Given that pathological changes to the liver cause a reduction in plasma LDL and Lp(a), it doesn't necessarily follow that cholesterol is a causal factor in pathological conditions. Especially if an individual has normal cholesterol metabolism, and isn't shoveling in excessive canisters of saturated fats (paraffins/waxes) and hydrogenated oils (gasoline) into their mouths, plasma cholesterol (HDL, LDL, ILDL, VLDLDL, Lp(a) are responses to other conditions. Something that is often misunderstood is that there are many kinds of fat, only one cholesterol, free cholesterol, esterified cholesterol, and several lipoproteins that include cholesterol. Cholesterol on its own is not water soluble. Cholesterol can only travel through the blood if part of a protein or polar lipid shuttle, such as that constituted by lipoproteins. LDL then is NOT cholesterol, but ApoB protein and cholesterol which serves to shuttle cholesterol through the blood to where it is supposed to go. These proteins, ApoA, ApoB, ApoE, ApoJ, Apo(a), etc. are not just randomly secreted by the liver. They are made for a purpose under the control of a homeostat protein. Just as rusted (oxidized) or rotten food can poison someone, so can rusted or rotten lipoprotein (oxidized LDL, ox-LDL, ox-phospholipid, nitrated, glycated, chlorinated, denatured lipid/lipoprotein) poison the repair system of the artery. This poison dump causes a local immune system reaction to attempt to clear out the junk yard. Yet, each soldier (white blood cell) that comes to the site gets poisoned and dies there in the graveyard (foam cell lesion that becomes necrotic core). This graveyard then gets bigger and bigger, until it is finally the atherosclerotic lesion.
It is true that it is associated with pathological conditions, and that hereditary hypercholesterolemia and build up syndromes cause disease. It is also true that some individuals have a genetic predisposition to higher Lp(a) or LDL levels. Yet, it is also true that natural and ubiquitous hormones such as testosterone and naturally produced and occurring antioxidants such as CoQ(10) can dramatically lower this "harmful" cholesterol.
So then, without a person inhaling several burgers, a grocery bag of trans-fat fries, and an entire gallon of whole milk ice-cream a day, what is it?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Worldwide Model for Cardiovascular Medicine:
1) The ApoE KO mouse.
2) The LDL receptor KO mouse.
(sometimes they use salt hypertensive or STZ diabetic models)
None of these have apo(a) as humans do, and all create ascorbate within their own livers which humans don't do. Another thing to keep in mind is that mice eat 1/4 their own weight ( ! ) in food a day. For a 150 pound human, that is nearly 38 pounds of food a day. This doesn't reduce the validity of the model, but people generally ignore some profound differences between mouse and man. This mouse model is the main pillar of all of cardiovascular medicine for humans.
2) The LDL receptor KO mouse.
(sometimes they use salt hypertensive or STZ diabetic models)
None of these have apo(a) as humans do, and all create ascorbate within their own livers which humans don't do. Another thing to keep in mind is that mice eat 1/4 their own weight ( ! ) in food a day. For a 150 pound human, that is nearly 38 pounds of food a day. This doesn't reduce the validity of the model, but people generally ignore some profound differences between mouse and man. This mouse model is the main pillar of all of cardiovascular medicine for humans.
The Comedy of Academic Journals:
I have been published in various places already, but here is my recent experience in the field of cardiovascular medicine:
There is no cure for Aortic Aneurysm. No surgical intervention works very long, in fact this is what the famous Dr. DeBakey (DeBaghi) died of.
My first reviewer had some valid requests, but we can't do it because we have other things to do and other people have already proven what they ask for. They also ask to prove a parameter through a litmus test, when the evidence for it is right in front of them in another form.
The second reviewer obviously didn't even read the paper. They claim that I claim that the plaques resolve themselves, which is never stated anywhere within the paper. They are either asleep at the wheel or yet another pawn of scientific disinformation. The other absurd thing they request is "citations" for a novel find.
Oh well. Dr. DeBakey is turning in his grave. If I had to, I would just put the paper online and claim, "All of it is true, but there are no peer reviewers."
Here it is, and I am the first to state it ever in the world: In Mice, Aortic Dissections heal themselves often, but they do not in humans. Whoever claims it again basically owes me credit for the assertion of the whole chain of discovery. ha!
As history has shown, the ancient pillars of science are not infallible, and no human is infallible in their assertions. The gloss or prestige of a journal is only so important as to have power, but there are plenty of retractions and corrections in high profile science.
There is no cure for Aortic Aneurysm. No surgical intervention works very long, in fact this is what the famous Dr. DeBakey (DeBaghi) died of.
My first reviewer had some valid requests, but we can't do it because we have other things to do and other people have already proven what they ask for. They also ask to prove a parameter through a litmus test, when the evidence for it is right in front of them in another form.
The second reviewer obviously didn't even read the paper. They claim that I claim that the plaques resolve themselves, which is never stated anywhere within the paper. They are either asleep at the wheel or yet another pawn of scientific disinformation. The other absurd thing they request is "citations" for a novel find.
Oh well. Dr. DeBakey is turning in his grave. If I had to, I would just put the paper online and claim, "All of it is true, but there are no peer reviewers."
Here it is, and I am the first to state it ever in the world: In Mice, Aortic Dissections heal themselves often, but they do not in humans. Whoever claims it again basically owes me credit for the assertion of the whole chain of discovery. ha!
As history has shown, the ancient pillars of science are not infallible, and no human is infallible in their assertions. The gloss or prestige of a journal is only so important as to have power, but there are plenty of retractions and corrections in high profile science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)