591 replies to this topic

[PeaceAndProsperity]

Forget the vitamin C in high dosages, it's ineffective and not easy to take in high amounts, and difficult to raise serum levels with.

Take lysine, niacin and carnitine, and other lp(a) inhibitors. Those things work. You can add a tiny 500mg tablet of vitamin C in to cover your daily needs.

[Daniel Cooper]

Forget the vitamin C in high dosages, it's ineffective and not easy to take in high amounts, and difficult to raise serum levels with.

Take lysine, niacin and carnitine, and other lp(a) inhibitors. Those things work. You can add a tiny 500mg tablet of vitamin C in to cover your daily needs.

 

 

Wait a minute .... weren't you just advocating the Linus Pauling Protocol?

 

High doses of vitamin C is the cornerstone of that protocol.

[PeaceAndProsperity]

Wait a minute .... weren't you just advocating the Linus Pauling Protocol?

 

High doses of vitamin C is the cornerstone of that protocol.

Not true. Lysine was studied and shown to remove plaque in animal atherosclerosis. Pauling postulated that a combination of lysine, proline and vitamin C could increase collagen (it can but you need very high dosages) to strengthen the arteries thus removing the need for plaque to build up, but there are 3 proposed mechanism of action for the Linus Pauling therapy:

the first is reducing the formation of new plaque by reducing lp(a) (proven), the second is actively removing the plaque already there (proven), and the third is strengthening the arteries to prevent the need for plaque deposits (don't think it was ever proven but seems plausible).

 

Even if the collagen model doesn't hold true, so increasing collagen synthesis is not effective, it doesn't matter because there are other obvious mechanism of actions that can explain why the therapy works.

 

It turns out that vitamin C's effects on reducing lp(a), cholesterol and so on, is very insignificant, as opposed to niacin, carnitine, lysine and proline that have a considerably larger effect.

 

I still can't fathom why someone would refuse to take supplements that are cheap and extremely safe? Why the opposition? It seems very peculiar. Perhaps you could explain?
 

[pamojja]

I still can't fathom why someone would refuse to take supplements that are cheap and extremely safe? Why the opposition? It seems very peculiar. Perhaps you could explain?

 

 

Best example are my parents, for which it took years watching me not drop death from taking so many supplements. They still have difficulty coming to grips with having been that much brainwashed into believing supplements above the RDA are dangerous, when in fact they can help with so many maladies without any side-effects at higher doses.

Edited by pamojja, 27 July 2017 - 06:01 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

Wait a minute .... weren't you just advocating the Linus Pauling Protocol?

 

High doses of vitamin C is the cornerstone of that protocol.

Not true. Lysine was studied and shown to remove plaque in animal atherosclerosis. Pauling postulated that a combination of lysine, proline and vitamin C could increase collagen (it can but you need very high dosages) to strengthen the arteries thus removing the need for plaque to build up, but there are 3 proposed mechanism of action for the Linus Pauling therapy:

the first is reducing the formation of new plaque by reducing lp(a) (proven), the second is actively removing the plaque already there (proven), and the third is strengthening the arteries to prevent the need for plaque deposits (don't think it was ever proven but seems plausible).

 

Even if the collagen model doesn't hold true, so increasing collagen synthesis is not effective, it doesn't matter because there are other obvious mechanism of actions that can explain why the therapy works.

 

It turns out that vitamin C's effects on reducing lp(a), cholesterol and so on, is very insignificant, as opposed to niacin, carnitine, lysine and proline that have a considerably larger effect.

 

I still can't fathom why someone would refuse to take supplements that are cheap and extremely safe? Why the opposition? It seems very peculiar. Perhaps you could explain?
 

 

 

Quite frankly P&P, that's just nonsense.  High dose vitamin C is certainly the cornerstone of Pauling's cardiovascular protocol.  Yes, there are other components, but it's built around many grams per day of vitamin C, as is almost everything else Pauling prescribed.  

 

Saying you're doing the Pauling Protocol without the vitamin C is like making a ham sandwich without the ham.  You may like the result, but it isn't a ham sandwich.  So you seem rather confused at this point.

 

And I'll take anything you come up with that's cheap and safe, or even expensive and safe, I just want to see your evidence.  And no, just because you say it is so is not evidence.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

I still can't fathom why someone would refuse to take supplements that are cheap and extremely safe? Why the opposition? It seems very peculiar. Perhaps you could explain?

 

 

Best example are my parents, for which it took years watching me not drop death from taking so many supplements. They still have difficulty coming to grips with having been that much brainwashed into believing supplements above the RDA are dangerous, when in fact they can help with so many maladies without any side-effects at higher doses.

 

 

I hardly thing anyone here on longecity.org is against taking supplements.  This is sort of supplement city.  We're just trying to sort out the evidence for what works and what doesn't.  

[pamojja]

So with doing something close to TYP, I've lost 30 lbs (13.6kg). ..My LDL went from 102 to 66.

 

Close to TYP? You mean ..you took a statin? Because by all the information in this thread you miss-remembered from your time at TYP, it does give the maybe wrong impression you’re totally bought by the pharmacological approach.

 

I've read up on your supplement regime. I'm very glad you've had a reversal of your PAD, but unfortunately we can't attribute it to the Pauling Protocol, because you're not doing the Pauling Protocol.

 

In the first year on Pauling’s protocol – which in fact I followed up to this day, and with yet not many other supplements in that first year - my intermittent claudication already improved from 3-400 meter to 1 hour pain-free walking-distance. If that isn’t enough improvement with an irreversible condition, and showing it an essential component of my total regimen the following years, I don’t know what.

 

Oh sure, you are on high dose vitamin C. Maybe that is what caused your reversal, but by your own admission, you are on hundreds of supplements and extracts. I think the number you threw out is 500 supplements/extracts/targeted foods, etc. It's great you've gotten a reversal, but that isn't the Pauling Protocol.

 

By my own admission I try to emulate a traditional varied diet with hundreds of plant-species, each again with hundreds of phyto-nutrients. ‘Food be thy medicine, medicine be thy food’ doesn’t negate Pauling’s therapy, it’s an integral part. But fine with me, if you do acknowledge that much power to eating plants alone..

[pamojja]

Frankly, I can't imagine the amount of time required to purchase and consume that number of supplements. It must be something close to a full time job.

Well, the glass of water I take 3 times a day on an empty stomach with added powders take each time as long as to brew 1 cup of coffee (manually). Each 3 weeks I measure the powder-containers, to know how much I’ve exactly taken, put in a spreadsheet, where all the capsules are already entered. I just have to fill up daily pill-boxes according to this plan. Which does all in all take 1 whole day in 3 weeks, but very leisurely.
 

I just don't know what conclusions I can draw from someone that has had positive results from taking hundreds of supplements.

Very simple, start only with those elements for which there is most anecdotal evidence. Pauling’s therapy, or Dr. Davis recommendations, or both.

 

The reason my regimen became so all-encompassing was, because the stenosis wasn’t my only concern, but the most serious. And by observing cycles of improvement and regression I could observe how that was related to every other system in my body. As for example NAFDL, CKD1, COPD, T2D, enlarged spleen, numerous infections and flaring inflammations, hypothyroidism and –gonadism, anemia, leukocytosis, electrolyte imbalances, severe magnesium deficiency and allergy to everything tested.

 

So with CVD only, it should actually be straight forward to test if Pauling’s therapy works, by giving it at least a ½ year’s fair trial. But don’t make the mistake and think that would only mean vitamin C, lysine and not all the other vitamins and minerals, or that Pauling’s protocol could work without any lifestyle modifications. Synergies over synergies all over again.
 

So, do you have any sort of imaging data (angiogram?) that shows what your blockage was when you started and where you are know?

If you read my entry under regimens, you could have seen the link to the gif from the initially made MRI. Other than that I had a couple of ultra-sounds which tracked progression. Considering usual progression is at 30-35% per year, despite, my stenosis stayed exactly the same at 80% of blockage. Which to me shows that the time gained by halting progression, was allowing enough revascularization to cease intermittent claudication. Though starting right with the 1st year, for complete remission it took more than 5 whole years!

 

With your skepticism that probably will serve as perfect prove for failure. I know better, and a few other reading this, with less sloppy understanding of the disease-process in arteriosclerosis, could be able to benefit from my experience to their own improvement.

Sceptics never try, inpatient never persist, and therefore can’t benefit.
 

Edited by pamojja, 27 July 2017 - 09:08 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

So with doing something close to TYP, I've lost 30 lbs (13.6kg). ..My LDL went from 102 to 66.

 

Close to TYP? You mean ..you took a statin? Because by all the information in this thread you miss-remembered from your time at TYP, it does give the maybe wrong impression you’re totally bought by the pharmacological approach.

 

I've read up on your supplement regime. I'm very glad you've had a reversal of your PAD, but unfortunately we can't attribute it to the Pauling Protocol, because you're not doing the Pauling Protocol.

 

In the first year on Pauling’s protocol – which in fact I followed up to this day, and with yet not many other supplements in that first year - my intermittent claudication already improved from 3-400 meter to 1 hour pain-free walking-distance. If that isn’t enough improvement with an irreversible condition, and showing it an essential component of my total regimen the following years, I don’t know what.

 

Oh sure, you are on high dose vitamin C. Maybe that is what caused your reversal, but by your own admission, you are on hundreds of supplements and extracts. I think the number you threw out is 500 supplements/extracts/targeted foods, etc. It's great you've gotten a reversal, but that isn't the Pauling Protocol.

 

By my own admission I try to emulate a traditional varied diet with hundreds of plant-species, each again with hundreds of phyto-nutrients. ‘Food be thy medicine, medicine be thy food’ doesn’t negate Pauling’s therapy, it’s an integral part. But fine with me, if you do acknowledge that much power to eating plants alone..

 

 

I am taking no drugs *at all*.  Not one.  Definitely not a statin.

 

And what do your imaging studies say about the size of your blockage.  You're claiming your protocol (which is *NOT* the Pauling Protocol) has reversed your blockage.  So, we need to know something about the status of that blockage.

 

And let's knock off the venom.  I expect this from P&P, but you're better than that.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 27 July 2017 - 09:18 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

This thread seems to be turning into a pathological pissing match.  Can we not get this back on track an discuss treatments and the evidence for those treatments?

 

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

 

If you read my entry under regimens, you could have seen the link to the gif from the initially made MRI. Other than that I had a couple of ultra-sounds which tracked progression. Considering usual progression is at 30-35% per year, despite, my stenosis stayed exactly the same at 80% of blockage. Which to me shows that the time gained by halting progression, was allowing enough revascularization to cease intermittent claudication. Though starting right with the 1st year, for complete remission it took more than 5 whole years!

 

With your skepticism that probably will serve as perfect prove for failure. I know better, and a few other reading this, with less sloppy understanding of the disease-process in arteriosclerosis, could be able to benefit from my experience to their own improvement.

Sceptics never try, inpatient never persist, and therefore can’t benefit.
 

 

 

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.  

 

So your imaging studies show that you've essentially halted progression, but not reversed the stenosis.  That's excellent.  Reversal is indeed rare. But, you are certainly aware that others have also halted progression and they are not literally taking hundreds of supplements.  In fact, most of the gains are to be had through diet alone.  If the same result can be achieved with a mere handful of supplements and a good diet, why would you not go that route?  Your regime has to be very expensive and time consuming.  Why would you put yourself through that if it was not necessary?  Serious question.

 

And can we not take this thread down a notch or two.  I am sincere in saying that I'm happy that you've gotten the results you have.  Even if I don't agree with your particular regimen, you at least show that it can be done and I think that's wonderful. 

 

But let's knock it off with the "knucklehead" remarks and your assumption that I'm some sort of tool of the pharmacological industry.  Hell, if you'll look a few pages back I was complaining that profits from the $13B per year statin industry are hindering exploration of better cheaper and in many cases more natural approaches.  You've assumed quite a bit about me that simply is not true.

[pamojja]

I am taking no drugs *at all*.  Not one.  Definitely not a statin.

 

And what do your imaging studies say about the size of your blockage.  You're claiming your protocol (which is *NOT* the Pauling Protocol) has reversed your blockage.  So, we need to know something about the status of that blockage.

 

And let's knock off the venom.  I expect this from P&P, but you're better than that.

 

I just speculated and identified that as such, because you didn't specify. You still avoid to give an answer what 'close to TYP' meant for you..

 

Just read the following post and you will see what ultra sound said about blockage size. You again and again put words in my mouth I didn't say and you obviously don't know what Pauling's protocol is. Who is spreading venom? I again and a again said:

 

I reversed a 60% government-certified walking-disability due to a 80% stenosis at my abdominal aorta because of PAD.
 

[pamojja]

But, you are certainly aware that others have also halted progression and they are not literally taking hundreds of supplements.  In fact, most of the gains are to be had through diet alone.  If the same result can be achieved with a mere handful of supplements and a good diet, why would you not go that route?  Your regime has to be very expensive and time consuming.  Why would you put yourself through that if it was not necessary?  Serious question.

 
Why I have to write again and again read again?
 

The reason my regimen became so all-encompassing was, because the stenosis wasn’t my only concern, but the most serious. And by observing cycles of improvement and regression I could observe how that was related to every other system in my body. As for example NAFDL, CKD1, COPD, T2D, enlarged spleen, numerous infections and flaring inflammations, hypothyroidism and –gonadism, anemia, leukocytosis, electrolyte imbalances, severe magnesium deficiency and allergy to everything tested.

Edited by pamojja, 27 July 2017 - 09:41 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

I am taking no drugs *at all*.  Not one.  Definitely not a statin.

 

And what do your imaging studies say about the size of your blockage.  You're claiming your protocol (which is *NOT* the Pauling Protocol) has reversed your blockage.  So, we need to know something about the status of that blockage.

 

And let's knock off the venom.  I expect this from P&P, but you're better than that.

 

I just speculated and identified that as such, because you didn't specify. You still avoid to give an answer what 'close to TYP' meant for you..

 

Just read the following post and you will see what ultra sound said about blockage size. You again and again put words in my mouth I didn't say and you obviously don't know what Pauling's protocol is. Who is spreading venom? I again and a again said:

 

I reversed a 60% government-certified walking-disability due to a 80% stenosis at my abdominal aorta because of PAD.
 

 

 

Close to TYP means I'm probably getting a bit more animal protein than he recommends.  To be honest, I'd have to go back and re-review TYP to refresh my memory on where I deviated from Davis's recommendations.  

 

I think your reversal of your 60% walking disability is terrific.  My only issue is that we really can't say what exactly is responsible for that improvement. You're just doing so much that there is no way to point to any particular thing and say "ah ha! that fixed it!".  

 

The fact of the matter is that most of the gains we get are from diet and exercise.  Some of these supplements probably give us a edge over diet and exercise alone.

[pamojja]

The fact of the matter is that most of the gains we get are from diet and exercise.  Some of these supplements probably give us a edge over diet and exercise alone.

 

Please only quote the relevant part of a post, otherwise the necessary scrolling becomes tiring.

 

That's my opinion too, nutrition and livestyle is the base (though with my walking-disability, exercise not really have played any role in my recovery,but sleep instead) on which targeted supplement can accomplish many things, pharmaceutical can't, without side-effects.

 

But then, why you're still even bothered with something without human anecdotal evidence, like cylodextrin???

Edited by pamojja, 27 July 2017 - 09:52 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

But, you are certainly aware that others have also halted progression and they are not literally taking hundreds of supplements.  In fact, most of the gains are to be had through diet alone.  If the same result can be achieved with a mere handful of supplements and a good diet, why would you not go that route?  Your regime has to be very expensive and time consuming.  Why would you put yourself through that if it was not necessary?  Serious question.

 
Why I have to write again and again read again?
 

The reason my regimen became so all-encompassing was, because the stenosis wasn’t my only concern, but the most serious. And by observing cycles of improvement and regression I could observe how that was related to every other system in my body. As for example NAFDL, CKD1, COPD, T2D, enlarged spleen, numerous infections and flaring inflammations, hypothyroidism and –gonadism, anemia, leukocytosis, electrolyte imbalances, severe magnesium deficiency and allergy to everything tested.

 

 

Look we have probably beaten this to death, but if you're taking 100 of supplements, I just don't see how you can add the 101st and determine the effect.  You've got to have so many interacting variables that in my experience it's just not possible.  You may disagree, but that's my opinion.  I'm glad it works for you, but I just can't imagine myself or most people taking a regimen that large.

 

BTW - you say you're taking 500 "things" (supplements, extracts, food items, etc). I looked at your spreadsheet and if it's still accurate I suspect it's not much more than 300ish.  And of course, you've broken out individual line items where a single supplement contains multiple components so it's not that many pills.  But, I've met no one in real life or these forums that have as large of a regimen as yourself.  It is truly impressive.

 

But, enough about that.  You've gotten results you are pleased with and you're the only one that matters in that respect.  But, let's cut everyone a bit of slack that may want to try a different track.  Horses for courses as they say.  I am 100% in favor of supplements, otherwise I wouldn't be here.  I just try to keep mine down to a dozen or less.  Quite frankly that's all I can keep up with.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 27 July 2017 - 10:04 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

Please only quote the relevant part of a post, otherwise the necessary scrolling becomes tiring.

 

That's my opinion too, nutrition and livestyle is the base (though with my walking-disability, exercise not really have played any role in my recovery. But sleep instead) on which targeted supplement can accomplish many things, pharmaceutical can't, without side-effect.

 

But then, why you're still even bothered with something without human anecdotal evidence likecylodextrin???

 

 

 

Because I've read several animal studies, I understand a great deal about the method of action, and they are impressive.  And, oral cyclodextin looks very safe to me.  And, cheap to boot.  It's nothing but a cyclic ring of starches produced by enzymatic conversion of a starch.  I've read it enough to have some belief that it might actually reverse uncalcified plaques.  That interest me intensely.

 

It is being used right now today to treat a previously untreatable disease called Niemann Pick's disease.  This is a genetic disorder that strikes children and causes the early onset of dementia, usually before they are 10 years old.  It is progressive and the prognosis is extremely bleak.  It is caused by a genetic defect that causes the build up of extensive cholesterol plaques in the brain.  Before beta cyclodextrin, there was virtually nothing to do for these children, but the initial results from BCD treatment are impressive.  So, I'd call that good anecdotal evidence.

 

So my question to you is why are you bothered that I wish to investigate this?

[pamojja]

 I'm glad it works for you, but I just can't imagine myself or most people taking a regimen that large.

 

Impeding death or complete loss of quality of life is a good motivator. I could imagine in most people, just not in those who don't know of the possibilities with natural remedies, or already tired of life.
 

 

So my question to you is why are you bothered that I wish to investigate this?

 

I'm not bothered. Just really surprised that anyone would look any further when one already really experienced the benefits of diet, lifestyle changes and supplementation.

Edited by pamojja, 27 July 2017 - 10:19 PM.

[pamojja]

I am 100% in favor of supplements, otherwise I wouldn't be here.  I just try to keep mine down to a dozen or less. Quite frankly that's all I can keep up with.

 

With a dozen supplements one can just keep deficiencies in check and good health in shape. 'Non-reversible' chronic diseases, at least in my experience with simultaneously many of them, needed many grams.

 

But let's knock it off with the "knucklehead" remarks and your assumption that I'm some sort of tool of the pharmacological industry.

I apologize for your hurt feelings. It was only aimed at the pharmacological methodology: one chemical per symptom - without considering its causes the slightest - and thereby, well, mostly causing further downstream effects perfectly fitting the business model of this industry. Unintentionally, admittedly. You're just seeking the easier way than taking much more than a dozen supplements.

 

Gosh. How much I wished it would be really that easy as taking statin and aspirin 1 pill each, as I was originally prescribed, and be done with. For that wish even I would become a tool of that said industry. And and at least from my side hopefully be knuckled down.

[Daniel Cooper]

I apologize for your hurt feelings. It was only aimed at the pharmacological methodology: one chemical per symptom - without considering its causes the slightest - and thereby, well, mostly causing further downstream effects perfectly fitting the business model of this industry. Unintentionally, admittedly. You're just seeking the easier way than taking much more than a dozen supplements.

 

 

 

Gosh. How much I wished it would be really that easy as taking statin and aspirin 1 pill each, as I was originally prescribed, and be done with. For that wish even I would become a tool of that said industry. And and at least from my side hopefully be knuckled down.

 

 

Oh please, no one here is capable of hurting my feelings.  This is just the internet after all.  I just don't think the slap fight we've managed to slide into is very productive.

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

 

So my question to you is why are you bothered that I wish to investigate this?

 

I'm not bothered. Just really surprised that anyone would look any further when one already really experienced the benefits of diet, lifestyle changes and supplementation.

 

 

Oh, I thought I answered that.  Beta cyclodextrin seems to actually reverse cholesterol plaques in the brain in Niemann Pick patients.  There's a pretty good chance it will actually reverse arterial cholesterol plaques as well.  Even with your hundreds of supplements you haven't managed to do that, which isn't a slam since almost nobody manages to reverse arterial plaques.  So, I think my interest in cyclodextrin would be rather obvious.

 

It would seem to be a win-win for everyone if those interested investigate this compound.  If it doesn't work, you're out nothing.  If it does work, you might benefit from our interest.

[mikey]

 

Wait a minute .... weren't you just advocating the Linus Pauling Protocol?

 

High doses of vitamin C is the cornerstone of that protocol.

Not true. Lysine was studied and shown to remove plaque in animal atherosclerosis. Pauling postulated that a combination of lysine, proline and vitamin C could increase collagen (it can but you need very high dosages) to strengthen the arteries thus removing the need for plaque to build up, but there are 3 proposed mechanism of action for the Linus Pauling therapy:

the first is reducing the formation of new plaque by reducing lp(a) (proven), the second is actively removing the plaque already there (proven), and the third is strengthening the arteries to prevent the need for plaque deposits (don't think it was ever proven but seems plausible).

 

Even if the collagen model doesn't hold true, so increasing collagen synthesis is not effective, it doesn't matter because there are other obvious mechanism of actions that can explain why the therapy works.

 

It turns out that vitamin C's effects on reducing lp(a), cholesterol and so on, is very insignificant, as opposed to niacin, carnitine, lysine and proline that have a considerably larger effect.

 

I still can't fathom why someone would refuse to take supplements that are cheap and extremely safe? Why the opposition? It seems very peculiar. Perhaps you could explain?
 

 

 

Vitamin C is required for the generation and function of the vascular endothelium, therefore, since the average person does not consumer enough vitamin C, it must be included in significant amounts to ensure optimally healthy anti-ageing vasculature.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3869438/

 

This is Nutrition 101, people.

 

Lifelong inadequate vitamin C intake results in inadequate collagen in vessels/arteries, skin (wrinkles), bones (and resultant age-related bone fractures) and on and on. Collagen is the "glue" that holds the body structures together. 

 

Again, this is Nutrition 101, not advanced biochem.

Edited by mikey, 28 July 2017 - 01:05 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Vitamin C is required for the generation and function of the vascular endothelium, therefore, since the average person does not consumer enough vitamin C, it must be included in significant amounts to ensure health vasculature.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3869438/

 

This is Nutrition 101, people.

 

Lifelong inadequate vitamin C intake results in the loss of collagen in vessels, skin (wrinkles), bones (and resultant age-related bone fractures) and on and on. Collagen is the "glue" that holds the body structures together. 

 

Again, this is Nutrition 101, not advanced biochem.

 

 

Your reasoning seems sound.  But the question is .... how much? Pauling suggested something like 7 to 16 grams per day (maybe more, don't recall).  That's a lot of vitamin C.  Humans have never ingested anything like those quantities in their natural diet in the wild.  So some vitamin C seems like it might be a good idea, but I don't know about those levels.

 

We do know that too much anti-oxidants can be bad.  We used to think of ROSs as universally bad.  But, our cell do use some ROSs for intercelluar communications.  We don't want to shut that down.  And, it seems to be the case that some cancer cells are more susceptible to ROSs and they can in essence act like a natural chemotherapy. You definitely see that large doses of many antioxidants can actually increase cancer rates.  But C is in a different class since we lack the gene to make it ourselves and we do need it, so we may be more tolerant of somewhat excess quantities of that antioxidant.

 

 

[Rocket]

So my question to you is why are you bothered that I wish to investigate this?

I'm not bothered. Just really surprised that anyone would look any further when one already really experienced the benefits of diet, lifestyle changes and supplementation.

Oh, I thought I answered that. Beta cyclodextrin seems to actually reverse cholesterol plaques in the brain in Niemann Pick patients. There's a pretty good chance it will actually reverse arterial cholesterol plaques as well. Even with your hundreds of supplements you haven't managed to do that, which isn't a slam since almost nobody manages to reverse arterial plaques. So, I think my interest in cyclodextrin would be rather obvious.

It would seem to be a win-win for everyone if those interested investigate this compound. If it doesn't work, you're out nothing. If it does work, you might benefit from our interest.

A quick search shows it is readily available.

How is administered? Ingestion or injection? Doses?

[Richard McGee]

 

 

 

So my question to you is why are you bothered that I wish to investigate this?

I'm not bothered. Just really surprised that anyone would look any further when one already really experienced the benefits of diet, lifestyle changes and supplementation.

Oh, I thought I answered that. Beta cyclodextrin seems to actually reverse cholesterol plaques in the brain in Niemann Pick patients. There's a pretty good chance it will actually reverse arterial cholesterol plaques as well. Even with your hundreds of supplements you haven't managed to do that, which isn't a slam since almost nobody manages to reverse arterial plaques. So, I think my interest in cyclodextrin would be rather obvious.

It would seem to be a win-win for everyone if those interested investigate this compound. If it doesn't work, you're out nothing. If it does work, you might benefit from our interest.

A quick search shows it is readily available.

How is administered? Ingestion or injection? Doses?

 

For those who are interested, I've started a separate thread on cyclodextrins and atherosclerosis.

[mikey]

 

Vitamin C is required for the generation and function of the vascular endothelium, therefore, since the average person does not consumer enough vitamin C, it must be included in significant amounts to ensure health vasculature.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3869438/

 

This is Nutrition 101, people.

 

Lifelong inadequate vitamin C intake results in the loss of collagen in vessels, skin (wrinkles), bones (and resultant age-related bone fractures) and on and on. Collagen is the "glue" that holds the body structures together. 

 

Again, this is Nutrition 101, not advanced biochem.

 

 

Your reasoning seems sound.  But the question is .... how much? Pauling suggested something like 7 to 16 grams per day (maybe more, don't recall).  That's a lot of vitamin C.  Humans have never ingested anything like those quantities in their natural diet in the wild.  So some vitamin C seems like it might be a good idea, but I don't know about those levels.

 

We do know that too much anti-oxidants can be bad.  We used to think of ROSs as universally bad.  But, our cell do use some ROSs for intercelluar communications.  We don't want to shut that down.  And, it seems to be the case that some cancer cells are more susceptible to ROSs and they can in essence act like a natural chemotherapy. You definitely see that large doses of many antioxidants can actually increase cancer rates.  But C is in a different class since we lack the gene to make it ourselves and we do need it, so we may be more tolerant of somewhat excess quantities of that antioxidant.

 

 

 

 

Good question, Daniel. In a study of what we would get from consuming the average of 110 raw plant foods a day, in an attempt to emulate what a true hunter-gatherer diet would provide, 2,300 mg of vitamin C a day was arrived at as our genetically-programmed daily need for ascorbic acid. Attached is the study that said this, "Evolution and the Need for Ascorbic Acid."

Personally, I take 3,000 mg of Endur-C, a pharmaceutical-grade sustained-release vitamin C to keep my vitamin C blood levels consistent, several times a day. I've been taking 6-15 grams of vitamin C for over 40 years. (My father knew Linus Pauling.) This might be one reason that people say that I look at least 20 years younger than my siblings. Vitamin C keeps collagen healthy so that I have little as far as wrinkling or sagging of facial skin. I attach a close-up photo. Notice no significant nasal-labial fold wrinkling, little as far as "crow's feet," etc... I use no Botox or other superficial devices as I know that everything must come from within.

 

As to high doses of antioxidants "definitely" increasing rates of cancer, please provide citations to support that statement, as I have not seen such phenomena in a credible published study, rather the opposite.  

 

There is a U-shaped curve for selenium and prostate cancer, where too little or too much are each associated with more risk of prostate cancer.

 

However, I am not aware of any credible data that shows that high doses of any other antioxidants increase the risk of cancers.

 

Over the last couple of dozen years I have seen numerous studies that were designed in a fraudulent manner that attacked the safety of antioxidants that have been proven to be beneficial in other correctly-designed studies. 

 

I've written or read and retained several dozen well-considered reviews of the negative studies that show how they are designed to cause public confusion that dismiss them. 

 

Simply put, big pharma wants the public to believe that safe, effective dietary supplements not only do not work but can cause harm and so they produce data to promote this notion. 

 

This can turn into a long discussion, as there is a great disinformation campaign going on. It's no conspiracy theory to note that Big Pharma wants people to be sick enough to depend on drugs and medical treatments and so they produce and promote data to accomplish this.

 

For now, if you know of a study, or studies, that support the notion that high potencies of antioxidants "definitely" increase the risk of cancer(s), please cite such and I will respond.

Attached Files

•  Evolution_and_the_Need_for_Ascorbic_Acid--2,300mg_a_day.pdf   764.32KB   9 downloads
•  64 year old facial skin.jpg   127.74KB   6 downloads

Edited by mikey, 28 July 2017 - 04:35 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

For now, if you know of a study, or studies, that support the notion that high potencies of antioxidants definitely increase the risk of cancer, please cite such and I will respond.

 

 

Mikey,

 

Here's a Scientific American article on subject and I think it has some references.

 

Antioxidants May Make Cancer Worse. 

 

This has been a topic of discussion in the cancer world for several years now.

 

Basically the upshot is that cancer cells, just like your normal cells, are also damaged and killed by reactive oxygen species.  In fact, they are somewhat more susceptible to ROS damage than your normal cells. So, these free radicals end up acting like a natural chemo therapy to some extent.  Also, some ROSs are used as signaling molecules inside and between cells.  Too much antioxidant can shut down those signaling pathways.

 

However, that said vitamin C is a bit of a special case.  Humans have a defective gene and can not make their own vitamin C in the way other mammals do, what ever we get we get through our diet.  That 2,300 mg of C/day sounds a bit on the high side, or maybe just a "best case" number.  It will of course vary depending on where a human population lived and what food sources where in the environment.  All that said, of all the antioxidants that I would be concerned about getting too much of through supplements, vitamin C is further down on that list.   But, Pauling's recommendations are definitely outliers.  I seriously doubt there were any ancient populations of humans consuming those levels of C.  

 

Of the papers that I've looked at that have made connections between high anti-oxidant consumption and increased cancer rates, I don't remember C being on the list.  I suppose we could google around on that.

[pamojja]

We do know that too much anti-oxidants can be bad.  We used to think of ROSs as universally bad.  But, our cell do use some ROSs for intercelluar communications.  We don't want to shut that down.

 

God thanks, we also have walking-talking lab-rats here - verifying common petri-dish knowledge - like me. 

 

I can report that no amount of any oral natural antioxidant available on the market and taken for 9 years, was able to shut down excessive ROSs with the arteriosclerosis disease process yet, measured repeatedly by oxidated LDL (always came back higher than optimal). If anyone finds such, please tell me, I would want to try that.  
 

[mikey]

 

We do know that too much anti-oxidants can be bad.  We used to think of ROSs as universally bad.  But, our cell do use some ROSs for intercelluar communications.  We don't want to shut that down.

 

God thanks, we also have walking-talking lab-rats here - verifying common petri-dish knowledge - like me. 

 

I can report that no amount of any oral natural antioxidant available on the market and taken for 9 years, was able to shut down excessive ROSs with the arteriosclerosis disease process yet, measured repeatedly by oxidated LDL (always came back higher than optimal). If anyone finds such, please tell me, I would want to try that.  
 

 

 

Vitamin E (d-alpha tocopherol) significantly reduces oxy-LDL. Note that d-alpha tocopheryl(yl) does not perform. The vitamin E must be in the "ol" form.

 

Dosing must be at least 400 IU.

 

The Daily Value for vitamin E is currently 30 IU. A placebo-controlled study showed that vitamin E dosing of 60 IU or 200 IU had no effect on reducing the oxidation of LDL cholesterol that precedes cholesterol plaque formation, but that doses of 400 IU, 800 IU and 1,200 IU had significant effects on reducing the oxidization of LDL cholesterol.

400 IU = 25% reduction. 800 IU = 58% reduction. 1,200 IU = 61% reduction.
 

Jialal I, et al. The effect of alpha-tocopherol supplementation on LDL oxidation. A dose-response study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1995;15(2):190-198.

 

One of the only true active vitamin E "ol" supplements on the market is made by AC Grace, called Unique E,  I started taking 800 IU per day. I will have an oxy-LDL test in about a month to compare to a previous test.

[zen]

 

We do know that too much anti-oxidants can be bad.  We used to think of ROSs as universally bad.  But, our cell do use some ROSs for intercelluar communications.  We don't want to shut that down.

 

God thanks, we also have walking-talking lab-rats here - verifying common petri-dish knowledge - like me. 

 

I can report that no amount of any oral natural antioxidant available on the market and taken for 9 years, was able to shut down excessive ROSs with the arteriosclerosis disease process yet, measured repeatedly by oxidated LDL (always came back higher than optimal). If anyone finds such, please tell me, I would want to try that.  
 

 

Not a single supplement but it is quite well documented that, after switching to the Whole Plant Based Diet, arterial plague growth stops and than reverses.
​The improvements in the blood tests are usually seen just afer a couple of weeks (2-4).

If anyone is interested to learn more, here is a couple of links:

* An Introduction to a Whole-Food, Plant-Based Diet: https://www.youtube....h?v=u-u4YnfcTf0

* Dr. Greger’s talks, for example: https://www.youtube....h?v=d0IhZ-R1O8g
* “Forks Over Knives” movie on Netflix or Amazon: https://www.amazon.c...er knives movie
* “What The Health” movie on Netflix or youtube: https://www.youtube....h?v=uC9evAfGI9w

-Zen

 

“Let food be thy medicine, and medicine be thy food” - Hippocrates




 

Edited by zen, 28 July 2017 - 05:13 PM.