New to forum, but not new to heart valves..

pellicle said:

agreed, while doing my research masters (completed in 2007) citing wikipedia was not accepted in academic publication (not least because of the lack of control on the pages, stuff could go away), however every fellow student used it as a starting point.

It has a good summary, you can then read (as you should read) the citations provided; and thus use it as a stepping stone into a broader world.

The problem with Britannica (nobody accepts encyclopedia in academic references either) is that it isn't always as well referenced.

Lets take the page on Anticoagulant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticoagulant
View attachment 889776
a good and sound introduction for someone who hasn't got a clue from which to start.
every link is well supported with annotations for citations such as the first one [1] ... and the link send you to:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/anticoagulants/
seems good to me.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I use it, doesn't mean I have to like it. It is a starting point, like you said and I sometimes use key words from their write ups to dive deeper and grab the actual medical studies involved. But even the medical studies themselves many times have bias.

In the case of heart disease, all of the factors usually listed by most of the "for the consumer" medical websites are what is mostly talked about in medical studies as well including Lp(a) (which is taking a larger and independent role, and rightly so). But the vitamin K2 and vitamin C factors are glossed over or made as a "side note" like in the case of Pauling. I was shocked Pauling was there at all on wiki on the Lp(a) subject. I also think he's correct.

The research on K2 is coming out like a floodgate now and there was a boon of MD's on you tube talking about it's benefits and it's relation to arterial calcification and bone density. It's not just me saying it. I clicked on one MD's vid while looking up K2 supplements and went to the actual you tube video page. The right hand column was loaded with many other videos on the same topic. I'll include his vid below which should also have the related videos I mentioned. You tube customizes that feed on the right hand side with topics you've looked at before so your experiences may vary.

K2 is a very popular "thing" now and there's no way warfarin fans (I'm not one of them) are gonna stuff that genie back in the bottle. Here on this and other valve forums? Maybe. Out there? No way. Warfarin doesn't discriminate in the forms of vitamin K it attacks. Therefore, it could be a factor in some warfarin patients, in my opinion. Especially in those with PKD, like me or other forms of kidney problems.

If I'm taking a drug that knocks down K2 as well as K1 and the data comes out that a lack of vitamin K2 is detrimental to arterial health (it has), shouldn't I be wanting to learn all I can about how and why and if there's any recourse? This would be espicially true in the case of someone who just had a widowmaker and is still alive to talk about it. Yeah, it's that logic thing I saw mentioned earlier in the thread.

Paul.

pchanson said:

Thanks. I use it, doesn't mean I have to like it. It is a starting point, like you said and I sometimes use key words from their write ups to dive deeper and grab the actual medical studies involved. But even the medical studies themselves many times have bias.

In the case of heart disease, all of the factors usually listed by most of the "for the consumer" medical websites are what is mostly talked about in medical studies as well including Lp(a) (which is taking a larger and independent role, and rightly so). But the vitamin K2 and vitamin C factors are glossed over or made as a "side note" like in the case of Pauling. I was shocked Pauling was there at all on wiki on the Lp(a) subject. I also think he's correct.

The research on K2 is coming out like a floodgate now and there was a boon of MD's on you tube talking about it's benefits and it's relation to arterial calcification and bone density. It's not just me saying it. I clicked on one MD's vid while looking up K2 supplements and went to the actual you tube video page. The right hand column was loaded with many other videos on the same topic. I'll include his vid below which should also have the related videos I mentioned. You tube customizes that feed on the right hand side with topics you've looked at before so your experiences may vary.

K2 is a very popular "thing" now and there's no way warfarin fans (I'm not one of them) are gonna stuff that genie back in the bottle. Here on this and other valve forums? Maybe. Out there? No way. Warfarin doesn't discriminate in the forms of vitamin K it attacks. Therefore, it could be a factor in some warfarin patients, in my opinion. Especially in those with PKD, like me or other forms of kidney problems.

If I'm taking a drug that knocks down K2 as well as K1 and the data comes out that a lack of vitamin K2 is detrimental to arterial health (it has), shouldn't I be wanting to learn all I can about how and why and if there's any recourse? This would be espicially true in the case of someone who just had a widowmaker and is still alive to talk about it. Yeah, it's that logic thing I saw mentioned earlier in the thread.

Paul.

Click to expand...

Per the video you linked, I really like Dr. Brewer. Nice man. He interviewed me on one of his Wednesday morning livestreams a couple of years ago to discuss Lp(a).
He's done several videos on K2. In fact, I started taking it about 4 years ago after watching one of his k2 presentations and reading up on it.

Hi

pchanson said:

K2 is a very popular "thing" now and there's no way warfarin fans (I'm not one of them) are gonna stuff that genie back in the bottle.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean here. While I don't personally take K2 supplements I do eat a lot of K in greens and in sauerkraut and other fermented sources.

which genie are you meaning?

pchanson said:

Here on this and other valve forums? Maybe. Out there? No way.

Click to expand...

?? again, not getting it

pchanson said:

Warfarin doesn't discriminate in the forms of vitamin K it attacks.

Click to expand...

actually it sorta does

this and this should clear that up for you

Each link is to a specific part of:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470313/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18374192/
But perhaps confusingly its not related to the dietary source of K1 or K2 AFAIK, and its related to what happens to that in your body.

https://hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB0002972

a good basic start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_K


HTH

pellicle said:

Hi


I'm not sure what you mean here. While I don't personally take K2 supplements I do eat a lot of K in greens and in sauerkraut and other fermented sources.

which genie are you meaning?


?? again, not getting it



actually it sorta does

this and this should clear that up for you

Each link is to a specific part of:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470313/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18374192/
But perhaps confusingly its not related to the dietary source of K1 or K2 AFAIK, and its related to what happens to that in your body.

https://hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB0002972

Vitamin K1 2,3-epoxide (CAS: 25486-55-9) is a vitamin K derivative. Vitamin K is needed for the posttranslational modification of certain proteins, mostly required for blood coagulation. Within the cell, vitamin K undergoes electron reduction to a reduced form of vitamin K (called vitamin K hydroquinone) by the enzyme vitamin K epoxide reductase (or VKOR). Another enzyme then oxidizes vitamin K hydroquinone to allow carboxylation of glutamate into gamma-carboxyglutamate (Gla). This enzyme is called the gamma-glutamyl carboxylase or the vitamin K-dependent carboxylase. The carboxylation reaction will only proceed if the carboxylase enzyme is able to oxidize vitamin K hydroquinone into vitamin K epoxide at the same time; the carboxylation and epoxidation reactions are said to be coupled reactions. Vitamin K epoxide is then re-converted into vitamin K by the vitamin K epoxide reductase. These two enzymes comprise the so-called vitamin K cycle. One of the reasons why vitamin K is rarely deficient in a human diet is because vitamin K is continually recycled in our cells. Vitamin K 2,3-epoxide is the substrate for vitamin K 2,3-epoxide reductase (VKOR) complex. Significantly increased level of serum vitamin K epoxide has been found in patients with familial multiple coagulation factor deficiency (PMID: 12384421 ). Accumulation of vitamin K1-2,3-epoxide in plasma is also a sensitive marker of the coumarin-like activity of drugs (PMID: 2401753 ).​

a good basic start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_K
View attachment 889777

HTH

Click to expand...

Scroll up to my first post..

I started warfarin therapy in 2011.

The first 2 links mention Vitamin K and warfarin but I saw no distinctions separating K2 from K1. There are multiple studies that indicate warfarin acts against K2 to inhibit the function of matrix GLA protein in the artery walls and can lead to arterial calcification. THAT is where the indication that wafarin doesn't discriminate is where my statement came from.

The last one seems to be a primer on warfarin management, in which case I'll refer you the the first 2 facts I imparted at the beginning of this reply.

I came on here seeking answers as to the effects of warfarin on vitamin K2 and on its impact on arterial calcification (there are and it does) and what to do about it. I'm seeking to find out whether vitamin K2 can reverse that, what dosages are required for someone on warfarin to make it work or even if it can be countered at all. Or is it useless to try because the increase in K2 will also trigger a likewise response in the need to increase the warfarin dose to keep the INR in range and negating the effects of the K2. Is it a permanent and unresolvable catch-22 or is there a benifit that can be gained?

I didn't come here to get educated on warfarin other than this K2 interaction and to see if there's a solution I'm not seeing in the literature or from my doctors. It's not like I can consult a specialist on the interaction between warfarin and K2. If you know of one that would be willing to discuss possible solutions, let me know.

As to the genie stuff, there are people out there that will defend warfarin at all costs, including dishonesty, and poo-poo any nay-sayers that say the drug is having previously unforseen consequences now that these new revalations on vitamin K2 and arterial calcification have come to light.

My arteries were crystal clear as evidenced by a clear angiogram prior to valve surgery. I saw the video myself and they told me there was no need for deeper intervention other than the valve. 11 years later, nearly to the day, I'm unconcious in a cath lab with a widow maker, despite having cholesterol numbers in the dirt at 170 or so total. They had to cool my blood to aid brain and organ recovery. It worked well. My ejection fraction is 68. No matter which set of numbers you look at, the damage to heart tissue was VERY minimal. There were troponins and they were high high enough to indicate some damage but near what they should have been for being down off and on for 30 minutes or more with 7 heart re-starts. The bottom line is, I wont survive another. THAT is why I'm here. My situation was ideal in that a paramedic squad was basically across the street and I was in the work cafe which was less than 50 yards from the ERT office. That is also why I'm (still) here.

Damage to the left ventricle is not indicated by these echo results which indicate top percentile ejection fractions and if cholesterol caused my heart attack, someone may want to get a real good look at the numbers I'm posting. When I said getting hit by a bus due to a lack of proper brain function because they're so low, I wasn't kidding (the higher numbers are from 2016 and the lower ones are after the attack and after a 1.5 months on statins and neither set is indicative of causing heart attacks):

pchanson said:

Scroll up to my first post..

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure what the assertion is that's "the genie"

Hi all,
I thought I had account here before. Maybe I was inactive for too long or something. Mostly here for research due to a widow maker (11/9/2022) almost 11 years to the day after my mechanical aortic install.

I take too much vitamin C to have it be a normal "cholesterol" blockage and my arteries were clear prior to surgery which was verified with an angiogram. I'm suspecting a calcium build-up problem related to the matrix GLA protein inhibiting actions of a med every mecha valver has to take. Research I've done indicates this may be a problem for some, especially when combined with PKD or other kidney issues. I'm not saying everyone has this problem, but I strongly suspect I do, especially since I have PKD as well.

The odds say I shouldn't be typing this at all because only 1 in 10 survive a full blockage of the LAD outside a hospital setting. Only 1 in 4 survive if it happens in a hospital with a cath lab. I was at work when it happened and I don't work in a hospital. I died 7 times that day which means I still have 2 lives left (a little cat humor for ya).

Anyway, I'm Paul and glad to be here. Was a long time member of another forum but it doesn't seem very busy anymore.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

pchanson said:

I came on here seeking answers as to the effects of warfarin on vitamin K2 and on its impact on arterial calcification (there are and it does)

Click to expand...

ok ... I missed that ... I thought you were discussing something else, it wasn't clear.

but it sounds like you already have the answers (pretty good to get all that so soon) so job done.

Best wishes

Hi,

Yes, I already knew the interaction between warfarin, K2 and arterial calcification existed. Those answers I do have, and I even have a good overview but not detailed knowledge of the enzymatic actions involved. I even knew about it before my heart attack last year. But that knowledge led to to yet more questions.

My appearance here is to basically get any answers fellow valvers may have as to whether someone knows of this issue and acted upon it in some fashion and the subsequent results of their actions. Or, if they know someone here who has. It's a fairly new thing so maybe I'm expecting too much but there's no better place to ask than a heart valve forum, in my opinion. The collective knowledge of valvers is so vast on the subject of warfarin management that it probably can't even be effectively measured.

The genie refers the damaging effects of warfarin and the ones trying to stuff the cork back in the bottle are gate keepers holding down negative commentary on the actions of warfarin. Like those who attempt to counter medical studies indicating it's actions against K2 and subsequently causing the calcification. They pick out wiggle words like "may cause" that's used in some studies and amplifying it. Then extrapolating those types of statements in the studies into a near vindication of the drug when it clearly should not be done in this case.

Actions like those above may result in driving away curiosity. Learning more about our situation needs to be an all inclusive activity that entails every facet involved. It's a necessary part of what this forum should be all about. The cork is off the warfarin genie bottle for the gate keepers and no amount of stuffing is gonna put it back in. We need to accept that this K2 situation exists, understand it and search for the solutions that may be out there that will improve all our lives for those that actually care about it..

There's probably push back in the medical community itself as well due to the "oh crap, look what we did to these millions of warfarin users!" factor. There's no blame there though really, since it's the ONLY drug mecha-valvers can take. But now that the evidence is piling up, they aren't doing much about it and that is where the blame is starting to creep in. The time is now for them to step up with solutions instead of waiting on further studies. It's time for them to get with the program. There's enough warfarin users to make us a worthwhile cause to champion so they should hop to it instead of leaving us swinging in the breeze. It should also be on the insert sent along with the drug. Docters should be explaining this to patients every time someone is started on warfarin.

Yeah, it's an ethics thing...

Paul.

pchanson said:

The genie refers the damaging effects of warfarin and the ones trying to stuff the cork back in the bottle are gate keepers holding down negative commentary on the actions of warfarin

Click to expand...

Gatekeepers?

Look mate, I'm just a simple Australian bloke with a background in biochem who only got as far as a research masters in environmental science. What you are seeming to suggest is there is a global conspiracy. I certainly don't know any trustworthy reliable studies which suggest that being on warfarin is harmful (and lets face it we've been using it for well over 70 years.

To me the biggest issues are:

• bad compliance with the drug leading to inferior outcomes
• failure in sufficient INR testing to ensure that you are in range more often than not (also leading to inferior outomes)
• stupid and outdated advice about avoiding eating a good and balanced diet (leading to different inferior outcomes)

I've seen my share of laughable studies were rats were fed well past (tens of times over) lethal doses of warfarin and then injected with insane amounts of vitamin K just to keep them alive. Then in that outlandish situation they appeared to develop calcium issues.

Whatever your personal trajectory of health has been, even if for you personally warfarin has done something, there just isn't the evidence to demonstrate

• that knowledge transfers to the general population
• that some other factor other than warfarin was at work in you.

If Linus Pauling's unsubstantiatable work on vitamin C mega-dosing has in your view been critical in your health improvement then that's fantastic (it sure didn't help my Biochem lecturer who was a fan). However its a stretch to suggest it will do the same for other people's Lp(a) or calcium levels. It might ... it might not.

No harm in trying but just be aware (the casual reader, not you Paul) that it may not.

To add to your N=1 experience mine is that after 12 years, 1 month, 17 days I have no problems with my cholesterol nor my bone density nor my arteries. Further from what I've noticed neither has Dick or Superman who've been on warfarin a lot longer than me.

To imply (gatekeepers) that there is a global conspiracy hiding the facts is all a bit Lecturer in Nursing: John Campbell IMO.



I'm certainly not getting paid nor I suspect are any other forum members here.

Best Wishes

Hi,

I already gave a pretty detailed explanation. A gatekeeper in the instances I observed in this forum before signing back up would be someone using many different means to tamp down negative commentary on warfarin for whatever reasons the gatekeeper may have.

I gave several long responses. Is this the only thing about all of what I said that sticks in your mind about my comments?

I would think that with the numbers I posted there would at least be questions as to why that MI happened to me. I know I have questions. Like "if it's not the "evil cholesterol" boogeyman, then what the H E double hockey sticks was it?" I'm here because I think it's an arterial calcification problem in 3 of my coronary arteries, 2 of which they stented. The other one found a way to supply the proper blood flow despite the blockage in that particular artery. Pretty cool stuff actually. Not cool that the overall incident happened but that one section of the heart managed to get a blood supply outside the conventional means.

Paul.

pellicle said:

Gatekeepers?

Look mate, I'm just a simple Australian bloke with a background in biochem who only got as far as a research masters in environmental science. What you are seeming to suggest is there is a global conspiracy. I certainly don't know any trustworthy reliable studies which suggest that being on warfarin is harmful (and lets face it we've been using it for well over 70 years.

To me the biggest issues are:

• bad compliance with the drug leading to inferior outcomes
• failure in sufficient INR testing to ensure that you are in range more often than not (also leading to inferior outomes)
• stupid and outdated advice about avoiding eating a good and balanced diet (leading to different inferior outcomes)

I've seen my share of laughable studies were rats were fed well past (tens of times over) lethal doses of warfarin and then injected with insane amounts of vitamin K just to keep them alive. Then in that outlandish situation they appeared to develop calcium issues.

Whatever your personal trajectory of health has been, even if for you personally warfarin has done something, there just isn't the evidence to demonstrate

• that knowledge transfers to the general population
• that some other factor other than warfarin was at work in you.

If Linus Pauling's unsubstantiatable work on vitamin C mega-dosing has in your view been critical in your health improvement then that's fantastic (it sure didn't help my Biochem lecturer who was a fan). However its a stretch to suggest it will do the same for other people's Lp(a) or calcium levels. It might ... it might not.

No harm in trying but just be aware (the casual reader, not you Paul) that it may not.

To add to your N=1 experience mine is that after 12 years, 1 month, 17 days I have no problems with my cholesterol nor my bone density nor my arteries. Further from what I've noticed neither has Dick or Superman who've been on warfarin a lot longer than me.

To imply (gatekeepers) that there is a global conspiracy hiding the facts is all a bit Lecturer in Nursing: John Campbell IMO.

View attachment 889781

I'm certainly not getting paid nor I suspect are any other forum members here.

Best Wishes

Click to expand...

Hi,

I never specifically mentioned who the gatekeepers were. Gatekeepers exist in all forms and on so may topics that it actually boggles the mind. As far as conspiracy theories go, what's the difference between a conspiracy theory and fact? These days? About 6 months...

I never tried to cure my brief stint with bladder cancer with vitamin C though (just posted another all clear 5 years out 2 month's ago) and only currently take 2 grams of C per day. The main factor in eliminating the bladder cancer was surgery not involving a scalpel through the only very small opening that allows access to the bladder. I also eliminated certain risk fctors with saccharine being one of them. Sacharine causes bladder cancer in mice. Later they cleared saccharine as a causitive agent in humans due the high protein content in rat urine. Humans don't have this problem UNLESS you have kidney disease. The theory was that saccharine bonded to the protiens and with the saccharine molecules being sharp the combination would whip around in the bladder making micro abrasions on the bladder wall causing a need for cell replacement that always involves a low risk of abnormal cell growth. With my high protein content I thought it best to eliminate that product from my diet. I like splenda better in my coffee now anyway.

I still think Linus was correct on the whole collagen, lysine, proline vitamin C thing as it pertains to the most common form of heart attacks and heart desease because of who he was and because it's completely logical. It doesn't take a pile of degrees to see something clearly when it's slapping you in the face.

On warfarin, you have your opinion on warfarin's connection to vitamin K2 and calcification and a plethora of other scientists actually working in that particular field have theirs. I don't always say this, but in this case, I trust the science. They didn't feed the breast mamogram patients mega-doses of rat poison in the study I'll be posting shortly. There are many other studies showing a correlation BTW but posting them all up in here isn't why I'm here.

Again, I'm here to see if anyone alse has had experience with trying to counter the effects warfarin has on vitamin K2 and it's association with arterial calcification. If that's not you, then maybe you should step aside please and allow others to chime in.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/ATVBAHA.114.304392

pchanson said:

I would think that with the numbers I posted there would at least be questions as to why that MI happened to me. I know I have questions. Like "if it's not the "evil cholesterol" boogeyman, then what the H E double hockey sticks was it?"

Click to expand...

pchanson said:

if cholesterol caused my heart attack, someone may want to get a real good look at the numbers I'm posting.

Click to expand...

As I'm sure you know, there are many other causes for CAD than just cholesterol. If you and your doctor(s) have ruled out cholesterol as the cause, did you rule out the other causes of CAD (e.g. high glucose/diabetes, Lp(a), HBP, kidney disease, smoking, environmental, diet, etc.) aside from the warfarin/vitamin K2 effect you are theorizing?

pchanson said:

My appearance here is to basically get any answers fellow valvers may have as to whether someone knows of this issue and acted upon it in some fashion and the subsequent results of their actions.

Click to expand...

pchanson said:

Again, I'm here to see if anyone alse has had experience with trying to counter the effects warfarin has on vitamin K2 and it's association with arterial calcification.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you would get better responses by posting in an anti-coagulation and/or Coronary Artery Disease forum as you would have a wider population of those taking warfarin, not just those with mechanical valves.

V__ said:

Speaking of Wikipedia:


I recall that academic community was quite skeptical of Wikipedia when it showed up. A big part of that was students looking up the information without any critical analysis, or independent confirmation. Which is still/always a concern, as far as the educational process goes.

But from the POV of the accuracy, there was an early study indicating a very comparable error rate with Encyclopedia Britannica: BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test
... which reminds one that no encyclopedia is absolutely precise/correct. While indicating a fairly high degree of accuracy.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia is not as accurate on information since it is posted by other source a person, so it has a 100% inaccuracy rate.

carolinemc said:

Wikipedia is not as accurate on information since it is posted by other source a person, so it has a 100% inaccuracy rate.

Click to expand...

So if Wikipedia says the sun sets in the west, that’s inaccurate because it’s in Wikipedia? Interesting take.

Was the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America not unanimously adopted on July 4, 1776? Christmas is not December 25th?

pchanson said:

I would think that with the numbers I posted there would at least be questions as to why that MI happened to me

Click to expand...

Cholesterol is only one risk factor for heart disease. There are many others. If the logic is concluding that your cholesterol numbers are very good, so it must be the warfarin, this really is leaving out a lot of information. For example, you have acknowledged that you have never had your Lp(a) tested. This is actually a lipoprotein, (lipoprotein (a)). You have presented a standard lipid panel, which does not include Lp(a). A person can have very low levels of LDL, normal levels of HDL and triglycerides and have sky high Lp(a). I'm one such person. Unless Lp(a) is tested for, you can't rule it out as potentially causative in your heart disease. I can give several examples of people whose doctors where puzzled by their heart attack in their 30s, 40s or 50s, only to discover that they had very elevated Lp(a). It is getting more and more attention by cardiologists, but still remains a blind spot for most. As I mentioned in my above post, the EU guidelines now call for testing of all adults. It is expected that the US guidelines will eventually do the same, but until then, patients usually have to ask for it to be tested.

MdaPA said:

If you and your doctor(s) have ruled out cholesterol as the cause, did you rule out the other causes of CAD (e.g. high glucose/diabetes, Lp(a), HBP, kidney disease, smoking, environmental, diet, etc.) aside from the warfarin/vitamin K2 effect you are theorizing?

Click to expand...

Yes, well said. While risk factors such as smoking are well known and would be an immediate red flag, some of the risk factors you mention often fly under the radar. Specifically, Lp(a) and diabetes. Yes, usually there is a check for diabetes, but the vast majority of cases of pre-diabetes are missed and prediabetes is also a major risk factor. Paul, you apparently like Dr. Ford Brewer. You might be aware that he advocates taking an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to screen for insulin resistance, prediabetes/diabetes.

This is totally anecdotal, but I'll share it, as it is a case with some similarity to yours (Paul's). My friend Randy has had a heart attack and several stents placed. His doctor was puzzled because he had very well controlled cholesterol. He assured me that he did not have diabetes or prediabetes. Upon further inquiry, this was based on a blood test done measuring his fasting blood glucose. I suggested he get an OGTT, but it sounded like he wasn't going to take action. So, I told him to let me know when he planned to eat lunch and showed up an hour later with my blood glucose meter. He had pizza, which he washed down with Coke. Perfect, lots of simple sugar. Tested him and his postprandial numbers scored in the diabetic range- not just prediabetes, but diabetes. This was completely missed by his fasting BG. Randy is now eating healthier and hopefully on the mend.

I would again suggest getting your Lp(a) tested- it's like a $35 test. If you have your doctor order an advanced lipid panel from Quest Diagnostics, known as a CardioIQ, it will include Lp(a). Be aware that the advanced lipid panel at Labcorp still does not include Lp(a), to my knowledge, something which Dr. Brewer and I unsuccessfully tried to get them to change. Either lab can also do an Lp(a) test, without the advanced panel, in the event your insurance won't pay for the advanced panel, but as a heart attack patient, I'll bet they'll pay for the advanced panel.

Also, you can ask your doc to order an OGTT. But it is easy enough to do a simple home test, like the one I did with Randy. You can buy a $25 glucose meter at CVS and test every 30 minutes after a meal with high carbs. Have a coke and a couple of pieces of white bread with jelly, then test every 30 minutes after the meal and see what is going on with your blood glucose following the meal. If you do have your doctor order the OGTT, have him also test your insulin levels with each 30 minute blood draw. BTW, the standard OGTT will only test you after 2 hours, but he can order that they test you every 30 minutes or at least every hour and take it out about 3 hours. If one waits a full 2 hours to test, you might miss the blood glucose peak. For me, I peak at about 60 minutes, depending on what I eat.

pchanson said:

As far as conspiracy theories go, what's the difference between a conspiracy theory and fact? These days? About 6 months...

Click to expand...

Wait, what??

pchanson said:

I still think Linus was correct on the whole collagen, lysine, proline vitamin C thing as it pertains to the most common form of heart attacks and heart desease because of who he was and because it's completely logical.

Click to expand...

The fact that he had brilliance and logic, does not make his conjectures factual. Before things are generally accepted as scientifically accurate, the conjecture or hypothesis needs to be tested then tested and re-tested. Outcomes need to be repeatable by others. His ideas on mega dosing vitamin C have not passed this test and, with a few areas which need more study, have been largely rejected, with trial data to refute his claims.

MdaPA said:

As I'm sure you know, there are many other causes for CAD than just cholesterol. If you and your doctor(s) have ruled out cholesterol as the cause, did you rule out the other causes of CAD (e.g. high glucose/diabetes, Lp(a), HBP, kidney disease, smoking, environmental, diet, etc.) aside from the warfarin/vitamin K2 effect you are theorizing?



Perhaps you would get better responses by posting in an anti-coagulation and/or Coronary Artery Disease forum as you would have a wider population of those taking warfarin, not just those with mechanical valves.

Click to expand...

Hi!

Was trying to figure out how to move a thread. Probably takes an admin. I made a comment earlier up the thread, near the beginning that I was aware of this fact and that the topic was better suited under another header. Not sure now because I could have said it in an PM tom someone. Not sure I wanna move it anyway. It may be better to just start a new topic dealing directly with my question. It was my plan but that whole planning thing doesn't always work. The thread kinda just blew up. I will apply appropriately to those that have questions and post a link to the new topic in this thread if it's possible to do so.

Thanks!

Paul.

Good morning

pchanson said:

On warfarin, you have your opinion on warfarin's connection to vitamin K2 and calcification and a plethora of other scientists actually working in that particular field have theirs

Click to expand...

yes, and I happen to side with a majority of that plethora in that particular field, not least because its the majority. I do not side with the studies which are ignored by mainstream in this field.

Personally, I have no opinion on how K2 effects calcium plaques, but I do have the opinion that eating a balanced diet and engaging in regular active exersize is good for you. I make no predictions I only identify shortcomings in studies which are bonkers.

Best Wishes

Chuck C said:

The fact that he had brilliance and logic, does not make all of his conjectures factual.

Click to expand...

if I may add a word or two to that.

pardon me, I'm just expressing how I'd have chosen to say it.

Chuck C said:

Wait, what??

Click to expand...

Chuck C said:

The fact that he had brilliance and logic, does not make his conjectures factual. Before things are generally accepted as scientifically accurate, the conjecture or hypothesis needs to be tested then tested and re-tested. Outcomes need to be repeatable by others. His ideas on mega dosing vitamin C have not passed this test and, with a few areas which need more study, have been largely rejected, with trial data to refute his claims.

Click to expand...

Hi Chuck,

It's a joke. Never heard it before? There are things happening in American politics today that were called "conspiracy theories" just a few months prior and about 6 months later proved to be true. It happened many times over on many different topics. So much so that it has become a standing joke in the political forum I post on.

As far as the vitamin C and heart disease thing goes, I'm not sure what was included in any studies on the subject or the funding sources. What really convinced me was a write up by a pharmacist, Mike Ciell. I liked his first version the best. It lays out the entire "Unified Theory" vs the "Lipid Theory" of coronary artery disease. Loking at it from a purely logical perspective, the unified theory is the hands down winner.

I looked at an analytical study on vitamin C that listed many others studies and some had positive outcomes and others that showed no effect. What seemed to be the difference between them were studies that actually measured circulating ascorbate. What I didn't see were any studies that also included all the substances not available in another form and must be obtained through intake in the formation and repair of collagen. Glycine can be made from other amino's but Proline and Lysine cannot but both are in enough abundance from a couple glasses of milk a day. There is also the trace mineral copper that is needed and of course ascorbate. The theory basically says if provided enough free circulating ascorbate along with the amino's I just mentioned and everything else involved in the production and repair of collagen, coronary heart disease can be stopped cold. There may be exceptions where kidney problems or type 1 diabetics may need more intervention but basically that's the theory. The study I'll post was basically decrying the delivery system of ascorbate and that the actual fasting measurements of free circulating ascorbate was the only true measure of the effectiveness of the results. The conclusion section (section 7) made this clear. IMO, the study was fair and the reason for the failures in some were somewhat highlighted as to why. There were some that showed success without the measurement I just mentioned, but EVERY ONE of the failed studies didn't measure circulating ascorbate. I read the whole study with very litte skimming and after doing so, I wasn't swayed in my belief that inadequate repair of broken collagen in the artery walls is the cause of heart disease and that repair requires vitamin C. The vitamin C requirement for collagen production is a cold hard fact.

Paul.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7761826/

wrong window