It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:24 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Not LP(a) but Calcium? 
Author Message
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am
Posts: 140
Location: Mid West
Post Not LP(a) but Calcium?
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


Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:40 am
Profile
Post calcium
I think, Dr Tom Levy says in his books something about not taking calcium supplements either.


Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:45 pm
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9358
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Getting it straight
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


Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:59 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am
Posts: 140
Location: Mid West
Post 
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


Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:47 am
Profile
Post 
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.


Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:44 pm
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am
Posts: 140
Location: Mid West
Post 
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


Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:59 pm
Profile
quack
quack

Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:01 am
Posts: 785
Post 
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


Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:52 pm
Profile
Post osteoporosis?
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.


Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:27 pm
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9358
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Science is weighing alternatives
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


Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:23 am
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:52 pm
Posts: 1030
Location: Chandler, AZ
Post Iron and Calcium
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


Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:42 pm
Profile
Post 
Quote:
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

Quote:
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.


Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:53 pm
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am
Posts: 140
Location: Mid West
Post Answer?
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


Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:07 am
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9358
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Huh?
Quote:
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


Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:48 am
Profile
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am
Posts: 140
Location: Mid West
Post 
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:

Quote:
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


Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:22 am
Profile
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Posts: 9358
Location: Lisle, IL
Post Wish I had the time
Quote:
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


Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:47 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 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.