Patients too smart to take heart medications

[ofonorow]

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???

I must say that this is a dumb question and hardly worth a response.

Do you really think that if medicine can treat and cure something, I would ignore it because of my bias against medical "science"?

Going into the hospital did and does scare me. I am appalled that almost all advice, especially nutritional advice, is wrong. And I am trying to think of cases where medicine might be able to cure something better than the correct "natural" approach, and I cannot think of many (any?).

In the case of my son, not only has he not needed medical attention almost his entire life, (he has had perhaps two infections and only missed one day of school through high school), he is the picture of health. His only need for medical attention will be if he suffers some trauma/accident.

And this is one of the reasons we formed the Foundation - from personal experience I know that, with few exceptions, people who follow Pauling's advice from childhood are exceptionally healthy and do not get sick. Making your question moot!

But we digress. None of this is relevant to the question of whether artificially lowering cholesterol is good or bad for heart patients. If you think it is good, then I would like to know what theory you subscribe to?

[jknosplr]

I must say that this is a dumb question and hardly worth a response.

Why you would react so negatively is another clue to why you may be suffering heart disease

--ofonorow Feb 08 2011

I hope that your negative responses do not lead to premature heart disease!!
O,
The question was posed several times, you chose to ignore it until rephrased where you could not ignore it.
No point in going sinker here its just a discussion, and you should address all question whether "dumb" or not!.

Fact is you would do any thing to protect you and yours as I would, makes no difference in the methodology of getting there as long as the end result is success. Its insignificant whether the cure comes out of a orange or of of a grain of rice!

I have no idea whether I will do any better taking statins or not. Nothing is static and as you said its a on going experiment. The logic of lowering the cholesterol in the blood impeding plaque build up is flawed by the fact that many people with low cholesterol still have MI. But does having the low cholesterol number extend the time that it takes the plaque to deposit a 70% blockage? If statins impede the inflammation as you stated and the tests prove it does, perhaps that may help in my case as the VC is does not appear to be successfully accomplishing that particular task. If the inflammation is the culprit?? My CRP is is way below thresholds defined by the "medical establishment" that you do not trust are the test results viable?.

Statins have been shown to stabilize plaque, in my case we know my plaque is not stable so if using statins stabilizes plaque, reduces inflammation, and VC will dissolve plaque at a molecular level as you state then I'm just leverage myself three fold by succumbing to big pharmacy's facade and using the VC as a kicker. If is not inflammation, what else could it be?, Iron toxicity? I'm addressing that as we verbally joust! Maybe its just my body reacting to stress in my everyday life and inability to cope with it. I may succumb never knowing.

One thing I find ironic in all of what I read, is it appears lowering cholesterol by diet the "natural method" i.e Bushy post is condoned but lowering it with statins is a no no. The final result is the same, less serum cholesterol!. That does not mean that Bush will not have a MI 2.5 years from now, as we know lower numbers may not prevent MI. It may mean that he may not have one 2.5 years from now due to the extended time period for the plaque to form (lower numbers if hypothetically viable). This extension may lead him to find the cause of inflammation if he has it, or find the alternate cause of CVD if he has it and remedy both. In the end does it really matter how one extends his or her mortality, is there a spot reserved for the deceased that use statins?

All powers to be here indicate its not the cholesterol numbers but we all seem to revert back to that line of thinking time and again even you. If its not cholesterol numbers then whether one taking statins should not even be in the discussion, as you say "moot". If that's the case then its down to the various other variables which are discuses and "Cholesterol" should be banned from the board.


As Bill O'Reilly says "I'll give you the last word" its your board and this horse has been beat to death!

jk

Side bar: Completed my 6 month Stress Test/ EKG yesterday. Went the full duration on the tread mill. Doc says he did not see any muscle damage in the ultrasound scans taken of the walls of the heart from the 02/02/2011 MI. Heart does not appear to be reforming.

life is good!

[ofonorow]

And you deftly avoided answering my question, under what theory does lowering cholesterol benefit heart patients?

One thing I find ironic in all of what I read, is it appears lowering cholesterol by diet the "natural method" i.e Bushy post is condoned but lowering it with statins is a no no. The final result is the same, less serum cholesterol!.

Me thinks you misses the point.

Going back to the firemen analogy. There are two ways that the number of firemen on the scene can be reduced. Either the fire goes out, and the number of firemen on scene is reduced "naturally" or the fire chief orders the firemen to leave! (statins) Potentially leaving the house burning!

Yes, the final result is the same - less firemen on site? If you are only counting firemen (cholesterol) , you are not taking into account the fire! (CVD).

Back to your assumption, that cholesterol (the firemen) cause the fire. When you take Lp(a) out of the equation, I submit there is no evidence that ordinary cholesterol in any way shape or form causes heart disease. But, again, if you believe that cholesterol is the culprit, what is the theory of how it causes CVD?

[jknosplr]

under what theory does lowering cholesterol benefit heart patients?

there is no theory..............

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/ebookprint.php?id=1112

[scottbushey]

Owen,
I believe JK is stating something that I said many months ago; it has been posed that Cholesterol is not a problem in and of itself; it's what happens to the cholesterol in the body, i.e. inflammation is the precursor to the cholesterol sticking to the artery wall. no inflammation, no worries about high cholesterol numbers. Do I have this right, so far? If we follow Paulings therapy, i.e. Proline, Lysine and high dose VC, this should aleviate the problems-high cholesterol should not be a concern as long as we follow the protocol. No matter how high the lipids are, if they can't stick, no issue-elevated numbers should be a moot issue!

JK,
Have you exhausted dietary approaches? I thought I had.......now I'm at present, Paleo. You need to eat more animal fat and 86 the breads etc. My theory, there is no right way for every individual-we must use all the avenues that are available. We must continually 'shake it up' and shell shock our metabolic systems. Today I am doing this, who knows about tomorrow. In regards to the Statins; I cannot, at this point, justify using them as the studies do not show the outcomes beneficial. 1/100 patients does not hold my feet to the fire. I will do it another way.

[ofonorow]

[jknosplr]

[ofonorow]

Malcom states that the statins act very fast once administered, days to weeks. I am theorizing, that is why the Cardiologist seen a change in my RCA in just under 30 days. That's a hard one to swallow isn't it? 30 days on statins and he see change

Statins act "very fast" in precisely what way? Can you be more specific? What is the benefit you think statins provide so quickly? (If lowering cholesterol, then we are back to square one.)

And no, I am not surprised that a doctor "saw" improvement in 30 days. People see what they want to see.

Generally, people can live long lives, i.e. many years with atherosclerosis - and not know it. So I submit that the picture you paint - of unconstrained growth of plaque and narrowing of coronary arteries to 100% blockage - is the exception, not the norm. It is a path the leads to pain, MI and eventually death. And it is a good question why it happens, especially in your case, someone who reportedly has taken high amounts of vitamin C and lysine religiously for 3 years. (We do know that it only takes about six months for people who stop their vitamin C to revert and suffer a heart attack.)

My guess is that your plaques are as described by Dr. Levy in STOP AMERICA'S #1 KILLER. They are involved and have been around a while. So much tissue has developed that any vitamin C (and/or lysine) in the blood stream has trouble reaching the cells deeper within the plaque.

What can be done? First, lets review what is probably the ultimate cause. Dr. Rath uses the analogy of stepping on a garden hose - 70 times per minutes, day in, day out. The hose will eventually crack, and when arteries crack from the pressure, the body compensates - atherosclerosis. Your arteries are responding to the physical stress of the heart beat. From Dr. Levy's description - the plaque itself is an imperfect replacement for a healthy artery.

What can be done to promote the strengthening of your arteries, especially those covered in plaque or "thick" with necrotic tissue? If your cells were producing collagen properly, the arteries would be stronger, more resilient to cracking. Even if statins were somehow able to "clear away" the garbage by reducing cholesterol and opening up cells for vitamin C/lysine, you would still be wise to take as much vitamin C and lysine as you possibly could.

If it were me, I would be concentrating on collagen. I would be flooding my blood stream with as much vitamin C/lysine and proline (not forgetting vitamin B6 and copper - not flooding with copper!) as possible, and that means 500 mg of vitamin C/lysine every 3/4 hours. I would attempt to maintain my blood levels at maximum with the hope that this strategy would promote vitamin C entry into the walls of the damaged/sick arteries.

Importantly, I would hedge my bets and use Lypo-C or an equivalent. I would use liposomal C concurrently hoping that if there is some missing pathways (e.g. low insulin) preventing cellular uptake of vitamin C in the damaged arteries, that the liposomal form would provide an alternative means for ascorbate to enter my cells and promote collagen.

Knowing that Alpha-Lipoic-Acid (ALA) promotes vitamin C uptake through cell membranes, even in the absence of insulin, I would be taking around 600 mg of ALA daily, with some of it the R-ALA variety. E.g. 300 mg twice daily.

Also, knowing that vitamin C must penetrate cellular membranes, and that membranes can become "disturbed" limited glucose and vitamin C uptake, I would follow Thomas Smith's clear advice at healingmatters.com - and eliminate all trans fatty acids from my diet. (Following the so called "Paleo" diet - or no manufactured foods - sounds like it would be ideal. If your diet is currently poor, it might take several months of "repair" work with healthy fats before cell membranes will return to normal and vitamin C would be able to more easily pass through.)

[jknosplr]

And no, I am not surprised that a doctor "saw" improvement in 30 days. People see what they want to see.

..............