Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Does Vitamin C + Lysine Cure Heart Disease


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 John Doe

  • Registered User
  • 291 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 January 2007 - 05:18 PM


My mom was trying to convince me of the Linus Pauling theory that Vitamin C and lysine can cure/prevent heart disease:

http://www.thecurefo...HeartCureRD.htm

Is this just quackery?
  • 0

#2 John Doe

  • Registered User
  • 291 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 January 2007 - 11:24 PM

Bumb. Anyone know the answer?
  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 doug123

  • Registered User
  • 2,424 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 13 January 2007 - 11:36 PM

Not me.
  • 0

#4 mitkat

  • Registered User
  • 1,948 posts
  • 13
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 14 January 2007 - 12:04 AM

Pablo will have something contribute I'm certain...?
  • 0

#5 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 6,360 posts
  • 930
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 14 January 2007 - 12:47 AM

There is a lysine + Vitamin C theory for cancer, too. I'm a fan of both supplements for quite a few reasons, but I don't fall into the camp that they will ultimately prevent these diseases. Delay, hopefully.
  • 0

#6 Centurion

  • Registered User
  • 976 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Belfast, Northern Ireland

Posted 14 January 2007 - 01:48 AM

I followed the link to this: http://livonlabs.com...rod_select.html looks interesting but im wary.
  • 0

#7 emitecaps

  • Registered User
  • 185 posts
  • 4

Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:13 AM

Cure, highly unlikely. Preventing a disease and the damage it causes has a greater likelihood than curing and undoing damage. He claims that people deficient in Vit C are likely to develop cardiovascular problems. Well, of course deficiences will lead to illness nad supplementing to compensate those deficiences can prevent illness. But in healthy individuals will surplus supplementation offer much benefit, who really knows?

Also note that Vit C and lysine are part of a protocol that recommends reducing fat intake(omega 6) , refined and processed foods, and taking other supps. So yes, there's a good chance if you follow his protocol you can reduce your risk for cardiovascular disease. But whether all are necessary is questionable and there's other things to incorporate that will yield better results.
  • 0

#8 John Doe

  • Registered User
  • 291 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 January 2007 - 11:11 PM

I was looking for some sort of study or evidence to debunk his claims.

I'm sure Vitamin C can be good for you (and perhaps lysine too; I don't know). But his claims and presentation strike be as quackery. My mom cites his Nobel Prize, but I think that was given earlier and for different research. I would like to have something concrete to show her, debunking his claims. But I guess that is not forthcoming.
  • 0

#9 emitecaps

  • Registered User
  • 185 posts
  • 4

Posted 15 January 2007 - 04:20 AM

I doubt you will find anything debunking his claims. One needs to have basic knowledge of biology, disease pathogenesis, etc to objectively analyze his claims. Even then though I'm not sure you could convince them. What if you were presented with info that all your supplementation is wasteful and perhaps even dangerous. There are some studies to back this assertion up, but would you accept it?

Honestly, I don't see too much harm if she decides to follow his protocols. Sure she might be wasting some money but it will ultimately do more good than harm.
  • 1

#10 olderbutwiser

  • Registered User
  • 44 posts
  • 1

Posted 15 January 2007 - 11:50 AM

My mom cites his Nobel Prize

Actually, he won two Nobel prizes. One for chemistry and one for Peace.

Pauling was an amazing man and lived a very interesting life. In his later years he devoted his time to "Orthomolecular" medicine, which was not his area of expertise. In some ways he was ahead of his time but with an overly simplistic view of the subject.

Following his recommendations has little likelihood of harming and probably is beneficial. Claims of "cures" of cancer and heart disease are way overstated though. Because of Pauling's stature as a scientist, critics are somewhat muted on his later life work.

OBW
  • 0

#11 wiserd

  • Registered User
  • 107 posts
  • 3

Posted 20 November 2007 - 07:26 PM

I regularly take large doses of both vit. C (mixed ascorbates, actually, which are non-acidic. avoid megadoses of ascorbic acid!) and lysine and feel some benefits. I can't testify towards the whole 'curing cancer' thing. These nutrients are the components of collagen, incidentally, and a large number of diseases deliberately destroy collagen even when not required to for replication of the disease. Ascorbate is usually the limiting factor for collagen production and there's good evidence that she'll benefit from ascorbate supplementation, whether or not it cures cancer.

Vitamin C supplementation is most helpful when the body is stressed such as by disease, alcohol, or extremely cold temperatures. It probably would help at least a small amount with chemically induced carcinogens and temporary immune suppression from pathogens.

Lysine is a good immune booster, and opposes the absorption of argenine. Whether you want less argenine is a debate on a different part of this forum.

I don't know much about cancer, honestly, but I do know that invasive melanomas use collagenase.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

On the flip side, ascorbate can exacerbate some types of toxins like hexavalent chromium.
  • 0

#12 freedom40

  • Registered User
  • 47 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 November 2007 - 07:41 PM

Linus Pauling was the man! I'm up to 12,000 mg of ascorbic acid a day and doing well.

http://www.internetw...ips/PAULING.wmv
  • 0

#13 shuffleup

  • Registered User
  • 160 posts
  • 1

Posted 20 November 2007 - 10:16 PM

Lysine is a good immune booster, and opposes the absorption of argenine. Whether you want less argenine is a debate on a different part of this forum.


Interesting they paired lysine with arginine in this study:

Biomed Res. 2007 Apr;28(2):85-90.
Oral treatment with L-lysine and L-arginine reduces anxiety and basal cortisol levels in healthy humans.Smriga M, Ando T, Akutsu M, Furukawa Y, Miwa K, Morinaga Y.
Institute of Life Sciences, Ajimoto Co. Inc, 1-1 Suzuki-cho, 210-8681 Kawasaki-ku, Kawasaki-shi, Japan. miro_smriga@ehq.ajinomoto.com

Dietary supplementation with an essential amino acid L-lysine has been shown to reduce chronic anxiety in humans with low dietary intake of L-lysine. A combination of L-lysine and L-arginine has been documented to normalize hormonal stress responses in humans with high trait anxiety. The present study was carried out in one hundred eight healthy Japanese adults. The aim of study was to find out whether a week-long oral treatment with L-lysine (2.64 g per day) and L-arginine (2.64 g per day) reduces trait and stress-induced state anxiety and basal levels of stress hormones. We confirmed that, without regard to gender, the amino acid treatment significantly reduced both trait anxiety and state anxiety induced by cognitive stress battery. In addition, we found that the treatment with L-lysine and L-arginine decreased the basal levels of salivary cortisol and chromogranin-A (a salivary marker of the sympatho-adrenal system) in male subjects. These results of this double-blind, placebo controlled and randomized study confirm the previous findings in humans and animals and point to a combination of L-lysine and L-arginine as a potentially useful dietary intervention in otherwise healthy humans with high subjective levels of mental stress and anxiety.

PMID: 17510493 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Thread at M&M here" http://www.mindandmu...p...ysine&st=30
  • 0

#14 stephen_b

  • Member
  • 1,615 posts
  • 183

Posted 20 November 2007 - 11:06 PM

I found a NOW product on iHerb that contains L-Arginine, L-Lysine, and L-Ornithine in the ratios of 300mg, 250mg, and 225mg per capsule. The 2.64 g amount used in the study seems to be a lot, requiring almost 9 capsules.

Stephen
  • 0

#15 wccaguy

  • Member
  • 298 posts
  • 111
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 20 November 2007 - 11:20 PM

A fundamental assumption of Pauling in positing that Lysine was essential to the cure for heart disease was his understanding of the role of a lipoprotein called Lp(a) in cardiovascular disease.

Contrary to widespread popular belief, it's my view that Mathias Rath and others promoting "Pauling's heart disease cure" are not the true heirs of the Pauling's Lysine cure for high Lp(a) legacy.

Instead, I believe that this study led by Sally McCormick makes Dr. McCormick Pauling's true intellectual heir vis-a-vis cardiovascular disease.

Structural features of apolipoprotein B synthetic peptides that inhibit lipoprotein(a) assembly
http://www.jlr.org/c...ract/45/12/2227

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is assembled via an initial noncovalent interaction between apolipoprotein B100 (apoB) and apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] that facilitates the formation of a disulfide bond between the two proteins. We previously reported that a lysine-rich, {alpha}-helical peptide spanning human apoB amino acids 4372–4392 was an effective inhibitor of Lp(a) assembly in vitro. To identify the important structural features required for inhibitory action, new variants of the apoB4372-4392 peptide were investigated. Introduction of a central leucine to proline substitution abolished the {alpha}-helical structure of the peptide and disrupted apo(a) binding and inhibition of Lp(a) formation. Substitution of hydrophobic residues in the apoB4372-4392 peptide disrupted apo(a) binding and inhibition of Lp(a) assembly without disrupting the {alpha}-helical structure. Substitution of all four lysine residues in the peptide with arginine decreased the IC50 from 40 µM to 5 µM. Complexing of the arginine-substituted peptide to dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine improved its activity further, yielding an IC50 of 1 µM. We conclude that the {alpha}-helical structure of apoB4372-4392, in combination with hydrophobic residues at the lipid/water interface, is crucial for its interaction with apo(a).


Surely a man of Pauling's intellect and capability would not hold fast to his position in light of this finding. Dr. McCormick, by the way, also holds a patent based on this work. That's here:

http://www.wipo.int/...&DISPLAY=STATUS

---------------------

But heart disease is a complicated disease and high Lp(a) is not the only culprit in that disease process. So, what's the key to dramatically reducing it's risk in your life?

I believe the answer lies in ensuring that the amount of coronary plaque is not "progressing" but either fixed or regressing. There are plenty of studies that show that. I could point to those references if there is interest.

Who is the person who has made the most significant claims about a specific approach and program for DRAMATICALLY regressing coronary plaque?

To my knowledge that person is Dr. William Davis of TrackYourPlaque.com. He also writes a blog at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/. I have within the last two months created a post here about his program.

I'm familiar with all the "Pauling/Rath/Fonorow/Tower Labs" sorts of sites... I understand full well that it takes a while to get "unplugged" from thinking in terms of that simple model all too well. Or do you believe that the science of cardiovascular disease has stood still since the year Pauling died?

The work of Dr. William Davis is the best I've found on the 'net about significant and credible coronary plaque regression.

I double dog dare you to become familiar with his program claims of coronary plaque regression and then find someone else on the 'net who makes comparable claims with as much credibility.

Just yesterday, Dr. Davis publicly announced that he will be presenting more formal outcomes data on his approach to coronary plaque regression at a conference in April 2008.

;)

Edited by wccaguy, 20 November 2007 - 11:58 PM.

  • 0

#16 browser

  • Validating
  • 319 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 20 November 2007 - 11:55 PM

I followed the Linus Pauling Institute regimen for about 4 months though I have no evidence of heart disease. It's very difficult to follow because bowel tolerance of the components, especially Vitamin C vary all over the place continuously. I carried an extra pair of slacks and 3 extra pairs of jockey shorts with me and came close to getting handcuffed by an air marshal during one plane flight.

I remember reading some very inspiring stories on the Linus Pauling Institute fora about actual opening of clogged arteries. I still have the stuff on a shelf. There were at least 5 different supplements including K2. I don't recall (this was perhaps a year and a half ago) there being any real studies that the Linus Pauling Institute regimen works conclusively. Doctors, however, often make observations and advance medicine based on their observations. It's common now for shrinks to prescribe testosterone to booster the effects desired from an SSRI, though I don't know there are conclusive studies. Pain management and the psychocharmacology practiced by shrinks is both art and science. Rogaine was used off label for hair regrowth for quite a number of years before the FDA approved its use. So the Linus Pauling Institute regimen is worth a shot, especially considering the alternative. It's as valid as the flow chart voodoo doctors follow to try to cure chronic prostratis.
  • 0

#17 nameless

  • Registered User
  • 2,265 posts
  • 134

Posted 21 November 2007 - 01:26 AM

I'm a bit too lazy to check pubmed right now, but have there ever been any high dose vitamin C studies that show either a heart benefit, or any health benefit at all?

By high-dose, I mean at least several grams/day, spread out at 4-5 hour intervals per dose. Most studies that get media attention tend to choose amounts in the 250mg-1 gram range/day, quite often with a single or double dose/day.

I don't buy into the Pauling cure for heart disease, as I think several risk factors come into play, but as a form of prevention it could play a role. But... why hasn't anyone carried out some real, double-blind studies? It seems like something relatively simple to test.
  • 0

#18 browser

  • Validating
  • 319 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 21 November 2007 - 01:52 AM

I'm a bit too lazy to check pubmed right now, but have there ever been any high dose vitamin C studies that show either a heart benefit, or any health benefit at all?

By high-dose, I mean at least several grams/day, spread out at 4-5 hour intervals per dose. Most studies that get media attention tend to choose amounts in the 250mg-1 gram range/day, quite often with a single or double dose/day.

I don't buy into the Pauling cure for heart disease, as I think several risk factors come into play, but as a form of prevention it could play a role. But... why hasn't anyone carried out some real, double-blind studies? It seems like something relatively simple to test.

Because Dr. Pauling first won a Nobel Peace Prize and because he wasn't awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for Vitamin C? Because a cure all is considered a hoax? I happen to agree entirely with a Nobel Prize winner's views on a non-politically correct topic. But because his statements are currently not politically correct he's been blasted, even though if anybody knows about genes, he does.
  • 0

#19 Traclo

  • Registered User, F@H
  • 101 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 21 November 2007 - 02:41 AM

Considering that it is not his area of expertise, using him as a support to an argument is called appeal to authority and is a commonly recognized fallacy in debate. Also he didn't win his Nobel prize for biomolecules, so this is again a fallacy in a real debate about the merits of a subject.

A quinoxaline 1,4-di-N-oxide derivative induces DNA oxidative damage not attenuated by vitamin C and E treatment
is a study preformed for preventing oxidation damage to DNA with high does vitamin C as well as E. They found that there wasn't much preventative effects of vitamin C on this. So cancer prevention seems like a hard stance to defend.

This study was conducted on JUN 30 2007, so it's new and pertinent.

Just my 2 cents on all this high dose businesses and cancer prevention. As to heart disease, I have no clue.

Edit:spelling
  • 0

#20 wccaguy

  • Member
  • 298 posts
  • 111
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 21 November 2007 - 04:40 AM

Considering that it is not his area of expertise, using him as a support to an argument is called appeal to authority and is a commonly recognized fallacy in debate. Also he didn't win his Nobel prize for biomolecules, so this is again a fallacy in a real debate about the merits of a subject.

Well stated.

It's not that I've been immune to the appeal of what is called the "Pauling/Rath theory of heart disease" including the focus on Lp(a) as the primary factor driving the disease. I haven't been immune to that appeal.

But desire for the science to be a certain way doesn't make it so.

Coronary artery disease is a complex process. There are multiple, independent variables driving it. Many of these variables (like "LDL particle number", for example) are relatively recent discoveries. To my knowledge, none of the 3 major lipoprotein subfraction blood testing methods had even been developed at the time of Pauling's death.

So to imagine that Pauling himself would have wanted people to idolize him at the expense of keeping up with the advances in the science of cardiology is, IMO, to dishonor his legacy.

In fact, there have been advances in the state of the science that are making real differences in the practice of some general practitioners and cardiologists. The key is to know who to believe.

I triple dog dare with a twist anyone to get a handle on the approach and program advocated by Dr. William Davis at the links I noted upthread and then come up with ANY approach or method that comes close in terms of practical effect and credibility. You can't because it doesn't exist. (I'm hoping to piss a few folks off enough that they'll get it in their head that I must be proven wrong! 8-) )

Here's the imponderable... Why yearn for an unproven theory to magically be proven true to reduce the risk to yourselves and/or your loved ones when, in fact, there is an approach that exists with enough credible evidence to support it and achieves the same goals?
  • 0

#21 nameless

  • Registered User
  • 2,265 posts
  • 134

Posted 21 November 2007 - 05:19 AM

Here's the imponderable... Why yearn for an unproven theory to magically be proven true to reduce the risk to yourselves and/or your loved ones when, in fact, there is an approach that exists with enough credible evidence to support it and achieves the same goals?


I don't think anyone here is saying Dr. Davis' approach is wrong, but just because his program works for his patients, doesn't mean other things won't help too. Maybe what Dr. Davis suggests + C + lysine would work even better?

I'm curious if high dose C has even been studied properly. I know a decent number of folks here mega-dose C, but are there studies that show benefits? I'm not saying there isn't... just that I'm ignorant as to its benefits, if any, that have been studied with real trials.
  • 0

#22 shuffleup

  • Registered User
  • 160 posts
  • 1

Posted 21 November 2007 - 08:53 PM

I found a NOW product on iHerb that contains L-Arginine, L-Lysine, and L-Ornithine in the ratios of 300mg, 250mg, and 225mg per capsule. The 2.64 g amount used in the study seems to be a lot, requiring almost 9 capsules.

Stephen


Most arginine must either have a lot of fillers or be naturally "fluffy" or something because it takes a large pill to even provide 500mg. I think for the dosages we'd be looking for powder is the way to go.
  • 0

#23 shuffleup

  • Registered User
  • 160 posts
  • 1

Posted 21 November 2007 - 08:56 PM

I don't think anyone here is saying Dr. Davis' approach is wrong, but just because his program works for his patients, doesn't mean other things won't help too. Maybe what Dr. Davis suggests + C + lysine would work even better?

I'm curious if high dose C has even been studied properly. I know a decent number of folks here mega-dose C, but are there studies that show benefits? I'm not saying there isn't... just that I'm ignorant as to its benefits, if any, that have been studied with real trials.


Yes Dr Davis does list Vit C in the regimen. I'll post a question on the forum as to lysine.
  • 0

#24 hamishm00

  • Registered User
  • 945 posts
  • 75
  • Location:United Arab Emirates

Posted 22 November 2007 - 03:25 PM

I know lysine is used by the body to synthesis carnitine, so if you take ALCAR as a supplement, will you get any extra benefit from taking lysine as well over and above taking the ALCAR?
  • 0

#25 wccaguy

  • Member
  • 298 posts
  • 111
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:04 PM

For what it's worth, I believe that the "Pauling Therapy" may provide some benefit.

Having said that, I'm troubled by a few things that cause me to wonder if it's prominence in google hit returns when querying for heart disease words don't make it a net negative.
  • There are numerous misleading statements and errors of fact in some of the major web pages devoted to it's discussion.
  • You'll recall that dealing with high Lp(a) was a key element in the whole Pauling/Rath "theory" of coronary artery disease (CAD).
  • Among the misleading statements, are those that posit that Coronary Artery Disease is related almost entirely to high Lp(a). This is nonsense.
  • It's no accident that there are a lot of google hits about Pauling Therapy when querying about CAD. There is a multi-tier supplement powder marketing company which has the DELIBERATE strategy of hyping Pauling Therapy as "the cure" for heart disease.
  • Meanwhile, other folks, who really DO have solutions for CAD are drowned out in google returns. Is that a good thing?
  • CAD is a complex disease process. The fact that "Pauling Therapy" is based on so simplistic and focused on a single cause ought to tell you something.
I understand the psychic attachment that people have for "Pauling Therapy" because I once had such an attachment.

In the near future, I'm going to review the issues noted above in a series of blog posts at a blog I've recently begun about CAD. I made the first post in that series yesterday. It's going to take me a couple of weeks to complete the whole series of posts. I began the series at the beginning where Pauling/Rath began... with Lp(a). You'll notice that my posts there are deliberately written in a more playful and jocular manner than I post elsewhere. I leave it to you to judge whether the essential content is solid regardless of the persona I take on there as aCipher.

The site link is www.HeartCipher.com. The first post is intended to provides an introduction to Lp(a) and introduces the work of Dr. Sally McCormick who, I believe, is the world's leading Lp(a) researcher. The first post link is here:

http://www.heartcipher.com/archives/48

I'd be happy to discuss/debate the issues I raise there in more detail here at ImmInst.org.

The big question each of us must ask ourselves about "Pauling Therapy" is this:

Am I primarily driven by my desire for "Pauling Therapy" (a too simple theory to the extreme) to be true so that I am comforted by the simplicity it promises of dealing with CAD risk or am I primary interested in REAL solutions to CAD risk regardless of how much I must learn to deal with it successfully?

Edited by wccaguy, 24 November 2007 - 01:12 PM.

  • 0

#26 pamojja

  • Registered User
  • 484 posts
  • 73
  • Location:Austria

Posted 18 October 2009 - 03:30 PM

I'm a bit too lazy to check pubmed right now, but have there ever been any high dose vitamin C studies that show either a heart benefit, or any health benefit at all?

By high-dose, I mean at least several grams/day, spread out at 4-5 hour intervals per dose. Most studies that get media attention tend to choose amounts in the 250mg-1 gram range/day, quite often with a single or double dose/day.

Till now saw only one with many grams a day, but various interesting others:

The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing and relieving the symptoms of virus-induced respiratory infections. (6-3 gram/day)
RESULTS: Overall, reported flu and cold symptoms in the test group decreased 85% compared with the control group after the administration of megadose Vitamin C. CONCLUSION: Vitamin C in megadoses administered before or after the appearance of cold and flu symptoms relieved and prevented the symptoms in the test population compared with the control group.

Effect of ascorbic acid on plasma cholesterol in humans in a long-term experiment. (1 gr/day)
During the period of a low vitamin C intake (approximately equal to 20 mg per day) ascorbic acid in a dose of 2 x 500 mg per day was administered to 82 men and women aged 50-75 years. A correlation of plasma cholesterol levels determined before and after a three months' administration of ascorbic acid showed the effect of vitamin C to be dependent on the starting concentration of plasma cholesterol: the higher the initial cholesterolemia, the greater the hypocholesterolemic effect of ascorbic acid. On restricting the experimental group to subjects with an initial cholesterolemia above 230 mg%, the effect of the same dose of ascorbic acid on cholesterolemia was followed in three-month periods for a further 9 months. In all these time intervals, ascorbic acid was found significantly to depress cholesterolemia and its effects persisted 6 weeks after termination of the experiment. The administration of 2 x 500 mg ascorbic acid daily during one year resulted in an abrupt increase of ascorbemia and a marked accumulation of ascorbic acid in the leucocytes. Six weeks following interruption of ascorbic acid intake, vitamin C concentration in the leucocytes significantly declined but still continued to be twice higher than in the control receiving no ascorbic acid supplement.

Antioxidant vitamins and coronary heart disease risk: a pooled analysis of 9 cohorts. (>700mg/d)
RESULTS: Dietary intake of antioxidant vitamins was only weakly related to a reduced CHD risk after adjustment for potential nondietary and dietary confounding factors. Compared with subjects in the lowest dietary intake quintiles for vitamins E and C, those in the highest intake quintiles had relative risks of CHD incidence of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.00; P=0.17) and 1.23 (1.04, 1.45; P=0.07), respectively, and the relative risks for subjects in the highest intake quintiles for the various carotenoids varied from 0.90 to 0.99.
Subjects with higher supplemental vitamin C intake had a lower CHD incidence.
Compared with subjects who did not take supplemental vitamin C, those who took >700 mg supplemental vitamin C/d had a relative risk of CHD incidence of 0.75 (0.60, 0.93; P for trend <0.001). Supplemental vitamin E intake was not significantly related to reduced CHD risk.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a reduced incidence of major CHD events at high supplemental vitamin C intakes. The risk reductions at high vitamin E or carotenoid intakes appear small.

Vitamin C in the control of hypercholesterolemia in man. (500mg - 1g/d)
The activity of the cholesterol 7 alpha-hydroxylating system containing cyto-chrome P-450 is depressed in the liver of guinea-pigs with chronic marginal vitamin C deficiency. Slowing-down of this rate-limiting reaction of cholesterol transformation to bile acids causes cholesterol accumulation in the liver, blood plasma and arteries, increase in the index total: HDL cholesterol, prolongation of plasma cholesterol half-life, increase in the index cholesterol: bile acids in the gall-bladder bile, cholesterol gallstone formation and atheromatous changes on coronary arteries in guinea-pigs with long-lasting marginal vitamin C deficiency.
The most effective means for preventing these changes are vitamin C doses ensuring maximal steady-state levels of ascorbate in the tissues. In most of hypercholesterolemic persons with a low vitamin C status, the administration of ascorbic acid in doses 500-1000 mg per day lowers total cholesterol concentration in blood plasma.
This effect may be reinforced through a simultaneous administration of bile acids sequestrants, such as cholestyramine or pectin. In every form of hypercholesterolemia therapy (dietary and/or pharmacological), an adequate vitamin C supply should be ensured in doses capable of creating maximal steady-state levels of ascorbate in human tissues.

Plasma lipids, lipoproteins and atherogenic index in men and women administered vitamin C. (500mg/d)
The aim of the study was to establish whether it is possible, in a group of deliberately selected subjects with hyperlipidaemia, to modulate cholesterol levels by ascorbic acid administered at a dose of 500 mg/day. The authors assessed the levels of vitamin C, total and HDL cholesterol, triacylglycerols in the blood serum of 140 probands assigned to an 83-member experimental group, and to a 57-member control group. The experimental group was provided Celaskon effervescens Spofa at a dose of 500 mg/day/person. The experiment lasted for 18 months. Blood collections were made in the whole cohort at six-month intervals. Administration of L-ascorbic acid led to a highly significant decrease in the levels of total and LDL cholesterol. After 12 months of study, a highly significant decrease in atherogenic index and an increase in HDL cholesterol levels were found persisting until the end of the experiment.

US: vitamin C and stomach cancer
But when the researchers examined the blood levels of vitamin C they found a strong protective effect. That is: they found that those subjects with the highest level of vitamin C in their blood had a 60 percent lower risk of stomach cancer than those subjects with the lowest levels.

Vitamin C and risk of coronary heart disease in women.
After adjustment for age, smoking, and a variety of other coronary risk factors, we observed a ?modest? significant inverse association between total intake of vitamin C and risk of CHD (relative risk [RR] = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.94).
Among women who did not use vitamin C supplements or multivitamins, the association between intake of vitamin C from diet alone and incidence of CHD was weak and not significant (RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.26).
In multivariate models adjusting for age, smoking, and a variety of other coronary risk factors, vitamin C supplement use was associated with a significantly lower risk of CHD (RR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86).
CONCLUSIONS: Users of vitamin C supplements appear to be at lower risk for CHD.

Vitamin C Transforms Mouse Stem Cells Into Heart Muscle Cells
Lee and his colleagues tested 880 bioactive substances – including drugs and vitamins – approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to see if they stimulated the mouse stem cells to become heart muscle cells. The cells were genetically altered to give off a fluorescent bright green color when viewed under a microscrope if they had become heart muscle cells.
"We only got 1 out of the 880 to light up, and that was from ascorbic acid, the chemical commonly known as vitamin C," says Lee, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, and a lecturer in biological engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.

Regards..

Edited by pamojja, 18 October 2009 - 04:24 PM.

  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#27 rocketman

  • Registered User
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 November 2009 - 11:48 AM

A fundamental assumption of Pauling in positing that Lysine was essential to the cure for heart disease was his understanding of the role of a lipoprotein called Lp(a) in cardiovascular disease.

Contrary to widespread popular belief, it's my view that Mathias Rath and others promoting "Pauling's heart disease cure" are not the true heirs of the Pauling's Lysine cure for high Lp(a) legacy.

Instead, I believe that this study led by Sally McCormick makes Dr. McCormick Pauling's true intellectual heir vis-a-vis cardiovascular disease.

Structural features of apolipoprotein B synthetic peptides that inhibit lipoprotein(a) assembly
http://www.jlr.org/c...ract/45/12/2227

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is assembled via an initial noncovalent interaction between apolipoprotein B100 (apoB) and apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] that facilitates the formation of a disulfide bond between the two proteins. We previously reported that a lysine-rich, {alpha}-helical peptide spanning human apoB amino acids 4372–4392 was an effective inhibitor of Lp(a) assembly in vitro. To identify the important structural features required for inhibitory action, new variants of the apoB4372-4392 peptide were investigated. Introduction of a central leucine to proline substitution abolished the {alpha}-helical structure of the peptide and disrupted apo(a) binding and inhibition of Lp(a) formation. Substitution of hydrophobic residues in the apoB4372-4392 peptide disrupted apo(a) binding and inhibition of Lp(a) assembly without disrupting the {alpha}-helical structure. Substitution of all four lysine residues in the peptide with arginine decreased the IC50 from 40 µM to 5 µM. Complexing of the arginine-substituted peptide to dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine improved its activity further, yielding an IC50 of 1 µM. We conclude that the {alpha}-helical structure of apoB4372-4392, in combination with hydrophobic residues at the lipid/water interface, is crucial for its interaction with apo(a).


Surely a man of Pauling's intellect and capability would not hold fast to his position in light of this finding. Dr. McCormick, by the way, also holds a patent based on this work. That's here:

http://www.wipo.int/...;DISPLAY=STATUS

---------------------

But heart disease is a complicated disease and high Lp(a) is not the only culprit in that disease process. So, what's the key to dramatically reducing it's risk in your life?

I believe the answer lies in ensuring that the amount of coronary plaque is not "progressing" but either fixed or regressing. There are plenty of studies that show that. I could point to those references if there is interest.

Who is the person who has made the most significant claims about a specific approach and program for DRAMATICALLY regressing coronary plaque?

To my knowledge that person is Dr. William Davis of TrackYourPlaque.com. He also writes a blog at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/. I have within the last two months created a post here about his program.

I'm familiar with all the "Pauling/Rath/Fonorow/Tower Labs" sorts of sites... I understand full well that it takes a while to get "unplugged" from thinking in terms of that simple model all too well. Or do you believe that the science of cardiovascular disease has stood still since the year Pauling died?

The work of Dr. William Davis is the best I've found on the 'net about significant and credible coronary plaque regression.

I double dog dare you to become familiar with his program claims of coronary plaque regression and then find someone else on the 'net who makes comparable claims with as much credibility.

Just yesterday, Dr. Davis publicly announced that he will be presenting more formal outcomes data on his approach to coronary plaque regression at a conference in April 2008.

:)

""""Surely a man of Pauling's intellect and capability would not hold fast to his position in light of this finding. Dr. McCormick, by the way, also holds a patent based on this work. That's here:"""


Hi-

For us non scientists what exactly is Dr. Mcormick saying??? is lysine not an effective blocker of lipoprotein a adhesion?

(Also the link does not bring you to her patent but to an unrelated patent...)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users