Not LP(a) but Calcium?

Answers to questions about vitamin C and its relation to all forms of cardiovascular disease

Moderator: ofonorow

Bobber
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am
Location: Mid West
Contact:

Not LP(a) but Calcium?

Post Number:#1  Post by Bobber » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:40 am

Bill Sardi has this interesting article which suggests that heart disease is caused by calcification of arteries. He also has suggested that even Pauling and Rath were mislead as cholesterol only causes a very small amount of hardening of the arteries. Anyone care to comment? The article is interesting and seems plausible to me. But I can't help wondering why people would have such dramatic results using Vit C, Lysine, and Proline.
Bobber

journeys

calcium

Post Number:#2  Post by journeys » Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:45 pm

I think, Dr Tom Levy says in his books something about not taking calcium supplements either.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 9759
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Getting it straight

Post Number:#3  Post by ofonorow » Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:59 am

First, I doubt this is an accurate description is what Bill Sardi said, but if it is, all should know that I love Bill Sardi. His heart is in the right place. He cured his own illness and has become a force for nutrition.

But he is not a trained scientist.

When it comes to a choice between Linus Pauling and Bill Sardi, I'm afraid there is no real choice.


My problem is that I have a large project in the fire related to all this and don't have the time to investigate Sardi's ideas. Maybe Ralph Lotz, who has been telling me about this, will.

Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath

Bobber
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am
Location: Mid West
Contact:

Post Number:#4  Post by Bobber » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:47 am

Owen,

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.
Bobber

J.Lilinoe

Post Number:#5  Post by J.Lilinoe » Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:44 pm

I think both Sardi and Pauling are correct. Cholesterol still makes up 3% of plaque (according to Sardi's research) and calcium makes up 50% of plaque. Both are caused by nutritional deficiencies. According to Pauling, a vitamin C deficiency causes blood vessel walls to weaken and causes the body to patch the spot with Lp(a). On top of that, according to Sardi, when there is a Vit D, Vit K and magnesium deficiency, it causes calcium to accumulate in the arteries. Both guys are correct IMO.

Bobber
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am
Location: Mid West
Contact:

Post Number:#6  Post by Bobber » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:59 pm

Only 3%? Hard to believe vitamin C and Lysine could have such a dramatic effect if it is only 3% due to lp(a).
Bobber

Dolev
quack
quack
Posts: 793
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:01 am

Post Number:#7  Post by Dolev » Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:52 pm

The subject of calcium and arterial calcification has been discussed elsewhere in the forum. I believe that the practice of giving calcium supplements without magnesium and vitamin D has long been shown to be dangerous, because the calcium will deposit in the wrong places. More recently, it has been shown that the most important nutrient in this regard is Vitamin K2, menaquinone, which activates an enzyme which prevents calcium from being deposited in soft tissues, but instead also activates a different enzyme which draws calcium into the bones.

Anyone ever wonder how there can be people with osteoporosis and calcification of the arteries at the same time?
Dolev

J.Lilinoe

osteoporosis?

Post Number:#8  Post by J.Lilinoe » Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:27 pm

I think the question was whether Linus Pauling was off track when he claimed that his unified theory of dealing with cholesterol was the answer to heart disease. Now we see that calcium plays a much larger role in heart disease according to Sardi's research and gives us a better understanding as to why high cholesterol is not such a bid deal.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 9759
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Science is weighing alternatives

Post Number:#9  Post by ofonorow » Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:23 am

Bobber wrote:Owen,

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.


Well, first what we practice here is what I wish medical science would do more of; thoroughly discuss alternative views and data. I don't know if Sardi's ideas are being wll represented, but I think he has a login here.

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."

Now its Calcium??

How are people supposed to react to that, even if it were true? (And Dolev hit the nail on the head. It isn't necessarily calcium, its where the body decides to deposit calcium, and vitamin K (and D) seem to have a role. So reducing calcium intake wouldn't necessarily be the answer.)

Now the fact that Sardi either doesn't understand the Pauling/Rath Unified Theory, or hasn't heard about it, from his review of the science, is not surprising. You can't use MEDLINE to find out about this. And this is the root of the problem, the reason medical science hasn't picked up the ball and run with it. And greater minds than mine, e.g. Hoffer and Hickey and Saul have been working on this problem for years, to no avail.

But I learned from Dr. Warren Levin over 10 years ago that arteries can be open, even if there are high calcium scores on these FAST CT-SCANS, and, major arteries can be blocked, without any calcium readings. He recommended a "Thallium Stress Test" for our first study for this very reason.

How does Bill explain this?

I have tried to find out about this, and from various evidence, it would seem that calcium tends to build up on the OUTSIDE of the arteries. Think of a pipe, it has two surfaces. The inside touching the fluid, and the outside. Lp(a) travels in the blood and is involved with the patching on the inside of the artery. and from the knowledge of people with very high calcium scores, but whose angiograms show their arteries to be "wide open", the only logical answer is that the calcium deposits are more on the outside, filling cracks on the outside. I'd like to see data/experience about this.

But Sardi is right, and among the minority I believe who are correct to dismiss the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Ordinary cholesterol is healthful, and no more dangerous than any other necessary blood component.

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.

But his not mentioning it is not the same thing as saying Pauling was wrong.
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath

Ralph Lotz
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:52 pm
Location: Chandler, AZ
Contact:

Iron and Calcium

Post Number:#10  Post by Ralph Lotz » Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:42 pm

Sardi is right about both iron and calcium.
Take 10 minutes and watch this:
http://www.longevinex.com/pdfs/The%20Un ... 0Aging.swf

Then read this and check out the 156 references:
http://www.longevinex.com/pdfs/The%20Un ... 0Aging.pdf

Sardi not a trained scientist? Interesting. Me either, but I learned to read when I was 3.
"Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution...medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship..force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what..dictating outfit offers." Dr. Benjamin Rush

J.Lilinoe

Post Number:#11  Post by J.Lilinoe » Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:53 pm

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."


Huh? According to Sardi, he speaks of excess iron in relationship to cancer and not heart disease. His article regarding iron and cancer and using IP6 helped my co-worker overcome her cancerous tumor 2 years ago.

http://www.knowledgeofhealth.com/report ... itamin%20D

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.


I have never seen anything written by Sardi that refutes Pauling's theory about Lp(a). All he says is that calcium is probably more a cause of heart disease than high cholesterol.

Bobber
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am
Location: Mid West
Contact:

Answer?

Post Number:#12  Post by Bobber » Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:07 am

Ralph and J,

Can you answer my question posed above then? If the Pauling Unified Theory only accounts for 3% of what causes heart disease (and the rest is due to calcium), why are there so many strong testimonies of it's effectiveness?
Bobber

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 9759
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Huh?

Post Number:#13  Post by ofonorow » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:48 am

If the Pauling Unified Theory only accounts for 3% of what causes heart disease

Lets focus on this. Where does this 3% number come from? What are you talking about?

The Pauling/Rath theory is a vitamin C theory, not a cholesterol theory. (The theory does explain why we have Lp(a), other animals don't, and how plaques form as Lp(a) levels rise when vitamin C levels are deficient.)

As far as the lesion, lysine binding site and the etiology of atherosclerosis, this is where Lp(a) - and not ordinary cholesterol - plays a role beginning the process.

According to Pauling (his lecture on DVD and from a letter I've seen to Biesegal) he was impressed by the Biesegal findings in Germany. (Matthias Rath was a member of the German team while a medical student)

The team exmained aortas post mortem of people who died from heart disease. They found Lp(a) - and only Lp(a), not LDL cholesterol - in these plaques.

Rath soon joined Pauling after this discovery circa 1988.
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath

Bobber
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am
Location: Mid West
Contact:

Post Number:#14  Post by Bobber » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:22 am

Owen,

The 3% comes from my discussion with Bill Sardi. According to him, only 3% of blockage is due to cholesterol. If I understand the Unified Theory correctly, LP(a) is a component of LDL cholesterol. Here is a quote from this article:

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)...


So, according to Sardi, the Unified Theory can only account for 3% of blockage in heart disease. Am I making any wrong assumptions or conclusions here?
Bobber

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 9759
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Wish I had the time

Post Number:#15  Post by ofonorow » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:47 am

According to him, only 3% of blockage is due to cholesterol.


I still don't know what his reference is for this rather silly number. I'll take the time to read his references.

The process begins with Lp(a) creating white atheromas at the site of the lesion. This process is visible in the retinal arteries a la Dr. Sydney Bush.

Over time, the atheroma covering the lesion may calcify, and new growth occurs, per Dr. Levy in STOP AMERICA'S #1 KILLER. As cells multiply to strengthen the artery, the narrowing occurs, and so yes, someone looking at older atherosclerosis would be looking at the later stages, and not see much cholesterol. The process reminds me of growing callous on a finger from working with one's hands.

And I also believe that ordinary cholesterol does not start the process, it is not sticky like Lp(a), but as Levy explains, the body will start to use any material it can to strengthen weak arterial walls - cholesterol, calcium, Chrondroitin, etc.

But always in response to the lack of collagen utlimately caused by the lack of vitamin C.

I haven't studied Bill's theory, but, it would have to explain:

1) Proximity of the arterial plaques to the heart
2) Aterial plaques period (Why this process is rare in veins)
3) Why the plaques/narrowing occurs on coronary arteries on
the "surface" of the heart, but not in coronary arteries running
through (inside) the heart itself.
4) The initial stages of the process as seen by Dr. Bush/Cardioretinometry
5) The clinical observations that people can have blockages WITHOUT high
calcium scores, and visa versa, people with high calcium scores can
have no blockages.
6) What happened in 1970 - the year the mortatliy RATE in the U.S. began
declining (after a straight line increase from 1900 to 1970)
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath


Return to “Heart Disease and Stroke”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest