 5:41 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
J, I take it you did not do the Phlebotomy to get the iron level down? My brother in law has Porphyria and his body has a hard time controlling iron in his blood. When the iron gets to high, exposure to sunlight causes nasty blisters on his skin. The only way to control his condition is to not drink alcohol, watch his iron intake and get a Phlebotomy( bled) every so often to remove some of the iron.

Phlebotomy for people with Porphyria, Hemachromatosis or any disease caused by iron overload is very common and the best way to remove a % of the iron. It is not some crazy medieval practice.

Also, all those studies on Statins that show success.......look at the language used when they talk about the percentages. You'll notice they all refer to "relative" numbers and not absolute 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.


Thu May 19, 2011 8:17 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Posts: 151
Post Re: Patients too smart to take heart medications
Schigara
I tried to give blood some time back but due to the recent MI the American Red Cross would not take a donation. So July is the time that I will try again, they said six months. As of now I'm taking IP-6 as recommended by O and levy.

As for the numbers, they are dynamic and can be manipulated any way one chooses to fit an agenda. Fact is that the cholesterol numbers from the lab are not. The Simvastatin lowered them, weather is ideally healthy to lower them is another question. Main stream medicine also predicts that they stabilize plaque, lower CRP, yada and yada. To me the VC is not producing, it would be pretty narrow minded not to entertain alternate venues. That is the only point I'm trying to make here, is "lets try something else". So far the numbers are lower, if it stabilizes the plaque, inhibits or slows excessive build up until I can get the arteries to heal then I succeed in extending my mortality for now. Doc say I'll never totally have 100% regression but I may witness a small percentage.

Side bar:
I was at the cardiologist yesterday, while sitting there A friend I see occasionally has the same card and walked in. Get this, he's 55 and had a quadrupedal by pass which I had heard about some time back. I start asking questions and find out his total C was 120 before the heart trouble and had been for some time. The doctors told him he was fine, but here he is with blocked artery's. He is a Merchant sailor and has worked on fuel barges all his life. First thing hits me is inflammation from the chemicals in the fumes, the next thing I wonder about is why the liver is not in over drive making C, everybody else I know with quads had C well above the 180-190 normal marker. I remember sometime back reading here that there are many people with low to normal C that end up with CVD also. Doctor has the privacy thing going on so I got no where asking him with the exception of "different risk factors" . Here is an example of the exception to the rule, low C and still has CVD.............


Thu May 19, 2011 9:33 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 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.