My father had two MIs in 2 mos. (small ones) which required
emergency care (intubation, etc.).
He had Quad. bypass 5 years ago, when he already had 9 or
10 partial(varying from 20 to 95%) blockages. He also
has thickenned valve (aortic)which was left alone.
His left ventricle was thickened before that bypass
surgery.
His cardio. is suggesting medical treatment hoping to
slow down the process, and not intervention. He has
not done angiography or thalium test, yet, but has done
plain echo.
I am wondering if one should consider the controversial
Laser Transmyocardial process? Any feedback or
experience?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
A. E. Goldberg wrote:
> As a Pharmacist who is a stronfg believer in vitamins and herbs I am
> often asked to recommend vitamins for Cardio-vascular health and as an
> adjunct to good cholestrol levels. At the moment I am recommending the
> following:
> Vitamin C – 3000mg per day
> Vitamin E – 600iu per day
> Garlic – 600mg twice per day
> Cayenne Pepper – 900mg per day
> Co-Enzyme Q10 – 30mg per day
> Beta-carotene – 10,000iu per day
> Selenium - 50mcg per day
> Magnesium – 50mg per day
> Manganese – 1.5mg per day
> Folic Acid – 1mg per day
> This is particularly for people with a history of heart problems or
> are suffering from Angina. These people are often under treatment from
> their physicians with a variety of prescription medications as well. I
> also recommend a regular exercise program and as close to a Vegetarian
> diet as possible.
> My question is – does anyone have any comments as to what may be
> totally unnecessary in the above list – and also what is possibly
> missing from the list? I’m sure there are probably some amino-acids,
> but we have a problem obtaining most amino-acids in Canada. I know
> there are some people who feel that vitamins, etc. are a total waste
> of time and money, but I think research is proving the opposite with
> many vitamins. Any constructive opinions and research data would be
> appreciated.
> Ed Goldberg
> Vancouver, Canada
> agold…@direct.ca
Has anyone had any experience with Chitosorb/ chitocan? Please let me
know, I’m very interested. Thanks!
>A. E. Goldberg wrote:
>> As a Pharmacist I am
>> often asked to recommend vitamins for Cardio-vascular health ….I am recommending …
>> Beta-carotene – 10,000iu per day
>>…
>> [D]oes anyone have any comments as to what may be
>> totally unnecessary in the above list ?
Nothing on your list has been demonstrated to be of any value at all,
but of course most of your items have never been well studied.
Beta-carotene has been very well studied, notably in the
22000-patient, 15-year Physicians Health Study. It was resondingly
worthless.
I thought that Americans had the most expendsive urine in the world,
but now I see that we may have some northern competition.
In article <32152f7d.3208…@news.cais.com>, hedge…@cais.com says…
>>A. E. Goldberg wrote:
>>> As a Pharmacist I am
>>> often asked to recommend vitamins for Cardio-vascular health ….I am
recommending …
>>> Beta-carotene – 10,000iu per day
>>>…
>>> [D]oes anyone have any comments as to what may be
>>> totally unnecessary in the above list ?
>Nothing on your list has been demonstrated to be of any value at all,
>but of course most of your items have never been well studied.
>Beta-carotene has been very well studied, notably in the
>22000-patient, 15-year Physicians Health Study. It was resondingly
>worthless.
You mean to imply that folic acid and vitamin C supplements are nothing
but urine enrichments? The tone of this statement is reminiscent of those
given for so many years by the cigarette industry that smoking has not
been shown to cause cancer. In both cases there seems to be enough
circumstantial evidence to treat the claims as probably correct. Proof
in the rigorous mathematical sense is improbable, of course.
I thought that Americans had the most expendsive urine in the world,
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>but now I see that we may have some northern competition.
jrl…@vt.edu (Jerome R. Long) wrote:
>In article <32152f7d.3208…@news.cais.com>, hedge…@cais.com says…
>>>A. E. Goldberg ….[is] recommending … Beta-carotene – 10,000iu per day
…
>>Nothing on your list has been demonstrated to be of any value at all,
>>but of course most of your items have never been well studied.
>>Beta-carotene has been very well studied, notably in the
>>22000-patient, 15-year Physicians Health Study. It was resoundingly
>>worthless.
>You mean to imply that folic acid and vitamin C supplements are nothing
>but urine enrichments? The tone of this statement is reminiscent of those
>given for so many years by the cigarette industry that smoking has not
>been shown to cause cancer. In both cases there seems to be enough
>circumstantial evidence to treat the claims as probably correct.
I’m a little sorry that I got into this, since the vitamin pushers
are so full of passionate intensity. In the future, I shall regard
vitamin-related messages directed to this newsgroup as spams.
Send them to alt.something.
But for the moment, let’s say a little about what is evidence and
what is not. Smoking causes cancer in multiple animal models, and one
can see dose-related effects in well-matched human epidemiologic
studies. Some phenomena that are biologically related to
carcinogenesis are easily demonstrable with tobacco-smoke components
in vitro. It is not ethical or feasible to conduct intervention
studies, but epidemiologic/animal/in-vitro studies don’t get any
better or any more uniform.
On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to do randomized,
blinded, controlled intervention studies of vitamin supplements.
Several such studies have been done in the cardiovascular area
with respect to beta-carotene, with a total of close to half a million
patient-years of data (all in middle-aged men, so the results may not
apply to women). Beta-carotene is consistently no good.
The only other intervention trials that I know about are those of
vitamin E. Vitamin E doesn’t look too bad, actually; I must amend my
earlier, dismissive statement with respect to Goldberg’s whole list.
Vitamin E was beneficial in one secondary-prevention trial (Lancet
347:781-786, 1996; about 3000 patient-years) and in one
primary-prevention trial (JAMA 275:693-698, 1996; about 100000 patient
years; all patients were smokers), although there were no differences
in all-cause mortality in either trial.
There are no intervention data connecting folate or vitamin C to
cardiac outcomes. Epidemiologic evidence for folate is good, but it’s
no better than the **epidemiologic** evidence for beta-carotene, which
FLUNKS as an intervention. The folate scene is very complex; on the
one hand, supradietary intake by pregnant women reduces the incidence
of neural-tube defects in their babies, and serum levels of folate are
inversely correlated with serum levels of homocysteine, which are in
turn directly correlated with various bad outcomes (especially in
blacks, for some reason). On the other hand, some of the most
successful cancer therapy (methotrexate for Hodgkin’s disease or for
choriocarcinoma) is anti-folate therapy; I wouldn’t be terribly
surprised to find that large folate supplements are associated with
small increases in the risk of cancer. As if that were not complex
enough, everything is connected with everything else; for example,
people who quit smoking seem to seek out a disproportionate increase
in their dietary folate (Br J Nutr 74:27-38, 1995).
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Robert R. Fenichel wrote:
> jrl…@vt.edu (Jerome R. Long) wrote:
> I’m a little sorry that I got into this, since the vitamin pushers
> are so full of passionate intensity. In the future, I shall regard
> vitamin-related messages directed to this newsgroup as spams.
> Send them to alt.something.
> But for the moment, let’s say a little about what is evidence and
> what is not. Smoking causes cancer in multiple animal models, and one
> can see dose-related effects in well-matched human epidemiologic
> studies. Some phenomena that are biologically related to
> carcinogenesis are easily demonstrable with tobacco-smoke components
> in vitro. It is not ethical or feasible to conduct intervention
> studies, but epidemiologic/animal/in-vitro studies don’t get any
> better or any more uniform.
> On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to do randomized,
> blinded, controlled intervention studies of vitamin supplements.
> Several such studies have been done in the cardiovascular area
> with respect to beta-carotene, with a total of close to half a million
> patient-years of data (all in middle-aged men, so the results may not
> apply to women). Beta-carotene is consistently no good.
> The only other intervention trials that I know about are those of
> vitamin E. Vitamin E doesn’t look too bad, actually; I must amend my
> earlier, dismissive statement with respect to Goldberg’s whole list.
> Vitamin E was beneficial in one secondary-prevention trial (Lancet
> 347:781-786, 1996; about 3000 patient-years) and in one
> primary-prevention trial (JAMA 275:693-698, 1996; about 100000 patient
> years; all patients were smokers), although there were no differences
> in all-cause mortality in either trial.
The randomized, controlled intervention studies are not as
supportive of the beneficial effects as are animal model studies. In
the latter case, there are plenty of studies demonstrating the
protective effects of anti-oxidants including
alpha-tocopherol,against ischemic-reperfusion injury and vascular
injuries. However, it always seems thus – whatever the intervention.
Personally, I believe that there is plenty of room for doubt
and advocacy on all sides on this particular issue. Certainly,
sufficient, to warrant the ‘advocacy’ of vitamin supporters, who were
demonized as ‘spammers’ in the previous post.
Richard Kondo