It is a paraphrase of what Bill said to me in an e-mail. But I encourage you to ask him yourself if the Unified theory of Pauling and Rath is not valid.
Here's a recent blog entry. Notice again that there is no mention of LP(a), only that calcium is the real cause of heart disease. At the very least, doesn't this make you curious? If calcium is the problem then doesn't that imply that Pauling was wrong? If this is what Bill believes, ok, but I would like to know why Pauling was wrong. The Unified Theory has always seemed to make sense to me. And according testimony which you yourself have received and published on the web, it must be doing something significant.
Having said that, Sardi can have his opinion, but the last I heard, Bill Sardi was saying "excess iron was the real cause of heart disease."
The unified theory is really a vitamin C theory - it explains that Lp(a) has evolved to compensate for low vitamin C in the animals that have lost the capacity to make the vitamin. If Sardi has ANY data to contradict this idea, I would be willing to read it.
If the Pauling Unified Theory only accounts for 3% of what causes heart disease
When autopsied plaques have been analyzed, they are found to contain cholesterol, but of a very particular type. The offending cholesterol is a highly-oxidized variety of LDL cholesterol attached to a specific protein (Apo A). The whole complex is called Lipoprotein A or Lp(a)...
According to him, only 3% of blockage is due to cholesterol.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest